By Clare Siviter-Groschwald

Ridley Scott’s Napoleon (2023) was always going to be big. It was always going to be controversial. We’re talking about Napoleon after all. The debate has been raging about him since the late eighteenth century.

Yet, when it comes to hype today, Napoleon the film seems to be giving Napoleon the person a run for his money. There have been countless articles enraged at Ridley Scott’s comments about historical accuracy, and historians fumed as Scott told them to “get a life” when they pointed out historical inaccuracies. So how then does the film measure up?

Let us start by underlining that I have been so excited for months to see this film. I was expecting epic spectacle, a bombastic rise to power, and the energy that pulsed through France as its empire grew, finally stretching from Spain to Russia, and the hubristic downfall that followed.

I fell asleep. Only for a few minutes, but nonetheless, I fell asleep. And if the level of chatter in the audience was anything to go by, I was not the only one who was bored. So too were the rest of my party – not full-time historians for the record, but people hoping to see a good film and learn some more about the period.

It is “a” Napoleon film, rather than “the” Napoleon film it was aiming to become.

There have been five star reviews of Napoleon, and visually it is sumptuous. However, I wanted more time to absorb the intricate costumes and the vast detail of the sets. Scott plays well with lighting too – but almost too clearly. It is evident when things are going well and when disaster is near. But no one can deny that the cinematography is beautiful.

After that, the problems start.

The first is that as a viewer, there is no plot. Yes, we know what happens in terms of history, but sat before a screen, Scott simply whisks viewers from date to date and expects them to connect the dots between political events and Napoleon’s own career. A simple technique would have been to start with Napoleon in St Helena and ask how he got here. The dates on screen are useful but also problematic. At one point, it looks like the treaty of Fontainebleau is in December 1812, not April 1814. You need to know your history in order to be able to keep up. Napoleon is the stuff of legend – lending a plot or a story arc to his life would not have been difficult and would have greatly helped this film.

The next is the screenplay. The first real moment of entertainment comes after nearly an hour, when we’re warming up for 18 Brumaire, with a diverting series of forced resignations, the greatest problem to which seems to be the fact it’s breakfast time and the Directors would rather ensure the happiness of their stomachs than of the French people. There are some witty moments in the script, with jokes about breakfast, boats and burgundy and some excellent one-liners, but they are sadly the exception.

The next is the cast. I was initially disappointed upon hearing that a younger actor had been cast as Josephine. Here, historical drama could have played into contemporary commentary on the social norms surrounding relationships. However, Vanessa Kirby is excellent as Josephine. It is a sterling performance. Joaquin Phoenix, however, for me, does not match up to Napoleon until the admittedly powerful scenes of Waterloo. When we first encounter Bonaparte on screen in 1793, he looks like he is already middle aged and had the week from hell. I wanted to give him a beer. There is none of the youthful energy that other characters – notably the excellent Alexander I (Édouard Philipponnat) and Lucien Bonaparte (Matthew Needham) – vividly convey and who were central to Napoleon’s own rise to power. At the 18 Brumaire, he seems more unfit than anxious, rolling about on the floor unable to catch his breath. This is not inspiring. It is pathetic. Yes, there is room for artistic license, but only when it is credible. Sadly, it is not here.

The paradox with this film, for a director who has been so blasé about historical accuracy, is that you need to know your history to be able to keep up. One of my friends went hoping to learn more – they did not, and left bored and confused. Maybe we are missing something, maybe the 4-hour director’s cut will make us happier, but frankly, this feels like a huge missed opportunity. It is “a” Napoleon film, rather than “the” Napoleon film it was aiming to become.

---

Dr. Clare Siviter-Groschwald is an Associate Professor of French Theatre at the University of Bristol. She focuses on the history of French theatre of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Her principal research interests include censorship, propaganda, celebrity, the French Revolution and Napoleon. She published Tragedy and Nation in the Age of Napoleon in 2020 under the Oxford University Studies in the Enlightenment series.