"Napoléon" is notable for the linear clarity of its storytelling : even persons unfamiliar with French or European history can follow the rise, reign and fall of the protagonist. The movie also contains a great number of one-liners and quotes (many of which are quite witty, by the way) and a great number of iconic figures, objects and scenes. You get Napoleon's milk-white steed, his African servant/slave, his opulent coronation mantle, and so on. There is also a good evocation of the general look and feel of the era, complete with monuments, palaces and costumes. (The costumes are particularly beautiful.)
Consequently I think that this would be a very good movie to show to adolescents and young adults, as a first introduction to the life of Napoleon and to French history between, say, 1770 and 1830. These were, of course, exceedingly dangerous and exciting times, with France careening wildly between the extreme right and the extreme left while going through a dazzling array of regimes and constitutions.
The casting and acting are good and the production values are high. Sadly, the characters (and hence the performances) tend to be pretty one-note. Napoleon, for instance, is nearly always pictured as brave, resolute, sombre and ambitious. Still, it is a pretty safe bet that the man, during his stay on this earth, must have spent at least some time picking apples, stroking puppies or recovering from a hangover. Beautiful Josephine, his first wife, is feminine to the extreme - think charm, frivolity, sentiment - but again, one can safely assume that somewhere during her lifetime the real Josephine filed a tax return, solved a mathematical problem or kicked an attacker in the groin. Indeed, the simple fact that the real-life Josephine survived the French Revolution and its immediate aftermath indicates a high intelligence, a considerable degree of political insight and an excellent survival instinct.
To return to the movie : the various battles and campaigns seemed pretty realistic to me, although I've got to add that I'm no expert on Napoleonic warfare. It's entirely possible that military historians or historical reenactors will spend much of the movie's considerable duration screaming : "No ! Every child knows that a 'sapeur des grenadiers en grande tenue' wore his coat ON THE LEFT SHOULDER ONLY !" However, the list of battles and campaigns contained some interesting omissions. For instance, the disastrous retreat from Russia, which caused so much death and suffering, disappeared almost completely. Were these scenes omitted because they were too difficult or expensive to shoot ? Or were they judged too depressing ? Or too humiliating for France, mother of all sciences and fountain of all skills ?
If you would like to know more about Napoleon (the man, the times, the myth) and if you are able to read Dutch, there exists a fine book by historian Jacques Presser, which I warmly recommend. It's an interesting work which acknowledges Napoleon's genius and bravery, but does not shy away from examining his less desirable traits such as greed, vindictiveness and pettiness. The other members of Napoleon's family get the same treatment, resulting in a darkly entertaining portrayal of something that feels like an unusually successful Mafia clan. As a portrayal it's far more dark, varied and profound than the portrayal shown in the movie. Presser's book also contains episodes of surreal weirdness, such as the episode where Napoleon names his own illiterate mother Secretary of State for Female Education.
Professor Presser also pointed out that Napoleon, who was obsessed with his public image, liked to stage scenes which were supposed to turn him into a glorious exemple for the ages. (In other words, Napoleon was a man who did not only live his life, but also embellished, staged and edited it.) Again, this is a level of critical analysis you won't find in the movie, or only rarely.
Aah, well, you know what they say. "When in doubt, print the legend"...
Consequently I think that this would be a very good movie to show to adolescents and young adults, as a first introduction to the life of Napoleon and to French history between, say, 1770 and 1830. These were, of course, exceedingly dangerous and exciting times, with France careening wildly between the extreme right and the extreme left while going through a dazzling array of regimes and constitutions.
The casting and acting are good and the production values are high. Sadly, the characters (and hence the performances) tend to be pretty one-note. Napoleon, for instance, is nearly always pictured as brave, resolute, sombre and ambitious. Still, it is a pretty safe bet that the man, during his stay on this earth, must have spent at least some time picking apples, stroking puppies or recovering from a hangover. Beautiful Josephine, his first wife, is feminine to the extreme - think charm, frivolity, sentiment - but again, one can safely assume that somewhere during her lifetime the real Josephine filed a tax return, solved a mathematical problem or kicked an attacker in the groin. Indeed, the simple fact that the real-life Josephine survived the French Revolution and its immediate aftermath indicates a high intelligence, a considerable degree of political insight and an excellent survival instinct.
To return to the movie : the various battles and campaigns seemed pretty realistic to me, although I've got to add that I'm no expert on Napoleonic warfare. It's entirely possible that military historians or historical reenactors will spend much of the movie's considerable duration screaming : "No ! Every child knows that a 'sapeur des grenadiers en grande tenue' wore his coat ON THE LEFT SHOULDER ONLY !" However, the list of battles and campaigns contained some interesting omissions. For instance, the disastrous retreat from Russia, which caused so much death and suffering, disappeared almost completely. Were these scenes omitted because they were too difficult or expensive to shoot ? Or were they judged too depressing ? Or too humiliating for France, mother of all sciences and fountain of all skills ?
If you would like to know more about Napoleon (the man, the times, the myth) and if you are able to read Dutch, there exists a fine book by historian Jacques Presser, which I warmly recommend. It's an interesting work which acknowledges Napoleon's genius and bravery, but does not shy away from examining his less desirable traits such as greed, vindictiveness and pettiness. The other members of Napoleon's family get the same treatment, resulting in a darkly entertaining portrayal of something that feels like an unusually successful Mafia clan. As a portrayal it's far more dark, varied and profound than the portrayal shown in the movie. Presser's book also contains episodes of surreal weirdness, such as the episode where Napoleon names his own illiterate mother Secretary of State for Female Education.
Professor Presser also pointed out that Napoleon, who was obsessed with his public image, liked to stage scenes which were supposed to turn him into a glorious exemple for the ages. (In other words, Napoleon was a man who did not only live his life, but also embellished, staged and edited it.) Again, this is a level of critical analysis you won't find in the movie, or only rarely.
Aah, well, you know what they say. "When in doubt, print the legend"...