top of page
Following an obligatory upgrade of the forum imposed by the developers who maintain the website's programming (Wix.com), the forum has now been moved onto a new system called 'Groups'. Members should still be able to post as usual, by clicking the 'New Forum' tab at the top of the screen. We apologise for the inconvenience. Welcome to the future.
Like
0
2
bottom of page
10 reasons why the film failed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJdwkEiH3n8 I would leave it at one: it was rubbish.
In a defamation case brought against the Richard 3rd film, “Judge Lewis ruled the film portrayed Mr Taylor as having "knowingly misrepresented facts to the media and the public"“. Good job no-one from Napoleon’s era is still around.
"Still, it’s more than a little strange to make a film encompassing one of the most studied periods in human history and be so completely uninterested in what actually occurred. Scott has openly said he “didn’t need historians” and been so brazen about his disregard for the entire field you almost have to admire the chutzpah: “When I have issues with historians, I ask: ‘Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up then!” The rejoinders to that are obvious, but the real issue with the director’s attitude is that it ultimately renders one of the most interesting and complex eras in modern history as a blandly conservative (and decidedly British) morality tale with a vague thesis about revolutionary excess and the dangers of the mob."
The hat. There is the hat
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/24/france-ridley-scott-napoleon-french-history
On the plus side Wellington comes off as a complete asshat.
Is it unhelpful to point out that Hamlet is a fictional character, as is Sir John Falstaff- albeit with a name derived from a historical figure? So naturally we don't expect Hamlet to relate to Danish history, and the expectation that any of Shakespeare's so-called 'History' plays. relate much to, well, history, is a horse that has long departed the stable. By the same token, did anyone think that Ridley Scott's 'Gladiator' presented an serious meditation on Roman Imperial succession in the 2nd century AD, the career of Imp. Lucius Aurelius Commodus Antoninus Caesar, or gladiatorial combat?
Be that as it may, the character of 'Napoleon' achieved mythic status in his lifetime, not least because of his own contributions to that status. Most of us are likely to agree that the Napoleonic mythos is not a unified phenomenon but divides opinion between admiration and scepticism. It is always disappointing to see the same old chestnuts being trotted out, be it aspects of character or events that "just didnt happen that way" (if at all). I say 'always' when perhaps I really mean "in the last twenty or thirty years" when so much more information has been made available and the tired, worn out myths and legends can, and I would argue should, be challenged and amended. The truth can so often be much more interesting.
So there is no excuse for directors and writers not to have researched 'the facts.' What they do with those facts is another matter. An imaginative embroidering of the factual record can convey in a condensed way a deeper truth and yet be entertaining. We know characters can be amalgamated and the order of events be re-arranged for dramatic effect. I am sure most of us can accept these measures when done sensibly and with sensitivity to the subject. There is doubtless a responsbility nowadays when dealing with historical subjects not to create new 'myths' that can pander inadvertently, or otherwise, to populism and general levels of ignorance. That said, there is of course nothing like a 'historical romp’ for a fun night out or a nostalgic Sunday afternoon viewing- although of course we know that the dress shabraque of the 2nd Ruritanian Hussars was not ‘cerise’ but ‘aurore.’
What is important is that the creative team should engage imaginatively with a subject so as to convey both how our forbears in the past differed from us, materially and spirtually, which makes a historic setting interesting, and yet not lose touch with what we have in common with them as people, which is good drama.
However, none of the above is an apology for lazy, puerile, 'comic book' deviation from historical accuracy or even probability, that strays so far from the spirit of the age, that no amount of lavish costume and pictorial inspiration can make up for and one wonders what exactly the point of the enterprise might be except for generating noise and spectacle. If that is the level on which Ridley Scott was operating when he made ‘Napoleon’ then it seems he has made a lavish B-movie and that perhaps is how we should take it. Good luck to him. He seems to have aimed at both his male and female audience which is interesting. It will probably make money. Let's hope so, otherwise the Spielberg-Kubrick 'Napoleon' op might stall in the water.
The alien director, one of the most untalented, hypocritical "film-makers" ever. Oh, just my five cents, of course ... of course! ... Some people manage to turn everything they start into shit which instantly turns into gold ... admirable! - and bon appetit!
In my opinion, Scott abuses historical themes, events and characters to line his pockets. It's just not like the vast majority of his audience can tell fact from fiction, and Scott knows that full well. Precisely because most of his viewers don't care about what was real (and also because it tallies with the majority of his audience’s well nourished prejudices), they take the crap he presents to them at face value. In doing so, Scott actively sabotages all the efforts of serious researchers who are laboriously trying to do justice to the facts and clarify the truth. To me, quite underhand a behaviour. And anyone who thinks that's okay has, in my opinion, no place in a forum that calls itself a historical forum.
But, maybe, sadly, I’m right in my assessment that this forum actually has a completely different function... When will my contribution be deleted…?
In response to the eternal crap apologists' "it's just a movie, not a documentary" chatter:
According to the imaginary artist who made this film, it is thought to be a drama, not a history lesson. Well, yes, I agree, absolutely. This work is in fact a "drama", with the meaning that the word has in the German language: it's a TRAGEDY. I really appreciate well-made dramas. Usually, they live up to quality and credibility and are not in the need of abusing history as a misleading hook for touting for customers.
Want to see a real drama which also meets historians' expectations? With great actors (though mostly laymen) and convincing (hi)story? Just look at "Winstanley", for example, and compare it to the ridiculously superficial stereotyped dressmen and chicks of the alien director of "Napoleon"!
As far as I'm concerned, such botch-up as the alien director’s "Napoleon" is in no way entertaining but, on the contrary, just annoying crap that I don't want to see. And I won't watch it. Supporting self-important philistines, that's all I need!
Experts on Napoleon
I think we should remember that Ridley Scott is not a documentary filmmaker. He makes dramas that have a historical setting. Of course he will use artistic license. It will no more or less historical than Gladiator or Cameron’s Titanic. Events will have to be contracted, omitted or even invented to satisfy pace or weave a compelling story. Napoleons life was definitely dramatic but that is not enough to be cinematic on its own.
After all, we don’t expect Shakespeare’s hamlet to be an accurate analysis of Danish politics, or Elsinore to be a brick by brick recreation of Kronborg Castle. Or go digging through the rolls looking for Sir John Falstaff.
We should not therefore expect anything more than a flavour. Just because our cheese and onion flavoured snacks contains little real cheese or onions doesn’t mean we can’t like them.
It would be hilarious if he was beaten to a slew of Oscars and other awards by 'Barbie' 🤣 especially costume design.
Ridley Scott tells "fact-checkers" to get a life.