Napoleon 2023 (Ridley Scott)

__________________
Entertainment Log
Letterboxd profile

Shame that an English speaking actor has been cast as one of the most famous French people to ever live. Still I'm sure it will win all the awards.

Talent/skill > speaking language imho..

The film will literally be in the wrong language.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

There is no right or wrong language to tell a story in. Stories, through most of history, have traveled from person to person, across language barriers, changing in ways great and small as they go. That's their nature. Events don't have a language, nor do the emotions driving them or resulting from them. Original/unoriginal would be a more accurate description, I think. That stories transcend place and language and culture is the most marvelous thing about them!

Also, there is a genuine cost to subtitles. I'm surprised more hardcore cinephiles don't recognize and agree with this, because it seems indisputable. I'm sure you gain something by having a story told in the language of the people involved in it, but you also pay a price in attention. Photography is seen less, emotions are less studied, and a hundred other things. These are issues that apply as much to the rapt, sophisticated viewer as they do for the thoughtless "I don't like reading" stereotype luddite viewer.

Correct, it's not my native language but I heard it's an international one, you know get the broadest audience possible to see your art etc.. That's why a lot of information signs in 'foreign' Airports are in English..
Also it doesn't exclude an audience from being able to enjoy/ go see a movie. For example I was entertained by Waterloo to an extent.

We hear calls for gay actors to play gay people, trans actors to play trans characters. Yet we can't manage a French actor playing a French character, instead choosing a huge star aiming for box office success over integrity.

Joaquin Phoenix wouldn't be cast as Martin Luther King for obvious reasons. Those reasons should also extend to heritage / culture / language.

I feel strongly about it, so sorry to put negativity on a film that seemingly otherwise has many strengths (Cinematography and set pieces etc). But there we are.

Joaquin Phoenix is my go to actor and if anyone is capable of handling a sweeping historical biopic it's Ridley Scott. But I agree with Scarlet Lion. Hearing the English language being spoken in this context and in this day and age of correctness and painstaking authenticity is jarring. It comes off like a typical Hollywood production which somehow seems dated. This might go without saying but it's bound to generate controversy. If it hasn't already.

Am I the only one who's likely gonna spend the whole screening comparing it to the 1927 movie?

eew boy-- I hope the picture is better than what the trailer indicates...

The trivia on IMDb says: "On December 2022 it was reported to the media that the Joaquin Phoenix performance as Napoleon was so powerful that Ridley Scott had to rewrite the script to adjust for Phoenix."

I didnt listen but watched some of the trailer on mute. Looks like some great visuals. I will be seeing this in theaters and haven't seen any other Napoleon movie yet.

Is he even short enough?
AFAF.

Whoa.

Joaquin Phoenix is more french than Napoleon was


But also I love that this massive historical epic that's going to be a classic will be written off from award consideration for whatever identity politics is in vogue this year.

In general? Sure as hell there is. Try telling the story of the Hong Kong protests in Mandarin. Or the story of Kurds in Turkish. By telling the story of a people in the people's language, you're saving the people from oblivion. It doesn't really apply to this situation, though. This is an American film, not a French one. Plus the Frenchies are hardly a minority.

For some stories, the language and culture are a vital part of them. Try to tell the story of LGBT protests or independence protests of a country or a black activist, or a Chinese woman who opposed Communism during the Cultural Revolution without including all the language and culture details. Of course, you can. And you can simplify these stories into something oblique like "people fighting for their rights". But the details are pretty important and without them, these stories lose a lot of spice, eh?

And it's not like we don't think they're important. We do. And we show that by protesting against black Cleopatra and white Genghis Khan. Falsifying stories is wrong because it distorts our knowledge about these events. We know something happened. But we lose the ability to see why.

There's an even greater cost to dispassionate voice-over or unoriginal dubbing. You're not experiencing the auteur's vision. You're experiencing the auteur's vision regurgitated by others. You're experiencing a mutilated version of the auteur's intent, their art. Now, if it's Scott's wish to have the film all in English, so be it. Now, if somebody decides to dub it in French later on, then, paradoxically, they'd mutilate it! Sure, Scott could make it all in French, but he'd need French producers, French-speaking actors, and so on. And he'd have to include subtitles. So he wouldn't earn as much money because the general audience doesn't like reading. So I disagree with your general point but agree with the particular point about Ridley Scott's Napoleon.

Yeah, it's a different way of experiencing the movie, but it's closer to the original auteur's intent. Nobody's talking over (or instead) the actors and you can experience the translation of the words in the least invasive way. Hate to sound like a Commie snob, but I can't stop myself from saying that 'engagement' or 'helping the viewer with his attention' are inherently consumerist concepts anyway. Art shouldn't be nice and easy. It should be challenging. Watching and reading simultaneously is too much for you? Oh, let me introduce TWO audio tracks overlapping. Let's see how the subtitles can handle that. You know, challenging the viewer the Godard way.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

Obviously I'm excited for it.

__________________

I'm not aware of any story whose emotional potency comes from the language itself. I'm having trouble imagining one, even hypothetically. The emotional beats of any good story are, if not universal, pretty close to it. If it isn't, then I'm not sure it's a good story.

This isn't to say there isn't something lost when switching languages, but ultimately stories are about the events and emotions underneath them, not the arbitrary sounds we make with our mouths to describe them, which is why people can enjoy stories from different times and places in the first place.

As I alluded to earlier, storytelling has, for most of human history, traveled from person to person, jumping linguistic barriers in order to jump geographic ones. There is no "true" or pure version of any story, no real "original" anything. Even the "correct" language has changed significantly in the last several hundred years (moving vowels, anyone?). Even the choice to film in the "original" language would be a flawed imitation of what was actually spoken in the course of those events. And goodness, we have to make up all of the dialogue, too! The choice of which language the words are in seems positively trite next to the fact that it's all being made up, a fact which completely swamps any idea that we can somehow be true to the reality.

The question of our obligation to history and accuracy is another question entirely. It's a perfectly valid one (I laid into Titanic pretty hard on the same grounds, so I certainly agree in concept), but I don't think it really relates to this.

I'm not really talking about challenge. The fact is, every moment you spend reading words on screen is a moment you're not spent watching actor's faces or looking at framing, lighting, or anything else. Literally nobody can avoid this loss, no matter how quick or engaged or whatever. You simply cannot appreciate the rest of the production as much. Is it worth it? Sometimes, sure! Always? That seems like an incredible claim that cannot possibly be true. At minimum, though, there is a cost.

This is why I say it's something the cinephile should care about as much (if not more!) than the unsophisticated/lazy viewer. It's really strange to me that this is not usually the case. It feels like one of those things where people look at the kind of person usually railing against subtitles and decides they don't want to be on that "side."

I hate it when I’m the take both sides of an argument guy, but here I go again. As someone who didn’t enjoy subtitles till way too late in life I have come to appreciate watching something in a foreign language now that I watch a fairly large amount. I appreciate the language so much now that I will even find myself desiring to watch a movie in a certain language just to hear the rhythms of that language. I also think watching something with subtitles is something your brain gets used to, and I think that’s why so many cinephiles kick back against viewers who are completely against them. Once you adjust to them the “I don’t like to read my movies” argument feels very silly.

On the other hand I think you are spot on about missing some of the visuals. As accustomed to subtitles as I have become if the dialogue is very fast, think like a Baumbach or Kauffman style, it can be tough. I have also ran into a couple movies where overlapping dialogue can create a bit of confusion, kind of like an Altman style.

Regardless of the side of the argument I fall on in the moment I try never to be judgemental about it. We all engage art in different ways for different reasons. I’m trying to push my boys to watch more foreign stuff though, because I so wish I had started my journey with foreign movies much much earlier in my life.

__________________
Letterboxd