Napoleon 2023 (Ridley Scott)

Might take the wife out Saturday night to the theater to see this if I'm not called into work. I want to see this but just can't stand Joaquin Phoenix, although he was pretty decent in Gladiator.

__________________
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” — Gandhi​

I will probably go see this after thanksgiving sometime. I am more interested in this than Killers of the Flower Moon and it looks to be as grand and potentially classic as far as I am able to tell. There was arguably an equal effort put into this as there was in the Scorcese flick. And if I'm going to sit in a theater for 3 hours there better be some epic war scenes.

Going to see this today.

__________________

Got back a few mins ago, sure I'll have some thoughts.

No but I've been waiting so bloody long and read so much about it I am almost scared I will be disappointed.


Bit disappointed they are firing at pyramids when that didn't even happen, one can take small inaccuracies which are inevitabl but that's a big graphic lie and Phoenix has no resemblance what so ever to Napoleon yet that doesn't seem to bother me as it's Phoenix and I have trust in him..


I found the crown of France in the gutter. I picked it up with tip of my sword and cleaned it and placed it atop my own head.


I never thought this film would happen, I haven't been so excited since watching "It"

Yeah, saw it and was both under and over whelmed. The FX are terrific, battle scenes are animated quite well, but Phoenix's characterization of the guy who invented dictators, left me flat. The real Napoleon is an archetype of the charismatic dictator who could spellbind his subjects. Phoenix is mainly the moody, pensive, self-absorbed guy we've seen him do before. Really....would YOU follow this guy into a Russian winter without enough warm clothes? It was definitely an eye-candy treat, but not good as a story of the person. I can't help but think that Scott picked off too much of a story for one movie and should have focused on some part of Napoleon's career. It's kind of a LOTR sort of story, a big, complex history with a lot of events and characters. 3 hours just wasn't enough and Phoenix didn't create enough of a character.

Is it worth going to Cinema to see it?

That’s my question.

That's the problem with realism. The approximation "real" man is what we think of as a "typical" man. A typical man, however, is not an Alexander.


Word has it that George Washington was quite handsome, tall, athletic, and charismatic. We only see paintings of an ageing man in a white wig. No offense to Jeff Daniels, but I wouldn't follow him across the Potomac.

I think modern politics is teaching is very clearly that we follow ideology, not good looks and charisma. Not quite sure any of that really pertains to soldiering anyway. Feels like a whole different ballgame.

__________________
Letterboxd

This movie is very mediocre and a huge disappointment. I expected way more from Phoenix and Scott.


The jokes were corny, the camera effects and soundtracks were weirdly used. It's filled with historical inaccuracies.


Also, explicitly showing people of color to force the diversity theme (black soldiers have served revo France, but that's beside the point) and inconsistent use of language (Germans speaking German, Russians speaking Russians, but other times everyone was speaking English) are not ways to make a good movie.


There was in particular one scene that did feel like satire,


Almost none of the jokes landed. Phoenix is a marvelous actor but he isn't the kind of actor who can pull this off, at least not without a good script. It also felt like all characters in the movie knew there were cameras and acted like that, close to breaking the 4th wall.


The pacing was also a big problem, a lot of the famous scenes were shown quickly which made it hard to follow the events at times.


Napoleon was portrayed as this never sleeping simp who has compassion for everyone and loves a slut who keeps cheating on him throughout the movie


The battle scenes and Kirby's breasts were the highlights of this movie in my humble opinion.

Modern politics is not an organic concoction, but an algorithmic house of mirrors. Todd Rose (2022) in Collective Illusions comments about research showing that a substantive portion of the interaction we have online is with bots and shills and that you need just a fraction of that portion to create a false impression regarding typical/majority positions.

It's easy to forget that history actually features people who were wildly charismatic, tough, and bonkers (ambition does that). Abe Lincoln was tall and strong (a powerful wrestler) and brilliant (he didn't have speech writers. Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address, he didn't just read it from a teleprompter). Teddy Roosevelt was robust enough not only to just give an 83 minute oration from the stump, but to do so after having been shot in the chest immediately before speaking. And Napoleon came up through the ranks. He demonstrated his worth on the field. He was not just "commander in chief," and he was not just on the field with his generals--he was the general. He was a brilliant tactician. He took a throne for himself and crowned himself emperor (your ordinary chucklehead would be tarred and feathered for such a stunt). Napoleon must have had something going on (beyond tribal branding and slogans) or people would not have followed him after all that and after Elba. Don't confuse our age of pygmies and clown princess for the age of men which preceded it. He wasn't a millionaire bureaucrat in a decadent empire who was handed a crown. He was the reason Clausewitz wrote, On War. He is the reason that England celebrates Wellington and Nelson (they beat him).

This feels a lot like looking at history through rose colored glasses. Hard to quantify how charismatic these people were when there was no way for that to be physically recorded. Plus a very very small percentage of people were actually hearing those speeches. Most people were just getting it word of mouth.

I dunno I think this movie was sort of mocking the current age of film making in a way. A rib on the audience watching it. And a plea to not vote for Trump in 2024.

Well, we were certainly never in A room with them. Then again, I suspect that Jesus and Muhammad could probably read a room and work one too, no?

As for speeches, people took oratory pretty seriously back then. People set up picnics to listen to the debates of Lincoln and Douglas. We don't have a recording of Lincoln's voice, but we do know that he had a high pitched Kentucky accent which carried very well across a crowd. We know that he spoke relatively slowly (again allowing himself to be heard clearly).

Lincoln’s speaking voice carried the accents and phrases of a youth spent in Kentucky and southern Indiana. The most oft-quoted example is that of Lincoln’s tendency to pronounce “chairman” as “cheerman.”

Records indicate that he was easier to hear than Douglas (whose relatively low voice didn't not carry as well across the din of a crowd). We also have records of his powerful physical presence.

William H. Herndon wrote: “His maiden effort on the stump was a speech on the occasion of a public sale at Pappsville, a village eleven miles west of Springfield. After the sale was over and speechmaking had begun, a fight – a ‘general fight,’ as one of the bystanders relates – ensued, and Lincoln, noticing one of his friends about to succumb to the energetic attack of an infuriated ruffian, interposed to prevent it. He did so most effectually. Hastily descending from the rude platform he edged his way through crowd, and seizing the bully by the neck and seat of his trowsers, threw him by means of his strength and long arms, as one witness stoutly insists, ‘twelve feet away.’ Returning to the stand and throwing aside his hat he inaugurated his campaign….”

Truth be told, we know quite a bit. People took care to characterize him favorably and unfavorably (his own General McClellan called Lincoln "The Original Gorilla").

As for Napoleon, I don't really know. We do have reports which indicate that he was not, in fact, short, but of average height for his time. Beyond that, there is the common knowledge of his outrageous accomplishments. I think the presumption based on the evidence, however, was that this was a leader of men, a person who could inspire. Perhaps there is an historian among us who has sources, and evidence can always overturn a presumption, but my sense is that he must have had something going on in terms of social attractiveness (e.g., charisma, style, confidence). Combine this with the fact that he had to climb socially and militarily and politically, indicates that he probably didn't just luck into it or limply Forrest Gump his was to the throne. Nah, I think that he had something. I think that if you were in a room with Will Smith in '96 you'd sense that he had something too.

I do believe we have evidence to help answer the question. I'm no historian, but I could certainly find my presumption overturned. And yes, you're right that in hindsight these figures tend to be ridiculously elevated. And surely, not all great and influential people in history looked and sounded like Charlton Heston.

Yeah, we certainly have indications of who these people were, but I just wonder how much people’s charisma has to do with them having people following them.

Jesus is a good example. On one hand you could say he was so charismatic he has millions of followers thousands of years later. On the other you could say he was so charismatic he got himself crucified and thousands of years later millions of people think his followers are lunatics. As someone who claims to follow him I hope what he said has been much more important to me then how he said it.

In some cases, where we have reports of magnetism, presence, personality, etc., by both friends and enemies (e.g., the apocryphal story of Cicero's tongue being cut out and stabbed with pins is a reminder of how many times he swayed the gathered assembly with his oratory), I think we can safely presume a higher charisma quotient.


I think that there is probably evidence available about Napoleon. I just don't happen to have resources at the ready to say either way. I do think we could find out and that I could very well be wrong. He was, for example, reputed to be a bit thin-skinned and vain, so maybe he wasn't much in a social setting? Maybe he got by like Bill Belichick by just winning a lot despite being a curmudgeon? It's an empirical question and we do have records (history has obsessed over the man), so there should be some acceptably strong evidence here.

I'm pretty sure that if you're raising the dead and multiplying loaves, you're pretty well set in the "mojo" department. Bracketing the question of divinity and faith, the records we have indicate that he had a considerable presence among people.

You are kind of proving my point here. If he had that much mojo why did most of the people still despise him?

Nothing summons contempt like greatness. The great man stands proud, so it is little wonder that so many wish to hammer him back into place. If you cannot love him, you must hate him, for he towers over you. Great men are thus always loved and hated; their achievements refuse to let you be indifferent to them.

Given that it was a night out in the city, with some good food, "Dinner and a Movie", yes. If you're looking for great movies or historical correctness, I'd say no. You've probably seen Joachim Phoenix before and there's not much new here.