Even before the premiere of Ridley Scott’s Napoleon, the film was stirring up emotions, especially among researchers and enthusiasts of the Napoleonic era. With the appearance of the first materials – photos, trailers or selected excerpts – a discussion began about how specific moments from Napoleon’s life would be depicted. Historians in the period (incuding me) quite quickly began to raise their objections. Interestingly, this was met with a strong reaction from the director – Ridley Scott was unsparing in his criticism of historians, going so far as to say texts like „Get a life” All this foreshadowed that there might be a lot of original ideas in the film, but the scale on which they appear was probably not expected by anyone. I invite you to read my review of Napoleon, which premiered a week ago, on November 22nd.

„It takes three things to make war: money, money and money”

What can certainly be said about Napoleon is that it’s a film made on a grand scale. In general, it’s quite well shot. For example, the coronation scene, modelled on a painting by Jacques-Louis David (in fact, for a moment you can see the figure of this artist making a sketch), or the fire of Moscow are impressive – as are the sands of Egypt, the snowy fields at Austerlitz or the sunny island of Elba. A muted colour palette dominates the entire picture, which, incidentally, reflects a certain trend in cinematography. The interiors and the quantity and quality of the props used also deserve praise. The uniforms and costumes are also correct – here the only major slip-up is the revolutionary period uniform Napoleon is wearing during the Borodino charge scene. In the case of the title character, the uniform of a colonel of chasseur of the Imperial Guard or the distinctive grey coat could not be missed either. The film’s Josephine wears dresses modelled on the actual fashion of the First Empire (according to one of the reenactors, exhibits from Malmaison were used as models). The costume and set designers working on the set have therefore done their homework, something that cannot be said of the director or scriptwriter.

In terms of production, the only major criticism is the editing, which clearly shows that quite a lot was cut out for the theatrical version. That is why, even before the premiere, Scott announced the release of a 4-hour director’s cut, which will appear in the near future on AppleTV+, the platform responsible for the film. This wouldn’t, incidentally, be the first time Scott has done this. A similar thing happened with, for example, Kingdom of Heaven from 2005 and as many viewers have pointed out, the longer version of that production was definitely better than the film that made it into cinemas. Could it be similar in the case of Napoleon? There is some chance of that, although it’s likely that even a 6-hour version of Scott’s film wouldn’t be able to fix the issues that make this opus, on many levels, a simply bad production.

„France, Army, Josephine”, or rather Josephine and a long, long nothing

It was clear to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Bonaparte’s biography that in less than three hours it’s impossible to fully present the biography of the first Emperor of the French. The film attempts to cover the greater part of Napoleon’s life (1769-1821), as it covers the years 1793-1821. However, this doesn’t mean that we will see all the highlights of this period on screen. The film opens with the execution of Queen Marie Antoinette, familiar from the trailers, but the problem is… Napoleon didn’t witness it, he wasn’t even in Paris at that time. We go on to see the siege of Toulon, which made Bonaparte a general, the suppression of the rebellion of the 13th vendemiaire in between, interspersed with scenes showing the development of the relationship with Josephine, after which… we land in Egypt (thus in 1798). Completely omitted is the 1st Italian Campaign, a key moment in Napoleon’s early years – while Toulon allowed him to become a general, it was the campaign of 1796-1797 that gave him real fame and a place among the most important French commanders.

Many other important moments are missing, such as the 1800 assassination attempt with the so-called Infernal Machine (which almost ended the life of the then First Consul), Marengo, the wars of 1806-1807 (including events on Polish lands), the Peninsular War or the campaigns of 1813-1814. The latter period is exceptionally unlucky, as it doesn’t appear in the miniseries Napoleon from 2002, and yet such important events as the Battle of Leipzig (the so-called Battle of the Nations), one of the greatest and bloodiest clashes of the era, or the French Campaign (January – April 1814), which exemplified Napoleon’s mastery as a commander, took place during it. For someone familiar with Bonaparte’s biography, the absence of the 1st Italian campaign in particular will certainly come as a big surprise. In the context of the way in which the title character was portrayed, as discussed below, it’s also surprising that the Spain, where the nature of the fighting was by far the most brutal, is absent.

Scott tries to portray Bonaparte’s most important areas of action – as a military leader and as a politician. In both areas, however, he does so in a wholly unsatisfactory manner, as the main motif of the film is the relationship linking the title character with his first wife, Josephine (in fact Marie-Josèphe Rose Tascher de la Pagerie, after her first husband de Beauharnais). It must be said here at once that the impact of the relationship linking these two characters is significantly exaggerated. For example, according to the scriptwriter, the information about his wife’s affair with Captain Hippolyte Charles was supposed to lead to his decision to leave Egypt and return to France, just as his longing for his then ex-wife (!) was supposed to play a role in his decision to run from Elba. This last theme is all the more strange because… Josephine died in May 1814 and Napoleon landed in France in March 1815.

Discussing Josephine and the way in which her relationship with Napoleon is portrayed, it can be said that on screen it evolves. From Josephine’s perspective it’s a way from a marriage of convenience through hatred to the Stockholm syndrome. From Napoleon’s perspective it’s a way from love at first sight through impatience caused by the lack of a child to longing after divorce. It could also be said that the film’s relationship is violent – Bonaparte prejudices Josephine, presses her about the child, and finally uses physical violence against her. In reality, their relationship was far more complex. Especially during the first period, interrupted by the actual crisis caused by Josephine’s affair, the two seem to have formed a successful relationship. This is particularly evident in the content of the surviving letters from the 1st Italian campaign, where Napoleon probably wrote frankly about his longing and attachment. The divorce was indeed largely due to the question of succession to the throne, and indeed Napoleon did correspond with Josephine in subsequent years and, according to some accounts, was said to have spoken her name just before his death, but the screen version is far too exaggerated.

Turning to the casting choices, it’s worth starting with the two most important characters. In my opinion, it was a big mistake on the part of the filmmakers not to make more of an effort to rejuvenate Joaquin Phoenix in post-production – in the scenes taking place during the Revolution and the Consulate, he simply looks odd considering how old Napoleon was at the time. A big factor in this, of course, is the actor’s age (he was born in 1974). Now he’s at the age when Napoleon was at the end of his life and was on the Saint Helena. Vanessa Kirby, on the other hand, is much younger (born 1988), while the historical Josephine was six years older than Bonaparte. In the context of the age of the characters, both cinematic and historical, the civil wedding scene of Napoleon and Josephine, where they both give their dates of birth, looks rather odd. Both of them, true to history, give false year dates – Bonaparte tells that he’s older, while de Beauharnais tells that she’s younger. But even then, Napoleon is formally younger, but has a distinctly older appearance (by the way, someone might believe that they both gave real dates…). This lack of interference with appearance is all the more strange because, after all, modern cinema offers a whole range of tools, like CGI, that could improve the situation. The best example from recent years being perhaps Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman and the way it portrayed the character played by Robert De Niro.

Moving on to other characters, it’s fair to say that the supporting characters make an appearance… and that’s pretty much it. None of them gets enough screen time to build any kind of wider picture. Out of Napoleon’s numerous immediate family, appears only his mother Letizia, shown as overprotective and distant towards Josephine, and one of his brothers, Lucien (but only in scenes from the revolutionary period). Among the people from his entourage, for example, Foreign Minister Charles de Talleyrand appears, but is only portrayed as helping Bonaparte (it’s a pity that the famous phrase about „excrement in silk stockings” isn’t used). Moving on to the French military sphere, it’s rather absurd that none of the marshals are mentioned by name, only at Waterloo we see probably Michel Ney for a while. However, this doesn’t stop Napoleon blaming the marshals for his defeat in one scene.

Of Bonaparte’s opponents, the Tsar (Emperor) of Russia Alexander and Arthur Wellesley Duke of Wellington, victor at Waterloo, get the most time. The former is shown in a decidedly positive light, especially when compared to Napoleon, which may be reflected in the persistent image in English historiography of the Tsar as Britain’s main ally. As an aside, it’s rather ironic that the character of Alexander is the only one played by… a French actor. Wellington, on the other hand, is a confident commander, perhaps even to the point of exaggeration, who seems to be in complete control of the course of the battle and then personally informs Napoleon of his exile to the Saint Helena (of course, no such event actually took place).

In general, a person unfamiliar with the period will learn quite little about the supporting characters. Although some of them are signed, this isn’t enough in my opinion. Those familiar with the era will probably recognise many of the distinctive figures appearing in the background, e.g. in the briefing scene before the campaign of 1815 we see Marshal Davout, but the selection of those in the film who utter any lines is quite questionable. As an aside, in the scene from the Hundred Days when the chaperone brings news of Napoleon’s return to the French royal court, we don’t learn that the character eating cakes is King of France Louis XVIII, which is an excellent summary of this thread.

„There is only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous”

For me, as a historian of the Napoleonic era, it was particularly painful to watch the successive errors, insinuations or sometimes outright absurdities appearing on screen. Leaving aside the issues of battle scenes, which are discussed below, there is a great deal of them in the film, which shapes a picture of Napoleon that is different from the one functioning in contemporary historiography. Scott portrays Bonaparte as a simpleton, a mummy’s boy, a buffoon and a vain tyrant maniac with a son who left nothing but piles of corpses in his wake. In fact, watching the film, we don’t really learn why Napoleon deserves to have this opus dedicated to him at all, except perhaps that several million people died during the Napoleonic wars. The final panels are telling here, where the losses suffered by the French army (but not by its opponents) in the ensuing battles are shown. Without proper context, this can give the impression that Napoleon’s reign caused only millions of casualties.

What you will not learn from the film is that Napoleon was only partly to blame for the outbreak of subsequent conflicts. The scene taking place on Saint Helena, where Napoleon argues that he’s responsible for the burning of Moscow, when it was the exact opposite, may be considered absurd in this context. Nor will you learn from the film that it was Napoleon who developed the care of wounded soldiers. It was in the Napoleonic army that ambulances began to be used on a larger scale, and thanks to the work of eminent doctors, i.e. Dominique-Jean Larrey or Pierre-François Percy, military surgery developed. Although the mortality rate could be high and the treatment of the wounded sometimes cruel (like in Jaffa in 1799), this was due more to pragmatic reasons, insufficient development of medicine or too few doctors than to Napoleon’s deliberate policy.

Even in the less important things, the scriptwriter is able to get firmly past the facts. Such is the case with the issue of Napoleon trying to have a son. The film shows that from the very beginning of his marriage, Napoleon wanted to beget an heir and became increasingly irritated. Meanwhile, the issue is far more complex. Initially, Bonaparte thought that the problem might be himself, as Josephine was the mother of two children from her first marriage. The first doubts arose in 1806, when Charles Denuelle, also known as Count Léon, son of Éléonore Denuelle de La Plaigne, was born. As an aside, contrary to what we see on screen, it wasn’t Napoleon’s mother who was responsible for orchestrating the affair with her, it’s said more of Napoleon’s sister Caroline, who was a school friend of hers. Also the lovers’ first meeting certainly didn’t look like it did in the film. Denuelle herself believed Bonaparte to be the father of the child, and was even to arrive with her son at the palace at Fontainebleau demanding to meet the Emperor. It seems, however, that Napoleon, although he hardly doubted his paternity, it was not until the news of Marie Walewska’s pregnancy resulting in the birth of their son Aleksander in 1810 that he became convinced that the problem didn’t lie with him, as a result of which he decided to get a divorce with Josephine. By the way, it is rather strange, if not embarrassing, that the second scene with Napoleon II (Bonaparte’s only legal son, often referred to as L’Aiglon – the Eaglet) is the scene at Malmaison, where Phoenix’s character boasts to Josephine about the birth of an offspring by showing her the baby…

And perhaps most importantly, not for a second does the film depict Napoleon’s activities in the field of state reform. Bonaparte himself on the Saint Helena is supposed to have said that it was the Civil Code (also called the Napoleonic Code), and not any of his military victories, that was his greatest success. And this is indeed the case. During the time of the Consulate and the First Empire, a number of changes were made in France that are sometimes still in operation today. Such is the case with the Bank of France (established in 1800), local administration in the form of prefectures or things as mundane as modern house numbering – which first appeared in Napoleonic France. Finally, the aforementioned Napoleonic Code became the basis of modern civil law, and was still partly applied in Poland in the 1940s. This thread of Napoleon’s activity, as well as that of many of his talented ministers, i.e. Jean-Jacques Régis Cambacérès, was wrongly completely omitted, as was the thread of Napoleon’s influence on the development of education. The film doesn’t mention, for example, that Bonaparte was a member of an elite association of scientists – the French Institute, that he took a large group of scholars with him on his expedition to Egypt, giving rise to modern Egyptology, or that he modernised education by, among other things, establishing Lycées (high schools). It isn’t without reason that he was called the greatest civilian among military men. Instead, we see Napoleon ordering the shooting of the pyramids…

„The battlefield is a place where chaos reigns. The winner is the one who is able to subdue this chaos, both his own and that of his opponent”

As a historian specialising in military history, it’s the hardest thing for me to discuss aspects relating to the individual campaigns and battles depicted in the film. Let’s start by saying that we only see two battles on screen in full scale – Austerlitz (2.12.1805) and Waterloo (18.06.1815), Napoleon’s greatest victory and greatest defeat. On a smaller scale, three other clashes appear – the siege of Toulon (September-December 1793), the Battle of the Pyramids (21.07.1798) and the Battle of Borodino (7.09.1812). Getting straight to the point, let me be clear: the way of fighting depicted in the film has little in common with the way it was fought during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815).

The only positive element of the battle scenes is their naturalism – already in the Toulon scene we see in detail the death of Napoleon’s horse killed by a small-weight cannonball. Individual elements of the art of war are also depicted realistically, an example being the English squares from the Battle of Waterloo (but for this to happen they had to come out of their trenches, which was already absurd, as the example of the Battle of Borodino and the fighting for the so-called great redoubt shows). However, in general, the battles of the period are depicted in a way that is far removed from historical realities. On the ground of command, we don’t learn from the film why Napoleon is famous as one of the greatest commanders in world history. Only before the campaign of 1815 do we see the briefing that Bonaparte held with his marshals, where he shortly explains his plan of action. But overall, we don’t get to know how Napoleon commanded or how he was able to motivate his soldiers – one scene of him handing out bread in Russia is definitely not enough. In the context of the latter issue, the scene (one of the best in the film, and quite in keeping with reality) of Napoleon’s encounter with the 5th Infantry Regiment on its return from Elba may look rather strange from an outsider’s perspective. For where, from the perspective of the film’s plot, would the soldiers’ enthusiasm for him come from?

Moving on to the scenes of the two most important film battles, Austerliz and Waterloo. Regarding the first, virtually nothing agrees. Instead of the sun of Austerlitz, we have gloomy weather, instead of the heroic defence of the French right flank and the capture of Pratzen Hill, we have the lurking French setting a trap for the Coalition troops. According to the film scenario, Napoleon didn’t win this battle through his command skills and bravery of his men, but through the ruse of luring the enemy to the lakes and then giving an order to open fire once the enemy soldiers were on them. In reality, these weren’t even lakes, but ponds about a metre deep in which fish were raised e.g. for the Austrian imperial court in Vienna. In fact, the ice on these ponds as a result of the retreat of the Russian soldiers (not Austrian as the film wants) actually broke up and caused chaos in the ranks, but after the battle only a few horse corpses and… two or three dead soldiers were found. Anyway, the French helped the Russians in the water to get out, taking them prisoner afterwards. The story of the large number of drowned soldiers is a legend, which, incidentally, arose quite quickly, but it had its greatest impact on… the owner of the ponds, as the court broke the contract because it didn’t want to serve fish supposedly feeding on the corpses of its own soldiers…

The cinematic Waterloo, on the other hand, is a battle that is a combination of a strange variation on the art of war of the early 19th century and the First World War. Initially, both sides are in trenches exchanging artillery fire. It looked more as if, instead of being at Belgian Waterloo, we would be at Belgian Ypres a hundred years later… Then, suddenly, the French launch an attack, with Marshal Ney’s (?) character leading a cavalry charge, and this is probably the most realistic moment from the battle scenes in the whole film. The two filmed battles look more like a fight between two hooligans groups than clashes between Napoleonic-era troops, where what mattered was to perform manoeuvres usually in tight formations – line or column. As Jan Weyssenhoff, a Polish officer of the period, described it: “French drill instructions are defined by geometrical ideas – so you had to give an accurate idea of lines, angles and so on”. The film battles are very far from this. Both Austerlitz and Waterloo in Scott’s interpretation are full-scale chaos, with soldiers running out of their trenches, artillery playing a key role and firing at long range, while cavalry units are shuffled around with infantry as if this poses no problem for manoeuvring etc.

In addition to this, many minor issues also disagree, e.g. we have mortars of strange provenance used first by the French at Toulon and then by Russian partisans in 1812 (the latter scene completely absurd). But the biggest absurdity in terms of military history is the question of Napoleon’s personal participation in the clashes. While he did indeed participate in the attack on Toulon and was even wounded in the leg with a bayonet, which we don’t see in the film, already as a general he didn’t personally fight in the front line. Only exceptions to this are two battles from 1796 – the Battle of Arcole with the famous attack across the bridge, which nearly ended tragically for Napoleon, and the Battle of Lodi. This doesn’t mean that he shirked the danger, quite the contrary: at Eylau in 1807, he stood his ground despite the threat of Russian Cossacks, at Regensburg in 1809 he was wounded in the ankle by a rifle bullet and at Montereau in 1814 he personally loaded one of cannons. Nevertheless, you won’t see any of these scenes in Scott’s film. Phoenix’s character, meanwhile, takes part in the charge at Borodino as if nothing had happened (presumably on the so-called great redoubt, a victorious one though at great cost to Napoleon’s cavalry), and is also in the front line at Waterloo, all the while at gunpoint of an English sniper who initially wants to shoot him from a distance that is absurd from the point of view of the period.

„To write history, one must be more than human, for an author holding the pen of a great judge should be free from any prejudice, interest or vanity”

In light of the above, the general conclusion can only be one – Napoleon disappoints on all fronts. Both as a film in its own right and as a cinematic biography of the Emperor of the French, Scott’s work comes off simply poorly. Bad script, the obvious heavy editing cuts or the inaccuracies, absurdities or even echoes of anti-Napoleonic propaganda that appear make it difficult for me to recommend the film. Of course, it remains to wait for the director’s cut, but in my opinion it’s unable to fix the glaring mistakes found in the cinema cut. The cinematic Napoleon is a character with little resemblance to his historical counterpart. It’s more a screen adaptation of 19th century British or Bourbon propaganda showing Bonaparte as a tyrant, a Corsican ogre. To make things even more interesting, Scott doesn’t show any historical scenes in the film from which he could build a picture of a cruel Napoleon – neither the war in Spain, the execution of the inhabitants of Moscow or the famous conversation with Metternich in Dresden in 1813 appear.

Finally, what struck me right from the start was the appearance on the opening panels that the Corsican officer Napoleon Bonaparte (the only thing missing is the use of the original spelling of his name – Buonaparte) having a career opportunities to the Revolution. A description lifted vividly from works of black legend. Of course, Napoleon came from Corsica and formally this isn’t a mistake, but in propaganda it has always had a negative connotation, because it negated his Frenchness. Letting my imagination run wild, if Napoleon’s opponents in the early 19th century had the opportunity to make a film, it probably wouldn’t be much different from what we can now see in cinemas. Scott clearly lacks distance from the titular character.

„When people stop complaining, they stop thinking”

As a historian, but also as a fan of the Napoleonic era since childhood, I’m deeply disappointed, as it’s difficult to consider this film as something which will advertise the era, something that will generate interest by more people. It’s more to be expected that there will be a rash of texts strongly critical of Napoleon. Before the premiere, despite the numerous warning lights appearing, I wished this film the best hoping for its box office success. Now I’m as far from such an attitude as possible, because I fear that Scott’s portrayal of Napoleon will become entrenched in the public consciousness, especially in the West. Although cinema no longer has the same impact on its audience’s knowledge of history as it did, let’s say 20 years ago, I can say, also referring to my own research, that there is a considerable risk that the image of Bonaparte à la Scott will settle in at least for a while.

It’s fair to say that I’m all the more disappointed because Scott’s first film was The Duellists, a film also set in the Napoleonic era and, moreover, telling the story of two French officers. To this day, this picture is one of the best representations in cinema of this period of history. Although the action there takes place, as in Napoleon, over a period of many years (1800-1815), the older film is characterised by its attention to detail and well-defined characters, elements that are all too lacking in Napoleon. As Talleyrand said „Beware of first impressions, they are often right” and in this case we have that kind of situation. Ridley Scott’s Napoleon is a great missed opportunity and a big disappointment.

„Leave it to the Poles”

From a Polish perspective, I regret that Polish threads don’t appear in the film. Napoleon’s affair with Maria Walewska and her pregnancy were, after all, crucial to the decision to divorce, and I thought that it will be a factor leading to Napoleon and Josephine’s separation that it would appear in the film. In the same way, I was quietly hoping for the Polish soldiers to be shown, after all they were Napoleon’s most loyal allies as I like to say. Meanwhile, we only get brief moments where we see Polish lancers, while at Waterloo it’s an officer in the uniform of a chevau-léger of the Imperial Guard who pressures Napoleon to flee the battlefield… Thank you, Mr Scott.

Finally, a small comment on the reception of the film, as I follow the opinions appearing in Poland, France and the UK/USA. My impression, perhaps mistakenly, is that the Anglo-Saxons are more inclined to defend the film, while the French and Poles overwhelmingly don’t leave a dry eye on it. For example, Napoleon biographer Patrice Gueniffey said that Scott’s film is „very anti-French”, while one of the leading Polish researchers of the period, Dariusz Nawrot, said that „The stupidities [appearing in the film] cry out for vengeance to heaven”. Could it be that the division between states of the Napoleonic system and the anti-French coalition is still alive? I don’t know, perhaps some kind of international debate about the film could be organised, where viewpoints from different countries would appear.

PS
Quotations from the mid-headlines are words either true or attributed to Napoleon.