As an antidote to this film, I would encourage people to go out and learn more about the real Napoleon. To start you can find my Napoleon content linked here: Napoleon's Empire: th-cam.com/video/431_pGbMU1A/w-d-xo.html Napoleon's Wars: th-cam.com/video/qIzlfGXFiPY/w-d-xo.html , th-cam.com/video/F8EEXWyM92Y/w-d-xo.html Napoleon's Grand Strategy: th-cam.com/video/Bu_INn3goHA/w-d-xo.html Why Napoleon Failed: th-cam.com/video/0-dcp2uSDT4/w-d-xo.html Napoleon After Elba (Alternative History): th-cam.com/video/-RhGljRaaaQ/w-d-xo.html
Director Ridley-Diddly Squat's movie "Napoleon" is a Woke Culture's wet dream about Neapoleone Buonaparte. So, whoever wants to waste time on it, by all means do but know that you're not watching a movie about Napoleon.
Hello Apostolic Majesty. New subscriber to the channel. Have you ever considered doing a video on Sir John Fortescue and his thoughts on medieval England being a realm of “dominium politicum et regale” in contrast to france? Or have you ever considered doing a video on the title of king vs emperor. Most people tend to overlook the republican roots of the latter and just assume it’s a kind of great king . Have a happy Christmas ,God bless you , Columba, Marcus and all of your guests.
@@dominicmorgan1685 Can you even begin to imagine the genius of Napoleon from the standpoint of making the Germans and the French fight together shoulder to shoulder in any scenario ????? !!!! Germans and French are like cats and dogs, no way would they work together on anything! They hate each other and nothing can make them cooperate..and yet, And yet, here's the brilliant Italian, descendant of Ancient Romans Napoleon WHO COULD! What a feat !
Can you even begin to imagine the genius of Napoleon from the standpoint of making the Germans and the French fight together shoulder to shoulder in any scenario ????? !!!! Germans and French are like cats and dogs, no way would they work together on anything! They hate each other and nothing can make them cooperate..and yet, And yet, here's the brilliant Italian, descendant of Ancient Romans Napoleon WHO COULD! What a feat !
You mean like adding Reinstating Slavery in the Code, or establishing a Police State or Mass Conscription of the French Youth....Which part of the Code do you want to show.
Scott really has a bad case of "Enlightenment brain." So much so it is affecting the quality of his films. Every chance he has to depict a nobility or a character with authority, he paints them comically incompetent and cruel. It almost appears to be some type of neurotic compulsion.
Scott has outed himself with Napoleon. The Napoleon we see depicted by Phoenix IS Ridley Scott. This is a confessional. Scott has an enormous Mommy Complex and this movie is the most extreme presentation of this in his films so far. But it's in EVERYTHING he's ever done.
Napoleon is definitely one of the most interesting historic figures. Whether you want to lionise, character assassinate or merely document him in factual detail Napoleon should come across as a compelling figure in the hands of someone with middling talent or better. This movie is truly an incredible achievement akin to missing a barn door with a shotgun at spitting distance.
Thank you so much for calling out how small the battles are. I got tired of reviewers saying that at least the battles were impressive. They were not. A big step back from 1970 film making.
If you are a Napoleon fan, then no....Expect Napoleon to be portrayed a lot worse....Expect more abuse of power and more military blunders with more scenes of comedic delusions
90 minutes into Napoleon I looked over at my wife and said “There seems to be about 2 hours of missing footage in this movie.” Got home and hit Google. Alas, there is a 4-hour cut. One which wouldn’t have cost us $75 and required fighting holiday parking traffic for an hour. Walk the Line was the first time Joaquin Phoenix was involved with a half-baked biographical movie. This time he took it to a new low. A grey, bland, dreary, scattered, hit piece on a pillar of Western Civilization.
You can come into film making from writing (all about the story/character arc), from ideology (all about the message) from acting (all about the performance), from love of film ( all about the hidden detail and references), or as Scott from making adverts (all about reinforcing stereotypes, playing to the crowd and visual arrestation).
Finally someone has called out the acting, phoenix has gone some great stuff but that doesn't exempt him from critisicm in this performance, it was pretty lazy and showed very few dimensions to such an iconic man with lots of different personality at different times, the writing didn't help but still
Yet who calls out the fake European narrative of glory and triumph with Napoleon when the truth was more of disgrace, disaster and defeat..... Ridley Scott, that's who.
make a new biopic movie called: "Ridley Scott" - biopic of Scott, make an epic trailer then make the movie itself ridiculous LOL get Joaquin Phoenix to play Ridley LOL bonus: film produced by Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon LOL
Tis absurdly fair to absurdly object to the absurd field Marshall Ridley and his absurd dreams of an Oscar. Apstolic Majesty is par excellence! Absurdly awesome all around good sir🎉
They'd rather make Napoleon Black then just tell the story of Toussaint Louvertere. Villain arc only if I'd made it but if they stuck to the truth it really makes it clear why the Europeans didn't trade with Haiti.
It’s ridiculous that Dracula the movie with Orlando bloom in it has more historical accuracies in it then Napoleon….. he’ll Lincoln vampire slayer might have a better historical tone than this garbage after Prometheus and alien covenant I’m done with Ridley Scott the old man can’t catch lighting anymore
Speaking of historical inaccuracies, how about the one where France claimed that it "triumphed" with Napoleon even though they failed miserably, ending in total defeat. Those phony French monuments of 'Napoleonic Triumph" are what are inaccurate.
People tend to overlook that ridley made many stinkers too like 1492 , someone to watch over me , GI jane hell i would even argue that his brother tony had a far more consistent output quality wise
That movie was absolute garbage. The ENTIRE Italian Campaign, which launched Napoleon's career, not Toulon, never mentioned. The ROSETTA STONE during the Egyptian Campaign, never mentioned. Trafalgar, one of the most important naval battles in HISTORY, never mentioned. The Pratzen Heights, PIVOTAL in the Battle of Austerlitz, never mentioned. Ridley Scott's Napoleon is a perfect mirror of the world in which we live in 2023; bland, dumbed down, over-sexualized, deconstructed, neutered; an instagram/twitter of Napoleon's life.
"He gives me serious Buffalo Bill vibes," 😂😂😂. "I'll just leave it there." "Running away like some sort of idiot." These lives could form an entire coffee table book!!!😅
I have to question why there's a lack of French accents. Kinda hurts the believability when Napoleon is speaking with an American accent. I mean based on what you've said in this and the previous video, the film's still bullshit but at least it would have been bullshit with the correct accent.
I don't know... Haven't seen the movie yet, but this would probably be one of the few things that wouldn't annoy me. Accents should be a thing when the characters are actually supposed to have them in their native language (like Mary Queen of Scots should speak English with a French accent or Kosciuszko should speak English with a Polish accent). But if we're watching foreign actors impersonating characters who would originally speak in a completely different language, then giving them an accent from that language makes it sound like that language is NOT their native one. Imagine a French movie about, say, Queen Victoria, played by French actors speaking French, but they're speaking French with an English accent. Would that make them sound more believable to the French audiences, help the audiences suspend their disbelief and enter the imaginary world of the movie as if they were witnessing the story from the inside - or would it sound like a caricature and take you out of the story? (the actor playing Victoria's husband should absolutely speak French with a German accent because the real man would have spoken English with a German accent).
@@AW-uv3cb Daniel day Lewis has no trouble doing the correct accent, find an actor that can, napoleons French accent Wasmt that good anyway so it'd be realistic, it's like giving Steve Irwin an American accent
Great to hear your thoughts AM. I watched the movie today and I really wanted to enjoy it but I couldnt't. I couldn't even suspend reality and try and look past how bad it is. It was as if there was no Napoleon.
I think ill add one more story concept to the list: Scott could have used napoleon and josephine to relate to the sort of meme young man and woman today and use their sorted "love" and the backdrop of historical events to make statements on this. Emotionally relate napoleon to a young man today. Characterize him with the frustration of both coming from privilege (aristocracy) and being artificially held back. Give him that "will to power or ill burn this town down" energy. Have it hit emotional notes similar to the pseudo incells who start hitting the gym and get into tate. Next wed emotionally chatacterize josephine as the tic tok/only fans type of woman. Make her the businesses savy forget the morality will to power type of woman. All thats left is supporting each characterizations through their historical journies and then focusing on the dynamic between the two while the history while their together is a fast paced backdrop.
I'd like to hear more about your opinion on Troy. I thought the fight scenes were great. Hector vs. Achilles was absolutely one of the best choreographed fights I've seen. Can't give the movie too much more than that however.
It is a tribute to masculine brotherhood and glorious in it's pursuit of aspiring to show that, it, in this time I would dare say holds more power I think than the Illiad at inspiring young men. Bana and Pitt left such an impression on me as a kid, they practically brought the figures of Hector and Achilles to life. This is not me saying the Iliad itself is below the movie but in a time such as this, imagery is what grips us, now more than ever.
I brought my girlfriend. She was UTTERLY lost. And despite her being not particularly fluent in history, luckily I talk to her about Napoleon so much even SHE was able to walk out and go “Well he wasn’t a good Napoleon.”
I think it will be a great film, despite its flaws. Sean Bean should’ve been and his 95th cohorts. They should make films, with historical focal points and characters, from all sides of a conflict. I haven’t seen it yet, so my judgment is reserved. But I know how films work, they always leave you wanting more. Suppose somehow, everyone got everything they wanted from it. There would’ve still be controversy and criticisms, of such a tumultuous saga and character. Reducing the focal point on Napoleon himself and bringing other popular figures more into it, may have deflected and diluted the spotlight and criticisms. But the heat and passion that one man still ignites, over 200 years later. Lends itself to promoting the film and the real history. Inspiring people to investigate for themselves and kindle a love of history in general. So important in our modern hectic world that younger generations remember the lessons of history. Many thanks.
We must be thinking of different films. Ridley Scott's film is an abortion of a character assassination with historical inaccuracies thrown about like cannon balls.
@@fus132 I have seen the review of it and I’ve seen lots of documentaries about Napoleon and I read the biography written by his brother, so there. Simply writing, “I haven’t seen it yet”, wouldn’t be the basis for criticism and suggestions for improvements. I already know everything there is to know about Napoleon, so why would I sit there watching someone else’s fictional movie about what they think Napoleon was like? Your boasting backfired, bc you’re the idiot who needs to be told what to think. Whereas I form my opinions and conclusions upon exhaustive research and investigations, so there 2. I rest my case and I hope this satisfies your little query, now I’ve corrected you? Have another go, if you think you’re smart enough? Somehow I doubt it asswipe.
great take. you'll also find that the soundtrack used for the russian campaign was one of martin phipp's pieces from a BBC War & Peace mini-series. Immersive yes, but surely this film deserved its own soundtrack!
I'm no fan of Napoleon & his constant warmongering but this Movie is just another Hollywood "deconstruction" of a Historical Figure that's absolute Garbage If Ridley Scott wanted to criticize Napoleon then he could've shown the cost of his Wars & the destruction that occurred throughout Europe during his 20 Years of nearly constant Warfare but this Simp like Figure is just ridiculous & has nothing to do with the actual Napoleon who was a talented General & did establish a modern State in France with his Legal reforms If you haven't seen it then please don't do it It's not worth your Money & Time Great Work like always AM
I agree with your take AM. I said on another channel that focusing on the establishment of the Continental system in the first act and the falling out with Czar Alexander would make an excellent film. That would allow the Russian campaign to take center stage. The third act would conclude with Leipzig and his abdication. You could sequel bait the 100 days with Elba. If Nolan does it, incorporating a death toll would actually work since he's obsessed with making us feel pressed for time.
Just watched Sergey Bondarchuk's highly praised 1970 "Waterloo." on TH-cam" with Rod Steiger, Christopher Plummer. Coherent characters, non-digital battle spectacle.
He forgot to mention Germany nearly at all. And also the other regions which have been mostly effected by being occupied. Switzerland, Italy and also the Benelux states. All much longer affected by Napoleon much longer than Spain. Just saying cause you named Spain first which seems to be rather a British perspective. One of course should mention Spain in a film about Napoleon since it suffers in same way like Italy or Germany. But the main army of Napoleon was fighting in central and Eastern Europe. The battle of Nations at Leipzig . A battle triple as big as Waterloo/Belle Alliance for and much more important since it broke the neck of the French army. Never gott mentioned. When looking at this and the Waterloo scenes I have to say the film was not only anti French but also anti German. How can you still believe the myths of Wellington. When half of the Allied losses were Germans and actually more Prussian soldiers died than true British soldiers.
How did you feel about the movie Desiree? I found this Romance Movie about including Napoleon, starting Marlon Brando, did an excellent job condensing Napoleon life into 2 hours
Unironically the bbc did a portrayal of Napoleon back in 2007 with Tom Burke as the title role that hit all these notes, he is I think a very good actor
'Always put an N after an A, when another vowel is on the way..or an H.'...otherwise the 'Americanisation' of the language, grates. Besides that, I enjoy your abilities.
Nobody mentions that Napoleon magnetized the best people of his time. And brought scientists to Egypt with him, like CHAMPOLION. Napoleon is the founder of Egyptology.
@@1ena585 Director Ridley-Diddly Squat's movie "Napoleon" is a Woke Culture's wet dream about Neapoleone Buonaparte. So, whoever wants to waste time on it, by all means do but know that you're not watching a movie about Napoleon.
Just seen the film,total waste of time,it went from the retreat from Moscow to his abdication,no mention of the battle of the nations at Leipzig,a three day battle with 124.000 deaths not even mentioned.Maybe the 4 hour directors cut will fill in some gaps,I bloody hope so for Scotts sake. I can’t believe the man who made The Duellists made this stinker.
This is what happens when feminism tries to write a film about something they have no business writing a film about. Reducing Napoleon to a SIMP is so “current day” it’s almost to painful to contemplate.
I suddenly remembered Lord Byron’s Ode to Napoleon Buonaparte, which I first came across in its musical setting by Schoenberg. Schoenberg’s setting, composed in 1942, pretty obviously uses Napoleon as a stand-in for Hitler. Byron’s Ode is a harsh attack on Napoleon. Weirdly for modern sensibilities,his main complaint against the Emperor is that he didn’t die an honourable death, either in battle or by suicide (something Hitler achieved). Even in Byron’s poem, where Napoleon’s worst attributes are being piled up, the unremittingly negative portrayal has coherence and plausibility.
"I can't commit a self lobotomy..." somehow I need interject that phrase into casual conversation. Ridley really knows nothing about Napoleon. An intellectual crime of movie making. Your take was much better than the movie.
The problem with the movie "Napoleon" is that an actor and a role for a character of the Slave Morality sort is cast into the role fitting for a man of Master Morality that Napoleon Bonaparte himself was.
3½ hour biography of Bonaparte: the entire story is Napoleon as viewed through the eyes of Baron Antoine-Henri de Jomini: a lifetime of imposing order on chaos, succeeding at first, then trying to smash chaos with sheer mass (increasingly monarchical power, Borodino), losing his surrogate military brain (Jomini, in Jomini’s own view) and his Empress (losing her twice: when he divorces her and when she dies), and en fin trying to simultaneously subjugate all of France with his army while simultaneously defeating the Anglo-Dutch and Prussian armies in a grand futile attempt to create order. I’d suggest making a 3 ½ hour biography of Bonaparte through the eyes of Clausewitz, but there is already a near-perfect film about Clausewitz (Crimson Tide) by Tony Scott.
The problem with the farcical movie "Napoleon" is that an actor and a role for a character of the Slave Morality sort is cast into the role fitting for a man of Master Morality that Napoleon Bonaparte himself was. The Republican Basis for Monarchy, the Senate & the Monarch as imperial Tribune of the People IS the Roman Way, and Napoleon faithfully promoted this formula of the SPQR as the First Consul and Emperor of the Franco-Italian European Empire. The one key difference arising from the basis in morality between Napoleon and Hitler is that the former harbored a positive life-goal while the latter only a negative life-goal, which is the difference between ancient statesmanship mastery and modern quasi-religious demagoguery for slaves.y
Ridley Scott hasn't made anything of note in years and I truly think he doesn't understand what made his early work so good when he makes trash like Alien Covenant or extremely shit lib versions of history like The Kingdom of Heaven.
I enjoyed the score of the movie initially...lots of mozart...almost like Napoleon total war! Its 3/4 through where music sounds almost aboriginal and more like "sounds" than music. I was so confused. Instead of playing Mozart's requiem it was mish mash of sounds/beat without any recognizeable tune.
I would like to add here that Joaquin I think did a great job as a renowned and credited actor of portraying what he was given, and I dont think it's fair to say HE blew it. I thought his work was actually the only credit this film could be given. The portrayal is horrifically inaccurate and... well... boats... but given the fact that the script is going that way I don't blame joaquin at all
We on our Political Side Need to start making our Own Films and animated Pictures. We should never let our resentful enemies ruin and B@stardise our own history for us.
Metternich was not sincere in his 1813 offers of an Austrian mediated general peace with Napoleon (as the Siemann biography argues), and it was in any case beyond his power to make one, as Napoleon suspected at the time. Napoleon at the time said that the scale of the concessions Austria demanded of him he would only make for the sake of a truly final general peace involving Britain, which Britain was not interested in and Austria could not offer (despite Lord Aberdeen sometimes being temporarily deceived into complying with negotiation on the spot, Castlereagh remained steadfast over Antwerp, Belgium, etc), as Napoleon knew. Austria could barely persuade the now messianic-minded Tsar to consider peace and the Prussians vacillated. The negotiations were not going to go anywhere, even if Metternich had, for the sake of the half-Hapsburg young Napoleon II and European balance of power, wished they would. He could not truly vouch for Russia or Britain's adhesion to such a peace and without that, given the extent of the demands, Napoleon could hardly accept what would then only have been a huge and humiliating bribe to buy Austrian neutrality at the price of Polish loyalties, still intact Italy, Illyria, and the Rhine Confederation. Metternich's proposals at Dresden were in the end only a justifying diplomatic smokescreen to enable Austria to honourably manoeuvre out of her nominal alliance with France and join the Sixth Coalition. Post-Leipzig the same still held, neither Russia nor Britain would have ultimately accepted the terms of Frankfurt, etc., even if Napoleon had seriously agreed to them, and whatever outcome would have come from further negotiation would likely have resulted in even harsher terms pushed on France, as Napoleon again knew, and so had little really to gain in giving up the struggle. When you're going to be forced to cede Belgium and return to 1791 borders anyway if you enter serious negotiation, then why not fight on in 1814 and throw all on a last gamble at a miracle military situation a la Frederick II as Napoleon did?
Ironically this is a rather deterministic view of history, determinism which would be the object of this film's scrutiny. I've considered most of the points you've raised here and would mostly agree with you regarding the implications, but would push back regarding Britain's ability to determine the peace (reminder that Belgium's sovereignty was in Austria's gift) and Metternich's Franco-Austrian strategic calculus. I would even add to buttress your argument that Napoleon had considered the effect of French public opinion, and the implications of such concessions on his political longevity. That and Coalition intrigues for regime change. My view in contrast to yours, is that Napoleon decided on a strategy of certain defeat, rather than the prospect of defeat. When making a Biopic, all of these implications, all of this complexity would only add nuance to his character. I have no interest in making a caricature as Scott has. Whether the Frankfurt Proposals would have preserved Napoleon is ultimately academic. The choice was afforded him and the question I would ask with Elba and Frankfurt is why Napoleon chose to fight. I wouldn't rob my Napoleon of agency to pander to a narrative of historical inevitability (whether to his credit or detriment).
@@ApostolicMajesty I'm certainly not trying to rob Napoleon of agency, I rather see him as trying desperately to retrieve it the only way possible: by seeking in 1813/14 still to undo (by an admittedly unlikely though not unprecedented or impossible military miracle) the strategic doom he had brought upon France in 1812. I suppose we disagree only on this being within the realms of possibility, or a reasonable and understandable (and not entirely selfish) judgement call by Napoleon, as well as some aspects of the alternatives presented to him. I can see what I wrote being deterministic only in the sense that trying to predict your opponents actions and basing your own on that prediction relies on applying some sort of mechanistic model, drawn from your own view of their past character and future interests, to construct the prediction. Certainly I reject historical inevitability, especially when such a personality as Napoleon is involved. My view would rather be that 1813/14 Napoleon gambled on the only strategy still containing some hope of delivering any kind of victory for France rather than accept the certain (in his, seemingly borne out by events, prediction), long-term and permanent, defeat of French power which a reversion to the 1791 borders entailed. A defeat not only for France and her national interests, but also for Metternich's cherished European balance of power interests, as well as for Napoleon personally and, likely, dynastically. Napoleon chose to fight on in 1814 surely because he felt it was the only chance he had to try and preserve the long-dreamed of natural borders/old Roman frontier won by the Revolution, and preserve his own regime. You can credit with sincerity or not his multiple statements in 1813/14 that to accept any diminution of the territory France had held when he swore his Coronation Oath in 1804 would mean he had forfeited his crown and betrayed the French People. He said it so much at the time it would seem fair to judge this really did hold some weight with him. He could not honourably (and no doubt here he blended national pride with some personal) end a decade of war with less than he started with, and if he did he felt he would sooner or later be deposed internally, and justly so. He said an ancient dynast like Francis of Austria could be beaten twenty times and still go home to a throne secure, but that for him, the founder of a new dynasty, such was not the case. Perhaps he misjudged war-weary French opinion here, in the short-term he probably did, in the long run who knows. Either way, by agreeing to 1791 borders he felt he would have betrayed the throne entrusted to him and left a terminally weakened France. It could be added that in Napoleon's mind, abandoning the pan-European truly imperial dream project he had still cherished hopes of pursuing until Leipzig, and reverting again to thinking merely in national French limits was already a huge mental concession for him personally. In late 1813 he accepted peace on the Frankfurt 'natural borders' terms, the borders he had inherited, the borders even Britain had internationally recognised as French by the Treaty of Amiens. The Coalition withdrew their offer (never genuine since Liverpool's government never countenanced France retaining Belgium) and insisted on 1791 borders. The Emperor saw the loss of Belgium as equalling surrender to Britain and permanent strategic French exposure. Cardinal Richelieu had after all said that Paris, being otherwise uncomfortably close to the frontier, could never sleep easy until Belgium was French. Were they wrong? The Emperor saw French possession of Antwerp (into which he had poured huge investment) as the key to a long-term Franco-British co-existence as equals ("Antwerp is a pistol pointed at England" - N.), without which Britain would have no more fear, and therefore no respect, for France. The Hapsburgs had formally ceded their rights over Belgium twice already to France at Leoben/Campo Formio and again at Luneville. Having irretrievably lost the colonial struggle, Belgium was the only ticket to France maintaining any lever of pressure on Britain. Later in 1815, the strategic aim of the Waterloo campaign, aside from dispelling the threat of Wellington & Blucher striking Paris, reopening the pool of Belgian manpower, and re-establishing an aura of Napoleonic glory, was the reintegration of Belgium and the restoration of that lever to France. Napoleon, by the catastrophe of the Russian campaign and the lost opportunities in the early 1813 campaign, had indeed put France in the bind by late 1813/1814, but you cannot blame 1813/14 Napoleon for perceiving the only way to get out of that long term strategic pit which France was otherwise to fall into for the next century and until the present was, after the Coalition rejected his acceptance of the Frankfurt terms, to gamble all on a military miracle in 1814. Rome against Hannibal, Heraclius against Persia, Frederick the Great: all emerged ultimately victorious from equally dire straits, even France in 1792. The Six Days 1814 campaign was a remarkable return to form and a whirlwind success which led to a repeated peace offer from the Coalition of 1791 borders. Napoleon gambled on needing only one more such success to push them back into offering the Frankfurt/natural borders he could accept. Had Talleyrand not betrayed Napoleon's movements and Paris' situation to the Coalition, the Emperor's manoeuvre to cut the Coalition lines of communication seemed set to deliver just such a victory and result in a full panicked fallback by the Coalition to the Rhine. Napoleon was trying to buck the path to French strategic defeat otherwise determined by 1812, but neither the French people nor the French elite were ultimately still with him to see it through. He was trying again to show the lie to all deterministic theories of history. He failed. But looking closely at the 1814 campaign and its myriad contingencies, not to mention the 1813 campaign, I would never say his failure was inevitable or his defeat certain until the Coalition occupied Paris (even there Frederick had survived the occupation of Berlin, but France is not Prussia and, as Napoleon said, Paris is France). Not fighting on at the beginning of 1814 seems to lead to certain defeat to me, not just for Napoleon but truly for France too, one last gamble when you have Napoleon's capabilities seems a fair throw of the dice, and the only faint hope in the circumstances of 1814 to avoid a France castrated and unable to properly play her Great Power part for the next century and beyond. I do wish your film ideas had got $200 million rather than Sir Ridley's unimaginative, dispiriting, and misleading mess.
Napoleon to Duc de Feltre [Clarke], 22 Feb. 1814. “As to your advice of making peace, it is too absurd: it is by cherishing such notions as this that public spirit is destroyed. Besides, it is supposing me either mad or stupid to imagine that, if I could conclude peace, I would not immediately do it. To the prevailing notion that it has been in my power to make peace for four months past, but that I declined doing so, must be attributed all the misfortunes of France. I expected, at least, to have been spared the pain of hearing such sentiments expressed.”
Some loose thoughts and ideas about "Napoleonic" cinema on a lesser scale, or, in the micro rather than the macro, if you will. Movies where you portray the shadow or footprint of Napoleon rather than the man himself. 1) A movie about a group of French bonapartists, their thoughts, aspirations and tribulations from 1814 and onwards. 2) A movie set during the final days of one of courts or governments of the "old world" regimes that Napoleon brought to an end - that could be a princely state in the HRE, the Serene Republic of Venice or some other smaller state. 3) Or, how about a movie set in the milieu of the French officers corps in the early 1800s? That at least could serve as a valid small period piece in its own right, showing their particular martial ethos and concepts of gentlemanly honour and the like... if only a young aspirational director had bothered to take up that idea ; )
I read about the death of napoleon, and his funeral, and it impressed me how much resect the British showed him and the people of st Helena... It's so sad how a man who once had all of Europe at his feet died the way napoleon did.
One day out riding on the Island of St Helena he rode past the British troop camp stationed there and they all stood and gave salutes to him which he gave them back, the governer was not best pleased to hear this lol.
Have you ever read Napoleon's letters to Josephine ? ~I don't see how you can say he was not "a simp" (your word). I can find you some quotes if you like
Totally tangential question in the nature of a survey: how do you pronounce "biopic"? I have always assumed it was a portmanteau of "biography" or "biographical" and "picture" and hence I say "bio-pic", maybe slightly stressing the bio, but really more like two words. Having watched a few Napoleon reviews on the last week, I've been reminded of how many people say BI-opic, or BIOP-ic. Naturally I was sure I was right and that someone as erudite as A.M. would be on side with me 😉. But his pronunciation of it smears a little into the biop-ic range sometimes, so now I'm insecure 😝. I know this chat will have a lot of literate folks from many different English speaking regions. How do you say it? Are there regionalisms to it? (I'm from the US Midwest but have lived in the South for years)
Napoleon was meglamanical adolescent, with a mother fixation...and too many people died, as a result.Thank the Lord for the Iron Duke, and Blucher..etc.
The one key difference arising from the basis in morality between Napoleon and Hitler is that the former harbored a positive life-goal while the latter only a negative life-goal, which is the difference between ancient statesmanship mastery and modern quasi-religious demagoguery for slaves.
It's not possible to make a true adaptation of Napoleon's entire life for the simple fact that the studio would have to show how Napoleon got beat by a small island called Haiti causing France to sell their land to the US. It would put the spotlight on to many injustices as shown in the New York times which would go against the agenda of modern day elites. The global population would cause chaos since most don't know anything about History and why so many African and Caribbeans countries are poor. Unless they create a water down version of how the greatest emperor of 50, 000 soldiers got whooped by a small nation with literally no real military training. 50, 000 soldiers which doesn't include other powerful nations. That's literally like some Anime Goku shit lol. Did you know that Haiti was one of the main sources of wealth that France had? Of course no adaptation of this guy ever shows that part. So Napoleon being accurate is irrelevant. It's all water down crap. The show Bolivar is a great example historically of how not to show the true force behind how that country really gained their freedom. President of Haiti, provided ships, soldiers, money and arms to support Simon Bolivar’s efforts to obtain the independence of South American countries. Yes, someone please do try and attempt at show the FULL life of Napoleon.
You write all that thinking black people are oh so oppressed by white people, that France would be embarrassed about Haiti, that black history in marginalised... And yet only last year The Woman King was released. A movie full of total lies saying the Kingdom of Dahomey was trying to stop slavery and they were underdogs against the evil whitey French. A movie bankrolled by Hollywood and we were all told if you don't watch it you're a racist. In reality the French were stopping them from continuing slavery and dahomey were fighting to keep slavery. A total lie in favour of black people at white people's expense making black people even more racist against white people, just like the black cleopatra, black hannibal, black vikings, black ancient British. All lies. You're really delusional if you think that the story of the Haitian revolt is suppressed by modern elites!
Haiti's history is fascinating and an important part of Napoleon's story (fun fact, I mean for others here, because I'm sure you know the story: Napoleon sent there his Polish troops, because they were some of his best and most loyal fighters - the Poles supported him because he had promised to recreate an independent Polish state, which was nonexistent at the time. But a lot of the Polish soldiers actually empathised with the Haitians' fight for freedom and decided to side with them and later settled there) - but I think you overestimate the effect that a movie depiction of the Napoleonic era in Haiti would have on the global population...
Thank you for the response. I think you severely underestimate visual literacy for the reason that most people do not read and it's much easier to spread information through that medium. There's something very important about how a collective perceived themselves and it's all based on knowledge and how they have access to information. Africa needs to be "poor" to sustain every first world nations. Most technologies depends on resources found in African countries that only those of melanin skin can extract. That's why cheap labor is necessary causing Africans to be poor. If Africa as a whole becomes successful then there's no more cheap labor and we're all already witnessing our current economy around the world struggling. African being aware of the history of Haiti on the world stage would literally cause a shift in how black people perceive themselves. That's the reason why Haiti was so dangerous not because of the freedom but because of what that freedom symbolized to the world. Haiti is a direct phycological reflection of how African see themselves on the world stage. If the first freed black republic becomes successful then Africa will follow. If Haiti stays poord then there Will never be any motivation for other black nations. Jamaica is entirely dependent on China to grow and same goes for other black populated countries. What's happening currently in Congo and Burkina Faso etcc are great examples. The reaction of this film shows that a better version of Napoleon with Haiti in it will widely be popular on even a black panther level. There's a domino effect waiting to happen if people begin to grow an interest in those kind of things and only a water down version will ever be shown. It's incredible how the people who talk about those stuff online do not represent the average person on the street who literally have zero knowledge of major historical events and can only care about stuff if it's perceived as "cool". The fact that a skin bleaching industry strives in some African countries shows how black people perceive themselves. Mainly because there's not enough content in which they can relate to. The only current contents available use negative stereotypes. That's why a boring movie like black panther can become a massive hit because it's so rare to see a decent portrayal of black people that it instantly because profitable. Most ethnicities have reached their peaks when it comes to Art for example Akira Kurosawa represents the peak of Asian Art or maybe it's anime lol Art is the most powerful weapon. When a civilization falls only one thing is remembered. Only one thing remains.
The adaption doesn't show that because despite all the other ahistory in this movie even it has no way for Napoleon to go to Haiti because Napoleon never once went to Haiti. Or North America. Or South America. Or Australia. Or Antarctica. Or gave any of them much thought at all either. I mean what, like you wanted the rest of the movie to just be him telling people what he wants to them to do in Haiti who then leave and have him occasionally receive and read some letters about it from them and write replies? It's clear Ridley Scott would have made that dumb too, he'd just have him briefly speak with 3 or 4 other guys in Europe about it for 2 minutes then have him go think about sniffing Josephine's feet or something else pathetic. Immediately cut to some other totally unrelated scene with no follow up or explanation of how we got there. While having scenes of him talking about Haiti and just how much he hates those pesky uppity Haitians and how he wants to come personally reinslave them hard for being freed blacks that are thousands of miles away sounds like something Ridley Scott might have done in this movie it would have left less time for awkward sex scenes. And Napoleon brooding about his life as Josephine's simp orbiter. It would detract from Ridley's artistic vision. Or maybe it's also because Haiti was just not a major event of his life. Kinda busy fighting a total of 60 major battles in Europe In just a bit over 2 decades and only losing 6 times. Kinda busy totally reforming France and changing European society in general and fighting the other European monarchies who kept declaring war on the French for some reason with the stated intention of overthrowing the government and restoring the Bourbons. Dunno. Might be more pressing to him. Maybe the world does not revolve around the past mistreatment of black people by other races. The movie was about a European man in Europe. But God this movie sucked. I'd rather read your comment over and over then sit through all that again.
@@RocketPropelledGuyI actually haven't seen the movie yet lol I'm only here cause this channel has fascinating angles on storytelling which I'm learning from to improve a novel about Haiti lmao
I liked the extended KOH. I thought it was a fine epic. I will not be seeing Napoleon, shooting his cannons at the pyramids just sounds fuckin stupid. He loved Egypt, he would never do anything so reckless. Shooting the nose off of the sphinx would have made more sense to include even if thats also total bullshit.
As an antidote to this film, I would encourage people to go out and learn more about the real Napoleon. To start you can find my Napoleon content linked here:
Napoleon's Empire: th-cam.com/video/431_pGbMU1A/w-d-xo.html
Napoleon's Wars: th-cam.com/video/qIzlfGXFiPY/w-d-xo.html , th-cam.com/video/F8EEXWyM92Y/w-d-xo.html
Napoleon's Grand Strategy: th-cam.com/video/Bu_INn3goHA/w-d-xo.html
Why Napoleon Failed: th-cam.com/video/0-dcp2uSDT4/w-d-xo.html
Napoleon After Elba (Alternative History): th-cam.com/video/-RhGljRaaaQ/w-d-xo.html
ty for bring up the volume from the last
Director Ridley-Diddly Squat's movie "Napoleon" is a Woke Culture's wet dream about Neapoleone Buonaparte. So, whoever wants to waste time on it, by all means do but know that you're not watching a movie about Napoleon.
Hello Apostolic Majesty. New subscriber to the channel. Have you ever considered doing a video on Sir John Fortescue and his thoughts on medieval England being a realm of “dominium politicum et regale” in contrast to france? Or have you ever considered doing a video on the title of king vs emperor. Most people tend to overlook the republican roots of the latter and just assume it’s a kind of great king . Have a happy Christmas ,God bless you , Columba, Marcus and all of your guests.
@@dominicmorgan1685 Can you even begin to imagine the genius of Napoleon from the standpoint of making the Germans and the French fight together shoulder to shoulder in any scenario ????? !!!! Germans and French are like cats and dogs, no way would they work together on anything! They hate each other and nothing can make them cooperate..and yet,
And yet, here's the brilliant Italian, descendant of Ancient Romans Napoleon WHO COULD! What a feat !
Can you even begin to imagine the genius of Napoleon from the standpoint of making the Germans and the French fight together shoulder to shoulder in any scenario ????? !!!! Germans and French are like cats and dogs, no way would they work together on anything! They hate each other and nothing can make them cooperate..and yet,
And yet, here's the brilliant Italian, descendant of Ancient Romans Napoleon WHO COULD! What a feat !
You made it 6 minutes and 18 seconds before saying "absurd"
Tbf it's best word for this film
He was angry with himself in Discord for saying it. Hahaha.
Should've been just Napoleon sitting in a room, thinking deeply, occasionally writing additions to his Napoleonic Code.
'Je suis assis dans une pièce...'
You mean like adding Reinstating Slavery in the Code, or establishing a Police State or Mass Conscription of the French Youth....Which part of the Code do you want to show.
@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators do you always like your own comments?
@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators Imagine being bitter about Napoleon two centuries after he died.
@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators
Did you change your name just to insult people who don’t like a movie?? DUDE! 😂😂😂
Scott really has a bad case of "Enlightenment brain." So much so it is affecting the quality of his films.
Every chance he has to depict a nobility or a character with authority, he paints them comically incompetent and cruel.
It almost appears to be some type of neurotic compulsion.
You don't think Marcus Aurelius in Gladiator was a noble character with authority ?
@@candidbowyer4625 He wanted to return to a Republican (enlightenment) government…
Scott has outed himself with Napoleon. The Napoleon we see depicted by Phoenix IS Ridley Scott. This is a confessional. Scott has an enormous Mommy Complex and this movie is the most extreme presentation of this in his films so far. But it's in EVERYTHING he's ever done.
You didn't answer the question here....@@rebaser6172
Napoleon is definitely one of the most interesting historic figures. Whether you want to lionise, character assassinate or merely document him in factual detail Napoleon should come across as a compelling figure in the hands of someone with middling talent or better. This movie is truly an incredible achievement akin to missing a barn door with a shotgun at spitting distance.
Napoleon falling down and running to escape out the door is a hidden monty python skit.
I literally thought the same thing! Lol.
th-cam.com/video/1dZXp49ANm0/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=Brumaireist
My favorite line was when he said you think you’re so great because you have boats. 😂oh god my sides .
Thank you so much for calling out how small the battles are. I got tired of reviewers saying that at least the battles were impressive. They were not. A big step back from 1970 film making.
This was the best deconstruction by far I've seen , thanks
can't wait for the digitally remastered director's cut blu-ray in vibrant color and with "lost scenes" restored.
If you are a Napoleon fan, then no....Expect Napoleon to be portrayed a lot worse....Expect more abuse of power and more military blunders with more scenes of comedic delusions
I can.
you the reason movie keep getting bad ...
@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators Common "RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators" L
90 minutes into Napoleon I looked over at my wife and said “There seems to be about 2 hours of missing footage in this movie.”
Got home and hit Google. Alas, there is a 4-hour cut. One which wouldn’t have cost us $75 and required fighting holiday parking traffic for an hour.
Walk the Line was the first time Joaquin Phoenix was involved with a half-baked biographical movie.
This time he took it to a new low.
A grey, bland, dreary, scattered, hit piece on a pillar of Western Civilization.
You can come into film making from writing (all about the story/character arc), from ideology (all about the message) from acting (all about the performance), from love of film ( all about the hidden detail and references), or as Scott from making adverts (all about reinforcing stereotypes, playing to the crowd and visual arrestation).
Finally someone has called out the acting, phoenix has gone some great stuff but that doesn't exempt him from critisicm in this performance, it was pretty lazy and showed very few dimensions to such an iconic man with lots of different personality at different times, the writing didn't help but still
Yet who calls out the fake European narrative of glory and triumph with Napoleon when the truth was more of disgrace, disaster and defeat..... Ridley Scott, that's who.
@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators the only think you'll conquer is wanking yourself silly
@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators Okay sure they are "called out"--by a fucking terrible movie
@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators Common "RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators" L
make a new biopic movie called:
"Ridley Scott" - biopic of Scott, make an epic trailer
then make the movie itself ridiculous LOL
get Joaquin Phoenix to play Ridley LOL
bonus: film produced by Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon LOL
🤣🤣🤣
Absurdly excellent work, as always AM!
I like your version better than the version we got. Interesting takes as always.
I love when AM get's salty and makes a rage vid
Agreed. Need more of this.
Tis absurdly fair to absurdly object to the absurd field Marshall Ridley and his absurd dreams of an Oscar. Apstolic Majesty is par excellence! Absurdly awesome all around good sir🎉
Talking with my father about the film. He heard it was 90% about Josephine, but he was just content that it wasn't Napoléon featuring "Joseph" 😁
You got me; had to think about that for a minute lol
That'll be in the remake, when Napoleonic is portrayed as black.
They'd rather make Napoleon Black then just tell the story of Toussaint Louvertere. Villain arc only if I'd made it but if they stuck to the truth it really makes it clear why the Europeans didn't trade with Haiti.
I enjoyed the film Waterloo, but I understand the Tsar's army is a little busy these days.
Happy days
Happy Christmas
I am much humbled. Thank you so very much!
It’s ridiculous that Dracula the movie with Orlando bloom in it has more historical accuracies in it then Napoleon….. he’ll Lincoln vampire slayer might have a better historical tone than this garbage after Prometheus and alien covenant I’m done with Ridley Scott the old man can’t catch lighting anymore
Speaking of historical inaccuracies, how about the one where France claimed that it "triumphed" with Napoleon even though they failed miserably, ending in total defeat. Those phony French monuments of 'Napoleonic Triumph" are what are inaccurate.
People tend to overlook that ridley made many stinkers too like 1492 , someone to watch over me , GI jane
hell i would even argue that his brother tony had a far more consistent output quality wise
That movie was absolute garbage. The ENTIRE Italian Campaign, which launched Napoleon's career, not Toulon, never mentioned. The ROSETTA STONE during the Egyptian Campaign, never mentioned. Trafalgar, one of the most important naval battles in HISTORY, never mentioned. The Pratzen Heights, PIVOTAL in the Battle of Austerlitz, never mentioned. Ridley Scott's Napoleon is a perfect mirror of the world in which we live in 2023; bland, dumbed down, over-sexualized, deconstructed, neutered; an instagram/twitter of Napoleon's life.
I like the dark comedy idea, could have a similar feel as "The Death of Stalin". Could be a lot of fun.
If i was going to write a script for Napoleon, i would portray Napoleon as on a quest to become the next Charlemagne.
Scott to Phoenix: "Your faults as an actor is my failure as a director..."
Just superlative, AM-so valuable for all of us who are historically-minded to contemplate your perceptions and conclusions.
Sent by Morgoth.
Glorious!
Scathing, cruel and WONDERFUL analysis. Love that you calmy reminded the Francophiles that Bonaparte was Corsican.
That was brilliant your majesty.
"He gives me serious Buffalo Bill vibes," 😂😂😂. "I'll just leave it there." "Running away like some sort of idiot." These lives could form an entire coffee table book!!!😅
Thank you for being audible this time!
Still not sure if the movie was about Napoleon Bonaparte or Napoleon Dynamite..
I have to question why there's a lack of French accents. Kinda hurts the believability when Napoleon is speaking with an American accent. I mean based on what you've said in this and the previous video, the film's still bullshit but at least it would have been bullshit with the correct accent.
It was painful to hear, I don't know where your from but imagine your national icon with a different accent
I don't know... Haven't seen the movie yet, but this would probably be one of the few things that wouldn't annoy me. Accents should be a thing when the characters are actually supposed to have them in their native language (like Mary Queen of Scots should speak English with a French accent or Kosciuszko should speak English with a Polish accent). But if we're watching foreign actors impersonating characters who would originally speak in a completely different language, then giving them an accent from that language makes it sound like that language is NOT their native one.
Imagine a French movie about, say, Queen Victoria, played by French actors speaking French, but they're speaking French with an English accent. Would that make them sound more believable to the French audiences, help the audiences suspend their disbelief and enter the imaginary world of the movie as if they were witnessing the story from the inside - or would it sound like a caricature and take you out of the story? (the actor playing Victoria's husband should absolutely speak French with a German accent because the real man would have spoken English with a German accent).
@@AW-uv3cb Daniel day Lewis has no trouble doing the correct accent, find an actor that can, napoleons French accent Wasmt that good anyway so it'd be realistic, it's like giving Steve Irwin an American accent
Bad French accents from non-Francophone actors would be worse.
I have strong urge to watch War and Peace again.
Great to hear your thoughts AM. I watched the movie today and I really wanted to enjoy it but I couldnt't. I couldn't even suspend reality and try and look past how bad it is. It was as if there was no Napoleon.
I think ill add one more story concept to the list:
Scott could have used napoleon and josephine to relate to the sort of meme young man and woman today and use their sorted "love" and the backdrop of historical events to make statements on this.
Emotionally relate napoleon to a young man today. Characterize him with the frustration of both coming from privilege (aristocracy) and being artificially held back. Give him that "will to power or ill burn this town down" energy. Have it hit emotional notes similar to the pseudo incells who start hitting the gym and get into tate.
Next wed emotionally chatacterize josephine as the tic tok/only fans type of woman. Make her the businesses savy forget the morality will to power type of woman.
All thats left is supporting each characterizations through their historical journies and then focusing on the dynamic between the two while the history while their together is a fast paced backdrop.
I'd like to hear more about your opinion on Troy. I thought the fight scenes were great. Hector vs. Achilles was absolutely one of the best choreographed fights I've seen. Can't give the movie too much more than that however.
It is a tribute to masculine brotherhood and glorious in it's pursuit of aspiring to show that, it, in this time I would dare say holds more power I think than the Illiad at inspiring young men. Bana and Pitt left such an impression on me as a kid, they practically brought the figures of Hector and Achilles to life.
This is not me saying the Iliad itself is below the movie but in a time such as this, imagery is what grips us, now more than ever.
I brought my girlfriend. She was UTTERLY lost. And despite her being not particularly fluent in history, luckily I talk to her about Napoleon so much even SHE was able to walk out and go “Well he wasn’t a good Napoleon.”
I agree with you completely. I don't know the history and didn't understand why he was fighting or how his army won their battles.
Or how they lost their battles either.....that is the point, the LOSING part.
@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators Common "RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators" L
We would have been better off if Quentin Tarantino made Napoleon.
I think it will be a great film, despite its flaws. Sean Bean should’ve been and his 95th cohorts.
They should make films, with historical focal points and characters, from all sides of a conflict.
I haven’t seen it yet, so my judgment is reserved. But I know how films work, they always leave you wanting more.
Suppose somehow, everyone got everything they wanted from it. There would’ve still be controversy and criticisms, of such a tumultuous saga and character.
Reducing the focal point on Napoleon himself and bringing other popular figures more into it, may have deflected and diluted the spotlight and criticisms. But the heat and passion that one man still ignites, over 200 years later. Lends itself to promoting the film and the real history. Inspiring people to investigate for themselves and kindle a love of history in general. So important in our modern hectic world that younger generations remember the lessons of history.
Many thanks.
Shsrpe cameo yes pl3aze
We must be thinking of different films. Ridley Scott's film is an abortion of a character assassination with historical inaccuracies thrown about like cannon balls.
@@samhavoc1066 Yeah so having Richard Sharpe in it wouldn’t be that far fetched. You don’t think that’s the real life Napoleon Bonaparte do you?
" I haven’t seen it yet,"
Should've written just that.
@@fus132 I have seen the review of it and I’ve seen lots of documentaries about Napoleon and I read the biography written by his brother, so there.
Simply writing, “I haven’t seen it yet”, wouldn’t be the basis for criticism and suggestions for improvements.
I already know everything there is to know about Napoleon, so why would I sit there watching someone else’s fictional movie about what they think Napoleon was like?
Your boasting backfired, bc you’re the idiot who needs to be told what to think. Whereas I form my opinions and conclusions upon exhaustive research and investigations, so there 2.
I rest my case and I hope this satisfies your little query, now I’ve corrected you?
Have another go, if you think you’re smart enough? Somehow I doubt it asswipe.
great take. you'll also find that the soundtrack used for the russian campaign was one of martin phipp's pieces from a BBC War & Peace mini-series. Immersive yes, but surely this film deserved its own soundtrack!
I would have preferred Napoleon if they had cast a BIPOC actor in the lead role.
We wuz the revolution
Waterloo as a battle was somehow made worse in this film then the one from the 1970s.
The Lion of Naples was an Italian descendant of Ancient Romans. Not a Frenchman.
He says that
@@madeinengland1212 kind of. It requires a stronger emphasis, and which is why I posted it
I'm no fan of Napoleon & his constant warmongering but this Movie is just another Hollywood "deconstruction" of a Historical Figure that's absolute Garbage If Ridley Scott wanted to criticize Napoleon then he could've shown the cost of his Wars & the destruction that occurred throughout Europe during his 20 Years of nearly constant Warfare but this Simp like Figure is just ridiculous & has nothing to do with the actual Napoleon who was a talented General & did establish a modern State in France with his Legal reforms If you haven't seen it then please don't do it It's not worth your Money & Time Great Work like always AM
I agree with your take AM. I said on another channel that focusing on the establishment of the Continental system in the first act and the falling out with Czar Alexander would make an excellent film. That would allow the Russian campaign to take center stage. The third act would conclude with Leipzig and his abdication. You could sequel bait the 100 days with Elba.
If Nolan does it, incorporating a death toll would actually work since he's obsessed with making us feel pressed for time.
Paintings are the best source material. Scott and production did a fantastic job.
Thank you for doing this. God how bad was that movie? Well I'll just say you were too generous with your criticism. Lol
Damn, son. You good at re-writing stuff.
Just watched Sergey Bondarchuk's highly praised 1970 "Waterloo." on TH-cam" with Rod Steiger, Christopher Plummer. Coherent characters, non-digital battle spectacle.
He forgot to mention Germany nearly at all. And also the other regions which have been mostly effected by being occupied. Switzerland, Italy and also the Benelux states. All much longer affected by Napoleon much longer than Spain. Just saying cause you named Spain first which seems to be rather a British perspective. One of course should mention Spain in a film about Napoleon since it suffers in same way like Italy or Germany. But the main army of Napoleon was fighting in central and Eastern Europe. The battle of Nations at Leipzig . A battle triple as big as Waterloo/Belle Alliance for and much more important since it broke the neck of the French army. Never gott mentioned. When looking at this and the Waterloo scenes I have to say the film was not only anti French but also anti German. How can you still believe the myths of Wellington. When half of the Allied losses were Germans and actually more Prussian soldiers died than true British soldiers.
How did you feel about the movie Desiree? I found this Romance Movie about including Napoleon, starting Marlon Brando, did an excellent job condensing Napoleon life into 2 hours
Unironically the bbc did a portrayal of Napoleon back in 2007 with Tom Burke as the title role that hit all these notes, he is I think a very good actor
'Always put an N after an A, when another vowel is on the way..or an H.'...otherwise the 'Americanisation' of the language, grates.
Besides that, I enjoy your abilities.
I’ve already laughed out loud four or five times at 15 minutes in…
Vivat in aeturnum
A deeply wounded narcissist, incable of acting except out of his own perceived self-interest, or out of revenge.
Nobody mentions that Napoleon magnetized the best people of his time.
And brought scientists to Egypt with him, like CHAMPOLION. Napoleon is the founder of Egyptology.
And finally ended white slavery and barbary piracy
Champollion was nine at that time, he wasn't part of the expedition.
@@1ena585 Director Ridley-Diddly Squat's movie "Napoleon" is a Woke Culture's wet dream about Neapoleone Buonaparte. So, whoever wants to waste time on it, by all means do but know that you're not watching a movie about Napoleon.
I haven't got a boat.
Just seen the film,total waste of time,it went from the retreat from Moscow to his abdication,no mention of the battle of the nations at Leipzig,a three day battle with 124.000 deaths not even mentioned.Maybe the 4 hour directors cut will fill in some gaps,I bloody hope so for Scotts sake. I can’t believe the man who made The Duellists made this stinker.
This is what happens when feminism tries to write a film about something they have no business writing a film about. Reducing Napoleon to a SIMP is so “current day” it’s almost to painful to contemplate.
I suddenly remembered Lord Byron’s Ode to Napoleon Buonaparte, which I first came across in its musical setting by Schoenberg. Schoenberg’s setting, composed in 1942, pretty obviously uses Napoleon as a stand-in for Hitler.
Byron’s Ode is a harsh attack on Napoleon. Weirdly for modern sensibilities,his main complaint against the Emperor is that he didn’t die an honourable death, either in battle or by suicide (something Hitler achieved).
Even in Byron’s poem, where Napoleon’s worst attributes are being piled up, the unremittingly negative portrayal has coherence and plausibility.
"I can't commit a self lobotomy..." somehow I need interject that phrase into casual conversation. Ridley really knows nothing about Napoleon. An intellectual crime of movie making. Your take was much better than the movie.
The problem with the movie "Napoleon" is that an actor and a role for a character of the Slave Morality sort is cast into the role fitting for a man of Master Morality that Napoleon Bonaparte himself was.
Very good sir!
3½ hour biography of Bonaparte: the entire story is Napoleon as viewed through the eyes of Baron Antoine-Henri de Jomini: a lifetime of imposing order on chaos, succeeding at first, then trying to smash chaos with sheer mass (increasingly monarchical power, Borodino), losing his surrogate military brain (Jomini, in Jomini’s own view) and his Empress (losing her twice: when he divorces her and when she dies), and en fin trying to simultaneously subjugate all of France with his army while simultaneously defeating the Anglo-Dutch and Prussian armies in a grand futile attempt to create order.
I’d suggest making a 3 ½ hour biography of Bonaparte through the eyes of Clausewitz, but there is already a near-perfect film about Clausewitz (Crimson Tide) by Tony Scott.
“This film is rotten to the core…”. Utterly true. Absolutely irresponsible & irredeemable.
The problem with the farcical movie "Napoleon" is that an actor and a role for a character of the Slave Morality sort is cast into the role fitting for a man of Master Morality that Napoleon Bonaparte himself was.
The Republican Basis for Monarchy, the Senate & the Monarch as imperial Tribune of the People IS the Roman Way, and Napoleon faithfully promoted this formula of the SPQR as the First Consul and Emperor of the Franco-Italian European Empire.
The one key difference arising from the basis in morality between Napoleon and Hitler is that the former harbored a positive life-goal while the latter only a negative life-goal, which is the difference between ancient statesmanship mastery and modern quasi-religious demagoguery for slaves.y
Ridley Scott hasn't made anything of note in years and I truly think he doesn't understand what made his early work so good when he makes trash like Alien Covenant or extremely shit lib versions of history like The Kingdom of Heaven.
This movie would be a casual belli against perfidious Albion in more serious times.
Napoleon as emperor of France is no better or worse than any King or Queen of any Royal kingdom or country.
I enjoyed the score of the movie initially...lots of mozart...almost like Napoleon total war!
Its 3/4 through where music sounds almost aboriginal and more like "sounds" than music. I was so confused. Instead of playing Mozart's requiem it was mish mash of sounds/beat without any recognizeable tune.
Thanks, AM. Can you recommend any biographies of Napoleon for a popular audience?
The one by the British historian Andrew Roberts seems good and balanced.
iirc the correct term for "napoleonophiles" is "bonéboos"
It's "Napoleonists"
The rewrite we needed, and that Napoleon deserved
Very good video: can I ask in future that you’d not drink while talking, just mute when you swallow? Cheers
What about Carry on Napoleon...damn..Ridley got there, first..🧐
I would like to add here that Joaquin I think did a great job as a renowned and credited actor of portraying what he was given, and I dont think it's fair to say HE blew it. I thought his work was actually the only credit this film could be given. The portrayal is horrifically inaccurate and... well... boats... but given the fact that the script is going that way I don't blame joaquin at all
We on our Political Side Need to start making our Own Films and animated Pictures. We should never let our resentful enemies ruin and B@stardise our own history for us.
What is the name of the Renaissace piece in the intro? Seems to be a setting of the song of songs
Nigra sum sed formosa
@@Doin1er By whom? There are like a thousand pieces with that text composed in this era
@@fritzw.5057 Tomás Luis de Victoria
@@ApostolicMajesty Thank you very much!
Review the script of Kubrick's Napoleon Script
Personally im looking forward to James Cameron's Napoleons
Metternich was not sincere in his 1813 offers of an Austrian mediated general peace with Napoleon (as the Siemann biography argues), and it was in any case beyond his power to make one, as Napoleon suspected at the time.
Napoleon at the time said that the scale of the concessions Austria demanded of him he would only make for the sake of a truly final general peace involving Britain, which Britain was not interested in and Austria could not offer (despite Lord Aberdeen sometimes being temporarily deceived into complying with negotiation on the spot, Castlereagh remained steadfast over Antwerp, Belgium, etc), as Napoleon knew. Austria could barely persuade the now messianic-minded Tsar to consider peace and the Prussians vacillated. The negotiations were not going to go anywhere, even if Metternich had, for the sake of the half-Hapsburg young Napoleon II and European balance of power, wished they would. He could not truly vouch for Russia or Britain's adhesion to such a peace and without that, given the extent of the demands, Napoleon could hardly accept what would then only have been a huge and humiliating bribe to buy Austrian neutrality at the price of Polish loyalties, still intact Italy, Illyria, and the Rhine Confederation. Metternich's proposals at Dresden were in the end only a justifying diplomatic smokescreen to enable Austria to honourably manoeuvre out of her nominal alliance with France and join the Sixth Coalition.
Post-Leipzig the same still held, neither Russia nor Britain would have ultimately accepted the terms of Frankfurt, etc., even if Napoleon had seriously agreed to them, and whatever outcome would have come from further negotiation would likely have resulted in even harsher terms pushed on France, as Napoleon again knew, and so had little really to gain in giving up the struggle.
When you're going to be forced to cede Belgium and return to 1791 borders anyway if you enter serious negotiation, then why not fight on in 1814 and throw all on a last gamble at a miracle military situation a la Frederick II as Napoleon did?
Ironically this is a rather deterministic view of history, determinism which would be the object of this film's scrutiny. I've considered most of the points you've raised here and would mostly agree with you regarding the implications, but would push back regarding Britain's ability to determine the peace (reminder that Belgium's sovereignty was in Austria's gift) and Metternich's Franco-Austrian strategic calculus. I would even add to buttress your argument that Napoleon had considered the effect of French public opinion, and the implications of such concessions on his political longevity. That and Coalition intrigues for regime change. My view in contrast to yours, is that Napoleon decided on a strategy of certain defeat, rather than the prospect of defeat.
When making a Biopic, all of these implications, all of this complexity would only add nuance to his character. I have no interest in making a caricature as Scott has. Whether the Frankfurt Proposals would have preserved Napoleon is ultimately academic. The choice was afforded him and the question I would ask with Elba and Frankfurt is why Napoleon chose to fight. I wouldn't rob my Napoleon of agency to pander to a narrative of historical inevitability (whether to his credit or detriment).
@@ApostolicMajesty I'm certainly not trying to rob Napoleon of agency, I rather see him as trying desperately to retrieve it the only way possible: by seeking in 1813/14 still to undo (by an admittedly unlikely though not unprecedented or impossible military miracle) the strategic doom he had brought upon France in 1812. I suppose we disagree only on this being within the realms of possibility, or a reasonable and understandable (and not entirely selfish) judgement call by Napoleon, as well as some aspects of the alternatives presented to him.
I can see what I wrote being deterministic only in the sense that trying to predict your opponents actions and basing your own on that prediction relies on applying some sort of mechanistic model, drawn from your own view of their past character and future interests, to construct the prediction. Certainly I reject historical inevitability, especially when such a personality as Napoleon is involved. My view would rather be that 1813/14 Napoleon gambled on the only strategy still containing some hope of delivering any kind of victory for France rather than accept the certain (in his, seemingly borne out by events, prediction), long-term and permanent, defeat of French power which a reversion to the 1791 borders entailed. A defeat not only for France and her national interests, but also for Metternich's cherished European balance of power interests, as well as for Napoleon personally and, likely, dynastically.
Napoleon chose to fight on in 1814 surely because he felt it was the only chance he had to try and preserve the long-dreamed of natural borders/old Roman frontier won by the Revolution, and preserve his own regime. You can credit with sincerity or not his multiple statements in 1813/14 that to accept any diminution of the territory France had held when he swore his Coronation Oath in 1804 would mean he had forfeited his crown and betrayed the French People. He said it so much at the time it would seem fair to judge this really did hold some weight with him. He could not honourably (and no doubt here he blended national pride with some personal) end a decade of war with less than he started with, and if he did he felt he would sooner or later be deposed internally, and justly so. He said an ancient dynast like Francis of Austria could be beaten twenty times and still go home to a throne secure, but that for him, the founder of a new dynasty, such was not the case. Perhaps he misjudged war-weary French opinion here, in the short-term he probably did, in the long run who knows. Either way, by agreeing to 1791 borders he felt he would have betrayed the throne entrusted to him and left a terminally weakened France.
It could be added that in Napoleon's mind, abandoning the pan-European truly imperial dream project he had still cherished hopes of pursuing until Leipzig, and reverting again to thinking merely in national French limits was already a huge mental concession for him personally.
In late 1813 he accepted peace on the Frankfurt 'natural borders' terms, the borders he had inherited, the borders even Britain had internationally recognised as French by the Treaty of Amiens. The Coalition withdrew their offer (never genuine since Liverpool's government never countenanced France retaining Belgium) and insisted on 1791 borders. The Emperor saw the loss of Belgium as equalling surrender to Britain and permanent strategic French exposure. Cardinal Richelieu had after all said that Paris, being otherwise uncomfortably close to the frontier, could never sleep easy until Belgium was French. Were they wrong? The Emperor saw French possession of Antwerp (into which he had poured huge investment) as the key to a long-term Franco-British co-existence as equals ("Antwerp is a pistol pointed at England" - N.), without which Britain would have no more fear, and therefore no respect, for France. The Hapsburgs had formally ceded their rights over Belgium twice already to France at Leoben/Campo Formio and again at Luneville. Having irretrievably lost the colonial struggle, Belgium was the only ticket to France maintaining any lever of pressure on Britain. Later in 1815, the strategic aim of the Waterloo campaign, aside from dispelling the threat of Wellington & Blucher striking Paris, reopening the pool of Belgian manpower, and re-establishing an aura of Napoleonic glory, was the reintegration of Belgium and the restoration of that lever to France.
Napoleon, by the catastrophe of the Russian campaign and the lost opportunities in the early 1813 campaign, had indeed put France in the bind by late 1813/1814, but you cannot blame 1813/14 Napoleon for perceiving the only way to get out of that long term strategic pit which France was otherwise to fall into for the next century and until the present was, after the Coalition rejected his acceptance of the Frankfurt terms, to gamble all on a military miracle in 1814. Rome against Hannibal, Heraclius against Persia, Frederick the Great: all emerged ultimately victorious from equally dire straits, even France in 1792. The Six Days 1814 campaign was a remarkable return to form and a whirlwind success which led to a repeated peace offer from the Coalition of 1791 borders. Napoleon gambled on needing only one more such success to push them back into offering the Frankfurt/natural borders he could accept. Had Talleyrand not betrayed Napoleon's movements and Paris' situation to the Coalition, the Emperor's manoeuvre to cut the Coalition lines of communication seemed set to deliver just such a victory and result in a full panicked fallback by the Coalition to the Rhine. Napoleon was trying to buck the path to French strategic defeat otherwise determined by 1812, but neither the French people nor the French elite were ultimately still with him to see it through.
He was trying again to show the lie to all deterministic theories of history. He failed. But looking closely at the 1814 campaign and its myriad contingencies, not to mention the 1813 campaign, I would never say his failure was inevitable or his defeat certain until the Coalition occupied Paris (even there Frederick had survived the occupation of Berlin, but France is not Prussia and, as Napoleon said, Paris is France). Not fighting on at the beginning of 1814 seems to lead to certain defeat to me, not just for Napoleon but truly for France too, one last gamble when you have Napoleon's capabilities seems a fair throw of the dice, and the only faint hope in the circumstances of 1814 to avoid a France castrated and unable to properly play her Great Power part for the next century and beyond.
I do wish your film ideas had got $200 million rather than Sir Ridley's unimaginative, dispiriting, and misleading mess.
Napoleon to Duc de Feltre [Clarke], 22 Feb. 1814. “As to your advice of making peace, it is too absurd: it is by cherishing such notions as this that public spirit is destroyed. Besides, it is supposing me either mad or stupid to imagine that, if I could conclude peace, I would not immediately do it. To the prevailing notion that it has been in my power to make peace for four months past, but that I declined doing so, must be attributed all the misfortunes of France. I expected, at least, to have been spared the pain of hearing such sentiments expressed.”
Some loose thoughts and ideas about "Napoleonic" cinema on a lesser scale, or, in the micro rather than the macro, if you will. Movies where you portray the shadow or footprint of Napoleon rather than the man himself. 1) A movie about a group of French bonapartists, their thoughts, aspirations and tribulations from 1814 and onwards. 2) A movie set during the final days of one of courts or governments of the "old world" regimes that Napoleon brought to an end - that could be a princely state in the HRE, the Serene Republic of Venice or some other smaller state. 3) Or, how about a movie set in the milieu of the French officers corps in the early 1800s? That at least could serve as a valid small period piece in its own right, showing their particular martial ethos and concepts of gentlemanly honour and the like... if only a young aspirational director had bothered to take up that idea ; )
Why I stopped going the pictures.
I streamed it,.Garbage~
Thanks
I read about the death of napoleon, and his funeral, and it impressed me how much resect the British showed him and the people of st Helena... It's so sad how a man who once had all of Europe at his feet died the way napoleon did.
One day out riding on the Island of St Helena he rode past the British troop camp stationed there and they all stood and gave salutes to him which he gave them back, the governer was not best pleased to hear this lol.
Majesterial
Have you ever read Napoleon's letters to Josephine ? ~I don't see how you can say he was not "a simp" (your word). I can find you some quotes if you like
Totally tangential question in the nature of a survey: how do you pronounce "biopic"?
I have always assumed it was a portmanteau of "biography" or "biographical" and "picture" and hence I say "bio-pic", maybe slightly stressing the bio, but really more like two words.
Having watched a few Napoleon reviews on the last week, I've been reminded of how many people say BI-opic, or BIOP-ic.
Naturally I was sure I was right and that someone as erudite as A.M. would be on side with me 😉. But his pronunciation of it smears a little into the biop-ic range sometimes, so now I'm insecure 😝. I know this chat will have a lot of literate folks from many different English speaking regions. How do you say it? Are there regionalisms to it? (I'm from the US Midwest but have lived in the South for years)
Damn… Ridley Scott’s trailer white trash compared to Mr. Majesty… AM Slays!
WaterLooser 💦 🚽 of a film
Get a life and you were not there. Ridley
Napoleon was meglamanical adolescent, with a mother fixation...and too many people died, as a result.Thank the Lord for the Iron Duke, and Blucher..etc.
The one key difference arising from the basis in morality between Napoleon and Hitler is that the former harbored a positive life-goal while the latter only a negative life-goal, which is the difference between ancient statesmanship mastery and modern quasi-religious demagoguery for slaves.
It's not possible to make a true adaptation of Napoleon's entire life for the simple fact that the studio would have to show how Napoleon got beat by a small island called Haiti causing France to sell their land to the US. It would put the spotlight on to many injustices as shown in the New York times which would go against the agenda of modern day elites. The global population would cause chaos since most don't know anything about History and why so many African and Caribbeans countries are poor. Unless they create a water down version of how the greatest emperor of 50, 000 soldiers got whooped by a small nation with literally no real military training. 50, 000 soldiers which doesn't include other powerful nations. That's literally like some Anime Goku shit lol.
Did you know that Haiti was one of the main sources of wealth that France had? Of course no adaptation of this guy ever shows that part. So Napoleon being accurate is irrelevant. It's all water down crap.
The show Bolivar is a great example historically of how not to show the true force behind how that country really gained their freedom. President of Haiti, provided ships, soldiers, money and arms to support Simon Bolivar’s efforts to obtain the independence of South American countries.
Yes, someone please do try and attempt at show the FULL life of Napoleon.
You write all that thinking black people are oh so oppressed by white people, that France would be embarrassed about Haiti, that black history in marginalised... And yet only last year The Woman King was released.
A movie full of total lies saying the Kingdom of Dahomey was trying to stop slavery and they were underdogs against the evil whitey French. A movie bankrolled by Hollywood and we were all told if you don't watch it you're a racist. In reality the French were stopping them from continuing slavery and dahomey were fighting to keep slavery. A total lie in favour of black people at white people's expense making black people even more racist against white people, just like the black cleopatra, black hannibal, black vikings, black ancient British. All lies.
You're really delusional if you think that the story of the Haitian revolt is suppressed by modern elites!
Haiti's history is fascinating and an important part of Napoleon's story (fun fact, I mean for others here, because I'm sure you know the story: Napoleon sent there his Polish troops, because they were some of his best and most loyal fighters - the Poles supported him because he had promised to recreate an independent Polish state, which was nonexistent at the time. But a lot of the Polish soldiers actually empathised with the Haitians' fight for freedom and decided to side with them and later settled there) - but I think you overestimate the effect that a movie depiction of the Napoleonic era in Haiti would have on the global population...
Thank you for the response. I think you severely underestimate visual literacy for the reason that most people do not read and it's much easier to spread information through that medium. There's something very important about how a collective perceived themselves and it's all based on knowledge and how they have access to information. Africa needs to be "poor" to sustain every first world nations. Most technologies depends on resources found in African countries that only those of melanin skin can extract. That's why cheap labor is necessary causing Africans to be poor. If Africa as a whole becomes successful then there's no more cheap labor and we're all already witnessing our current economy around the world struggling. African being aware of the history of Haiti on the world stage would literally cause a shift in how black people perceive themselves. That's the reason why Haiti was so dangerous not because of the freedom but because of what that freedom symbolized to the world. Haiti is a direct phycological reflection of how African see themselves on the world stage. If the first freed black republic becomes successful then Africa will follow. If Haiti stays poord then there Will never be any motivation for other black nations. Jamaica is entirely dependent on China to grow and same goes for other black populated countries. What's happening currently in Congo and Burkina Faso etcc are great examples. The reaction of this film shows that a better version of Napoleon with Haiti in it will widely be popular on even a black panther level. There's a domino effect waiting to happen if people begin to grow an interest in those kind of things and only a water down version will ever be shown. It's incredible how the people who talk about those stuff online do not represent the average person on the street who literally have zero knowledge of major historical events and can only care about stuff if it's perceived as "cool". The fact that a skin bleaching industry strives in some African countries shows how black people perceive themselves. Mainly because there's not enough content in which they can relate to. The only current contents available use negative stereotypes. That's why a boring movie like black panther can become a massive hit because it's so rare to see a decent portrayal of black people that it instantly because profitable. Most ethnicities have reached their peaks when it comes to Art for example Akira Kurosawa represents the peak of Asian Art or maybe it's anime lol Art is the most powerful weapon. When a civilization falls only one thing is remembered. Only one thing remains.
The adaption doesn't show that because despite all the other ahistory in this movie even it has no way for Napoleon to go to Haiti because Napoleon never once went to Haiti. Or North America. Or South America. Or Australia. Or Antarctica. Or gave any of them much thought at all either.
I mean what, like you wanted the rest of the movie to just be him telling people what he wants to them to do in Haiti who then leave and have him occasionally receive and read some letters about it from them and write replies?
It's clear Ridley Scott would have made that dumb too, he'd just have him briefly speak with 3 or 4 other guys in Europe about it for 2 minutes then have him go think about sniffing Josephine's feet or something else pathetic. Immediately cut to some other totally unrelated scene with no follow up or explanation of how we got there.
While having scenes of him talking about Haiti and just how much he hates those pesky uppity Haitians and how he wants to come personally reinslave them hard for being freed blacks that are thousands of miles away sounds like something Ridley Scott might have done in this movie it would have left less time for awkward sex scenes. And Napoleon brooding about his life as Josephine's simp orbiter. It would detract from Ridley's artistic vision.
Or maybe it's also because Haiti was just not a major event of his life. Kinda busy fighting a total of 60 major battles in Europe In just a bit over 2 decades and only losing 6 times. Kinda busy totally reforming France and changing European society in general and fighting the other European monarchies who kept declaring war on the French for some reason with the stated intention of overthrowing the government and restoring the Bourbons. Dunno. Might be more pressing to him. Maybe the world does not revolve around the past mistreatment of black people by other races. The movie was about a European man in Europe.
But God this movie sucked. I'd rather read your comment over and over then sit through all that again.
@@RocketPropelledGuyI actually haven't seen the movie yet lol I'm only here cause this channel has fascinating angles on storytelling which I'm learning from to improve a novel about Haiti lmao
I liked the extended KOH. I thought it was a fine epic. I will not be seeing Napoleon, shooting his cannons at the pyramids just sounds fuckin stupid. He loved Egypt, he would never do anything so reckless. Shooting the nose off of the sphinx would have made more sense to include even if thats also total bullshit.