Only 3 hours, because the TRUE end was cut off, here a resume

Watched in its entirety, that is a very entertaining take on the Napoleonic story, much like the later film of "Monsieur N". I have both on DVD, and watch them periodically. Both films are well produced and acted, leaving out all the muck and bullets.

Alan

Me too - this doesn't need to be accurate - it's a fantastical "what if" story, but it still seems better researched than Ridley's epic.
If you read the book "Napoleon and Betsy" by Lucia Elizabeth Abell you come away with a completely different view of Napoleon.
He passed a lot of his time on St Helena, playing pranks on the British and plotting tricks to play on them with Betsy Balcombe, the young girl of a local family who helped him with his English. The book is taken from Betsy Balcombe's own accounts and makes a great contrast to the usual image you get of the "Monster", displaying a playful nature despite his depression at being chained.

David

Many years ago, we went to a London theatre to see Herbert Lom play Napoleon in "Betzi"., on stage. He was, as you may imagine, wonderful in his portrayal, as he was in "War and Peace". Much of the plot was as you describe above....the cast were great. Standing ovations.

Alan

'The Emperor's New Clothes'.......right? Somehow must have entirely missed it. Loved the clip and following Alan's
comments have just ordered a copy. Looking forward...so thanks guys.

Mike

You'll love it, Mike, a real treat, quite gentle and amusing take on L'Empereur. Ian Holm is spot on.

Alan

Admired him very much as an actor....... in his old age he looked very much like my old dad, especially
when he played Terry Rapson in 'The Day After Tomorrow'. Thanks again for the tip

Mike

I agree - Letters from Iwo Jima is the best war movie I have ever seen.

Cheers,
Peter

And about Indochina war ( pre Viet Nam )
A french Movie " La 317ème section "

I came across an article where historian Dan Snow asked Ridley Scott why there were so many inaccuracies in the film.
pointing out Napoleon never Charged, and Marie Antoinette had cropped hair was she was executed , rather than how its portrayed in the film.
Ridley Scott replied. Get a Life. obviously not interested in facts, but creating history through his own eyes. What a shame.
When Joaquin Phoenix was interviewed about the film, he said if you want to know about Napoleon, read a book.

I still intend to see it, but as a spectacle and nothing more.

Malc

From what I read in the French press reviews, it hasn't gone down there too well at all. Some of them regret an opportunity missed by Scott. We're booked to see it next week, so I'll let you know if it's a waste of hard-earned ticket money.......... going with an open mind.

Alan

The reviews are not good. What have you done Mr Scott, well... Sir Ridley Scott.
So far the only good thing to come out of this is, Scale Collectables bust of Napoleon / Joaquín Phoenix.

Malc

Ridley Scott has made some fantastic science fiction films. Which is what this appears to be. I won't waste my money.

This one seems to be generating more heat than light....we're talking of a Hollywood
film here and since when have they bothered themselves with historical accuracy ?
Think back to the glaring errors in 'Zulu' or the even more error strewn 'Zulu Dawn'.
Bondarchuk's 'Waterloo' made up history all over the place, and long before any of
them think of the historical liberties taken with that Errol Flynn classic ' They died
with their boots on'. The historical gaffs didn't spoil any one of them as a good
movie..... well, not for me that is.

Mike

Nothing to do with the film, but I just saw a news article, that Napoleon's bicorne hat sold for £ 1.9m in auction.
The most ever paid for a hat.

Malc

The Longest Day was pretty good; at least it showed the involvement of the 60% normally left out (British/Commonwealth, Canadians and French), even if they did get Richard Burton's rank wrong and used ME108s. A shame the colour version had only a limited lifespan. Saving Private Ryan again was excellent apart from disrespecting Montgomery - that came later, and neglecting the fact that virtually all naval vessels involved , including the landing craft, were RN not USN.

Mike

I take your point and appreciate that films will often not reflect events with 100% accuracy, that is to some extent inevitable due to the needs of story telling, compressing events into a film and so on. The question I have is whether a film presents a respectful representation of the event or captures the 'feel' of it in some way. Saving Private Ryan or Waterloo I would forgive their liberties because of their effectiveness in conveying an impression of the events they depict; arguably you can come away from both films not just entertained but with a better understanding of the experiences of those who were there. I am hoping Napoleon does this, that its compromises are made to give the viewer a good sense of the period and the events even if it isn't 100% accurate.

My concern is more to do with Scott's approach. SPR, Waterloo and many other films are made from a position of knowledge and understanding. Directors consciously choose to change things based on their needs. I worry this won't be the case with Napoleon, based on the fact that Scott has based his work on outdated historical works and has been dismissive and rather insulting about those who are knowledgeable about the period (or anyone who has the temerity to criticise his work). It may well be a good film, but will it be a good 'historical film'? We have to wait and see.

Of course the other question here is whether any of this matters. I think anyone representing the past has a duty to the audience, particularly if they are presenting their work as factual. Again, compromises may be necessary, but is the overall impression within the piece a fair representation of the past? I think that matters because it could contribute to wider ignorance of history. Others may disagree of course.

Your post, Stefan, is not 'nonsense'. Far from it....it's a valid point of view well argued.
The difference between us is that I don't regard films - other than documentaries of
course - as a source of historical information....but merely entertainment. A film
maker is not responsible for imparting knowledge to his audience, but of providing
his distributor with a profit. Scott's arrogance is hard to take but that's how it goes
when he makes zillions for his industry. "....if you want history then read a book" is
a common argument, but if we want to know about history then we need to read many
books of different opinions before we can begin to understand historical events.
We should watch the movie, munch our tub of popcorn, and allow the thrills and
spills to work their magic. Later, if we need to, we can get on to Amazon and buy
a few biographies

Mike

I know what you mean. I think the issue though is that, like it or not, films do contribute to public awareness of history. You may not walk in looking for knowledge of the past, but lots of people will walk out with it, or at least with what they think is knowledge of the past. The question is whether that leaves the film maker with any 'duty' to make their film at least partially accurate. Lets face it; films that make the public more ignorant of the past have a greater negative impact than the positive impact of every book on amazon combined.