- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/17460727
SHOCKER: Napoleon: The Director’s Cut is good! It may be longer, but it improves upon the theatrical version with better pacing, restoring scenes and moments that explain the historical and political reasons for the characters’ actions and is also a more complete story that makes director Ridley Scott’s true intentions, which is to make an anti-Great Man story as an utterly irreverent comedy. The main character is not a Great Man but a miserable jerk, and the message of the film seems to be “Don’t trust the myth of any Great Men.” This makes it the most subversive historical blockbuster epic of the 21st Century. If you watch it knowing this, it is actually very funny, even if some of that laughter turns bitter.
Ridley Scott seems to have a very strong point of view here, which is in opposition to the “Great Man of History narrative.” It feels like he deliberately had Joaquin Phoenix play Napoleon Bonaparte as the most unlikable, uncharismatic, insecure, incel dweeb imaginable. He’s petulant and uncouth, makes weird noises with his mouth to get attention, and is prone to tantrums. He’s the epitome of every unhappy twelve-year-old boy you’ve ever had the misfortune to babysit, made even worse that he’s a horny grown man, and even sex and love don’t make him happy. It’s hard for me not to laugh at every scene in which Phoenix does something, either physical or verbal, that just makes this guy utterly appalling and hilariously unappealing. Phoenix plays Bonaparte as if he didn’t want to be here, and Paul Schrader’s complaint about his lack of charisma might be the whole point. Bonaparte’s military prowess or skill does not make him charismatic or glamorous here; he doesn’t even take any joy from winning. Some viewers might have found the subversion of “The Great Man” story confusing since we’ve all been conditioned to treat historical biopics as respectful, but this movie is very funny. The casting of many British comedy actors who are normally familiar to British TV audiences seems to be a clue to Scott’s intentions here.
…
The French still have a sentimental and romantic view of Napoleon and even his romance with Josephine, and Scott seemed to make it so toxic and horrible as if he really wanted to piss them off. The whole movie gets funnier when you start to think Scott spent over $100 million to piss off the French, which any Englishmen would love to do if given half a chance.
From reading the reviews and social media comments, it annoyed anyone with an interest in history.
If I were paid to promote this film, I’d say something like: you can tell from the previews and the theatrical release that there’s good cinematography, set design, costumes, etc. Well in the extended version there’s MORE of it. And then tacitly suggest that people play it in the background with the sound off while listening to classical music.
I have an interest in history and I liked it a lot. If you go into it knowing it’s making fun of the Great Man narrative, it’s quite funny.
Well I’m glad you found a movie you like. But I gotta say, “the movie is bad because it was made bad on purpose” just seems like copium.
Since you’re interested in history: Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace” also makes an anti-Great Man point about Napoleon, both in Tolstoy’s depiction of the Battle of Borodino, as well as in historical thoughts that are usually collected at the end of that novel. I don’t remember if Bondarchuk’s movie adaption of War and Peace retains that theme, but you can see it on youtube. The best Napoleon movie is arguably Waterloo which is somewhat critical of Napoleon. Likewise, the Napoleon miniseries has him act like kind of a doofus at times (and has an interesting depiction of the Napoleon-Josephine relationship).
I guess I’m just kind of bitter about this film because most of us in the US don’t have a lot of knowledge about European history since our teachers are underpaid, our academics are ridiculed, and because our historical movies and TV shows are generally ahistorical cartoonish BS like this one.
I told you I’m interested in history and your response was to assume I’ve read/watched no other Napoleon content including all-time classic War and Peace? Come on, man. That’s condescending to the extreme. Our tastes don’t have to be the same for me to not be ignorant of real history and other famous adaptations of Napoleon’s story.
I didn’t say it’s bad because it was made bad on purpose. I said (or at least attempted to convey) that I found it funny and that I appreciated the satire. I think it’s a good movie. Well shot, extremely well performed, and relatively pointed satire mocking the rising trend of strongman politicians. Like any good satire it takes comedic shots at current people/events by filtering its criticism through some other setting and characters. I wouldn’t describe it as an accurate docu-drama even remotely, but I’d say mocking would-be dictators by making such people look ridiculous is worthwhile for its own sake.
It’s a bad history lesson, but not every work set in a historical setting needs to be accurate. Shakespeare’s historical plays hardly were. He had a clock bell tolling in Julius Caesar, for Pete’s sake. Cartoonish ahistorical satire is a valid genre.
It seems to me what you’re bitter about is that you had your hopes up for a documentary or extremely accurate and respectful drama. Sorry this wasn’t that, but IMO the last thing we need right now is a movie glorifying any emperors here in the States.
You’re right, my comment was pretty condescending, I apologize. Your points are well-taken, thanks for giving me something to think about.
Thank you. If you’re ever in Philly shoot me a message and we can get a drink sometime.