Napoleon 2023 (Ridley Scott)

Yeah, I prefer subtitles probably 99% of the time. I think it's the least-bad option, but in my experience even very smart people do a poor job of distinguishing between "least bad" and "good." They think, perhaps unconsciously, that if I'm saying subtitles have a cost, I must be attacking the idea of using subtitles, or defending the idea of dubbing, or whatever. But I'm not! I am saying simply: they have a cost. A cost that should matter more to the cinephile than anyone else. And it shouldn't be such a problem to acknowledge that cost and then simply make the case that it's worth paying.

The dialogue, its flow and authenticity, is one of several major parts of filmmaking (and some films don't even have much/any). When we use subtitles to try to preserve that, we inevitably take from several other parts of the production, each of which may matter just as much. Obviously, it's case-by-case. Some films are shot in such a way that you don't lose much having your eyes flitting between words and faces, or words and photography, but in many others you simply have far less time to appreciate those things properly.

I agree with you both.

__________________
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.

There's a great film called 'Embrace of the Serpent', set in the Amazon jungle. The languages spoken in it are:

Spanish
Portuguese
Aboriginal
German
Catalan
Latin
English - (spoken by an explorer from the Western civilization)

The film (I'll put this very crudely) is about a shamen, the last of his tribe, describing what colonialism has done to his people, his culture and his land.

I wonder if it would lose it's poignancy if the cast were all speaking in English.

In my humblest of opinions, this scene would lose so much tension, anger, power if it was an American production with an English speaking cast:

I think the actual experiment should work this way: what if the tribe spoke English, and the colonialists spoke something else? The emotions of the story would be the same, because there is nothing inherent to any of the languages involved that affects the emotional dynamic. The languages are mostly arbitrary and incidental.

The example you give perhaps relies on the fact that the languages are different from one another, but would not seem to rely on any specific language in any specific instance, if you follow my meaning.

I follow your meaning. And at the end of the day, no matter what the language is on screen - I am effectively reading it inside my head in English. Every time.

But what we hear is so important. Because of what we know. That's why it's more important in historical epics / biopics.

We know that ancient tribesmen of the Amazon don't speak in a New Jersey accent! So we're (Or I at least) not taken out of the film when we first hear a tribesman speak in what we automatically assume to be authentic aboriginal Latin. Again crude example but it's one worth making.

I follow, and I can certainly relate. Everything you're saying is true and I would certainly have the same reaction.

The tricky thing is we bring implications and connotations to all these languages and dialects, and it's extremely difficult to imagine any of this without that. I think this is, while totally inevitable, also kind of "unfair" on our part. It is us failing, however understandably, to really approach the work from a neutral point, failing to assess the story in a vacuum.

I guess that's what it comes down to: the abstract versus the concrete. It reminds me of asking a jury to put aside bias or disregard some comment they were not supposed to hear. It is an impossible aspiration, though I do like to think in terms of the ideal when discussing abstract concepts, at least at first. I am very sympathetic to a pragmatically focused argument that says "look, technically the language doesn't matter to the emotions of the story, but realistically people will bring their biases to it, so it matters in practice if not in theory." That would be a fair point, I think.

Yes and at the end of the day, I'll always be in a small minority on this point. Most people would be perfectly happy to watch this Napoleon film, while I'd prefer a smaller production with French language (even though Napoleon spoke in a French-Corsican dialect). That's just market forces at work really.

Yes. Of course it would. The days of Hollywood productions co-opting other cultures should have passed. And no, that has nothing to do with a "woke" agenda. They're perfectly free to attempt it, but a sincere attempt at discretion should factor into the movies value and ultimate success. I say should because it won't. I know that's just wishful thinking on my part.

Well I haven't been excited to see a new movie in years.
I hope its good. Joaquin is a great choice. This sounds like a massive and expensive undertaking. Of course you are going to hire the best and most bankable actor of the era. How else are you going to get butts in the seats?

I would usually agree with the idea that we should respect the cultural origins of historical characters in appropriate casting choices, but as a Spaniard and culturally obliged to fulfill a patriotic duty whenever French historical figures are involved, I'm also not against Napoleon being played by an anglophone sad clown

Ha! You know, I wondered the same thing...

I personally feel like justice to a role should be done through truth to the original appearance and through acting quality. If one's going to celebrate history, then as much justice should be done as possible in terms of quality. I'll have faith that Jokin' Phoenix can pull this off. As far as subtitles and the French language go, we have plenty of historical movies in English, like, most appropriately, The Scarlet Empress, that are all spoken in English. So what matters is how this linguistic delivery relates to the audience if we don't have the authenticity.




On top of that, Scott and Phoenix have collaborated before.

Official Trailer #2

__________________
Entertainment Log
Letterboxd profile

"Ridley Scott focuses on a slice of Napoleon's life - his beginnings and the talent that made him the best general and allowed him to become emperor. We will also see a behind-the-scenes look at his turbulent relationship with Josephine, who was his one true love. The French emperor will be played by Joaquin Phoenix, while the role of Josephine will be played by Vanessa Kirby.".... My only hope is that they don't let go of the scenes of the battles of Waterloo, among others, and don't make this a drama or a romance but a nice historical film.

I think I might go see this movie. Historical dramas are not usually my thing, but I like Ridley Scott and Joaquin Phoenix, and I haven't seen any movies about Napoleon Bonaparte.

__________________
Boldly going.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...020600005.html

“I love historical epics. I love Ridley Scott. But if you’re watching this movie, it ain’t a documentary.” Um, yeah obviously, and it was never meant to be one. Its purpose is to entertain and put butts in seats. What a stupid and pointless statement.

I will say though that Ridley Scott’s claim about reviving Russell Crowe’s career with A Good Year sounds like BS to me, looking at Crowe’s resume. Ron Howard’s Cinderella Man came out the year before and James Mangold’s 3:10 to Yuma came out the year after. IMO, both of those are much better movies than A Good Year. I think Ridley might be a bit full of himself.

Regardless I will be seeing Napoleon as soon as I am able.

__________________

Anyone seen this yet? Any impressions?

Looked online, all I found was;

Probably in theaters only, I might check it out this weekend.