In Ridley Scott's Napoleon, Political Ambition Is Both Pathetic and Horrific
The new film is an anti-epic about the petty awfulness of history's great men.

It is easy, upon hearing the words "Ridley Scott's Napoleon movie," to make assumptions about what that movie might be: a grand, lavishly-produced awards season historical epic from the filmmaker behind Gladiator that traces the rise and fall of one of European history's most ambitious, most towering figures—the tale of a legend, an icon, a living myth who once walked the earth.
In practice, however, it delivers something far stranger: Yes, it's a lavish portrait of one man's political ambition. But rather than holding up that ambition as something to be admired, it skewers its subject, casting him as insecure and outright pathetic, an awkward and ill-mannered weirdo whose psychological frailty drove him to lead battle after bloody battle, leaving millions dead in his wake. In Scott's caustic, darkly humorous portrayal, Napoleon Bonaparte wasn't an icon of greatness or a stirring legend, but a coarse and petty tyrant whose smallness nonetheless resulted in vast and meaningless brutality.
Scott's film begins with a beheading, as Marie Antoinette, the last queen of France, is taken to the guillotine in front of an audience of booing, jeering anti-royalists. But the end of the Reign of Terror is not a return to normalcy; rather, it's an opening for ambitious political strivers to sweep in and grab control. Present in the crowd is a Corsican soldier, Napoleon Bonaparte, who quickly rises through the ranks of the French military on the strength of some audacious battles. The movie's extravagantly bloody portrayal of these events, which include a shot of a cannonball exploding the chest cavity of Napoleon's horse, as well as many sequences of early artillery fire tearing through infantry, underlines the visceral barbarism of this era of warfare. The glories of European battlefields were just so many dead bodies, torn apart and left to rot on streets and fields.
Movies emphasizing the grisly horrors of period warfare have been made before, but where Scott's film breaks new ground is in its mordant portrayal of its central figure. Joaquin Phoenix plays Napoleon as a blustery weirdo, in thrall to his first wife Josephine (Vanessa Kirby), despite—or perhaps because of—her rampant affairs. His insecurities and peculiarities drive his appetites for wartime valor, for glory that never seems to be enough, as he lays waste to the continent and eventually crowns himself emperor. Phoenix's portrayal is all tics and posturing; despite his position of authority, he has trouble communicating with others, and often seems to view conversation as a vain quest for status one-upmanship, which frequently renders him ridiculous. One of the movie's best small moments comes when he's speaking with a Brit, and he practically spits out the words: "You think you're so great because you have…boats!" Phoenix's oozy, oddball performance is probably at least partially a dig at former president Donald Trump, but mainly it comes across as a swipe at those who lust for power to salve their own nagging self-doubt.
As a takedown of political ambition and wartime glory, Scott's movie is an enjoyably mean-spirited romp, much in keeping with his excellent, underrated movie about pitiable masculinity in the Middle Ages, The Last Duel. As a narrative, however, it's something of a mess. Napoleon comes across as episodic and choppy even if you aren't already aware that there's a four-hour-and-change extended cut on the way. The two-and-a-half-hour theatrical cut often feels like a miniseries cut down to feature length, and it's so intent on caricaturing its title characters that it never really explains why so many people followed him, often to their deaths, or how he was able to rise from such humble roots. But the movie's blackly comic sensibility, in which a great man of history and his political ambition are recast as both absurd and horrific, is a welcome antithesis to the sort of iconographic portrayal that so often marks historical epics. And in that way, at least, Scott's Napoleon is rather glorious.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm a little disappointed because the reviews are coming in and saying the movie is a bit of a hot mess. There are more historically minded people who also say that the story is told as if he's "doing it all for Josephine" for which there's little evidence of that.
Having seen it, these are my impressions:
1) It’s sort of a mishmash of “Napoleon’s Greatest Hits” interspersed with “Days of Our Lives.” Like a lot of recent Scott films, you get the impression that a ton of interesting material was left on the cutting room floor to satisfy the studio. Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood both look much better in the Director’s Cut, and hopefully there’s something in the works for Napoleon in this regard, too.
2) Historicity aside, the combat scenes are terrific. Ridley Scott has done a fantastic job of portraying battles going back to Kingdom of Heaven. It’s probably his last, best remaining skill (more on that in a bit). Waterloo in particular was a visual feast.
3) I like Joaquin Phoenix, but he was the absolute wrong actor to portray Napoleon. He’s basically Commodus with all the sass and danger taken out of him. You get no real understanding of how Napoleon was able to survive and thrive in such an arbitrarily dangerous political environment, nor inspire so many men to go out and fight and die for him. Phoenix mostly just mumbles through his scenes and is practically a non-entity in his own movie.
4) Rupert Everett is a delight as the Duke of Wellington. He owns every scene he’s in like a fucking gigachad.
5) As good as Scott does battle scense, he’s gotten to be a massive feminist simp in his old age, and his heroines suffer for it in the portrayal. When the actress is someone like Eva Green or Cate Blanchett, sheer screen charisma can overcome this, but Vanessa Kirby and Jodie Comer don’t have that same presence. You really don’t get any impression of why Josephine drew Napoleon to her other than her cooter. In doing so Scott even undermines her own agency, and that she wasn’t anything other than a hole for Nap to stick his dick in.
If you want to kill 2.5 hours, there’s worse ways to spend your time and money, but ultimately you’re probably better off waiting to see if Scott releases a director’s cut in a few months.
If I was to direct something like this, I'd focus almost entirely on Napoleon's military campaigns and political intrigues, and put the love story shit in the background.
Best review I've read in a while. Well done.
"The new film is an anti-epic about the petty awfulness of history's great men."
Which it's why it sucks balls. It's creators hated it because they are petty and small.
Bolsheviks like Suderman cannot tolerate the existence of great men.
https://twitter.com/Culture_Crit/status/1729539852582912406?t=ddV6qQjHgcedfo1_vu0J0w&s=19
Try to wrap your head around the fact that the same person is responsible for all of this.
The greatest works of art (and architecture) of the most accomplished artist in history - a thread
[Thread]
And his life was shit.
LOL
[Emphasis added]
That's irony. It's like O. Henry had a baby and named it this exact situation.
Napoleon wasn't short
https://www.britannica.com/story/was-napoleon-short
Yet interpretations of Napoleon’s death certificate estimate that his height when he died was between 5’2” and 5’7” (1.58 and 1.7 meters). The discrepancy is often explained by the disparity between the 19th-century French inch, which was 2.71 cm, and the current inch measurement, which is 2.54 cm. Sources consequently estimate that Napoleon was probably closer to 5’6” or 5’7” (1.68 or 1.7 meters) than to 5’2”. Although the range may seem short by 21st-century standards, it was typical in the 19th century, when most Frenchmen stood between 5’2” and 5’6” (1.58 and 1.68 meters) tall. Napoleon was thus average or taller, no matter the interpretation.
Although Napoleon’s death certificate seems to suggest that he was probably taller than the typical 19th-century Frenchman, English cartoons, his nickname, and other hearsay left a lasting impression that the emperor was short. It was an impression that continued into the 21st century and one which no heroic painting by Jacques-Louis David could undo.
The English took full advantage of the difference between the French foot/inch and the English foot/inch to mock Napoleon. The man was 5'2" using French units, but 5'7" using English units.
Was he short in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure? I can’t remember. In any case, the “weird, short, french guy with a sword and funny hat” is just part of the American cultural lexicon at this point, like the Mummy or Frankenstein.
Yeah, they show him as a manlet in that one.
Yeah, sure, but that movie was a comedy. It wasn't really trying to make a significant point by showing Napoleon as obsessed with water slides, or cheating at bowling.
Ridley Scott's movies indisputably have a Message.
The real question is what representation is more accurate?
Yes. Also short in "Time Bandits."
That was a short film.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1729544952818909546?t=DFp09lJBeRwSxyqY_1sPlg&s=19
Omg
[Video]
Lol
Russian winter 1
Napoleon 0
Dude. That's cold.
What a snow job.
Chilling effect on France’s ability to maintain its empire.
Now they are just drifting.
It just slipped away.
A moment frozen in time.
In Ridley Scott's Napoleon, Political Ambition Is Both Pathetic and Horrific
Short on facts?
Too short, period. How the hell can you do one three-hour (or less) movie about Napoleon? I think a trilogy would've been a better idea.
When your story is a made fictional narrative, you can just make it as short as you wish.
Long on Josephine...
casting him as insecure and outright pathetic, an awkward and ill-mannered weirdo whose psychological frailty drove him to lead battle
Yeah, no. You don’t to approve of Napoleon’s unchecked warmongering, but this beyond caricature. The man was NOT insecure or full of psychological frailty.
This was a guy who stood in front of an entire army, fully armed, that had been sent to arrest him, then rip open his shirt to show his bare chest and said, “If any of you wish to shoot your emperor, here I am!” The whole army fucking changed sides as a result.
And yes, napoleons first wife had many affairs: so did he. He had tons of mistresses. To say that he was some kind of pathetic simp for her is a very weird take.
I remember going to see Oliver Stone’s Alexander, and how it was so little about the character and so much about creating some semi-incestuous relationship with his mother. And then a weirdly long and strange sex scene with a woman in Babylon that had nothing to do with the narrative because the story was so confused and muddled.
There's one really touching scene in that movie (if you don't count a younger Rosario Dawson flouncing around with her tits out), and that's where Alexander is in the field hospital after Gaugamela, comforting a dying soldier right before the medic puts him out of his misery.
Just a terrific microcosm of a general who had no problem sending these men to be killed and maimed, but still gave honor to their sacrifice because he was always right in the thick of things fighting alongside them and nearly getting killed himself.
The rest of the movie is definitely a hot mess.
I still count that as definitely the worst film I ever saw in theaters.
I still enjoy the Gaugamela scene, but the rest of the movie is such a fucking slog. Just about everyone is horribly miscast, with maybe the exception of Ian Beattie as Antigonus.
I've *only* seen the Gaugamela scene, and historically its a hot mess. There's a story to the battle of Gaugamela, and the movie abjectly fails in telling it, much less capturing Alexander's strategy or his implementation of it. Things happen in the scene that never happened. The order of events is jumbled and confused. Alexander's entire *right flank* is just missing, erased from existence. (Not only is it significant, not having it makes it impossible to actually show Alexander's strategy in action).
It'd be like if a movie depicted the battle of Agincourt, but didn't have any longbowmen on the English side.
(The *costuming* is pretty good, and the fact that units actually fight in formations *some* of the time is kind of novel for Hollywood. But if you're going to show a battle, actually tell the story of *that* battle).
There’s one really touching scene in that movie (if you don’t count a younger Rosario Dawson flouncing around with her tits out)
A young Rosaria Dawson with her tits out sounds like a very "touching" scene to me.
You should see "Trance". Everything is out. Peak Rosario Dawson. Though, clad, she was smoking in Sin City
Phoenix's oozy, oddball performance is probably at least partially a dig at former president Donald Trump
Because nothing can exist for its own sake any longer. Everything has to give due notice to Current Thing. Why would anyone even want to see a movie about Napoleon that doesn’t even include subtext about Trump? If it’s not myopically focused on Right Now, it’s ho even cares, am I right?
Fuck Hollywood and fuck Ridley Scott.
I'm wondering why Trump would even be taken into consideration with the portrayal, given that Scott's probably just taking the piss against a well-known French adversary.
Ah poor baby, did someone hurt your lovey feelings about Trumpy Trumpy?
I'd rather see a movie about Napoleon written by an Austrian economist. Because it was Napoleon's shitty economic policies that doomed him, not any single political or military failure. Why was he in Russia, after all? To try to enforce his shitty "Continental System" policy, from a misguided idea that he could just force everyone to not trade with the biggest trade empire. He took over Spain for largely the same reasons. Smuggling became rampant because centrally controlled economies don't work. He was doing as much harm to France and its allies as he was to Britain, which could still easily trade across the oceans with India and the Americas.
Better idea would have been to use Russian, Austrian, Spanish, American, and Ottomans as trade proxies. Put the British in the position of needing to interdict trade vessels of all those countries to stop the flow of French commerce. America actually did join the war because of this in 1812, but imagine if Napoleon could have built an entire coalition of nations ready to declare war on Britain for the same reasons. It would have turned out so much better for him and been a boon to the French economy by lowering trade barriers.
Yeah I was disappointed by the movie.
If you were interested in the military aspects of Napoleon's life, the movie didn't really deliver IMO. It does spend a lot of time on the battle of Austerlitz and the battle of Waterloo, probably his two most famous ones, but it spends very little time on Borodino, which is really where the Russian campaign fell apart.
It didn't say anything about the campaign in Spain, and only made one passing reference to the conquest of Italy.
It never seemed very clear to me from the movie anyway, how Napoleon used his own family as objects of patronage of the places he conquered. His empire was very much a family business. So while he was Emperor, his brothers and sisters were kings and queens of Belgium, Spain, etc. Seems like that could have been relevant. Maybe that is in the four-hour extended version.
Anyway, the movie seemed like a mess.
Just go watch Waterloo.. You’ll have a better experience.
Unlike Napoleon.
He couldn’t escape if he wanted to.
The history book on the shelf is always repeating itself.
Is Phoenix short enough to play Milei, or would he need special shoes?
So the patient says to the psychiatrist, “don’t worry, doctor, I’ll pay my bill or my name isn’t Napoleon Bonaparte!”
...it's so intent on caricaturing its title characters that it never really explains why so many people followed him, often to their deaths, or how he was able to rise from such humble roots. But the movie's blackly comic sensibility, in which a great man of history and his political ambition are recast as both absurd and horrific, is a welcome antithesis to the sort of iconographic portrayal that so often marks historical epics.
So, it's basically nothing more than the reverse side of the previous iconography. And, in the end, teaches us little. Whatever one thinks of Napoleon, and I'm inclined to see him as a tyrant, there's no getting around the fact that he was a remarkable and talented man. And his actual bravery is something that has been discussed at length. And let's not kid ourselves, the victories that propelled Napoleon to power were against nations trying to crush the French Revolution.
Like Frederick the Great, it's a credit to how gifted a military leader he was that he was able to take on coalition forces several times and absolutely kick their ass. That he overstepped his ability later on doesn't diminish those accomplishments, and the French nationalism that he built up arguably enabled Talleyrand, as gifted a diplomat and politician as Napoleon was a general, to get France on far better footing within the international agreements during the 1815 Vienna conference than they probably deserved.
Was Napoleon supposed to be admired? He was a brilliant general, but that's it.
Don't get admiration confused with adoration, like a lot of post-modern media and academics have done. You don't have to idolize the man to admire how one man was able to achieve what he did, in the very chaotic times that it happened. The guy rose from extremely middling circumstances and became the most powerful ruler in Europe through sheer will and ability. That's admirable in and of itself, all post-modern navel-gazing about "muh duhmokracee" aside.
And he was a figure that was admired. You don’t have to find him compelling today or agree with his values, but men fought to the death for him. He wasn’t awkward and bumbling.
A movie all about Napoleon’s flaws could do an excellent take down. A movie that has to invent flaws and create a caricature makes it seem like they couldn’t find his flaws, so they had to make shit up. It’s anti-productive.
FWIW Beethoven admired him until he declared himself emperor, whereupon he scratched out the dedication to Napoleon on the MS of the Eroica. That did seem like the right moment to change opinions.
Look at the admiration for Gen. Robert Lee, and he wasn't even a brilliant general. Sometimes, the losers get to write history (at least for a time).
He showed quite a lot of good generalship - too bad it was in a bad cause.
He was able to hold off superior forces with careful deployment and use of his troops, and he had a remarkable ability to guess correctly what the other general was up to.
To be fair, it wasn't that hard to guess how the generals in the early years of the war would act, because they'd all gone to West Point and learned from all the same theory books. Everyone in the eastern theater acted like the war would be rolled up in one big engagement pretty much up through Gettysburg.
Grant had spent those years slugging it out with various Confederate armies in the west, and Lee wasn't prepared to go up against someone who didn't mind trading blows or have blinders on about trying to bring about decisive engagements.
I think I'll pass. There are good biographies of Napoleon and good historic fiction. I don't need a 21st century progressive interpretation of the man's life.
I'll wait until it's available to stream free.
There's a jeering chant that English football fans sing when a visiting team is getting stuffed, that I find appropriate when seeing depictions of the Retreat from Moscow or Waterloo - "you came all this way, and you lost, and you lo-ost".
At least if they're chanting that slogan they have less energy for hooliganism.