Event films are, by definition, highly anticipated. Of the lot, however, there are some that are all the more so because they represent a challenge. For example, in 1997, we wanted to know if the, yes, titanic Titanic by James Cameron would be the shipwreck that some predicted with iceberg jokes. This is a bit like the attitude faced by the ambitious Napoleon (Napoleon) by Ridley Scott. Will the venerable filmmaker “hit his Waterloo”? movie buffs ask. Yes and no. In that this opulent fresco does not amount to the notorious defeat of the French emperor, but, to evoke one of the latter’s most famous victories, it is not Austerlitz either, far from it.
Let’s put it bluntly, the fundamental problem of the film is, paradoxically, what appeared to be its main asset: Joaquin Phoenix. The actor is so uniquely gifted that he seems a bit untouchable.
The fact remains that here, its composition proves so problematic that it unbalances the entire film. In that the Oscar winner for Jokerappreciated last year in Beau Is Afraid (Beau is scared), multiplies the approaches in his incarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte. So he plays him, in public, as an inscrutable and self-confident being, then as a petulant man-child who doesn’t seem to really know what he’s doing (at odds with the reality of the fine strategist).
The same in private, where Phoenix sometimes opts for a comic tone as an awkward (and whiny) lover, sometimes for a tragic reading in complete contradiction.
It’s as if, satisfied with knowing that his protagonist will be played by one of the most talented actors there is, Ridley Scott had let Joaquin Phoenix do as he pleased in order to better concentrate on his production. The trouble is that the filmmaker ends up with a central performance that goes in all directions.
Impossible, in this regard, not to recall that in December 2022, the director explained in an interview with the magazine Empire that the script had been completely rewritten following the star’s comments. Of course, Scott assured that it was for the best, but given the result, we can legitimately question the relevance of allowing Phoenix to dictate the content of the scenario.
War before love
As Joséphine, Vanessa Kirby is more convincing than her partner despite a rather sparse score. By the strength of her charisma, and by making daring choices, such as laughing in the most unexpected moments, as if Joséphine were amused by some secret known only to her, the actress gives a captivating mystery to the role. Which, without this, would have no meaning, Kirby having to constantly play an intention then its opposite.
In its advertising hype, the blockbuster placed great emphasis on the parallel between the stormy relationship of the Bonaparte couple and the various battles of the emperor. In love as in war, in short.
If, in theory, the recipe is proven, in practice, the marriage of the two fronts often proves difficult. Here again, the scattered and isolated game of Phoenix (who mumbles like never before) does not help.
Except Scott is also to blame. Indeed, military sequences enjoy an increased level of narrative care compared to scenes of married life. On the different battlefields, before, during and after the confrontation, the director gives the full measure of his immense talent. The Battle of Austerlitz, where the enemy sinks into the icy waters of a frozen lake, is breathtaking: a grandiose piece of cinematic bravery.
On the other hand, the passage where Napoleon rushes back from a campaign in Egypt because of rumors of his friend’s infidelity is astonishingly incoherent and, unfortunately, representative.
Napoleon then throws Joséphine out, then immediately takes her back to better demean her. But suddenly, Joséphine once again has the upper hand over her husband, inexplicably. The film touches on a sadomasochistic dynamic here, but does not have the courage to explore it.
A “director’s cut”
Overall cohesion is in no way promoted by the editing. Taken independently, all the parts are filmed with the mixture of plastic refinement and kinetic dynamism specific to Ridley Scott (who incidentally tackled the Napoleonic period in his very first film, the superb The Duellists (The Duelists). The whole thing is, however, stumped: numerous cuts give the impression of sections of story clumsily glossed over, rather than necessary ellipses skillfully inserted.
In this regard, true to form, Scott has already made it known that he is preparing a long version of his Napoleon, or about four and a half hours (one less than that of Abel Gance). It will then be interesting to see whether the structural flaws have been filled in this “director’s cut”. However, Joaquin Phoenix’s composition is what it is.
In this regard, unconditional fans of the star will be able to console themselves by remembering that at the height of his glory, between the classics On the Waterfront (On the docks) And Guys and Dollseven Marlon Brando broke his teeth over the role of Napoleon, in Desiree, rightly forgotten. Moreover, ultimately, perhaps the now proverbial “Waterloo” concerns actors more than directors when it comes to adapting the life of the emperor.