Sunday 3 December 2023

I am boycotting that appalling fil-um; and I hope that you will too

The 2nd December is/was the double anniversary of Austerlitz and Napoleon's coronation.

The Eve of Austerlitz by Lejeune (Wikimedia Commons)

This year it could have been marked by watching an eponymous film. It was not and will not be. I am boycotting that appalling film and am hoping that others will take a similar stance to add to it being a box-office flop.

I had largely made up my mind having been bemused, startled and angered by what was in the trailers. This was reinforced by watching and reading reviews written by people who actually know a bit about the man’s life and the era who went 'over the top' and saw it (sadly, there is even a bit of that in this film, I hear). My conviction has been cemented by speaking with friends who ‘went on undeterred’ and wanted to walk out a few minutes in. The highlight for them was dinner and drinks afterwards with mates and bagging the fil-um.

It is like a set of rules that you know from descriptions and reviews contain mechanics that do not appeal, or worse. I won't waste money purchasing such rules purely to make my own, similar, assessment.

It is far worse with this film and get’s worse the more that I hear about it. 

I have been an amateur historian of the era since I was 12. In another six years, all going well, I will have been 'studying' the period for longer than Napoleon lived. Yet, I find new things each day that I did not previously know. Some of them quite fundamental; like being informed a few years ago that all those references to the Grand Duchy of Warsaw are not correct. It was the Duchy of Warsaw. [Speaking of which, how can you make a fit-um about N from the perspective of relations with women and not include Marie Walewska?]

I do not need to be insulted with the 'uncloaking' of a grand battery at Austerlitz. I do not need to witness the ridiculous sight of Napoleon leading a cavalry charge—I had assumed that this was some kind of dream sequence, but have been informed that it 'occurred' at Waterloo. I do not need to see the French scaling ladders at Toulon nor French cannon firing at the Pyramids. I don't want to witness the Prussians arriving on the French left at Waterloo. I will derive no edification nor entertainment from a pantomime representation of Napoleon and some puerile script.

In the ancient era one can perhaps get away with a simple, one-dimensional representation, since the extant sources are so limited. Yet it is known that there was far more to even a 'maligned' figure like Commodus. One can even depict cavalry charging through a wood especially since, despite that faux pas, that battle scene is a ripper. Not so with a person and era about which so much has been written during and since. Scott could have utilised my du Garde Peach Ladybird book 'The Story of Napoleon', the first that I read on the subject, and made a 3000% better film.

I was speaking with a good friend who had put himself through the agony of watching it. He would have left after ten minutes, but had gone to Perth (~500 km trip) to watch it with mates (not wargamers nor devotees of the period, but as good way to catch-up). He was another for whom the highlight was diner and drinks afterwards. He suggested that I would be traumatised’ if I watched it!! :)

I mentioned to him that I had heard that the uniforms are done well. He said ‘Yeah, they look great. The film is good, apart from the story and script.” I said (quipped?), “Oh, it’s like a porn film then?” He replied, “Yeah, but with Napoleon it is the audience who get f_____!"

I had come to the conclusion that it would be even worse to me than watching *that* Alexander film from 2004. Then I saw that exact comment from someone who had put themselves through seeing Scott's Napoleon.

I may buy a DVD at a discount sale and then have a ritual burning.

What a disappointment and an opportunity missed.

Thank goodness for my books, past films and wargames (however limited a representation they may be).

Addendum

I have information that sheds light on this topic. The last 15 seconds of the film were cut:



18 comments:

  1. Completely understand your position on this. Shame your mate had to travel 500km for the disappointment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Chris. Fortunately his catch-up with mates was the main reason for the trip. The film merely provided the catalyst. Sadly his friends thought it would be 'right up John's alley'. They were not to know!

      Delete
  2. I went, wish I hadn’t.
    Alan Tradgardland

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Something that I have heard or read all too often over the past few days. A great shame.

      Delete
  3. I went without reading any reviews and honestly felt like walking out. What really annoys me is Ridley Scott's attitude to history when he said in response to critics 'were you there?" to which the obvious reply is no, but tens of thousands were hundreds of whom wrote memoirs which agree on the major points you so carelessly butchered or overlooked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Were you there' is so silly and obviously thrown back at the person uttering it. It brings you to Keith's muse below...

      Delete
  4. Seems to be the general consensus amongst people who know anything about the man, James. I went and didn't mind it too much but there were many obviously incorrect parts in the military side of things so likely it was just as inaccurate when dealing with the other aspects of his life. I do wonder what point Ridley Scott was trying to make - he obviously isn't stupid so must be well aware his film is highly inaccurate - so it must have been deliberately so?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps Keith, or maybe you are being more kind and generous than he deserves. As a joke?! To 'stick it up' all those devotees of the man/period (or people interested in the history of same)? Or is it purely taking the payola and not giving a sh!t?

      Delete
  5. The mire I hear about this film the more disheartened I feel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is such a perfect and punny deliberate typo Ray. Shame that Scott did not employ you to improve the script!

      Delete
  6. We decided to skip this movie, maybe when it huts streaming we will watch. The we is my spouse and myself. Since she is finishing reading a book on Chancellorsville, following up on a book on Gettysburg and a book on Antietam she wondered what was the problem with the film.
    I was able to point to several of the blog entries from disappointed folk . Thanks to all of you who sat through the film and reported. Our agreement is a bad choice of a movie gives the other person two to three automatic choices on the next films chosen. Dodged that one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too true Joe, we have been saved by those who went 'over the top'!
      Is 'Gettysburg' the only and last historical epic to have been done well in recent years? All have mistakes and simplifications by nature of the medium and needing to appeal to those who are not 'history buffs', but the good ones get more right than wrong and certainly do not insult those who have read and studied the period and/or specific battle.

      Delete
    2. Actually, I can answer my own question with a 'no'. Those from Russia, esp. Bondarchuk jnr, Romania, Poland and other countries/languages are generally truer to history while having the 'necessary' drama for the broader audience.

      Delete
    3. I think James, the eastern Europeans are still keen to eulogise their war heroes, whereas we in the west seem less interested in doing so - the last "proper" WWII film made in the West, in my opinion, is A Bridge Too Far (I stand ready to be corrected by someone with greater knowledge than I, but Fury or Saving Private Ryan ain't it!)

      Delete
  7. I went knowing what to expect, and overall I wasn't sorry that I saw it despite it being at best an impression of Napoleon through the lens of his relationship with Josephine, and with the military parts all pretty grossly inaccurate. It was certainly far, far less than it could have been. I am a bit curious as to whether the extended version improves it. Having said that, it's the only reason I would watch it again.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I quite enjoyed it, having left my historical hat at the door so to speak, it was a drama not a documentary and trying to show Napoleon's genius in out thinking his opponents is difficult, having said that, some of it resembled monty python's women institute interpretation of Pearl Harbour sketch to be honest!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peter and Iain,
    You are far more generous than I am/would be. Nevertheless, to paraphrase you both, 'Okay, despite being inaccurate and not a particularly good film' is not a grand recommendation. It is nearly 100 km to the nearest cinema from where I live. I last saw a film at the cinema some year pre-covid. I make the trek fairly often to go to speedway, the footy or to see family or friends. A film is gonna have to be a lot better than this for me to make it the focus of a visit to the big smoke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would I drive 100 km to see it? Heck, no! Having said that, one thing it is is visually impressive, and a 15 km drive to see it on the big screen *was* worth it.

      Delete