LE MONDE'S OPINION – WORTH A WATCH
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), the apotheotic figure of France's national power and a war genius turned butcher, survives in a legend that keeps clinging on. He is the absolute record-breaker for book sales and historical portrayals in cinema and television, with historian Antoine de Baecque having counted over a thousand depictions in both media.
When it comes to cinema, two myths loom large. The real one is Abel Gance's 1927 massive film, a romantic and lyrical masterpiece that was reshuffled over time into some 20 different versions and about which we should gain a better understanding in June 2024 after a 15-year restoration process. The other is the ghost of a film that Stanley Kubrick, the Napoleon of cinema, dreamed of making in the 1960s (180-page script, 17,000 photos...) before Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer put a stop to his expensive campaign.
And then there's Ridley Scott's film, which comes as no mere coincidence. The director of Alien (1979) and Blade Runner (1982) – his two best films to date – has developed over the years a fondness for historical headliners, from Christopher Columbus (1492: Conquest of Paradise, 1992) to the Gucci family (House of Gucci, 2021), the emperor Commodus (Gladiator, 2000) and the prophet Moses (Exodus. Gods and Kings, 2014). So there's little surprise to see him tackling, like the Duke of Wellington in 1815 at the Battle of Waterloo, the white whale that is Napoleon. Unlike Kubrick, however, Scott was unable to find the flaw in Napoleon's armor and clearly struggled to get to grips with his hero.
His stance may leave some dubious, but it is at least a simple one. In a nutshell, the entire movie is a montage interconnecting Napoleon's love life with his feats of battle and alternating between the two. Alcove and salon scenes with Joséphine de Beauharnais and the Emperor's great battles are presented in the same passion and conquest-fueled movement before decline starts to loom on both fronts. Josephine de Beauharnais, played by the seductive Vanessa Kirby, is elevated to a higher level of feminism, combining erotic liberation with an independent spirit unafraid to challenge her husband's imperial virility.
Her disgrace, caused by her sterility, led to the couple's painful divorce in 1809 and directly harmed the Emperor's career, reversing his winning streak. The theory that Napoleon's career was continually molded by the ups and downs of his marital relationship thus drives this feminist reinterpretation of his imperial destiny, which alas leads to a relatively poor portrait of Napoleon himself. Here, he is presented as a crude character, jealous and brutal in matters of love, a political opportunist, a military genius whose track record unravels in acts of slaughter. Not much to boast about. Politics are completely ignored. As for Joaquin Phoenix, he plays the character by adhering to the canon: bicorn hat, dark eyes, distant. In Gance's film, Albert Dieudonné had set the standard, albeit in a more passionate and solemn performance. Unlike his illustrious predecessor, it's doubtful that Phoenix will demand to be buried in the Emperor's clothes.
You have 25% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.