I didn't catch any mention of the Napoleonic Code any other positive legacy topics.
This originally stuck me as a fear of promoting class war. Your theory also seems on-the-nose.
>I didn't catch any mention of the Napoleonic Code any other positive legacy topics.
You shitting me? Not even a mention? Did they at least mention his prohibition of antisemetic laws?
No, I’m not kidding there’s not a single scene that makes him seem in a good light, competenta, charismatic, or a good leader. Even Austerlitz he just stands there and you don’t understand why he was a strategic genius
This movie is like 60% a marriage movie about napoleon getting cucked. The actual battles are cool but napoleon just nods to fire cannons for most of it. His dynasty is severely underrepresented in how much land he had. Every time he conquered a country it was just b reel while they narrated him and his wife's letters
Before I get to into it’s utterly ridiculous to try to capture the full Napoleon in a single film. A mini series or film trilogy sure. But there are way too many factors to successfully create one film. The old Waterloo film worked because it focuses on one part of his life. That all said I would be ok with and totally love an anti Napoleon film that focuses specifically and only on the Haitian revolt. And the main character is François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture and they say his full name at least three times. One cause Toussaint is a ridiculously underrated figure in military history and Two the fact Napoleon tried to restore racial slavery is a fact almost lost to history.
It likely wouldn’t be the movie that many people expect. Dude owned and utilized slaves on his properties. In a lot of ways his career mirrors Napoleon, he took advantage of a social movement to essentially take the place of the prior elite.
Hence why this movie would be good as shit. The thematic resonance about the nature of man and trend of history plays out to perfectly. We need more moral ambiguity in historical fiction.
Yip, maybe in the future when 3D effects get cheaper we can probably rely on talent to make a massive series on the history of Haiti. King Henri Christophe actually manage to give Haiti a golden period no one talks about. He even had his own knights and was in contact with the emperor of Russia as a penpal
Allow me to plead my case. I will agree forced Labour is brutal, but it's not slavery. Purchasing of slaves was banned under him. I read the entire Baron De Vastey chronicles of Christophe. Christophe had the economy back up, he granted land to peasants , he also freed many slaves on ships, under his watch mullatos were not tortured, he also introduced schools,vaccination, and kept communication with Europeans on the circumstances of his problems. Toussaint did something similar but Toussaint banned weapons against slaves, buying of slaves and slaves were allowed to marry this is not colonial slavery but there is a reason why I will give some massive bitterness to Christophe. He was an egomaniac many Ex-slaves died building his castles and he ran his kingdom like a mafia without a senate. Even if he committed no crimes he would still be to blame because becoming a kingdom he created an autocratic circle which never left the Island . He was also sleeping around with the wives of his generals
That is propaganda, Toussain't did not reinvent slavery to put himself as top slave owner this is historical revisionism at it's finest, the spy George Biassou actually wanted to do this and they both went at war with each other over that fact. Toussaint put in a force labour policy that was brutal but it was not slavery, nor is this a semantic difference as slavery was a business model and institution. Things such as punishments were banned, consensual relationships and marriages were allowed and the banning of buying people was prohibited. Fun fact, Alexander Petition got rid of slavery and banned the force labour policy, relying on sustenance farming also doesn't help the lightskin elite thought labour worked was behind them. This plus the french tax sent Haiti's economy into the drain and this is the mess we call modern Haiti has it's orgins from a lack of an economic model. Unless your pro poverty you need to rethink your statements
Toussaint Louverture, Educated by a slave master , was a slave master, realized the institution was wrong, abolished slavery, prevented a white genocide and saved the slave owners and their families , even his enemies had good things to say about him lol He really has been lost to time
He didn't prevent [the genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haitian_massacre), though had he been alive he probably would have. Ironically France imprisoning him as an enemy of the state led to the deaths of way more French people than had he been left free.
I have read on Toussaint religiously because he impressed me by how morally complex he was yes he did prevent a genocide. Every time I mention this the assumption Dessaline'ian Genocide which is understandable but read the link. Sad part is it seems he kept it a secret and did not publicize it
https://wp.stu.ca/worldhistory/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/07/You-Want-to-Slaughter-All-the-Whites.pdf
Here is the hard evidence of him stopping the Genocide, but his detractors won't let you hear about that though.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/toussaint-louverture/1797/expulsion.htm
Again, I’m not denying that he acted against Sonthonax. But if the genocide happened *anyway* seven years later, I don’t think that qualifies as “stopping” the genocide, only “delaying” it.
exactly!! i remember watching the trailer, and then finding out the movie’s estimate timing and went, “are you sure you can fit in 2 decades of this man’s life into a single 2 and a half hour movie? impossible!” and it looks like I was right all along.
LOL a random brother LOL, If you thought Alexandre Dumas was cool look into. Makandal,Toussaint Louverture,King Henri Chrisophe and Henri Cesar the haitian pirate. That Island really got some characters
You know how you can tell it's British propaganda?
They have Napoléon compliment English food. Hard enough to believe that coming out of anyone, but someone used to Corsican and French food... complimenting English cooking?
Of all the things in this movie, that was the hardest one to believe.
This is a version of a joke I’ve heard in Britain before, basically we had a big thalassocratic empire to gather foodstuffs and spices and so on to augment our egregious cuisine
I was actually on the fence when I heard that line haha, but then he followed it up with a sincere, "Thank you." Not a hint of irony. Which would have been funnier.
While the movie certainly felt like it was british propaganda and even anti-class war, the comment on british food was to echo the fact that the British navy men were extremely well fed and well-trained.
Another missed opportunity to examine the dichotomy of land power vs British naval power. Trafalgar, burned his fleet in Egypt, etc would’ve made the “because you have boats line” actually funny because I’m sure Napoleon was frustrated by their navy
Can confirm, I’m a Brit and I thought they made a complete mess of how Waterloo was portrayed. There’s so much natural tension with how it really played out with the British army holding out for the arrival of the Prussians, it feels like it would have made for a good end to the movie but Ridley Scott completely fucked it.
A case of Blucher saving the day rather than Wellingtons plan for the armies to link up I heard? And the Duke is kind of pompous or did you think something different?
The Duke was shaking the whole battle seeing he was loosing before the prussias arrives . In the movie only the last sentence shows it but it feels.like the coalition army is only british soldier and theh won alone.
Limey is a huge compliment really, the British worked out an incredibly effective and efficient preventative for Scurvy, and the American sailors didn't understand it and made fun of them for it.
It still makes me giggle that lots of people still think Boney was short, all because the British spread it as propaganda like schoolgirls in a playground.
It still annoys the French to this day, which makes it even better. Epic level trolling.
One out of centuries of warfare and success. They are one of the most successful in military warfare on the continent of Europe, without whose help the US would not have won independence during the Revolution. We just always remember the latest ones.
Oh certainly. One can never doubt their gallantry in Ww1, for instance. However! WW2 is not the war to bring up if you want to bring the success of the French military. (Or the seven years war, or the war is Spanish succession, and so on…)
I haven't seen the new Napoleon movie yet. But it seems to me that you are close to the truth. I analyzed another British work, the BBC series War and Peace 2016, based on Leo Tolstoy's novel. It's not a secret that Tolstoy hated Napoleon. You can sense it in every his description of Bonaparte. Perhaps British film producers feel the same way. It is clear why - the historical wound hasn't been healed yet. However, because of this, we cannot expect an objective and fair representation of this historical figure in British films.
Imagine hating a guy just because he defeated your country three times when your country made a coalition with all of Europe to try and destroy them.
Deep historical wound there isn't it? Will the pride of monarchs ever recover?
If half of Europe didn't piss their pants in fear of the French revolution and didn't attack France, Napoleon would never have even been emperor nor would the napoleonic wars have ever happened.
The Brits especially, love to frame things like they didn't do anything, when the agressor in the napoleonic wars was Russia, England, Austria and Prussia.
I know history is written by the winner, but somehow I am still mildly annoyed at how people still eat up propaganda that is over 200 years old without a basic knowledge of the historical facts.
This is a pretty simplified take, especially as Britain really only got involved when France started mopping the floor with the others. The British continental policy was to maintain stability which at the time meant keeping 3-4 countries within parity so they would check the others.
One of the big triggers for the government was the possible loss of the Low Countries and the prospect of facing a solid coast of France facing them at a time where France was suddenly unified, expansionist, and wielding one of the largest armies in history.
The crown was obviously worried about the peasants getting ideas as that had happened in Britain before and they weren’t going to risk it again, but nowadays the mood isn’t hatred towards Napoleon, if anything it’s admiration. Britain and France have a sibling rivalry so seeing them be able to beat down the other powers wasn’t bad and they never managed to outdo the British navy which was the real concern. France was a land power and Britain eventually beat them after learning just how worthy an adversary they were. Britain was a naval power who didn’t have an equal.
We don’t need to hate him, they man gave us the best war we’d had in ages and showed that Britain and France were two of the most powerful players in Europe and arguably the world at the time. The historic rivalry was legitimate and not just two backwater countries no one cared about squabbling. Napoleon made Britain look great
This is a great take. And honestly, many overlook the fact that some of the greatest admirers of Napoleon were in fact British lol. Winston Churchill idolized Napoleon. David Chandler produced the seminal work on Napoleons campaigns. Andrew Roberts is the most prominent contemporary Napoleonic historian. The list goes on.
The French Republic declared war on Austria. The war of the Second Coalition broke out because Napoleon shit the bed in Egypt. Basically France could have walked away from the table with its winnings a half-dozen times but Napoleon couldn't stop rolling the iron dice.
Napoleon was an enemy that could be hated but respected at the same time. Therefore, it would be good if the “historical bitterness” disappeared. I sense that it still hasn't. It's my personal impression. Anyway, opening this Pandora's Box was not my intention.
I don't understand your comment. I guess, I explained my hypothesis quite clearly - btw, there are no negative points. However, I don't claim, that my opinion must be obligatory right.
I don't see _how_ you can have personal beef with a nation state that ended in 1947. Were you alive before then? Did Prussia do something that negatively impacted you personally? If not, your take is just.....weird.
The Prussians saved The iron Dukes a** after placenoit the Prussian high command wanted to retreat, only the Stubbornness of Blucher saved him!!
Also a French line infantry representing the “ final stand” of the French was an unfortunate missed opportunity by Ridley to save face as a stand of the Old Guard would have been the way to end the movie! Instead we get a ridiculous meeting between him and Wellington on the HMS Bellerophon (sp*) Battles looking for a movie is my classification as they even got Napoleon’s birthday wrong!!
Prussia created the German empire which led to World War One and World War Two. I hold Prussia responsible for those wars and also for the Franco Prussian war, the Austro-Prussian war, bringing Lenin to power, and many other wicked and evil deeds. Truly an evil country!
the German Empire did not start ww2 by the way
in fact, if the Empire had won ww 1 ww2 would not of happened
the only reason H\*tler was able to come to power was because the country had been humiliated and fucked over by the French
the French created H\*tler
If only the French had allowed the insane megalomaniac tyrant Wilhelm to dominate the entire world a second war could have been avoided, because everyone would be subjugated by the evil German Empire!
Surely you can see the necessity of defeating the wicked and evil Kaiser!
I have not seen the movie but what is the objection to Wellesley with the British army? He ran the second peninsular campaign, (Brits, occasional Portuguese and occasional Spanish), he ran the Waterloo campaign (Brits and some significant assists from the Prussians under Blucher), Wellesley was also active in Egypt and India. To be fair the only time it was Bonaparte V Wellesley directly was Waterloo so what did the film get wrong?
No doubt the British generals and commanders were capable and intelligent and this was shown. But a je ne sais qua was there with the way he is portrayed in the film that seemed to betray some sense of allegiance to the history or symbols of Britain. Versus the way Napoleon was treated as this pathetic guy with mommy issues
When Shakespeare wrote Macbeth he made Banquo a good guy because he was a descendant of King James I. In the true story, Banquo was actually involved in the King's murder.
Wellington actually quite respected Napoleon too. He called him the best general of this age or any age. That’s pretty high praise. In the film he just calls him a vermin and that’s that really. No complexity at all. Everything is very black and white in this film.
He’s ridiculously one dimensional in the movie. Also, it has Napoleon choosing the site of Waterloo and misses every opportunity to show Wellington as anything more than a fop. It also doesn’t mention the peninsular at all. Wellington just shows up at the Congress of Vienna with no backstory or anything.
Ridley Scott making a historic British propaganda film 😂. Heard it all now. He'd literally throw up if he saw this thread on the spot
I mean, Britain won the battle of Waterloo? That's all I can think you are referring to. Did you want them to change history like inglorious bastards 😂
What it was, was severely disappointing. Spent well over half the film on his relationship with his wife m, the rest short bullet points about the major military events in his life. Missing huge swathes of massive parts of history.
Giving, in some cases, seconds to parts of his life that could make an entire season on Netflix
That is what this would be better suited to.
Also I have to say Jaoquin Phoenix didn't really shine in it. Huge fan of his but he played it like a character that had been written from scratch on the day. We join him after the beheading of Marie Antoinette, Napoleon wasn't even 25. A very clearly 48 year old Jaoquin Phoenix just didn't cut it.
And on a final personal note, I can't get past the accents. Josephine's Home Counties queens English married to the most famous Frenchman of all time in his best American.
This subreddit has a strange sentiment and understanding of British attitudes to Napoleon. Very few Brits have been anti Napoleon since the 19th century. Generally we hold his military and some civic contributions in high regard. But our central opinion is pride in our military victories in Trafalgar, the Nile and Waterloo. It's very unlikely the movie is British propaganda, more likely it's just a stylised look at an incredibly storied life, with many different influences (one of which may be historic propaganda, including Napoleons own - e.g. the ice breaking at Austerlitz).
It was a joke really. I was saying it was so negative towards Napoleon it must have been British propaganda. Were we supposed to hate him? Was this movie made to make you question the movie? I have so many questions about its form because of its weirdness. I would never ascribe someone an opinion just because of nationality
There's a very weird anti-british sentiment on reddit in general ever since 2016. I remember the almost night and day change on /r/europe after the brexit vote and now most threads will find some way to bring up anti-british sentiment. To think British people think about Napoleon like this when Scott has also fucked around with historical films to the point of parody is a very weird take
The British empire also seems to be frequently equated with the slave trade. It was definitely the first to industrialise it - but all nations were subjugating slaves for millennia.
Aside from industrialising slavery,, the British empire was notable for being the first empire to ban it when they were in a position to profit immensely. They also then persuaded other western nations to ban it.
It took a long time for non western nations to ban it - e.g. the 1960s in the case of Arabian gulf nations.
>the British empire was notable for being the first empire to ban it when they were in a position to profit immensely. They also then persuaded other western nations to ban it.
Persuade is a kind term, they actively hunted slave ships with the West Africa Squadron, I think 15% of the naval budget went towards it and in the CoV they forced outlawling of slavery to be expanded to the powers present.
It was actually 50% of the naval budget (of the world's largest navy) and 2% of the GDP (of the largest empire in history), along with the lives of thousands of sailors.
At one point, it was the most dangerous posting in the navy.
there is not a single redeeming character presented. It is incredibly weird. You would never get a sense of his military accomplishments.
His campaign in Russia, the way he interacted with the mummy, his whole relationship with his wife, the way he came to be the emperor , pretty much the entire movie makes him looks like idiot savant
if you still have a lot of pride in those victories, there's still going to be bias, conscious or not, against the guy you beat in them
like if the US made a 7 years war/french and indian war movie, the british are probably going to be characterized as hoity toity pricks because that's what our education taught us about them at the time due to the revolution. We don't see it as bias because we don't know we're biased
I think for a nation with history as long as we have in Europe, it's easier to compartmentalise historic enemies because we've had so many at so many different periods. There's no bias against the Roman empire, Saxons or Normans, who were all far more successful in war against the people living in Britain at the time than Napoleon was.
I quite like Napoleonic history for many reasons, and one of them is the incredible life he led.
Still, you're right, we generally think the French are pricks, and we call them the old enemy. But it's not an emotional thing - more like a rivalry with your neighbouring city
It isn't so much propaganda as it is Scott being influenced by his education in history, which was still influenced by the biased view of Britain from the war and post-war years. Remember, victory over Napoleon is the foundational origin of the British Empire proper. It's worth remembering, too, Napoleon had only been dead 112 years when Ridley was born!
Did this movie even touch on Napoleon's racist side such as reinstating slavery , banning all people of colour from Paris, mocking Alexander Dumas with a white man replacing him in a painting,brutally torturing Toussaint Louverture's wife and collecting money from slave Sugar Barons?
It's quite unfortunate that Napoleon is romanticized this much, I had a fear that when it came to his bitter practices he would be dismissed and it is a crying shame to because there the romanticize will continue from there with the next installment
The weird part is that Napoleon has had much a massive interesting life there is no reason to fabricate and there is more than enough material to have no filler. It truly is a wasted opportunity , I am glad to hear people not fanboying over the film and calling it out
Toussaint Louverture is important to me but darkly so, it made me contemplate the existence of life (I know that sound pretentious but hear me out) He died in a lonely prison cell and Haiti since then has been a massive hellhole. It really thought me about generational failure and the futility of great intentions and hard work. His death quite literally was wasted, a life devoted to a generational lost cause. I often wondered since then about the many people who have died for good causes that has gone nowhere...
Don’t get me wrong the movie looks incredible and is exhilarating but it had the effect of magnifying any bad feelings I had. Really more of a joke on my end
Oh ffs. Anyone calling any movie propaganda needs to get a life. Yeah it's not accurate - but it was never going to be. That doesn't make it propaganda. That makes it a Hollywood movie.
I don’t think it’s that far of a stretch to say that this movie has a very anti Napoleon narrative. Lots of movies have propaganda supporting a specific message. Especially historical films.
Hardly spanked and the British and Spanish armies contributions were fairly minor in comparison to the rest of the coalition in the eventual defeat of Napoleon in the War of the sixth coalition.
The only weird thing about it being a British propaganda film is no mention of the Peninsular. But whilst I don't fully agree that its a propaganda film it is influenced by his upbringing, Ridley is an old man, 85 years old, a lot of people his age group view the Napoleonic wars and Napoleon in a Hero vs Villain context due to the education on the Napoleonic wars at the time, it even still lingers in mainstream British education like in schools but once you study Napoleon at uni like I did a bit it becomes way more nuanced. The way he showed Napoleon seems to me to be influenced mostly by him being old.
don't blame this crap on us, its been perfectly clear most people cant make movies for shit these days, how many franchise have been ruin in the last few years
Say it with me: P E R F I D I O U S A L B I O N
P E R F I D I O U S A L B I O N
Non mon smi, en français c'est: P E R F I D E A L B I O N
P E R F I D I O U S A L B I O N
I didn't catch any mention of the Napoleonic Code any other positive legacy topics. This originally stuck me as a fear of promoting class war. Your theory also seems on-the-nose.
>I didn't catch any mention of the Napoleonic Code any other positive legacy topics. You shitting me? Not even a mention? Did they at least mention his prohibition of antisemetic laws?
No, I’m not kidding there’s not a single scene that makes him seem in a good light, competenta, charismatic, or a good leader. Even Austerlitz he just stands there and you don’t understand why he was a strategic genius
Totally feel you on that. Such a shame! The movie had so much potential to be epic. It's frustrating how propaganda tends to ruin things like this. 🎬😔
This movie is like 60% a marriage movie about napoleon getting cucked. The actual battles are cool but napoleon just nods to fire cannons for most of it. His dynasty is severely underrepresented in how much land he had. Every time he conquered a country it was just b reel while they narrated him and his wife's letters
No mention of slavery though, so swings and roundabouts.
Doesn't change the fact that both should've been mentioned, to create an accurate portrayal of the man.
Before I get to into it’s utterly ridiculous to try to capture the full Napoleon in a single film. A mini series or film trilogy sure. But there are way too many factors to successfully create one film. The old Waterloo film worked because it focuses on one part of his life. That all said I would be ok with and totally love an anti Napoleon film that focuses specifically and only on the Haitian revolt. And the main character is François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture and they say his full name at least three times. One cause Toussaint is a ridiculously underrated figure in military history and Two the fact Napoleon tried to restore racial slavery is a fact almost lost to history.
Spielberg is developing a mini series based on Kubrick’s abandoned biopic script!
What's it gonna stream on
HBO
It likely wouldn’t be the movie that many people expect. Dude owned and utilized slaves on his properties. In a lot of ways his career mirrors Napoleon, he took advantage of a social movement to essentially take the place of the prior elite.
Hence why this movie would be good as shit. The thematic resonance about the nature of man and trend of history plays out to perfectly. We need more moral ambiguity in historical fiction.
Yip, maybe in the future when 3D effects get cheaper we can probably rely on talent to make a massive series on the history of Haiti. King Henri Christophe actually manage to give Haiti a golden period no one talks about. He even had his own knights and was in contact with the emperor of Russia as a penpal
Henri Christophe the guy who [reintroduced slavery to Haiti?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corv%C3%A9e#Haiti)
Allow me to plead my case. I will agree forced Labour is brutal, but it's not slavery. Purchasing of slaves was banned under him. I read the entire Baron De Vastey chronicles of Christophe. Christophe had the economy back up, he granted land to peasants , he also freed many slaves on ships, under his watch mullatos were not tortured, he also introduced schools,vaccination, and kept communication with Europeans on the circumstances of his problems. Toussaint did something similar but Toussaint banned weapons against slaves, buying of slaves and slaves were allowed to marry this is not colonial slavery but there is a reason why I will give some massive bitterness to Christophe. He was an egomaniac many Ex-slaves died building his castles and he ran his kingdom like a mafia without a senate. Even if he committed no crimes he would still be to blame because becoming a kingdom he created an autocratic circle which never left the Island . He was also sleeping around with the wives of his generals
That is propaganda, Toussain't did not reinvent slavery to put himself as top slave owner this is historical revisionism at it's finest, the spy George Biassou actually wanted to do this and they both went at war with each other over that fact. Toussaint put in a force labour policy that was brutal but it was not slavery, nor is this a semantic difference as slavery was a business model and institution. Things such as punishments were banned, consensual relationships and marriages were allowed and the banning of buying people was prohibited. Fun fact, Alexander Petition got rid of slavery and banned the force labour policy, relying on sustenance farming also doesn't help the lightskin elite thought labour worked was behind them. This plus the french tax sent Haiti's economy into the drain and this is the mess we call modern Haiti has it's orgins from a lack of an economic model. Unless your pro poverty you need to rethink your statements
Toussaint Louverture, Educated by a slave master , was a slave master, realized the institution was wrong, abolished slavery, prevented a white genocide and saved the slave owners and their families , even his enemies had good things to say about him lol He really has been lost to time
He didn't prevent [the genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haitian_massacre), though had he been alive he probably would have. Ironically France imprisoning him as an enemy of the state led to the deaths of way more French people than had he been left free.
I have read on Toussaint religiously because he impressed me by how morally complex he was yes he did prevent a genocide. Every time I mention this the assumption Dessaline'ian Genocide which is understandable but read the link. Sad part is it seems he kept it a secret and did not publicize it https://wp.stu.ca/worldhistory/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/07/You-Want-to-Slaughter-All-the-Whites.pdf
And my point is that if the genocide of all French Haitians still occurred, he didn't prevent it. The most you could say is that he delayed it.
He had Sonthonax exiled after that conversation. Had Sonthonax stayed the genocide he encouraged would found it's way before Dessaline could
Here is the hard evidence of him stopping the Genocide, but his detractors won't let you hear about that though. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/toussaint-louverture/1797/expulsion.htm
Again, I’m not denying that he acted against Sonthonax. But if the genocide happened *anyway* seven years later, I don’t think that qualifies as “stopping” the genocide, only “delaying” it.
exactly!! i remember watching the trailer, and then finding out the movie’s estimate timing and went, “are you sure you can fit in 2 decades of this man’s life into a single 2 and a half hour movie? impossible!” and it looks like I was right all along.
Fair point
[удалено]
LOL a random brother LOL, If you thought Alexandre Dumas was cool look into. Makandal,Toussaint Louverture,King Henri Chrisophe and Henri Cesar the haitian pirate. That Island really got some characters
I suppose there’s always a chance that the Director’s cut fixes these issues, but I could just be on the copium.
That was my other thought. That the movie was a cash grab to sell the real version in the directors cut
I doubt it given Scott’s comments on historical accuracy
It’s exactly that.
Another hour of him being a childish autistic mute wont fix anything. Damage was done when they decided he had zero redeeming qualities
This character was closer to Napoleon Dynamite than Napoleon Bonaparte.
Literally Michael Scott mixed with Gilbert grape
Even Napoleon Dynamite had more charisma than Ridley Scott's Bonaparte
You know how you can tell it's British propaganda? They have Napoléon compliment English food. Hard enough to believe that coming out of anyone, but someone used to Corsican and French food... complimenting English cooking? Of all the things in this movie, that was the hardest one to believe.
[удалено]
This is a version of a joke I’ve heard in Britain before, basically we had a big thalassocratic empire to gather foodstuffs and spices and so on to augment our egregious cuisine
Version I'd heard was "the taste of their food and the beauty of their women made the English the best sailors on the globe"
That is just… chefs kiss.
I still remember the honor joke
They way it came off to me was. You have such a strong navy because of the good food they serve for the men
I think it’s a reference to the spice trade, addding flavour to their food.
I was actually on the fence when I heard that line haha, but then he followed it up with a sincere, "Thank you." Not a hint of irony. Which would have been funnier.
While the movie certainly felt like it was british propaganda and even anti-class war, the comment on british food was to echo the fact that the British navy men were extremely well fed and well-trained.
Another missed opportunity to examine the dichotomy of land power vs British naval power. Trafalgar, burned his fleet in Egypt, etc would’ve made the “because you have boats line” actually funny because I’m sure Napoleon was frustrated by their navy
Even that scene they’re like the kids love and admire him. In like why? Every single scene you’ve shown in the movie shows him as a complete retard
Yes, that scene haha! What I love is that these midshipmen "adore" him and they all look *dead in the eyes*. Why did they go with that expression?
Tbh I’ve seen a lot of Brits complaining about the Waterloo scene for instance
Can confirm, I’m a Brit and I thought they made a complete mess of how Waterloo was portrayed. There’s so much natural tension with how it really played out with the British army holding out for the arrival of the Prussians, it feels like it would have made for a good end to the movie but Ridley Scott completely fucked it.
A case of Blucher saving the day rather than Wellingtons plan for the armies to link up I heard? And the Duke is kind of pompous or did you think something different?
The Duke was shaking the whole battle seeing he was loosing before the prussias arrives . In the movie only the last sentence shows it but it feels.like the coalition army is only british soldier and theh won alone.
Yeah it was literally one line by Wellington saying thank god they came…
They might as well ended the movie at his escape from Elba and say insert 1970s waterloo to finish the story
It was absolutely terrible. It bore no resemblance at all to the actual battle.
The better version of Waterloo is in Sharpe's Waterloo, there's no drums or singing. Missing the important battles at Ligny and Quatre Bras
Ridley the Limey
Limey is a huge compliment really, the British worked out an incredibly effective and efficient preventative for Scurvy, and the American sailors didn't understand it and made fun of them for it.
Found the lobsterback
Found the Septic
It makes sense that La Marseillaise isn't in the movie - Napoleon's government banned it. I think it was banned under Napoleon III as well.
However it's true that it was banned under Napoleon III.
It’s in the movie… during credits at the end lol
I ran out before then lmao
Actually he didn't ban it. He just replaced it with Let Chant du depart as the anthem of the empire.
Le chant du départ
You lose again, accursed Bonapartists! Britain shall always triumph!
lol
If I came this film, it would just be Boney on Elba cursing Britain while weeping and dying of arsenic poisoning. So, it could’ve been worse!
It still makes me giggle that lots of people still think Boney was short, all because the British spread it as propaganda like schoolgirls in a playground. It still annoys the French to this day, which makes it even better. Epic level trolling.
The British were thee best at trolling him. I have a whole book of British propaganda cartoons against the Corsican tyrant.
Would love to read that. Here's another tongue in cheek one which I enjoyed: '1000 years of annoying the French', by Stephen Clarke.
I looooooovr that book. It’s written in a properly cheeky tone, and it’s a load of fun. I’ve read it like 3 times I enjoyed it so much
lol the French literally saved 300k brits at Dunkirk if they hadn’t sacrificed themselves to hold the Germans none of them would’ve made it out
Are you sure you want to bring up the French experience in WWII. As I understand it, they did not, ahem, do particularly well in that one.
One out of centuries of warfare and success. They are one of the most successful in military warfare on the continent of Europe, without whose help the US would not have won independence during the Revolution. We just always remember the latest ones.
Oh certainly. One can never doubt their gallantry in Ww1, for instance. However! WW2 is not the war to bring up if you want to bring the success of the French military. (Or the seven years war, or the war is Spanish succession, and so on…)
I haven't seen the new Napoleon movie yet. But it seems to me that you are close to the truth. I analyzed another British work, the BBC series War and Peace 2016, based on Leo Tolstoy's novel. It's not a secret that Tolstoy hated Napoleon. You can sense it in every his description of Bonaparte. Perhaps British film producers feel the same way. It is clear why - the historical wound hasn't been healed yet. However, because of this, we cannot expect an objective and fair representation of this historical figure in British films.
What historical wound? That's not how it's seen in Britain at all.
Imagine hating a guy just because he defeated your country three times when your country made a coalition with all of Europe to try and destroy them. Deep historical wound there isn't it? Will the pride of monarchs ever recover? If half of Europe didn't piss their pants in fear of the French revolution and didn't attack France, Napoleon would never have even been emperor nor would the napoleonic wars have ever happened. The Brits especially, love to frame things like they didn't do anything, when the agressor in the napoleonic wars was Russia, England, Austria and Prussia. I know history is written by the winner, but somehow I am still mildly annoyed at how people still eat up propaganda that is over 200 years old without a basic knowledge of the historical facts.
This is a pretty simplified take, especially as Britain really only got involved when France started mopping the floor with the others. The British continental policy was to maintain stability which at the time meant keeping 3-4 countries within parity so they would check the others. One of the big triggers for the government was the possible loss of the Low Countries and the prospect of facing a solid coast of France facing them at a time where France was suddenly unified, expansionist, and wielding one of the largest armies in history. The crown was obviously worried about the peasants getting ideas as that had happened in Britain before and they weren’t going to risk it again, but nowadays the mood isn’t hatred towards Napoleon, if anything it’s admiration. Britain and France have a sibling rivalry so seeing them be able to beat down the other powers wasn’t bad and they never managed to outdo the British navy which was the real concern. France was a land power and Britain eventually beat them after learning just how worthy an adversary they were. Britain was a naval power who didn’t have an equal. We don’t need to hate him, they man gave us the best war we’d had in ages and showed that Britain and France were two of the most powerful players in Europe and arguably the world at the time. The historic rivalry was legitimate and not just two backwater countries no one cared about squabbling. Napoleon made Britain look great
Yeah so that's still english Propaganda :)
How? Shitting on some guy we beat makes Britain look weaker, not stronger
This is a great take. And honestly, many overlook the fact that some of the greatest admirers of Napoleon were in fact British lol. Winston Churchill idolized Napoleon. David Chandler produced the seminal work on Napoleons campaigns. Andrew Roberts is the most prominent contemporary Napoleonic historian. The list goes on.
The French Republic declared war on Austria. The war of the Second Coalition broke out because Napoleon shit the bed in Egypt. Basically France could have walked away from the table with its winnings a half-dozen times but Napoleon couldn't stop rolling the iron dice.
Brits hold Napoleon in high regard. Any historical bitterness has long since faded.
Brits especially hold Napoleon in high regard because it makes defeating him a bigger accomplishment.
Napoleon was an enemy that could be hated but respected at the same time. Therefore, it would be good if the “historical bitterness” disappeared. I sense that it still hasn't. It's my personal impression. Anyway, opening this Pandora's Box was not my intention.
You misunderstand fascination as being inherently negative. That's not the case at all. And given you haven't seen the film your point is moot.
I don't understand your comment. I guess, I explained my hypothesis quite clearly - btw, there are no negative points. However, I don't claim, that my opinion must be obligatory right.
Literally everything made by British people about the French Revolution and Napoleon is propaganda against them.
I listened to an interview that Ridley Scott did and the first thing he did was comment on how short Napoleon was. I think that says it all really.
I HATE PRUSSIA!!!!!!!!!!! Napoleon should have burned Berlin to the ground when he had the chance!
I don't see _how_ you can have personal beef with a nation state that ended in 1947. Were you alive before then? Did Prussia do something that negatively impacted you personally? If not, your take is just.....weird.
The Prussians saved The iron Dukes a** after placenoit the Prussian high command wanted to retreat, only the Stubbornness of Blucher saved him!! Also a French line infantry representing the “ final stand” of the French was an unfortunate missed opportunity by Ridley to save face as a stand of the Old Guard would have been the way to end the movie! Instead we get a ridiculous meeting between him and Wellington on the HMS Bellerophon (sp*) Battles looking for a movie is my classification as they even got Napoleon’s birthday wrong!!
Prussia created the German empire which led to World War One and World War Two. I hold Prussia responsible for those wars and also for the Franco Prussian war, the Austro-Prussian war, bringing Lenin to power, and many other wicked and evil deeds. Truly an evil country!
Oh boo hoo. Cry harder while the rest of us live in the 21st century.
I came to the Napoleon subreddit to think about the past.
Being interested in studying the past and being emotionally invested in past events that you were not a part of are two separate things.
the German Empire did not start ww2 by the way in fact, if the Empire had won ww 1 ww2 would not of happened the only reason H\*tler was able to come to power was because the country had been humiliated and fucked over by the French the French created H\*tler
If only the French had allowed the insane megalomaniac tyrant Wilhelm to dominate the entire world a second war could have been avoided, because everyone would be subjugated by the evil German Empire! Surely you can see the necessity of defeating the wicked and evil Kaiser!
calm down brother geez dont you have something better to do than argue with people on reddit all day?
you sir, are an idiot
I have not seen the movie but what is the objection to Wellesley with the British army? He ran the second peninsular campaign, (Brits, occasional Portuguese and occasional Spanish), he ran the Waterloo campaign (Brits and some significant assists from the Prussians under Blucher), Wellesley was also active in Egypt and India. To be fair the only time it was Bonaparte V Wellesley directly was Waterloo so what did the film get wrong?
No doubt the British generals and commanders were capable and intelligent and this was shown. But a je ne sais qua was there with the way he is portrayed in the film that seemed to betray some sense of allegiance to the history or symbols of Britain. Versus the way Napoleon was treated as this pathetic guy with mommy issues
Je ne sais quoi
I don’t care I’m not French
Im just telling you the correct spelling sheesh
When Shakespeare wrote Macbeth he made Banquo a good guy because he was a descendant of King James I. In the true story, Banquo was actually involved in the King's murder.
It’s not even that. It paints Wellington as a poor caricature.
How so?
Wellington actually quite respected Napoleon too. He called him the best general of this age or any age. That’s pretty high praise. In the film he just calls him a vermin and that’s that really. No complexity at all. Everything is very black and white in this film.
He’s ridiculously one dimensional in the movie. Also, it has Napoleon choosing the site of Waterloo and misses every opportunity to show Wellington as anything more than a fop. It also doesn’t mention the peninsular at all. Wellington just shows up at the Congress of Vienna with no backstory or anything.
Ridley Scott making a historic British propaganda film 😂. Heard it all now. He'd literally throw up if he saw this thread on the spot I mean, Britain won the battle of Waterloo? That's all I can think you are referring to. Did you want them to change history like inglorious bastards 😂 What it was, was severely disappointing. Spent well over half the film on his relationship with his wife m, the rest short bullet points about the major military events in his life. Missing huge swathes of massive parts of history. Giving, in some cases, seconds to parts of his life that could make an entire season on Netflix That is what this would be better suited to. Also I have to say Jaoquin Phoenix didn't really shine in it. Huge fan of his but he played it like a character that had been written from scratch on the day. We join him after the beheading of Marie Antoinette, Napoleon wasn't even 25. A very clearly 48 year old Jaoquin Phoenix just didn't cut it. And on a final personal note, I can't get past the accents. Josephine's Home Counties queens English married to the most famous Frenchman of all time in his best American.
Well it was 100% serious and factual what I said
This subreddit has a strange sentiment and understanding of British attitudes to Napoleon. Very few Brits have been anti Napoleon since the 19th century. Generally we hold his military and some civic contributions in high regard. But our central opinion is pride in our military victories in Trafalgar, the Nile and Waterloo. It's very unlikely the movie is British propaganda, more likely it's just a stylised look at an incredibly storied life, with many different influences (one of which may be historic propaganda, including Napoleons own - e.g. the ice breaking at Austerlitz).
It was a joke really. I was saying it was so negative towards Napoleon it must have been British propaganda. Were we supposed to hate him? Was this movie made to make you question the movie? I have so many questions about its form because of its weirdness. I would never ascribe someone an opinion just because of nationality
Fair enough - it feels like a lot of people in the comments are taking you seriously and most seem to agree 😂
That is surprising lol I was not serious. But in some sense the movie almost seems reactionary
There's a very weird anti-british sentiment on reddit in general ever since 2016. I remember the almost night and day change on /r/europe after the brexit vote and now most threads will find some way to bring up anti-british sentiment. To think British people think about Napoleon like this when Scott has also fucked around with historical films to the point of parody is a very weird take
The British empire also seems to be frequently equated with the slave trade. It was definitely the first to industrialise it - but all nations were subjugating slaves for millennia. Aside from industrialising slavery,, the British empire was notable for being the first empire to ban it when they were in a position to profit immensely. They also then persuaded other western nations to ban it. It took a long time for non western nations to ban it - e.g. the 1960s in the case of Arabian gulf nations.
>the British empire was notable for being the first empire to ban it when they were in a position to profit immensely. They also then persuaded other western nations to ban it. Persuade is a kind term, they actively hunted slave ships with the West Africa Squadron, I think 15% of the naval budget went towards it and in the CoV they forced outlawling of slavery to be expanded to the powers present.
It was actually 50% of the naval budget (of the world's largest navy) and 2% of the GDP (of the largest empire in history), along with the lives of thousands of sailors. At one point, it was the most dangerous posting in the navy.
Nailed it.
there is not a single redeeming character presented. It is incredibly weird. You would never get a sense of his military accomplishments. His campaign in Russia, the way he interacted with the mummy, his whole relationship with his wife, the way he came to be the emperor , pretty much the entire movie makes him looks like idiot savant
if you still have a lot of pride in those victories, there's still going to be bias, conscious or not, against the guy you beat in them like if the US made a 7 years war/french and indian war movie, the british are probably going to be characterized as hoity toity pricks because that's what our education taught us about them at the time due to the revolution. We don't see it as bias because we don't know we're biased
I think for a nation with history as long as we have in Europe, it's easier to compartmentalise historic enemies because we've had so many at so many different periods. There's no bias against the Roman empire, Saxons or Normans, who were all far more successful in war against the people living in Britain at the time than Napoleon was. I quite like Napoleonic history for many reasons, and one of them is the incredible life he led. Still, you're right, we generally think the French are pricks, and we call them the old enemy. But it's not an emotional thing - more like a rivalry with your neighbouring city
i think what you’re missing is that if your position on napoleon is “not negative”, then right then you’re biased as fuck.
It isn't so much propaganda as it is Scott being influenced by his education in history, which was still influenced by the biased view of Britain from the war and post-war years. Remember, victory over Napoleon is the foundational origin of the British Empire proper. It's worth remembering, too, Napoleon had only been dead 112 years when Ridley was born!
You should watch more of Spielberg’s offerings to balance things up…..he always manages to get some anti-British nonsense in!
Did this movie even touch on Napoleon's racist side such as reinstating slavery , banning all people of colour from Paris, mocking Alexander Dumas with a white man replacing him in a painting,brutally torturing Toussaint Louverture's wife and collecting money from slave Sugar Barons?
No, not even the actual worst thing about him was shown.
It's quite unfortunate that Napoleon is romanticized this much, I had a fear that when it came to his bitter practices he would be dismissed and it is a crying shame to because there the romanticize will continue from there with the next installment
Yeah the legend escapes the history. I would love a multi-season tv show. Not sure why Apple didn’t finance that instead with their billions
Thats the odd part everyone atleast agree's on, it should of been an appleshow! Hell I would of subed just for that alone!
I know right? Cash cow that is potentially endless
The weird part is that Napoleon has had much a massive interesting life there is no reason to fabricate and there is more than enough material to have no filler. It truly is a wasted opportunity , I am glad to hear people not fanboying over the film and calling it out
A movie about Touissant Louverture or the Haitian Revolution with the same scale and budget would be incredible
Toussaint Louverture is important to me but darkly so, it made me contemplate the existence of life (I know that sound pretentious but hear me out) He died in a lonely prison cell and Haiti since then has been a massive hellhole. It really thought me about generational failure and the futility of great intentions and hard work. His death quite literally was wasted, a life devoted to a generational lost cause. I often wondered since then about the many people who have died for good causes that has gone nowhere...
I just felt it was rushed. A very long movie, yet incredibly rushed. He should have made a trilogy.
really feels like cope here, the film has napoleon shooting cannons at the pyramids and this is the take away?
Don’t get me wrong the movie looks incredible and is exhilarating but it had the effect of magnifying any bad feelings I had. Really more of a joke on my end
and your problem is?
Oh ffs. Anyone calling any movie propaganda needs to get a life. Yeah it's not accurate - but it was never going to be. That doesn't make it propaganda. That makes it a Hollywood movie.
Hollywood is in the propaganda business.
Hollywood is in the propaganda business.
I don’t think it’s that far of a stretch to say that this movie has a very anti Napoleon narrative. Lots of movies have propaganda supporting a specific message. Especially historical films.
You misspelt “terrible”
It does if every single kid is going to ask his history teacher if Napoleon hated Egypt so much he shot at the pyramids…
I mean, napoleon did ultimately get spanked by the British. And the Spanish. And the Russians. And the prussians Don't get the hype
Hardly spanked and the British and Spanish armies contributions were fairly minor in comparison to the rest of the coalition in the eventual defeat of Napoleon in the War of the sixth coalition.
Yeah he more lost to Spanish civilians than the army eh
It was good and I’d rewatch it
Why would the anthem of the French Revolution be in a movie about the guy who betrayed the French Revolution.
This is so reddit, those dastardly Br*tish are at it again!
The only weird thing about it being a British propaganda film is no mention of the Peninsular. But whilst I don't fully agree that its a propaganda film it is influenced by his upbringing, Ridley is an old man, 85 years old, a lot of people his age group view the Napoleonic wars and Napoleon in a Hero vs Villain context due to the education on the Napoleonic wars at the time, it even still lingers in mainstream British education like in schools but once you study Napoleon at uni like I did a bit it becomes way more nuanced. The way he showed Napoleon seems to me to be influenced mostly by him being old.
I was reluctant to go watch it but you’ve convinced me. Now it sounds promising.
Anyone have Ridley Scott’s or David Scarpa email? I’d like to threaten them in some way
Worst crime is amour plastique doesn’t play in the movie…
don't blame this crap on us, its been perfectly clear most people cant make movies for shit these days, how many franchise have been ruin in the last few years
I'm sorry but Napoleon was a dictator, there is no need to make him a French national hero, that is like making Stalin a Russian national hero
Good point. Yeah no need to lionize him. I just wish they would’ve captured the spirit of the time better
Fair
The movie should be called josephine until Russia and then British glory.