“History is a collection of agreed-upon lies,” observed Napoleon Bonaparte, a phrase often cited to challenge the certainty surrounding his legacy. Beyond Jesus Christ, whose historical existence is debated, Napoleon remains the most written-about figure in biographies. His rise to power in 1799, the aura of a man who seized control in tumultuous times, and the spectacular arc from a French general to Emperor five years later reads like myth—a modern Prometheus with a long shadow over Europe.
Two centuries on, the fascination with Napoleon endures. Debates persist between those who view him as a genius and those who see him as a tyrant, fueling ongoing controversy. Ridley Scott, renowned for epic storytelling, dedicated a biopic to him.
Is Joaquin Phoenix too old?
In cinemas it is promoted as a grand war epic tracing Napoleon’s ascent and fall. The story begins during the French Revolution when the general fired artillery to quell unrest in Paris and spans to his ultimate defeat near Paris, his exile on Saint Helena, and the end of an era.
Scott is celebrated for his ability to stage sweeping historical reconstructions in films such as Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, and Exodus: Gods and Kings. Joaquin Phoenix, a remarkable actor who previously collaborated with Scott on Gladiator, was widely considered a strong choice for the role. Yet questions arose about whether the actor’s age would fit the demands of a character who dominated a century of upheaval.
Criticism and dispute
Many critiques of the project, even before audiences view it, focus on alleged misrepresentations of events. Some claim the film exaggerates certain triumphs and downplays others, including debates over Napoleon’s leadership during pivotal battles. The portrayal of a legendary assault on monuments during the battle at the Pyramids has drawn particular scrutiny, as historical records are varied on these moments.
A contentious depiction of Marie Antoinette
Concerns were raised about historical accuracy in the portrayal of Marie Antoinette, including details of her appearance in scenes depicting her execution. Critics also challenged the promotional copy, which suggested Napoleon emerged from modest beginnings to conquer vast territories, arguing that this framing oversimplified a complex life. The marketing visuals brought comparisons to other fictional works, including a cheeky reference to a past film spoof. A prominent feminist group challenged remarks associated with the actor’s on-set ad-lib moment, while Scott maintained a concise, unapologetic stance: audience interpretation matters more than tidy sound bites.
Comparisons with other tyrants?
Scott’s body of work includes portrayals of a wide range of historical figures, alongside fantastical beings. The director’s long career helps explain his focus on dramatic narratives rather than strict history lessons. In interviews, he has drawn parallels between Napoleon and other infamous leaders, a comparison that sparked strong reactions in France and beyond. Napoleon’s use of media and public diplomacy contrasted with the brutal methods often associated with dictators; nevertheless, public opinion remains divided on whether he was a reformer or a tyrant.
Napoleon’s reforms touched governance, law, education, and administration, while his military campaigns reshaped borders and influenced later colonial ambitions. The debate continues in chronicles, novels, and reflections by writers who examined his motives and consequences. Classic literary works and plays have weighed in, offering diverse portraits of a man who dominates both history and myth.
Kubrick and Napoleonic cinema
Throughout cinema, Napoleon has appeared in various forms, from solemn dramas to lighter takes. Early experiments in motion pictures paved the way for later epics that attempted to capture the scale and ambition of his era. The most ambitious cinematic project—once envisioned as an exhaustive, multi-part epic—was never completed in the director’s lifetime, yet its influence permeates modern filmmaking. A future miniseries is planned to explore these vast historical landscapes with contemporary production values.
What does the film ultimately offer? It centers on grand battles and a portrait of a charismatic, demanding leader. The portrayal highlights ambition, vanity, and a relentless drive for recognition, inviting audiences to question how much of history is shaped by those who tell the story and by those who live it. The reception of such a portrayal often hinges on viewers’ willingness to balance admiration with critical scrutiny—recognizing strategic brilliance while acknowledging the human costs of conquest.