Ridley Scott has been typically dismissive of critics taking issue with his forthcoming movie Napoleon, particularly French ones.
While his big-screen epic, starring Joaquin Phoenix as the embattled French emperor with Vanessa Kirby as his wife Josephine, has earned the veteran director plaudits in the UK, French critics have been less gushing, with Le Figaro saying the film could have been called “Barbie and Ken under the Empire,” French GQ calling the film “deeply clumsy, unnatural and unintentionally clumsy” and Le Point magazine quoting biographer Patrice Gueniffey calling the film “very anti-French and pro-British.”
Asked by the BBC to respond, Scott replied with customary swagger:
“The French don’t even like themselves. The audience that I showed it to in Paris, they loved it.”
The film’s world premiere took place in the French capital this week.
Scott added he would say to historians questioning the accuracy of his storytelling:
“Were you there? Oh you weren’t there. Then how do you know?”
Second thing is age. Phoenix is 49. Bonaparte died at 51, after six years exile on Saint Helens. You can say what you want, Phoenix does look the part, but it’s easy too old.
Just like Dafoe playing van Gogh it’s just not right.
On the other hand, I think a Hollywood actor with the benefit of modern medicine has probably aged better than someone with a particularly stressful job in the 18th/19th century
To a point. But twenty years is quite significant. If any it’s more miraculous that Napoleon archieved what he did when he was in his early thirties.
To portray that correctly would be an hommage.
Plus I don’t really like the fact that older established actors get all these character roles. I mean I get it, but I don’t like it.
Eh, do we really need to pay so much homage to a warmongering autocrat?
It certainly makes for interesting history but we don’t need to lick up to them.
Maybe an hommage was too grand a word. I prefer less aggrandizing versions of his story like ‘blundering to victory’ which make the case that he only prevailed due to the ineptitude of his opponents and insight of his generals (mainly Davout).
However the minuteness of changes he had and the gall necessary to actually realize what he archieved are worthy of a story. It’s a definite case of reality being stranger than fiction.
I don’t really care about that. If it makes for a good movie, then why should it matter? It’s his attitude about it all that’s uncalled for.
Fair enough, I just think it’s silly and an exemplar of Scott not giving a monkeys about the historical person.
A valid answer from Ridley would be that his adaptation makes for a better story and that’s acceptable. But blowing off the historians like that is pretentious.
Exactly
Should have gone with Steve Buscemi?
Hah!