I recently did something that I do about once a year; Iwent to a theater to see a movie. This type of odyssey is only done when what I hope is a good movie is better viewed on a big screen. At times this trip can be trying, especially when the movie house insists on submitting you to twenty minutes or more of coming attractions. It is during that time that I lose hope for the movie industry as they seem to believe that childish and loud movies based on comic book characters is what the viewing public craves. Perhaps they are correct; perhaps the mass viewing audience is made up of intellectually stunted individuals who believe that fireballs are real, and that the world can only be saved by magical powers exhibited by mutants. At any rate, I digress; this year’s movie of choice was Ridley Scott’s Napoleon.
Why Napoleon? Well, I like history and most of Mr. Scott’s movies. It was panned by a critic in the Wall Street Journal, but then the critic also did not like House of Gucci and All the Money in the World, two movies that I found interesting. Then of course there were the reviews from French movie critics. As you would expect, the idea of an Englishman daring to make a movie about a French national treasure goes far beyond the Pale. I believe that some Frenchmen believe that Napoleon lives in the heart of every French citizen and that he was a precursor to the EU, never mind the millions of deaths caused by his military adventures. Fortunately, and I give the French credit, “wokeism” has not contaminated their lives nearly as badly as in the U.S.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie; the costumes were great, the battle scenes were exciting (note: Napoleon did not lead a charge at Waterloo), and despite a French critic writing that Napoleon as played was too dour (I don’t recall Napoleon being remembered as a jovial character), there were some rather funny moments in the movie.
Now there are those purists who criticize the battle scene of Austerlitz and Waterloo, but we must remember that this is a MOVIE not HISTORY. Given the amount of time that Napoleon held center stage in Europe, it would help if one knew some of the actual history to tie things together. For example, at Waterloo when Field Marshal Blucher appears, it helps to know that he was Prussian and not just some chap coming over the hill. And who was that one French General always at Napoleon’s side during battles and at his abdication? Oh, you mean Ney? Minor point. Finally, Czar Alexander was not some fifteen-year-old boy as portrayed in the film.
Overall, the movie is a refreshing break from the juvenile junk put out by the movie industry. The love scenes are a bit long but there are three good adventure scenes, plus I felt comfortable with Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon. Would I see it again? Sure, even on a home screen and for any history buffs, it is a fun movie to watch and debate with like-minded souls.
