Napoleon (2023)

Despite some impressively staged battle sequences and interesting central performances from Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby, director Ridley Scott’s whistlestop tour through almost 30 years of history didn’t leave me with any greater understanding of the man who reshaped Europe.

Premise:  Charting the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix) from a young army officer in the aftermath of the French Revolution to his coronation as the Emperor of France and beyond, through the prism of his complicated marriage with the aristocratic widow Joséphine de Beauharnais (Vanessa Kirby).

Premise:

I’m on record as saying that I’m not a huge fan of biopics generally (with a few noticeable exceptions, like this year’s Oppenheimer), and unfortunately, Napoleon was not an exception to that rule.  For me, the main advantage that a movie biopic has over, say, a documentary, is that it can really delve into the person behind the historical figure, to deliver a character study that’s so much more than just a retelling of historical facts and events (which, again, was what made Oppenheimer such a gripping movie experience).  For me, Napoleon just didn’t deliver the insight into the man behind the historical figure that I was hoping for, so that by the time the (nearly 3 hour) movie finished, I still didn’t feel that I had much more of an understanding of Napoleon’s internal motivations.

I don’t think any of that is the fault of Joaquin Phoenix, who does a great job with the material he is given – but I do think that that material was flawed.  For one, because the movie attempts to squeeze in almost 30 years of historical events and a complicated relationship drama into its runtime, by the end of the film I felt like I had whiplash from how quickly it sped through the various key events.  If ever a story was crying out to be a mini-series rather than a movie, I think the rise and fall of Napoleon is it.

“…the tonal shifts felt jarring & inconsistent…”

Secondly, the shifts in tone during Napoleon just didn’t work for me.  At times, viewers are confronted with the horrors of Eighteenth Century warfare, and yet other scenes depicting the marriage between Napoleon and Joséphine (played by the always excellent Vanessa Kirby) are a comical farce.  And unlike Jason Schwartzman’s comedic asides in The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes (which provided a welcome and much-needed respite from the bleakness of the main story), the tonal shifts in Napoleon felt jarring and inconsistent, like the film was a patchwork of disparate scenes rather than a cohesive story.

Also, as great as Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby are, I couldn’t help shake the feeling that their age difference undermined their casting.  The real Joséphine was 6 years older than Napoleon, yet Vanessa Kirby is 14 years younger than Joaquin Phoenix, arguably making her 20 years too young for the role.  Director Ridley Scott doesn’t seem to show any interest in changing the apparent ages of his two leads with make-up or CGI during the course of the film, despite the fact that the events take place over three decades; Napoleon in the scenes set in 1793 effectively looks exactly the same as Napoleon in the scenes set in 1821.  This decision only seems to highlight the age gap between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby, whereas a decision to cast an actress at least the same age as Joaquin Phoenix would have potentially avoided that problem.

“…the Battle of Waterloo is truly epic & breathtaking…”

None of this is meant to suggest that the film is bad per se, or without its merits.  It’s definitely worth a watch (at least once), and the scale of the film showcases that Ridley Scott has lost none of his ambition, even at the age of 86.  The final act, depicting the Battle of Waterloo between Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington (a memorable cameo from Rupert Everett), is truly epic and breathtaking, and worth the price of admission on its own.

I’m not in a position to comment on the film’s historical accuracy, but in all honesty, that’s not necessarily what I’m looking for in a good biopic anyway – I’m willing to forgive a bit of creative licence with the historical events if it makes for a more engaging movie-going experience.  But Napoleon – epic battle sequences aside – felt like it only scratched the surface of the story, barely touching on how Napoleon came to rule France, what he did when he was in power, and what really drove him … so in that respect, the film does feel like a missed opportunity.