Napoleon Movie: A Historian's Review (Part One)

Part One: My Assessment of The Film

My New Book—Napoleon: The Revolutionary Hero—is OUT NOW!!! Check it out on Amazon:

Last November, Ridley Scott released his movie Napoleon, starring Joaquin Phoenix. 

I just published a book about Napoleon myself, so here are my own thoughts on the film—from a historian’s perspective. 

In part one of my review, I will provide a general assessment of the film. 

Was the movie good?

Yes, I generally liked the movie. Napoleon’s life is way too eventful for a single movie. So obviously, the film makers had to take a little poetic license. It’s a movie, and Ridley Scott had to give us his own cinematic take on Napoleon—regardless of pure historical accuracy. 

But does Ridley Scott’s movie match my own understanding of the real-life Napoleon Bonaparte? No, definitely not. 

Positives

Let’s start with the positives. The film has good cinematography—lighting, camera angles, etc. The pacing is fairly consistent and engaging. In general, it captures the “heroic style” of a history of Napoleon. 

Phoenix’s quirky portrayal, for all of its faults, does capture a few compelling facts about the real Napoleon. It reflects Napoleon’s disgust with mob violence, as well as his shyness and ineptitude with women. 

Through its well-edited visual storytelling, the movie provides a compelling interpretation of Napoleon’s strained but affectionate marriage to Josephine. “I truly loved my Josephine, but I did not respect her,” the real-life Napoleon told a friend during his exile on Saint Helena. 

Vanessa Kirby, the beautiful English actress who plays Josephine, gives a compelling performance—equal to, if not better than, Phoenix himself. She perfectly resembles a portrait of the real-life Josephine by the painter Andrea Appiani.

Negatives

Now to the negatives. 

Phoenix’s portrayal of Napoleon is a letdown. He doesn’t sound or act French at all. He lacks the ambition, energy, or pomposity of the real Napoleon. Phoenix is far too soft-spoken, withdrawn, and dissociated to properly play this larger-than-life role. His spidery physique is correct, but his quirky schizoid personality just doesn’t do the job.

Although Phoenix’s performance has a few shining moments, the actor is simply unable to express Napoleon’s refined intellectualism, charismatic oratory, hard-driving ambition, or romantic passion. He is a great Joker, but not Napoleon.

Through its numerous glaring omissions, the movie fails to live up to its full potential. And these are not just “fine details”: these are huge moments that are completely missing. 

What about Trafalgar? Or the Battle of the Nile? Nothing is said about Napoleon’s invasion of Spain, or his victories against the Fourth Coalition at Jena-Auerstedt. What about the Battle of Leipzig? Napoleon’s time in Egypt is only briefly shown, while his important campaigns in Italy are not shown at all.