“Napoleon” - battle scenes and brooding Joaquin Phoenix

On November 23, the historical biopic “Napoleon” was released worldwide. It was directed by Ridley Scott - without exaggeration, one of the most versatile directors of our time. Once upon a time, it was he who directed the space horror “Alien” and the cyberpunk “Blade Runner”, the military drama “Black Hawk Down”, the melodrama “A Good Year” and the crime road movie “Thelma and Louise”. But this author’s separate passion is historical cinema.

His career started with The Duelists, about the enmity between two officers of Napoleonic army. In 2000, Gladiator gave Scott a new wave of popularity. It was followed by the large-scale “Kingdom of Heaven,” the controversial “Robin Hood” and “Exodus: Kings and Gods.” In 2021, the director released “The Last Duel” - alas, the film was lost against the background of his more successful release “The House of Gucci”, although it looked more interesting and deeper.

So Ridley Scott never abandoned the topic of historical cinema. However, "Napoleon" looks special even for him. It’s like the embodiment of all the director’s main ideas: at the same time a large-scale canvas and a personal drama, in which all major events are conveyed through the perception of one person.

Of course, the epoch-making scope makes “Napoleon” difficult to understand. But if you immerse yourself in the events of the film and understand the emotions of the main character, the film leaves an unforgettable impression.

The artistic component is more important than the historical one

As is obvious from the title, the film is dedicated to Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix), and the plot captures almost all the important moments of his biography with the exception of childhood. The young officer witnesses the execution of Marie Antoinette, undertakes a daring raid during the siege of Toulon and quickly advances in the ranks. Already a general, Napoleon meets Josephine Beauharnais (Vanessa Kribi) and soon marries her.

This is followed by campaigns in Africa, coronation, war with Russia and other well-known events. And all this is accompanied by the difficult relationship between the emperor and his wife: they cannot conceive an heir, and besides, Napoleon is not unreasonably jealous of his wife.

Even before the start of wide release, either humorous or serious disputes broke out between Ridley Scott and critics and other experts who accused the film of historical inaccuracies. The director in his traditionally rude manner asked dissatisfied people to “shut up” and sent them to different places, walking around accusing the French in their self-dislike.

Of course, there are indeed many inaccuracies in the film. Starting with the fact that Napoleon was not present at the execution of Marie Antoinette - and this is the opening scene. And the slogan of the film itself, “He came from nowhere, he conquered everything,” doesn’t really fit in with reality. But you can find fault with any historical film this way.

Ridley Scott does not position his film as a documentary reflection of reality. Moreover, he does his best to emphasize the conventionality of what is happening. Starting with choice Joaquin Phoenix for the main role. Napoleon died at 52, the actor was already over 45 at the time of filming, and he is not heavily made up, even when he plays the young version of the character.

The move, of course, is controversial; one has to accept the following theatrical rules: the hero’s hairstyle and costume were changed, which means he has aged 20 years. On the other hand, this allows you to give the character to one artist without three versions at different ages and not suffer from computer de-aging, which was so criticized in “The Irishman” Martina Scorsese.

The convention is also emphasized by artistic shooting: Ridley Scott is not shy about the fact that dirt and water flies directly into the camera lens, leaving drops, and shots and explosions are even too destructive. So before you scold the film for being unhistorical, it’s worth remembering the joke from the filming of “Lord of the Rings». Then Peter Jackson asked, where the light comes from in the night scene, and he replied: “That’s where the music comes from.”

But a more important convention is the number of historical events that the picture covers. And then it turns out that 150 minutes is not enough for Ridley Scott to tell everything. This is not scary yet - Abel Gance once did not have enough and five o'clock, but it captured a smaller part of the story.

The rental version of “Napoleon” almost gallops through all the important moments, with the possible exception of the battles of Austerlitz and the final battle of Waterloo. Alas, this turns the historical part of the picture into a set of abruptly ending scenes: here Napoleon receives power, here are his successes, and then there is a failure, a new country, another one, new treaties, again war, defeat, the final. Turned away for a couple of minutes - missed five years.

It doesn't look boring or pointless. Rather, it’s just a shame: each of the scenes is beautiful in its own way, and I want it to last longer. Therefore, the main hope is for the promised four-hour version, which should be released on Apple TV+. Anyone who has seen both versions (rental and original) of “The Kingdom of Heaven” knows how much more detailed the plot can become.

"Napoleon" is a large-scale and cruel, but very beautiful film

Large-scale films about the times of the Napoleonic wars are the passion of many directors. One can recall not only Abel Gance, but also Sergei Bondarchuk with his “War and Peace”, as well as an unrealized project Stanley Kubrick. The latter, by the way, may see the light of day, but in a slightly different form - Steven Spielberg is working on a series based on drafts from his colleague and friend.

What can we say about Ridley Scott, who began his career with “The Duelists,” a film about the same times. But there the director could only afford clashes between the two main characters. But now he films battles on an incredible scale, making full use of human resources and practical effects.

Although it’s worth mentioning a fun fact here. When promoting the film, the creators allegedly deny the presence of computer graphics. However, users noticed that on the Napoleon page on IMDb in the VFX section appears more than three hundred people.

So, of course, there are graphics in the film - and it’s unlikely that anyone will film cannonballs actually flying into the frame, blowing stone walls to pieces.

But when Scott shows the Battle of Waterloo, there are really huge armies rushing at each other, slow formations and the roar of explosions. Scenes like these are amazing and captivating, either because of their beauty or their disgusting nature.

The director amazingly finds grace in the most vile moments. The insides of the horse, torn apart by the shell, serve as a dramatic element to reveal Napoleon's personality. And during the defeat of the Allied forces at Austerlitz, the dead bodies of people and horses, no matter how strange it may sound, very aesthetically sink under the ice while blood mixes with water.

Although we must give the author his due - there is no talk of any romanticization of war or on-screen heroism. Napoleon himself will participate in the battle only at the very beginning and in the finale he will briefly gallop across the field.

Ridley Scott shows battles as they are: a dirty mess, where there is not a single “tough guy”, just a gray mass of people who chop and crush each other. Everything is as gloomy as the gray-green color filter used in the film.

The actors deliver great drama

But if the author did not have enough time to talk about all the battles in 150 minutes, then what is so good about “Napoleon”? But at least because this is an amazing personal story of one very unusual person. Of course, here reliability completely fades into the background. But the duet of Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby will captivate anyone who appreciates the on-screen chemistry between the actors.

The first here refuses the grotesque "Joker" or "All the Fears of Bo" and allows his Napoleon to be thoughtful, often as if abstracted from what is happening. Moreover, Napoleon is often indecisive, and even simply funny - first of all, this concerns his relationship with Josephine. There are even some raunchy funny moments featuring them in the film, and Phoenix's portrayal of an excited horse is sure to become the subject of memes.

Kirby surprisingly dominates their shared scenes. This also applies to the relationships between the characters: as typical, a man who is strong on the battlefield and in government is timid in front of his wife and is convinced that without her he means nothing. And even acting: Josephine, even when she is silent, looks more interesting than Napoleon - they still remember that Ridley Scott loves to make films about women (“Alien”, “G.I. Jane”, “Thelma and Louise”, “The Last Duel” and much more) other).

The Empress doesn't get much screen time, but she remains important even off-screen. It is to her that he writes all the time (but in fact he either confesses or complains, as if psychotherapist) Napoleon: both after the greatest successes and after complete failure.

If you look anywhere for the main tragedy and the deepest emotions of the main character, it is in principle differences between his behavior during personal meetings with Josephine and his overt feelings in letters.

The rest of the actors and characters, unfortunately or fortunately, remain only background, at least in the theatrical version. The only things that will be remembered are Rupert Everett’s daring entrance in the finale and a couple of scenes with Ben Miles. This is a little offensive, but it’s still better than spreading Napoleon’s personal history among a dozen important heroes.

For those who watch movies to criticize and find fault, "Napoleon" leaves a huge scope for quibbling. Some will find it too drawn out, others - too crumpled, history buffs - too free with the facts.

But for fans of large-scale, dark historical dramas rooted in personal experiences, Ridley Scott's work is a real treat. This is a creepy and frightening film about the bloody war, as well as an attempt to look into the soul of one of the most famous and controversial historical figures. As if with a desire to explain his actions. But right before the final credits, the director lists the number of deaths in each battle. And these are tens of thousands. So there is no talk of any justification for his actions.