I've just heard this morning on Radio 4 that Sir Ridley Scott is in process of making a new biopic of Napoleon. In his words, "It's going to be huge", so knowing his reputation, the attention to detail will be enormous. What a prospect for all of us.. Remember "The Duellists"? He's already got Joaquin Phoenix and Jodie Comer signed up. Roll on........

Alan

It's to be titled, "Kitbag", presumably because it was said that each soldier carried a Marshal's baton in his kitbag.

Alan

Shame that no-one has done Wellington who had to make the best of whatever or whomsoever Horseguards sent him, rather than being able to control every aspect of his army and staff..............

Mike

He still won though, with the help of his European allies. Pause for thought.........

Alan

A slight edit for accuracy
Steve

Hum! That would be the Sir Ridley Scott who;
When asked about the use of fire arrows in Gladiator said something like " I don't care if they used them or not, It looks good;
Had Commodus killed in the arena;
Messed about with the Crusades;
Made prequals to Alien which messed up that film's credibility;
Had to remake Blade Runner three times to get it right;
Had Leprechauns pitted against Satan (?) or whoever his dark Lord was supposed to be;
Had the 3rd Hussars in Russia in 1812, when they should have been in Spain!
Had both protagonists in the Duellists wearing full parade dress all the time.

Less than excited!

David

I'm not sure whether that was a blessing or a curse. In the Peninsula, the Spanish guerillas and Portugese were certainly a bonus, the Spanish army was poorly trained and officered. At Waterloo he stood on the understanding that Blucher would support him, and his mixed bag of Allied troops on the whole behaved well. It might have been less of 'a close run' had not many of his Peninsular veterans been posted to North America. Napoleon on the other hand was a dictator who organised his army and subordinates with no outside interference, and showed his contempt for Wellington in his well recorded remarks before the battle.

Ho,hum,.....well, nobody's arguing the actual historical facts in any of the above. Just thought folk might like to learn of a new film in the offing. Go and see it or don't; I actually don't give a monkey's.

Alan

I am sure all old fa§ts of this forum with interest in the Napoleonic period will not be able to resist this film. Nevertheless Ridley Scott is more famous for telling a plot that raises general interest in a historical period/event among uninformed audience than trying to get it right according to historical facts - and he is not alone : Braveheart, The Patriot, Saving of Private Ryan etc...so maybe the expectation to watch a lesson in history has to be disappointed when going to the movies.
I would like to see a movie about the Nassau troops (the aerea where I live) and the KGL that won the Battle of Waterloo for Wellington beside the Prussians.... so much about national hubris

No criticism of your motive was intended Alan. I was happy to hear about this film, which I will also watch. Mr Scott does make beautiful looking films, no doubt, I just don't think, with all the historical advisors involved in these projects, it's unreasonable to expect a director to take some notice, it's not hard to do and if they don't, it's just lazy, arrogant or hubristic. Mr Scott has also produced some good docu-dramas (i'e'. Gettysberg) in which he stressed the importance of accurate research - I find that hypocritical.

Martin, funny (NOT), how wanting to have a historically correct film makes me an old fa$t in some peoples eyes, that's rude!
I would like to see a film about the defence of La Haye Sainte - lets hope it's not depicted as being carried out by the Guards division.

I seem to remember some fuss being made some time ago about U571. Is everybody happy about people thinking that the Americans got the enigma machine? Is that O.K.? -. or that respected British officers are being portrayed as evil murderous pantomime villain's by Mel Gibson? - the rules on this confuse me
Going back to Gladiator - would it have been any lesser a film if a fictitious Emperor had been used? Most people won't be fact-checking the events in historical films anyway and will probably assume that was how Commodus did die. Can that be right? Mr Scott knows damn well that it didn't happen - he's just more taken by the fact that Commodus liked to be seen as a Gladiator and fits his narrative. (He also failed to mention the film is practically just a direct re-make of 1964's The fall of the Roman Empire).

I wasn't raising doubts just as a nitpicker. A film doesn't have to be totally authentic for me to enjoy it, and many of my favourite films aren't, but for the general public, films like those made by Mr Gibson, for example, only help to fudge and obfuscate history. It simply doesn't need to happen these days, and in many cases I find it hard to see how the true story can't be just as compelling, if not more compelling, than that being portrayed.

David

Oh yes - it does make you an old fa$t - I speak by experience. I totally understand your feelings although I think that the view on Tarleton was not totally undeserved. It bothered me more that the "Green Dragoons" and the bragging about meticulous research in the "Making of" ended up in the red jackets worn by the "green" Dragoons so that every viewer could understand that they were British...
Beside La Haye Sainte the Defence of Hougoumont as a movie would be thrilling if the historical facts about the role of the Nassau troops (at Hougomont and La Haye Sainte and Papelotte - not to speak of the crossing at Quatre Bras) would be considered... History is written by the victors - movie scripts are (mostly) written by businessmen.

Cheers, Martin

Martin,
I think this is up for a German film maker to take the reins. Regrettably most of the rest of the world would be confused and be asking where are the British?/ where is Wellington?

Don't forget the Dutch / Belgians too. It's now becoming common for people to point out only a third of the Anglo allied army was British ( which adding in the Prussians, must make it more like 1/5 - 1/6th of the total (I didn't do the math).

I'm not a big fan of Wellington myself and I think he would have lost if not for the Prussian intervention, but would that action have been successful without Wellington's men standing all day and taking it and wearing down the French morale, without the Guards holding the main Hougoumont chateau buildings and without Uxbridge's charge and Colbourne's flanking initiative?
We're well off topic now, but I think we need to start acknowledging Waterloo as a truly combined victory that needed both allied armies participation to be successful. That is something to celebrate.

David (an old fa#t? Yes, - but not because he likes historical accuracy).

Wellington wins in the end, there saved you 4 hours of a film.

You'll be telling us next that Braveheart isn't an accurate representation of Wallace's role in Scottish history.
"You can take our lives but you'll never take our midges"

Or that Apocalypto isn't an accurate portrayal of Mayan (or is it Inca) lifestyle. Inca? - Mayan? -Aztec? ---All three???

David

Common denominator? Mr. Gibson, also guilty of "The Passion of the Christ "......he's now made(and is in it) a follow-up "Resurrection", but with a modern slant. I don't think I'll be seeing that.
It's quite obvious that history is a minefield for film makers to get right for everyone with some knowledge of the subject ; condensing timelines, adding or subtracting actual characters to suit the script, and so on ( the list could go on). I suppose we have to accept that producers are telling a story for our entertainment, perhaps not as it was historically, but as they think it ought to have been

Alan

Alan, you opened that can of worms mate