The Editor strikes again.
That phrase flashed through my head when I was walking in the door after having seen Ridley Scott’s latest costume drama with one of my oldest buddies on a cool, steely-grey Saturday morning (I do love my matinees). While we both thoroughly enjoyed the experience, we both also had to concede that…something…was missing.
And I knew what it was.
Footage…and lots of it.
In that regard, I was briefly taken back to 2005, when I walked out of Scott’s underrated Kingdom of Heaven, having liked what I’d seen in it’s 144 minute Theatrical version, but knowing in my gut that something was missing.
That something came about a few years later, when 20th Century Fox got around to releasing the 194 minute Director’s Cut version of the critically maligned Crusades epic.
I’ll tell you – it’s a revelation…while also being a condemnation of the cuts Fox forced upon Scott in order to bring the truly epic story into a more Box Office friendly length.
Well, it seems history likes to repeat itself.
This time around, there is no deep dark secret about a Director’s Cut of Napoleon existing in seclusion in some refrigerated vault somewhere, waiting in vain for some brave soul to set it free…Ridley himself has come out and confirmed the existence of a near 4-hour version that he feels is the better film, and if past is prologue…he’ll likely turn out to be right.
Given that the main intent behind this Apple Studios / Scott Free co-production was to have a life as an Apple Original on their streaming service, the venue is now there and more than capable to host an Extended version that subscribers can readily choose to delve into, something that I MAY consider when this preferred cut is unleashed (though I’m still a sucker for physical media, love my Blu rays). What my buddy and I saw was definitely Good…but, in THIS version, not Great, if I’m being honest about it. Even at the current run-time of 157 minutes, it feels like a preview for a much larger story.
Napoleon kicks off with a to-the-point intro detailing the turbulent times in France in the 1790’s and the subsequent rise of a young Corsican Army officer named ‘Napoleon Bonaparte’ (Joaquin Phoenix). The sprawling narrative begins with him witnessing of the beheading of Marie Antoinette (fictional, as Napoleon was allegedly miles away at the time), and carries on through his rise in power, both militarily and politically, all the while delving into his turbulent behind- the-scenes romance with a cunning aristocrat who comes to be known as ‘Empress Josephine’ (Vanessa Kirby), the only other person with true power over the dangerously capable ‘Emperor – General Napoleon Bonaparte’.
At an impressive 85 years old (I swear he’s going to drop dead behind the camera, fittingly), Sir Ridley Scott STILL has it, especially when we examine the visuals. By now, those of us who pay attention know what Ridley brings to the table, without fail. Even if the story is weak (looking at YOU, The Counselor…you vile piece of shit), the man still brings solidly composed and edited scenes together (a credit I grudgingly DO give The Counselor…that vile piece of shit!).
Ridley has an ‘eye’ that goes back to his earliest commercials, back in the late 60’s (dig some of his old ads up on Youtube. His late brother, Tony Scott, had some cool ones too. Kinda fascinating, if you’re a film nerd) and he again brings it out to play with this lavish bio-drama.
Even if the film is unevenly paced (which it is), what we get visually is expectedly gorgeous and epic in scale. Of all his contemporaries, I don’t think ANYONE out there can mount a large-scale ‘period’ piece like Ridley Scott can, going all the way back to his first feature, 1977’s The Duellists (which incidentally takes place in the same time-period as Napoleon) and all the way up through the likes of 1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992), Gladiator (2000), Kingdom of Heaven (2005) and The Last Duel (2021), among MANY others.
This was no different.
The sets, the costumes, the locales and all the story details came together into this gritty and realistic (but still slickly cinematic) ‘world’ that sucked me in, all complimented by the beautiful lensing and lighting.
As expected, there are MANY sexy wide shots of sweeping vistas or erupting battlefields, with literally hundreds of extras in full costume going full tilt, and they look amazing.
What also looked amazing was the destruction of whoever was on the receiving end of ‘Napoleon’s relentless assaults. Scott and Co. don’t skimp on the gore, and I appreciated that. In particular, the effects of various types of cannon shot are demonstrated in horrific ways (what happens to Napoleon’s first horse is the stuff of nightmares), and we see how ‘Napoleon’ effectively adapts the use of cannons with some out-of-the-box thinking into a deadly, multi-faceted tool of war that rains destruction upon the various enemies threatening France. As a war movie…it succeeds.
What doesn’t quite succeed is the choppy, episodic flavour of the narrative, especially in Act Two. Passages of time come about with a quick cut, at times only giving the length of someone’s hair or the age of a child to clue you into the passage of time. Even some fading transitions to suggest time moving past would’ve helped, not just Cut-New Scene-New Time Period-No Lead-up-Cut, which does happen many times.
It felt like we were just touching on the milestone moments that any Armchair Academic may already know about the Life and Campaigns of Ole Boney, out of historical obligation. I can almost guarantee that the meat of Scott’s impending Director’s Cut would fill in the blanks in the narrative, giving needed connective tissue and theoretically building up stakes and expanding on characters and their motivations, thus giving more trauma and triumph to the war campaigns and the man’s personal tribulations.
On a glowingly positive note, I’ll easily confess to enjoying Joaquin Phoenix’s take on the renowned historical figure, even if I feel that this version felt short-changed, from a Character Development stand-point. Phoenix’s ‘Napoleon’ is an interesting character, not being some stoic, Zen-like warrior. There are moments when he’s a bumbler, and others when he’s a petulant, jealous child. More than once, he resorts to throwing food at someone’s he’s arguing with.
And the way he fucks the Empress is legitimately funny, which I did NOT expect. The way he just goes at it like a breathless, over-eager jackrabbit had me chuckling out loud and wondering how the Director / Actor discussions went down on set THAT day, and how many takes were ruined by someone cracking up. These character details went along way to rounding ‘Napoleon’ out and left me wanting more. The same would also apply to Vanessa Kirby’s alluring portrayal of the morally-grey ‘Empress Josephine’. Like ‘Napoleon’, I KNOW there’s more to her character…and I want to see it. The rest of the cast also stepped up, key characters being elevated by the nuanced yet believable portrayals coaxed out by a masterful director.
Which does now swing me back around to one of the film’s Negatives, IMO.
The language thing. It’s a small gripe…but a gripe nonetheless.
The story of Napoleon Bonaparte is a VERY French slice of history, with vast sections of this film taking place within France’s borders. Yet, aside from some songs on the soundtrack, no one speaks French. Even ‘Napoleon’ himself lapses into a straight-up American accent at times.
Now, I get it…managing various languages on a film set would be a bitch, as authentic and cool as it may be. Personally, I like The Hunt for Red October (1990) or Avatar – The Way of Water‘s (2022) approach to foreign languages – start with characters speaking the native language…then have a transition point where the audio fades into English (or whatever language suits the viewer), and the story continues on with the characters speaking their language…only with us hearing it as we need to, in order to follow along.
They don’t do that here.
With one questionable moment where two characters finish up a terse conversation in subtitled German (no idea why, when we hadn’t heard any other languages to that point) being all we get, the rest is the cast prattling on in accented English. There isn’t even an attempt at the French accent…just seemingly whatever speaking manner the actor happens to come with. This wasn’t a deal-breaker, but was a little surprising, given how detailed everything else in this film was.
Details are one of those things Ridley Scott excels at and Napoleon was no different, with enough eye-candy to effectively nudge me away from being distracted by the constant English. The world depicted is amazingly well-realized, with several violent set-pieces standing out and holding my attention, all beautifully shot on numerous cameras (I think Scott’s record number for one sequence was 11) and edited with finesse.
In a nutshell, I really enjoyed what I got from Ridley Scott’s latest and knowing that there is a longer, more complete cut in the offering eased the pain of the Negatives, almost all of which fell under the Writing / Editing category. The cast is great, the cinematography gorgeous, the attention to detail stellar, the music was rousing and the battle scenes were bloody and violent. I can easily recommend this film, especially if you’re a fan of Ridley Scott, Joaquin Phoenix or sprawling historical dramas. As with most of Scott’s output, it is definitely cinematic in its presentation and I’d go so far as to say that seeing it on The Big Screen is worth the trip to the theatre.
As I’ve said of many of Ridley Scott’s films – Bring on the Director’s Cut!
*I’ll admit that I’m relieved that they decided to keep it simple and changed this movie’s original title – Kitbag, to the simpler, more logical Napoleon. I can’t imagine THIS film being called THAT.
thekneejerkreaction 