“Napoleon”: Joaquin Phoenix rambles his way through history

The Napoleon complex is the attempt to compensate for what is perceived as too small a body size with confrontational behavior and status symbols. Not every person in human history has the dubious honor of having a psychological deficiency named after them.

Even 200 years after his death, the creation of myths, which Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) diligently worked on throughout his life, does not seem to be finished yet. But with the joint film “Napoleon” (cinema release: November 23rd), director Ridley Scott (85) and leading actor Joaquin Phoenix (49) are not building a cinematic monument to him. Far more than the strategic strengths, the human weaknesses of the title character are at the center of the plot.

War on two fronts – that’s what it’s all about

Thanks to his sophisticated and unscrupulous approach, Napoleon Bonaparte (Phoenix) rises from military leader to French emperor within a very short time. Away from the battlefield, the capricious man is only interested in one thing: the pretty and self-confident Joséphine de Beauharnais (Vanessa Kirby, 35).

With his only true love, who becomes the Empress at his side, Napoleon has a relationship that is as passionate as it is destructive. Affairs, demonstrations of power and the increasingly hopeless wait for a male descendant – is the strategic genius perhaps fighting a hopeless battle on two fronts?

One man, two roles

With “Joker” (2019), Phoenix paved his way to the lead actor Oscar as the title character, who was plagued by inferiority complexes. In “Napoleon” he seems to want to repeat this hussar’s act, but with one crucial difference: as a comic character, he completed the change from the pitiful, but still human, mourning figure to the self-confident monster. In “Napoleon” he plays both ends of this spectrum simultaneously.

“I’m the first to admit it when I make a mistake. But I just don’t make any.” This is the attitude with which Napoleon presents himself in public. This is quite convincing, as success always proves him right. Of course, it helps that he is able to put aside any scruples in order to achieve his goals: he nips a popular uprising in the bud by firing cannons at them without batting an eyelid – and without warning.

Scott always counteracts this diabolical self-confidence when he shows Napoleon in private with his Joséphine. Here the great general, who in his own opinion was chosen by God himself, becomes a whining, Oedipal joke figure: when he asks for sex, he makes noises that are reminiscent of an infant asking for its mother’s breast. After a few seconds of clumsy banging, during which his loved one stares impassively into space, the tragedy is over.

Wanted too much?

The problem: The film itself presents itself in a similar rush to Napoleon with his pants down. It almost races through history: from the French Revolution – in which Marie Antoinette once again and most graphically loses her head – to Napoleon’s crushing defeat at Waterloo, which represents the finale of the film. The strictly chronological narrative style is sometimes reminiscent of quickly leafing through a history book. In addition to the battles, Scott also wants to show the geopolitical background and the private life of his main character. But in order to do all of this with the necessary level of detail, the almost two and a half hour running time with which “Napoleon” comes to the cinema is not remotely enough.

In this respect, Scott is exalting his own ambitions in a similar way to what Christopher Nolan (53) did with “Oppenheimer” in the summer. Both projects turned out to be good films, no question about it. However, both would have benefited from concentrating more on less. For comparison: The film “Waterloo” from 1970 (starring Christopher Plummer and Orson Welles, among others) is almost as long as “Napoleon” and only deals with the titular fiasco of 1815.

But this point of criticism could soon be eliminated, even if not in the cinema: “Napoleon” is an Apple production that is finding its way to the cinema via Sony Pictures. That means: Napoleon could conquer living rooms via the streaming service Apple TV+ in a timely manner and, if necessary, in far more detail. Ridley Scott announced in September of this year, to have made a “fantastic” director’s cut of the film – which is said to be almost four and a half hours long. That may sound excessive, but old-school epics need to be (excessively) long: “Ben Hur” also clocks in at over 220 minutes…

Scott, the show value guarantee

Speaking of epic: the battles that Scott stages in “Napoleon” are beyond any optical doubt. Countless real extras and extremely contrasting locations, from glaring Egypt to icy Russia, credibly conjure up Napoleon’s megalomaniac drive for conquest on the screen. It is these moments that skillfully represent the strategic genius that Napoleon is said to have been so proud of.

In an age when too many filmmakers rely on computer effects, 85-year-old Scott is, in a positive way, an old-school kid who prefers real locations to green screen. Of course, “Napoleon” doesn’t work without effects created on the computer – otherwise PETA would probably be the first to storm the project. However, he is able to disguise this artfully. Anyone who would rather wait for the streaming release instead of making a pilgrimage to the cinema must also be clear: no amount of TV in the living room, no matter how lavish, can adequately reproduce this wide-angle spectacle.

Conclusion:

Joaquin Phoenix and Ridley Scott do not experience their personal Waterloo with “Napoleon”. Both men are too good at their craft for that: the actor is able to masterfully portray the stark contrasts of the title character. And the director shows realistic-looking visuals, especially in the battles, which have become almost unusual in times of computer effects inflation. “Napoleon” still has one big problem: the film sometimes rushes through history in a similar way to how Napoleon rushes through coitus: hastily and unsatisfactorily.

SpotOnNews