Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 160
- 3
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I watched ‘Napoleon’. Dissident right Twitter is upset with it because it portrays Napoleon as a cuckold and they’ve decided they like him recently. There is some minor diversity like some of the senior officers and ladies maids improbably being black, but I didn’t think it was really a ‘woke’ picture.
Instead, the surprise seems to be that it’s mostly a comedy, except with some more traditional ‘action movie’ battle sequences (which I found enjoyable except for the Battle of Waterloo, which drags somewhat). It’s got a certain kind of English vaguely-panto vibe, crossed with a classic stage comedy, but not really the laugh out loud type. Napoleon is depicted as an extreme autist and is arguably the butt of the joke, but is also a competent general and a great strategist on a number of occasions. That said, the movie does end by explicitly characterizing him as a villain who was responsible for millions of deaths for (implicitly) no real reason. Some will say it also implies there was a direct causal relationship between his need for military victory and his cuckoldry, but I don’t think it’s that explicit. It is, on balance, an anti-French movie that takes the traditionally dim English view of the revolution and its consequences.
An entertaining movie, and rare to watch something where the big CGI fight scenes are actually very good and keep the viewer awake. Some very cringe dialogue not on purpose, some on purpose. Napoleon’s actor is too old. 3/5.
I’m not sure I agree that it was a comedy - a couple of laugh lines, yeah, but I wouldn’t say I laughed more than twice. I’m not gonna bother commenting on the improbable diversity - that’s just what Hollywood is now, and there’s no point blaming anybody involved directly with the film.
I agree that the battle scenes were the most exciting part of the film, and frankly I wish they’d focused more on those, especially given that the film is about one of the greatest generals in history. Very few people are fascinated by Napoleon because of his marriage(s).
I don’t agree with the popular take that the film gave too much time and importance to Josephine; she genuinely does seem to have been a centrally-important part of his life. (I also don’t agree with the take that Vanessa Kirby is unattractive. I think she’s got beautiful eyes.) However, attempting to make a film that focuses extensively on that marriage while also making a film that gives adequate attention to his military achievements was a massively overambitious undertaking. Overambitious especially because Ridley Scott doesn’t really seem to understand Napoleon on any psychological level. Scott doesn’t offer a “take” on what made Napoleon tick. I guess that’s probably better than a total hatchet job that makes Napoleon an irredeemable villain (I disagree with your take that the ending paints him explicitly as a villain - I think it’s fair to point out how many men died in the wars, even if there were obviously more subtle ways Scott could have gone about this) but I think the lack of a coherent interpretation is one of the reasons the film feels so bloated and directionless at times.
This should have been at least two different movies, and if they’d cast an actor of appropriate age and charisma they could have achieved this and probably had success. Ultimately I feel like this was a waste.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link