Descendant Of Napoleon Sounds Off Film’s Portrays His Leadership

By Joachim Murat

Editor: Joachim Murat is a seventh generation descendant of Joachim Murat, the King of Naples. The elder Murat earned his title as Napoleon’s greatest calvary commander who married Caroline Bonaparte, the Emperor’s sister. Joachim Murat is one of the best known royalists in France today. An accomplished business leader he has worked in industries ranging from cloud-computing to the defense industry. In those roles and others he has worked across the Former Soviet Union, Asia and elsewhere. He is also a former advisor to the French Ministry of Foreign Trade.

Of course, being a descendent, I can not be entirely objective. I expected an epic, Shakespearean fresco. After all Ridley Scott is the direct of such historical epics as “The Duelists” and “Gladiator”.

A film I hoped would be an explosion of energy. This was a film about leadership and so much more. The panache, the unprecedented glory, the unthinkable victories, the gallery of heroic characters, the messianic destiny, the wind of freedom, the adventure, the ardor, the infinite possibilities in a word : the “Grandeur” of the era.

“Let’s talk about the Emperor, it will do us good” as Victor Hugo wrote.

But Ridley Scott has given us something of a twilight movie. Filmed in cold light, almost every scene is set in autumn, the mist caught in the leafless tree branches. Its worth noting that this is a film with very few young actors.

In fact the entire Napoleonic era was one in which young people were thrown into positions of power across Europe and beyond. Yet, here Bonaparte is played by a 50-year-old Joaquin Phoenix. Phoenix is given a greyish complexion and seems almost out of breath from start to finish. The film’s portrayal was a dark one. I came away disappointed. But again remind you: I am not objective.

As for the liberties taken with historical facts, they are so numerous only a few are worth mentioning.

The director’s desire here is to largely rewrite history so that it corresponds to the image he wants to give of Napoleon and Josephine love story. A series of shortcuts and inventions are employed to fit the unmatchable life of Napoleon into a two and a half hour film.

Ofcourse Ridley Scott has never claimed to be a historian. He took the same liberties with such films as “Gladiator.” Indeed, filmmakers role is different from that of a historian.

Some of the errors are so bad though they need mentioning. In one scene we see Bonaparte firing a cannon at the Pyramids of Giza. This is absolutely false, obviously. It’s supposed to be an allegory showing that Bonaparte had encountered no difficulty in defeating the Ottomans. Though Napoleon’s troops were accused of defacing the sphinx nothing of the kind ever occurred. Historians believe it happened centuries earlier.

Napoleon leaves Egypt to find Joséphine, whom he believes has a lover. Later in the film he flees the Island of Elba again to recover Joséphine. All of Napoleon’s decisions as a leader according to Scott, were dictated by his passion for Joséphine. It’s a very romantic vision of leadership. However, it is historical and factual nonsensical.

The love that Napoleon has for Joséphine is made the sum of his entire personality. The weaknesses of the Emperor and the entire history of the Napoleon’s Empire is portrayed as due to this. He owes to this love all his successes but it also leads him to his own downfall. This isn’t a war film – it’s a sentimental drama set against the backdrop of the Napoleonic era.

Napoleon under the influence of an abusive mother, is portrayed as a brutal man with Joséphine. In his love life Napoleon is depicted as a clumsy, frightened and timid little boy. Joaquin Phoenix plays an infantile, cruel, indecisive and weak Napoleon. Napoleon was no such leader.

I was pleasantly surprised to see scenes reminding us for example of Napoleon’s wish to achieve peace. What Ridley Scott ultimately delivers is the English vision of the Napoleonic era.

Here is the dark legend of a Corsican bandit who would conquer Europe. In the film’s last scene he dies like Don Corleone in “The Godfather. He is portrayed as an ill-mannered and boorish usurper. He even comments on the short stature of Napoleon. Infact Napoleon was above the average size of the time. Stout depictions of Napoleon are inventions of English propaganda.

“The French don’t love each other” according to Ridley Scott. He is right. Except precisely in the case of his film which seems to have achieved the miracle of making almost all French agree.

For publications of all sides, Ridley Scott borders on the ridiculous in his caricature of Napoleon Bonaparte. The film presents the France of the Revolution and the Empire as an unfortunate episode of a country in the hands of a people of bloodthirsty and ill-mannered scoundrels. Ofcourse the very distinguished Duke of Wellington will miraculously bring a little dignity by putting an end to to this unfortunate plebeian and his empire. It seems, from the reaction of critics and the first French spectators, this is pushing historical denigration a little far.

Regardless, it’s still a great show. Fabulous battle scenes and stunning sets. So let’s not shy away from our pleasure. This film offers a new vision of the Emperor, a vision that I do not share, but which nonetheless enriches reflection on Napoleon and his era.

What will be the fate of this film and what will be its impact on the audience ? Very smart who could say that. I recently saw the film in Paris. Half of the audience found it wonderful, giving a human and sympathetic image of the Emperor, all very moved by his relationship with Joséphine. The other half felt like a poorly performed parody. My recommendation: Go see “Napoleon”, if it provokes so many reactions there must be good reasons.”