With such a diverse filmography that spans over 40 years, you never really know what kind of Ridley Scott you’re going to get. He has always approached nearly everything with an IDGAF attitude, particularly when he’s on the press tour. And sometimes that’s the best part of the movie; watching Scott answer press questions with vitriol and biting wit. Hell, even some of his comments defending his revisionist history in “Napoleon” have been hilarious and highly quotable. I don’t know what I was expecting, but it was certainly not whatever the hell this behemoth of a film ended up being. I certainly wasn’t expecting it be hilarious, and not in the way it was intended.
It genuinely may be the most unintentional comedy of the year, and the jury is still out on whether or not that’s a good thing. There is so much going on, it’s hard to even know where to start unpacking. It is an absolute mess, tonally imbalanced across the board with the director, writer, and performers all having completely different ideas of what film they’re supposed to be working on. “Napoleon” shines on the battlefield, but is so incoherent and messy elsewhere it becomes impossible to decipher what this nearly 3 hour historical epic is suppose to be.
Directed by Ridley Scott from a script by David Scarpa, “Napoleon” stars Oscar winner Joaquin Phoenix as the titular emperor and exiled military leader of France at the turn of the century. It follows the rise and fall of Bonaparte, highlighting his military conquests, political scheming and tumultuous love affair with his wife, Josephine (Vanessa Kirby). We see his legendary battles as well as his unquenching thirst for power and desperation to be regarded as one of the greats of history. But his blinding lust for more comes at a cost, and though he became everything he ever wanted, his tyrannical rule and violence leads to his ultimate downfall. “Napoleon” also stars Tahar Rahim, Ben Miles, and Rupert Everett.
That’s a rather short synopsis for such a huge chunk of history, but since it isn’t really concerned with historical accuracies or even connecting the dots within its own historical retelling, so there’s no point in expanding on the synopsis. No, “Napoleon” is concerned with everything except what may have actually happened. It is so overflowing with ideas and events that it fails to add any true importance to them. Even with time stamped title cards, there were so many points when I had no idea where we were in history.
There is no sense of time or place anywhere. We’re whisked away to the next event or conversation before we’re ever given a moment to take in what happened previously. This manages to make the film feel overstuffed and exhausting while simultaneously not enough time to tell its story. We are left longing for more substance underneath it all to make it make sense. Scott hasn’t lost his sense of epic and scale, framing the battle sequences with unbelievable visuals and thrilling violence. Though the film gives no real frame of reference as to what these battles actually mean or why they’re happening (playing like a Napoleon’s greatest hits) they are dazzling to watch on screen.
Even at 86 years old, no one does big scale action like Ridley Scott. It’s the one thing “Napoleon” has going for it from a directorial stand point.
Scarpa’s script is a whole different story; a totally different “Napoleon” story. It is clear that both Scott and Scarpa do not agree on how to interpret the material, and instead of trying to compromise, they just kind of throw them together and let the carnage fall where it may. It not only has no sense of time or place, but also has no sense of tone anywhere. It’s unclear just who is trying to cut the legend down to size and turn him into a sniveling man child. Scarpa’s script seems to suggest that that may have been his intention, and Scott’s epic action sequences clash hard with this more pathetic version of the man. But he also kind of embraces it in some weird way, with them both agreeing that Napoleon wasn’t a great man and deserves to be taken down a peg.
Make no mistake, outside of the battlefield, “Napoleon” never tries to paint him in some kind of brilliant but flawed leader. The problem is they both have different ideas as to what the means, with Scott wanting to demonstrate this through big, large scale mistakes and Scarpa seemingly wanting to write an outright comedy.
“Destiny has brought me this lamb chop,” “You think you’re so great because you have boats,” and “You’re fat…I like my meals” are all actually lines delivered by actors in this film. Even out of context, these are just funny lines to read, and they’re funny when delivered, too. Except…nothing suggests the comedy is intentional, adding yet another layer of tonal confusion. Phoenix is a different Napoleon in nearly every scene, forced to be a brilliant military leader, but also a mockery of his own legend, but also a satirical man child, but also an emperor and power hungry warlord, but also a pathetic simp, but also a comedic performer, but also a human interpretation of a larger than life historical figure. That is way too much to ask of even the best actors (which Phoenix is) and he kind of just picks and choose which Napoleon he wants to be whenever he wants to be it and neither Scott or Scarpa are interested in giving him any kind of guidance.
I really don’t know what else to do or say about “Napoleon,” which is saying a lot considering how much is packed into this film. It simply doesn’t have a sense of self, and constantly feels at odds with its own narrative and portrayal of characters. I have no problem with historical epics having very little historical accuracy, but when I can’t even keep up with your own revisions because you’re not really interested in it yourself, it becomes really difficult to invest in anything at all. And yet, “Napoleon” isn’t terrible even if it is bad. The action is incredible even if its kind of scarce, and if you go in expecting it to be funny and satirical instead of self serious and dramatic, you’ll probably have a pretty fun time. I’d also advise to check your history at the door, because “Napoleon” is a historical epic with very little actual history. God, we didn’t even talk about Kirby as Josephine, who is so wildly misused and on a different wavelength than the 10 others we’ve already discussed I don’t know where to place her in the canon of “Napoleon” misfires.
I guess you have to give it some credit for not glamorizing a pretty terrible man and tearing apart the legend. “Napoleon” doesn’t really work in most places, and indulges the best and worst tendencies of Ridley Scott’s filmmaking. It’s kind of a strange blend of “Gladiator” and “House of Gucci,” two things that have no business occupying the same space but somehow both exist in “Napoleon.” I don’t think that’s a compliment, but do what that strange brew mashup what you will.
Now if you’ll excuse me, destiny has brought me this Starbucks Gingerbread Iced Coffee.
Rating: 2.5 out of 5 Stars
“Napoleon” is now playing in theaters. It will (eventually) make its way to Apple TV+, but not anytime soon. You can watch the trailer below.
