Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon” does not convince in France: “A very anti-French film” | Culture

An Englishman tells the life of the French Caesar. A story that begins with a mistake (Napoleon Bonaparte attends the beheading of Marie Antoinette when he was not there) and ends with a series of figures about the millions of dead he left in Europe (the subtext: he was a predecessor of Hitler and Stalin). Worse still: with this Emperor and the rest of the French protagonists speak English. What could go wrong?

Ridley Scott’s film, which hits cinemas this week, has been well received in France. There are not so many leaders in the world who have their mausoleum in the center of the capital: Lenin, Mao … and Napoleon, whose remains rest in the Invalid Monument. This country cannot be understood without the man who embodied the last true moment of French power in the world and built the architecture of the modern state.

“I’m a fan of Ridley Scott,” historian Jean Tulard said Tuesday night. In addition to the unconditionality of the director Blade Runner, extraterrestrial j gladiator, is that of Napoleon, or at least one of his most respected scholars and reference biographers. Tulard spoke at a colloquium organized by the magazine Le Figaro story in L’Arlequin, a Paris cinema where the audience had just seen the preview Napoleon. The historian specified: “I am speaking to you as a film fan.”

Precision was important. Because then both Tulard and the other historians attending the colloquium set about elegantly but ruthlessly dismantling the film we had just seen. Some assessments heard on the L’Arlequin stage: “It hides the political landscape”; “I was disappointed by the setting”, “Nothing is understood in the Battle of Austerlitz”; “he is an incomplete Napoleon”; “sometimes monolithic.”

Tulard, who at nearly 90 has a bibliography of dozens of books about Napoleon Bonaparte, was candid at the end of the talk when asked if the new film was a good introduction for those who didn’t know Napoleon. His answer: “I admire Ridley Scott, but as a history professor at the Sorbonne I would advise against watching this film.” Applause from the stalls. “As a film fan, yes,” he concluded. “As a historian, no!”

As with any fictional recreation of the past – from the Puy du Fou theme park to the best historical novel – there are criticisms of the Napoleon by Scott are presented in two levels. The first is that of facts. And the French audience may be more punctual and irritable than the rest because they talk about it your. Although this term is not used, there is a sense of cultural appropriation. We usually talk about cultural appropriation when a majority uses the symbols or traditions of an oppressed minority. In this case the appropriator would be English and the appropriator would be French.

Tulard, for example, points out that Napoleon never carried the saber at Waterloo, although he understands that because “it’s the page.” gladiatorand Ridley Scott is taken.” Another historian who specializes in this period and the figure, Patrick Gueniffey, denounced in the weekly newspaper Point more errors. One of them is the already mentioned presence of the future dictator at the beheading of Queen Marie Antoinette, when Bonaparte was at the time at the siege of Toulon, more than 800 kilometers from Paris. Another fictional scene is the bombing of the pyramids.

There is a second level of criticism that points to the image of Napoleon conveyed by Ridley Scott. It is not that France ignores its sins such as dictatorship, the reintroduction of slavery or endless wars. What’s annoying, however, is that the protagonist appears as a “caricature of an ambitious man, the Corsican man-eater, a sulking idiot and at the same time rude to his wife,” says Gueniffey. “Ridley Scott,” he adds, “fails to recognize the logical absurdity: How did such a stupid, mediocre and ridiculous character come to write such a fate?”

The historian, author of the monumental Bonapartebelieves that Scott is “resuming the old caricature made by Napoleon shortly after his fall, which was of the Restoration or of the English enemy at the time of the Congress of Vienna.” “Obviously he doesn’t love Napoleon,” he complains. And here an idea arises that partly runs through the reception of the film in France: “It is a film against Napoleon, which certainly does not deserve only praise, but it is made without nuances or intelligence.” It is a film, he concludes , “very anti-French”.

Anti-French? “The end is,” Tulard replied as he left the theater. “The seemingly unexpected list of dead soldiers shows that there is a desire for hostility towards Napoleon.” Another participant in the colloquium, Geoffroy Caillet, editor-in-chief of Le Figaro storyadds: “Ridley Scott tends to have us believe that the Empire is reduced to a history of the dead, but the Empire is something else: it is the foundation of modern France after the chaos of the Revolution, and also represents a part of it “Heritage of the monarchy, and unfortunately this whole dimension is disappearing.”

The figure of three million dead, which marks the conclusion of two and a half hours of battles and love affairs, is abhorrent. “We must remember that Napoleon did not commit genocide. There is talk of deaths on the battlefield,” says Caillet. And he concludes: “It’s not an anti-French film, but it has a very Anglo-Saxon point of view.” But this awkward and controversial ending draws on other British visions of the emperor, such as that of Paul Johnson, author of a short biography that led to the The conclusion was: “No dictator of the tragic 20th century – from Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong to dwarf tyrants like him.” Kim Il Sung, Castro, Perón, Mengistu, Saddam Hussein, Ceaucescu and Gaddafi – were free from the echoes of the Napoleonic model.”

During the screening at L’Arlequin no one left the room and there were no boos. No applause either. A spectator sighed when he saw the three million number. Another commented: “It’s not that it’s an anti-French film, it’s just empty.” The review wasn’t enthusiastic. In some cases directly hostile, beyond ideology. The left-wing newspaper Release wrote: “Without really taking a particular standpoint or approach, Napoleon “It is a quietly indecent film that is very sure of its nonsense.” Napoleon remains unaffected. Or you can touch it carefully. At the end of the colloquium in L’Arlequin, some shouted: “Long live the Emperor!”