Following this thread with much interest. I think we're all in agreement that this film is historically "trash"; the main point of contention appears to be; "is a film just entertainment or should it be educational too"; I cannot see why we can't have both. I don't expect
everything to be right! but I do expect some integrity on the film maker's part.
I will not pay good money to see Napoleon based simply on the trailers, clips I've seen so far and Sir Scott's own comments (and Dan Snow, you should be ashamed of yourself), They are enough to convince me that I would be more annoyed than enthralled with the experience. I don't think the much talked about Kubrick non-film would have been as bad and I am looking forward to the proposed Spielberg series more. (think Band of Brothers - Shindler's List and Lincoln).
There is a long history of old but entertaining films like Erroll Flynn used to make, which I still enjoy, but they were made for a much less demanding audience, largely in the 40's/50's who wanted escape from rateher than the reality of war which was still fresh in their memories, having just been through the real thing.
The thing is - things have moved on. There has been an ever increasing trend towards realism ever since. I like the more recent Alamo film - it's more authentic, and a bit too dry for it, but at least it tries; but then I also like the John Wayne film, which is a load of old tosh, but exiting, colorful and fun. Either way, both of those films still give you a reasonable impression of what happened, why it happened and who was involved. Even with the things it still got wrong, the recent Outlaw King, to a great extent, went some way to redress the myriad of gaffs made in Braveheart.
The issue for me is that Ridley Scott by making this film as he has, has displayed the blatant distain for truth and history which is now becoming ever more common in today's society and that he will be helping lose any ground that has been gained in recent years.
Remember, kids today are constantly being indoctrinated into false history - *the original people of Britain who built Stonehenge were black" - "The British Empire was evil incarnate, carrying out Genocide on
millions of indigenous people it colonized - (I actually heard that on ITV's Good Morning TV) . Unless we tell them, movie goers today will believe the rubbish fed to them in films like The Woman King which tried to make heroes (can't say Heroine any more) out of a Slave capturing and trading nation.
I've watched a lot of reviews since Napoleon came out, made by both by amateur "reactors" on YouTube, and by professional critics alike. I've heard phrases like "Napoleon is portrayed as a "petulant child" and "Josephine was the driving force behind his success", which seem to reinforce Scott's opinions and vision as well as the stereotypical and outdated Napoleon complex propaganda myth rather than any reality.
I have also seen young YouTubers complaining that the narrative of the film was too jumpy - going from one thing to another without any explanation or exposition as to what happened in-between each jump in the timeline- they couldn't follow any cohesive, sequential thread without having had any prior knowledge. I've also heard from established historians (not Dan Snow
) that the Italian campaigns, anything about Egypt, (apart from blowing bits off a Pyramid), Leipzig and the 1814 campaign, to name but a few, are not even mentioned. Laziness or cherry picking? I don't know
You might say "well this will encourage viewers of the film to read more". I think this is being too optimistic. The vast majority of cinema goers who have no prior knowledge of the subject
will only see it as entertainment and ultimately be just left with a false and superficial image of Napoleon, his motivations and achievements impressed onto them, that old duffers like me will have a hard job getting out of their minds for decades to come. Once you see or hear something, it is very hard to get it out of your head.
Seeing Napoleon (who was a notoriously bad horseman), waving a sabre and leading a badly choreographed charge is no less stupid to me than if we got a Churchill Bio-pic showing him leading a charge up Sword beach brandishing a Sten-gun.
Surely we can aspire to having more accurate films even if we don't expect to see them.
Just my perspective,
David
