Napoleon is a visually compelling disappointment
Harry Khachatrian
Video Embed
In 1812, Tchaikovsky composed the monumental 1812 Overture, a grand symphonic piece that vividly encapsulates the sheer scale and emotional intensity of Napoleon Bonaparte’s tumultuous reign and military triumphs. Since then, a plethora of compositions, paintings, literature, and films have emerged, all striving to capture the essence of Napoleon and his era — an era marked by his ambitious campaigns and the sweeping changes they wrought across Europe.
Ridley Scott’s latest historical epic, Napoleon, joins this artistic lineage with ambitious scope. Spanning two decades and suffused with opulent palaces, lavishly adorned regalia, and vast, warring armies, the film is a visual feast. However, beyond its visual splendor, Napoleon struggles to achieve the same heights of emotional resonance and grandeur. The film vacillates, torn between two narratives: one portraying Napoleon as the ostensible storied military strategist and eventual emperor, and the other depicting him as an awkward and clumsy romantic, whose troubled but ravenous affection for Josephine (more on this in a moment) weighs heavily on his heart.
HOW PATRICK MCHENRY’S CONVICTIONS HELD THE HOUSE WHEN THERE ‘WAS NOTHING TO GUIDE US’
After dazzling critics with his portrayal of the titular antihero in Joker, Joaquin Phoenix brings a similar demeanor to his role as Napoleon. His performance is serviceable, yet at 50, he lacks the youthful energy and vigor that characterized the 24-year-old captain who led the French to victory in Toulon. But the real trouble with Phoenix’s portrayal is its glaring lack of consistency. Napoleon is at times morose and demure; at others, he is lascivious and blinded by lust; and, as underscored in a scene in which Napoleon had just taken Moscow, he throws a petulant tantrum when advised by a general that advancing toward St. Petersburg in the Russian winter would be a death knell for his men.
Napoleon’s strategic brilliance, which revolutionized warfare and continues to be studied and taught in military schools today, is vaguely alluded to through his affinity for artillery and intuition for where to aim cannons in combat. But the towering shrewdness with which Napoleon conquered most of Europe and won an unprecedented 90% of his battles is absent from the film. Only three of Napoleon’s 80 battles are portrayed — one of which is inevitably Waterloo, the coda to his campaign.
There is only one lengthy battle sequence, the highlight of the film, in which Napoleon’s military ingenuity is leveraged. After a spat with the Russian Empire, Napoleon cunningly entraps his enemy, forcing them to retreat onto a frozen lake, which he then bombards, sinking them into an icy tomb. Fleeting moments like this, showcasing his strategic brilliance, are otherwise sorely missing from the rest of the movie. It is as if Scott’s intent (as any patriotic Englishman doing his duty to the crown perhaps) was to tear down the mythos behind the French legend.
Moreover, none of the context behind Napoleon’s battles and their broader implications is ever properly explained. In one scene, he’s firing cannons into the pyramids in Egypt, and then suddenly, he’s sauntering across Russia.
Despite his glossing over Napoleon’s brilliance on the battlefield, Scott focuses on the brutality of the conflicts, highlighting not only the number of soldiers who died in each battle but capturing the horrific reality that plagued infantry in the industrial era, as soldiers marched toward muskets, a coin-toss away from being killed or maimed.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Rather than dedicating time to developing Napoleon’s character and conveying to audiences the sort of unrivaled charisma that would allow someone to ascend to the throne in a post-revolutionary France and reclaim a whole regiment after returning from exile, the film diverts significant attention to a parallel plotline centered on Napoleon’s love life. Vanessa Kirby, portraying Napoleon’s tormented muse, delivers a highlight performance. However, her character plays a tertiary role, as Napoleon, depicted as incapable of traditional love, chooses to prioritize patriotism for France over her. This decision not only undermines the entire premise of her storyline but also weakens the film by diverting precious screen time away from developing Napoleon’s character as the charismatic commander and ruler.
Despite its aesthetic triumphs, the film falls short in capturing or conveying the towering shadow Napoleon Bonaparte cast across Europe, a legacy that cemented him as a household name and a mainstay in popular culture for generations. With a decorated director and a star-studded cast, Napoleon had the potential to rank among the great historical epics. Instead, it emerges as a squandered opportunity: a film marred by poor pacing and a disjointed narrative. If you’re looking for a foray into the subject, you’d be far better served with ABBA’s succinct breakout single, “Waterloo.”
Harry Khachatrian (@Harry1T6) is a film critic for the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a computer engineer in Toronto pursuing his MBA.