Current Events > Ridley Scott made another stinker with Napoleon

(+) Yeah! (+)

Myzery posted...

ridley scott is a fucking hack.

hes created so many classics that theres no way he can be considered a hack

NhojAnec posted...

hes created so many classics that theres no way he can be considered a hack

This topic is pretending that Gladiator, Alien and Blade Runner were bad films

meralonne posted...

This topic is pretending that Gladiator, Alien and Blade Runner were bad films

lol right??

meralonne posted...

This topic is pretending that Gladiator, Alien and Blade Runner were bad films

Gladiator isn't good.

Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. Seems really divisive with critics calling it bewildering, goofy, or brilliant in equal measure.

People who really like it seem to be ones who know (or think they know) why Scott made it humorous.

The film rides this juxtaposition of tones until Scott pulls the rug out from under to remind us that laughing at powerful buffoons can be quite dangerous and deadly.

...

By the time he rolls Napoleons death toll, it has become clear why we have to tell Napoleons story now the story of a brutal but buffoonish megalomaniac who could never admit defeat, who aligned himself with common men and became their unlikely hero, and who waged war compulsively in the name of France but France as an idea more than an actual country with real people. Does he remind you of anyone?

Napoleon is an extension of the ideas that Scott played with in The Last Duel, weaponizing period storytelling as a tool for contemporary social commentary and satire. He pulls it off with thrilling aplomb here, using tactics that the general himself would approve: a sneak attack, hiding a sharp spear of a message behind this hysterical historical romp, allowing him to skewer right into the heart of the matter. That Scott pulls it off with such style should come as no surprise.

In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenixs taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar.

Movie spends way too much time on Napoleon and Josephine's relationship, yet at no point did it give me a reason to care about said relationship that turns into a marriage after a whopping 1 and a half minutes of screentime they have together. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure more can be said about Napoleon other than a handful of battles (one which didn't really happen), a shitty relationship with Josephine, and him getting exiled twice. Considering how it's a movie about Napoleon, pretty sure that's a bad thing that not much is said about the man himself, and if it isn't a movie about Napoleon, then maybe don't call it that.

Maybe I'm spoiled on how good Oppenheimer and Killers of a Flower Moon were, two movies where you can tell by watching the movie that the directors were interested in telling a story about a historical figure or event.

McSame_as_Bush posted...

By the time he rolls Napoleons death toll, it has become clear why we have to tell Napoleons story now the story of a brutal but buffoonish megalomaniac who could never admit defeat, who aligned himself with common men and became their unlikely hero, and who waged war compulsively in the name of France but France as an idea more than an actual country with real people. Does he remind you of anyone?

Oh lord

BurmesePenguin posted...

Gladiator isn't good.

Youre entitled to your opinion.

I don't like Gladiator either, but it's better than the shit he's making now.

More like Napoopleon

Null_Gain posted...

He knee-capped the franchise when he decided to off-screen Shaw in between movies.

Yeah that was stupid as fuck, coming from someone who actually liked prometheus

McSame_as_Bush posted...

By the time he rolls Napoleons death toll, it has become clear why we have to tell Napoleons story now the story of a brutal but buffoonish megalomaniac who could never admit defeat, who aligned himself with common men and became their unlikely hero, and who waged war compulsively in the name of France but France as an idea more than an actual country with real people. Does he remind you of anyone?

Are you fucking kidding me?

I think you all just don't get it.

In 10-20 years, this movie will be more appreciated. Don't know why you all keep comparing it to Oppenheimer, when it's becoming clear that this movie is not trying to be like Oppenheimer.

Revisited posted...

Why did googling that name show me an attractive anime woman though

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/a02ed5c3.jpg

I Googled it and no such image came up so I'm assuming you typed something else or you went to like page 50

Hayame_Zero posted...

I don't like Gladiator either, but it's better than the shit he's making now.

For sure.

Enough Gladiator slander itt.

Sure it's as historically accurate as Henry VIII going to space, but it's good fun!

I just think the story is so Hollywood as to be upsetting. All the tropes are there. The prince killing his father for the crown, the hero betrayed, revenge for his family and ending with the heroic sacrifice.

The alt history can be annoying but its not a huge issue.

In general I think its an extremely competently made Braveheart. The problem is that Braveheart is bad to the core and making it better cant fix it.

I'm still gonna watch it.

I really enjoyed House of Gucci, and that got about the same middling critical response.

Ivynn posted...

Enough Gladiator slander itt.

Sure it's as historically accurate as Henry VIII going to space, but it's good fun!

You can't prove he didn't go to space

Hayame_Zero posted...

I don't like Gladiator either, but it's better than the shit he's making now.

Thats fair, I havent been overwhelmed by any of his movies for a while now.

And I fully acknowledge that Gladiator was, as another poster in this topic already pointed out, a Roman-era fanfic but everyone knew that going in from the trailers at release.

Just saw Napoleon, very entertaining movie, I enjoyed it. Also cant believe Gladiator is so wildly hated, thats crazy lol. Such an awesome movie

DavidZ2844 posted...

Just saw Napoleon, very entertaining movie, I enjoyed it. Also cant believe Gladiator is so wildly hated, thats crazy lol. Such an awesome movie

It's not hated by many. Some of the guys on CE just have very strong minority opinions.

Saw the movie and I loved it. It's a 8/10. It was entertaining. The battles were pretty gruesome. I don't get where people think he is a incel and made the world pay though. The movie made it pretty clear that the wars were defensive wars besides going after Russia for betraying him again once more.

ridley scott forever lost me after alien covenant. holy shit that movie was so bad

Revisited posted...

Why did googling that name show me an attractive anime woman though

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/a02ed5c3.jpg

kind of weird that it gave you a pic of Orehime from Sakura Wars

meralonne posted...

Thats fair, I havent been overwhelmed by any of his movies for a while now.

And I fully acknowledge that Gladiator was, as another poster in this topic already pointed out, a Roman-era fanfic but everyone knew that going in from the trailers at release.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. People do take in more serious movies, well, seriously. That one famous scene in HBO's Rome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7MYlRzLqD0
Read the comments, people actually believe this is how the Romans fought despite being an invention of the series. In truth Polybios describes Roman units rotating in battle, not individuals as the scene suggests. So, movies and shows can seriously influence the way people perceive the past and what looks "right" in a period piece, even if it's wrong, a concept called "historical verisimilitude" by Professor Bret Devereaux.

Sometimes it can be "harmless" so to speak. Maybe not the right type of costume or cultural norms and the like. Movies are a form of entertainment and film makers are most likely going to push for something more dramatic and flashy rather than reconstruct the past. But other times it can be used to push negative stereotypes. A good example is Oliver Stone's Alexander from 2004:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B40fgE2ZpNo

The Macedonian army is portrayed very nicely here, and it sports the most accurate depiction of the Macedonian pike phalanx in film to date. The costumes are nice too, you can tell the difference between the Macedonian pikemen, the Macedonian hypaspists and even the Thracian peltasts with their phrygian cap, cloaks and crescent shields. The Macedonian forces are portrayed as pretty organized and professional even if the battle scene devolves into the chaotic free for all melee hollywood loves to portray between the film's heroes. Overall, it's clear that while the film takes some liberties in the depiction of the battle Oliver Stone clearly listened to Robert Lane Fox, the film's historical advisor.

However, when it comes to the Persians their depiction falls back to racist orientalists tropes, framing the battle as one of professional "Western" forces vs the Eastern "Asiatic horde". First before the battle you can clearly see Darius III wearing eyeliner which Achaemenid kings never wore, it's an effort to play up the "orientalist" angle and to make Darius appear more effeminate. Second the Persian infantry is all lightly armored, wearing no body armor nor helmets, in contrast to the Macedonian infantry. We know that the infantry core of the Persian royal army, the so-called immortals, wore scale armor, so it makes no sense to depict them that way. Third the Persians infantry makes a mad charge towards the organized Macedonian formation which runs contrary to Xenophon's description of the Persian army at the battle of Kounaxa of an organized Persian army, which he contrast the professionalism of the Persians to the rowdy and loud Greek mercenaries, and you see Persian warriors commit suicide by Macedonian by willingly impaling themselves on a wall of pikes. In fact that sort of charge and depiction is more accurate to the Greeks than it is to the Persians, these crude tactics are what historians like Thukydides and Xenophon tell us about the tactics of most Greek hoplites, Thukydides stops his narrative to explain the Spartan practice of marching in step and Xenophon spent a good deal crying to his readers to adopt Spartan formation drill in the 4th century.

These stereotypes are hurtful because they incorrectly shape up our perception of the past. Dan Carlin in his podcast about the Persians made the claim that the Persians were unable to deal with the new Greek war of war which is plain wrong. Persian armies pretty much wrecked Greek armies up to the battle of Marathon and the Persian were familiar with the way the Greeks fought seeing as they had experience fighting the Ionian Greeks as well as the various heavy infantry cultures on the Eastern Mediterranean. If anything the Greeks were the ones behind heavy infantry development in comparison to the states of the Eastern Mediterranean, while almost up to the Greco-Persian wars the Greeks were fighting with mixed warbands of ranged and melee infantry led by rich men the Sumerians thousands of years earlier had mastered the art of separating heavy infantry into separte formations. The Greeks came late to that party and the concept of a "phalanx" may have been evolving even up to the Peloponnesian War. All these negative stereotypies push the image of the Persian military as one of a lightly armed disorganized horde that used it's massive numbers to win the day but in reality, the Persians had a world conquering army semi-professional army, even before Alexander III of Macedon invaded the Persian empire the Persians had come hot straight out of re-conquering Egypt, showing that the Persians were not militarily weak nor was the empire in decline.

HannibalBarca3 posted...

I wouldn't be too sure about that. People do take in more serious movies, well, seriously. That one famous scene in HBO's Rome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7MYlRzLqD0
Read the comments, people actually believe this is how the Romans fought despite being an invention of the series. In truth Polybios describes Roman units rotating in battle, not individuals as the scene suggests. So, movies and shows can seriously influence the way people perceive the past and what looks "right" in a period piece, even if it's wrong, a concept called "historical verisimilitude" by Professor Bret Devereaux.

I wouldn't say the tactic is a complete invention of the show. We know they rotated out of battle and this is a good assumption of how they did such a thing. They had historical people on the show to help with accuracy. The whistle is a thing we believe they may have used as some were found on battlefields. It at least has historical bases as we don't exactly know how they rotated whole units. It is still up for debate in how it was actually done but this is the closest we ever got on a tv show.

Tora_Sami posted...

I wouldn't say the tactic is a complete invention of the show. We know they rotated out of battle and this is a good assumption of how they did such a thing. They had historical people on the show to help with accuracy. The whistle is a thing we believe they may have used as some were found on battlefields. It at least has historical bases as we don't exactly know how they rotated whole units. It is still up for debate in how it was actually done but this is the closest we ever got on a tv show.

See:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13h2n3t/how_did_roman_cohorts_communicate_in_battle_to/
Which touches on those points as well as the pulse model pushed by some scholars such as Adrian Goldsworthy.

Why not set Napoleon in the present day with current technology since the movie isnt adhering to historical accuracy anyway.