Prince Joachim Murat is the seventh generation descendant of Marshal Joachim Murat (1767-1815).
Of course, I am not objective. I expected an epic, Shakespearean fresco from the director of “Duelists” and “Gladiator”. A burst of energy. The panache, the unprecedented glory, the unthinkable victories, the gallery of heroic characters, the messianic destiny, the wind of freedom, the epic, the adventure, the ardor, the infinite possibilities offered by the Empire, in a word : the height.
“Let’s talk about the Emperor, it will do us good” as Victor Hugo wrote.
But Ridley Scott signs a twilight work. Filmed in cold light, almost every scene is set in autumn, the mist caught in the leafless tree branches. Very few young actors, while the entire imperial epic was carried by young people. Bonaparte played by a 50-year-old Joaquin Phoenix, out of breath from start to finish, with a grayish complexion. This film is, overall, dark. Almost sad. I came away disappointed, very disappointed. But I remind you: I am not objective.
As for the liberties taken with historical facts, they are so numerous that we can no longer speak of errors. The director’s desire to rewrite History so that it corresponds to the image he wants to give of Napoleon and Josephine. A series of shortcuts and inventions to fit the entire imperial epic into a two and a half hour film. And why not ? Ridley Scott never claimed to be a historian. Bonaparte firing cannon at the pyramids. This is absolutely false, obviously. This would be an allegory to show that Bonaparte had encountered no difficulty in defeating the Ottomans. Napoleon leaves Egypt to find Joséphine, whom he believes has a lover, and he flees the Island of Elba again to recover Joséphine. All of Napoleon’s decisions would have been dictated by his passion for Joséphine. It’s a very romantic vision but it’s historically indefensible. More embarrassing, he gives Laetitia, Napoleon’s mother, the role of a castrating madam who puts a young girl in his bed to prove to her that he can have a son. The story is true but Laetitia has nothing to do with it. This is needlessly tarnishing the image of the Emperor’s mother.
This is the angle of the film: the love that Napoleon has for Josephine sums up the entire personality, the weaknesses of the Emperor and the entire history of the Empire. He owes him all his successes but it also leads him to his downfall. It is in fact a sentimental drama set against the backdrop of an imperial epic.
We discover a Napoleon under the influence of an abusive mother, a brutal man with Joséphine. In love like a clumsy, clumsy and timid little boy. Joaquin Phoenix plays a clumsy, infantile, cruel, indecisive and weak Napoleon.
Ultimately this film does not humanize Napoleon, it ridicules him.
Ridley Scott delivers the English vision, the dark legend of the Corsican bandit (in the last scene he dies like Dom Corleone in “The Godfather”, the parallel is not very subtle), a poorly behaved and boorish usurper. He even adds on the alleged small size of Napoleon (the scene of the mummy in Egypt) while Napoleon is in the average height of the time. Its smallness is an invention of English propaganda which clearly persists.
Also read: Michel De Jaeghere: “Napoleon, the dazzling mourning of glory”
“The French don’t love each other” according to Ridley Scott. He is right. Except precisely in the case of his film which seems to have achieved the feat of making almost everyone agree. For publications of all stripes, Ridley Scott borders on the ridiculous in his caricature of the imperial ogre. The film presents the France of the Revolution and the Empire as an unfortunate episode of a country in the hands of a people of bloodthirsty and poorly behaved scoundrels to whom the very distinguished Duke of Wellington will miraculously bring a little dignity by putting an end to to this unfortunate plebeian and crude parenthesis. It seems, from the reaction of critics and the first French spectators, that this is pushing historical denigration a little far.
Either way, it’s still a great show. So let’s not shy away from our pleasure. This film offers a new vision of the Emperor, a vision that I do not share, but which no less enriches the reflection on Napoleon and his era.
What will be the fate of this film and what will be its impact on the general public? Very smart who could say that. At the end of the film, half of the audience found it wonderful, giving a human and sympathetic image of the Emperor, all very moved by his relationship with Joséphine. The other half felt like a poorly acted parody. Go see Napoleon, if he provokes so many reactions there must be good reasons.