Napoleon (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: The (partial) life story of a French Emporer

Napoleon is a strange film, and one I’m not entirely sure needs to exist. For something like this to exist it needs to be either educational, overblown, or relevant. This fails on all three counts.

The educational: the accuracy of it has been called into question multiple times. This was going to be obvious from the first time you see the tagline: He came from nothing, he conquered everything. He didn’t come from nothing, and it’s weird to say he did. For starters, his dad was an aristocrat (not to be confused with an aristocat. who are pets who get to sleep on velvet mats, naturalment). It puts him present at the execution of Marie Antoinette when he was actually on a battlefield at the time. It also shows him firing at the Pyramids in Giza, which never happened. These are such needless lies too. But they call into question the accuracy of everything, did Napoleon mastermind a victory over the English at the siege of Toulon? Did his marriage fall apart because of fertility issues? Is there even a country called France? These are all things presented as true within the film, but so are proven falsehoods, so it’s hard to tell.

It has been accused of being anti-French, but what else would you expect from a Scott? You know, because the director is Ridley Scott, and Scotland is part of the UK, who have famously nearly always been at war with France? I know, the joke would have worked better if the film also involved Britt Eckland (if I spelt it Brit), Robert Englund (if I spelt it England), or Kerry VonFuckTheFrench (if I spelt it Kerri).

It’s not just the French who are annoyed at this movie; idiots are too. Accusing Ridley Scott of making a film that discriminates against white men by showing one of them as a bit of a dick and he had a wife who cheated on him. The wife part; yes, she did cheat on him, but he cheated on her. He ended the marriage just because she couldn’t get pregnant, and impregnated a teen. The wife ended up dying alone and in pain, what a bitch. And of course, it shows him as a bad person, he was a military leader responsible for the deaths of thousands. Something that’s not in the movie is the siege of Jaffa, where Napoleon allowed/encouraged his soldiers to spend two days massacring and raping the inhabitants of Jaffa (a city in now-Israel, not the chocolate and orange treat that’s a cake for tax purposes). Most European leaders in history were dicks, and most of them were white men, both of those things are facts. So if you want to watch a movie about European history, you’re going to have to put up with a white man being terrible. So we can either not make historical movies, we can make historical movies about non-Europeans, or we make Henry VIII a black woman. Maybe then the internet will stop complaining. In response to the historical inaccuracies, Ridley Scott has said that historical accuracy isn’t important. I’m hoping he continues this point of view when I release my new film “Ridley Scott once bummed a hedgehog”

The overblown: it’s all a bit dour. There’s not much on the excess of emperors. It’s a Ridley Scott film so there are some fantastic shots in it. I’m normally not a fan of animal deaths in movies, but I’m very glad his horse got shot with a cannon in this because it means I could make a joke about how his horse was Napoleon Blown-Apart.

I’m not going to though.

The horse death does give me an excuse to talk about the violence. It’s incredibly violent, in a good way. You can tell this from the opening scene when Antoinette is executed. Usually, when you see that on screen it’s a clean cut and the head is held up like a mannequin head. When her head is held up here it’s dripping blood and bits of skin, it’s horrific, but does a good job of reminding you that this is an actual human head that just a few seconds ago was full of life. Whilst the visuals are good, the audio is a bit meh. Not in terms of music and sound, but the accents. Nobody has a French accent. This would be okay if it was all taking place in France or if every character was clearly defined, and it’s fine for small scenes. But when there are scenes of characters from multiple countries it can be a bit confusing. This is best highlighted in battle scenes which just consists of people with English accents and nondescript outfits charging at each other, with no idea of who belongs to which side. I haven’t seen fight scenes this confusing since the last Transformers movie I watched where action scenes were just chunks of metal rolling around. (I think it was the second one).

This does have the potential to be a good movie, and there are times when it does live up to that potential. But it mostly doesn’t. The pacing is weird, skipping over important details way too quickly. His first exile and escape took place entirely in my quick pee break. But this is a moment where he was exiled and completely hopeless, yet he escaped by commandeering the people who were supposed to be guarding him. That’s a classic moment of historical farce, which with the right build-up and setup could have been incredible. There are multiple moments of that. It’s both too short to go into things with as much detail as it should, but also too long to hold your attention. I would say it’s wasted potential, but really, I expected nothing less. Every worry I had about this turned out to be correct. And really that’s the most disappointing thing, well, that and the fact that I still can’t stop singing the name to the tune of Linoleum by NoFX. The film also doesn’t contain a scene where goes around San Dimas eating ice cream and helping two kids with their history presentation. Bullshit. *storms out review*

Wait

*comes back in*

I forgot my chocolate, I’m still angry.

*storms back out*

Why We Love…..Amelie

It’s coming up to a week since the terrible attacks in Paris and the world is still struggling in the confusing aftermath, uncertain of what to say or do. This tragedy is a bit unlike 7/7 and 9/11 though. Maybe it’s because unlike the other two events, this one happened in front of us. It seemed to unfold, not just on national news, but on social media. As it happened people were tweeting about it, facebooking about it etc, letting the world know what was going on as it happened. The world became spectators to a game that they never wanted to see in the first place. Also different are the reactions. Outside of a few people most of the messages are ones of hope. Messages that France, and the world, will get through this. Twitter was overloaded with messages of support, not just for the victims and their families, but also for any innocent Muslims who might end up getting attacked as a reaction to this. The general feeling of this attack isn’t “kill all Muslims” (apart from Trump, who said they should be made to wear identifying badges, in a move that makes it hard not invoke Nazi analogies), instead, the feeling is “Fuck ISIS”. It’s progress. So why is this? I have a theory:

amelie

One of the explosions occurred during a internationally televised football match, and if it wasn’t for the actions of a security guard at the gates of the stadium, it would have been a lot worse. But through doing this, he denied the Assholes an important opportunity (side note: editorial guidelines for this blog dictate we don’t call them “terrorists” as that gives them power over our fear, they don’t deserve that, instead we will just continue to refer to them in whichever capitalised insult springs to mind. We are a media blog, so I doubt this will happen that often). Through this man doing this, it meant there wasn’t a defining image of the attacks. 9/11 had the smouldering towers as well as the man jumping from them, 7/7 had the masked woman being led away from the blast. These images fuelled a lot of intense arguments and hatred, and the Paris attacks lacked that visceral image. In years to come the images we will associate with these attacks will be national landmarks draped in the colours of the French flag. Never deny the important of an image.

images.jpeg

So, Amelie? Why did I pick this to talk about? Mainly, it’s because it is French, and this is my simple way of showing solidarity with a country in turmoil right now. Films and media are important. When people think of Japan they don’t think of the mountains, they don’t think of Karoshi, they think of the food, they think of the films, they think of the music. People associate media with the parent culture. A lot of people’s first interaction with foreign cultures is through their films and it can help define them.

ameliee
I feel we also need to mention the awesomeness and inherent loveability of Audrey Tautou

But why this film specifically? Why not Two Days, One Night? Why not the absolute sublime Belleville Rendez-vous, especially in light of Chomet’s brilliant couch gag for The Simpsons. The reason is simple: this film is simply beautiful. Watching this film is like eating a box of Guylian chocolate and feeling it melt in your mouth. It’s not just a story, it’s an experience. It’s something that makes you feel warm inside. But that may just be the whimsical nature of it. It’s one of the most hopeful films you could hope to see, about decency, about the positive side of human nature, about convincing someone to travel by stealing their gnome and getting people to take pictures of it all around the world.

images (1)

It’s this sort of whimsy and loveliness that we need to showcase right now. Just as the characters of Amelie needed her, we need this film. We need, well, I think Maximilien Robespierre said it best:

Liberté, égalité, fraternité