Napoleon (2023), Dir. Ridley Scott, 158 mins, Apple TV
Its inevitable that one compares Napoleon to Ridley Scott’s first film, The Duellists from 1977, because it shares the same period setting. It’s fascinating, really- The Duellists is a beautiful film that feels like an artefact of some other era, a grim, subdued arthouse film with a gorgeous, hypnotic score by Howard Blake soaring over one of the moodiest, most beautiful closing shots in cinema history. Napoleon, meanwhile, is utterly bonkers.
The Duellists is like some delicate painting executed in minute detail with absolute care using the smallest of brushes, while Napoleon is slapped on its canvas with big sweeping brush strokes in wild abandon. I’m not suggesting the latter is the wrong approach but it does seem symptomatic of Scott’s output of late, cranking out films as if in a race against time. His speed shooting films no matter their complexity or scale is amazing, the very definition of efficiency on-set, it would seem. Doesn’t necessarily translate into accomplished films, though. Its curious to me that the characters in Napoleon feel very modern, whereas in The Duellists the characters all seem of their age, of the Napoleonic period, a little strange, a little alien.
I watched Napoleon once and I’m pretty fine with that, but I occasionally return to The Duellists and I’m always bewitched by its strangeness, there’s something just so interesting about it, its pace, lighting, how it sounds. I wouldn’t suggest it was any more historically accurate- some of the casting is frankly bizarre. But there’s something about The Duellists which calls me back for more viewings, and it remains one of my favourite Ridley Scott films.
Napoleon seems rather disposable in comparison. Maybe a directors cut would improve it- Scott did talk at length about a longer cut which was expected to surface on Apple TV eventually, but that’s all gone quiet of late. Its perhaps foolish to imagine a directors cut would ‘fix’ the film in the way that his Kingdom of Heaven was improved by its own directors cut, but you never know…
the ghost of 82 
I mean… it literally is a race against time with Ridley Scott.
As you say, good on him for doing what he loves right until his last breath, but it doesn’t result in especially satisfying films.
The last film of his I watched was that Gucci one, and that was enough for me.
Its rather ironic, how quick he is getting films made now, when the three years he spent between each of Alien/Blade Runner/Legend seemed to last forever back at the time. I used to read the ‘coming soon’ sections of Cinefantastique and Starburst etc with such anticipation! These days it seems you blink and there’s suddenly another one on the way- he’s already got Gladiator 2 in the can and a Western in development. The Grim Reaper will never catch up with him….
Quentin Tarantino says older directors should not be making films, implying that age takes a toll on one’s creative license, suggesting that perhaps a mandatory retirement age of 60 is ideal. Scott defies the rules of the game by playing fast and loose with history; his Napoleon is a milestone in cinema if for no other reason than that it treats its subject more as a hero than as a biopic specimen.
Come visit my website, and leave some comments, if you like
http://www.dark.sport.blog
is it a ‘milestone’?
Or is it yet another annual Scott film, banged out in a hurry, that comes and goes without making any impact whatsoever?
Will people really be discussing this in ten years time? Or even six months?
Great review. It’s a shame that this film didn’t turn out to be great. Ridley Scott is a filmmaker with an uneven career to put it mildly. He’s made some amazing films but quite a few stinkers. Recently, I really adored “The Last Duel”, which saw him return back to form. He can make a good movie but he’s inconsistent. Here is why I loved “The Last Duel”: