Comment on Napoleon: Ridley Scott’s director’s cut is an anti-Great Man comedy
Rolando@lemmy.world 9 months agoFrom reading the reviews and social media comments, it annoyed anyone with an interest in history.
If I were paid to promote this film, I’d say something like: you can tell from the previews and the theatrical release that there’s good cinematography, set design, costumes, etc. Well in the extended version there’s MORE of it. And then tacitly suggest that people play it in the background with the sound off while listening to classical music.
entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 9 months ago
I have an interest in history and I liked it a lot. If you go into it knowing it’s making fun of the Great Man narrative, it’s quite funny.
Rolando@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Well I’m glad you found a movie you like. But I gotta say, “the movie is bad because it was made bad on purpose” just seems like copium.
Since you’re interested in history: Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace” also makes an anti-Great Man point about Napoleon, both in Tolstoy’s depiction of the Battle of Borodino, as well as in historical thoughts that are usually collected at the end of that novel. I don’t remember if Bondarchuk’s movie adaption of War and Peace retains that theme, but you can see it on youtube. The best Napoleon movie is arguably Waterloo which is somewhat critical of Napoleon. Likewise, the Napoleon miniseries has him act like kind of a doofus at times (and has an interesting depiction of the Napoleon-Josephine relationship).
I guess I’m just kind of bitter about this film because most of us in the US don’t have a lot of knowledge about European history since our teachers are underpaid, our academics are ridiculed, and because our historical movies and TV shows are generally ahistorical cartoonish BS like this one.
entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 9 months ago
I told you I’m interested in history and your response was to assume I’ve read/watched no other Napoleon content including all-time classic War and Peace? Come on, man. That’s condescending to the extreme. Our tastes don’t have to be the same for me to not be ignorant of real history.
I didn’t say it’s bad because it was made bad on purpose. I said (or at least attempted to convey) that I found it funny and that I appreciated the satire. I think it’s a good movie. Well shot, extremely well performed, and relatively pointed satire mocking the rising trend of strongman politicians. Like any good satire it takes comedic shots at current people/events by filtering its criticism through some other setting and characters. I wouldn’t describe it as an accurate docu-drama even remotely, but I’d say mocking would-be dictators by making such people look ridiculous is worthwhile for its own sake.
It’s a bad history lesson, but not every work set in a historical setting needs to be accurate. Shakespeare’s historical plays hardly were. He had a clock bell tolling in Julius Caesar, for Pete’s sake. Cartoonish ahistorical satire is a valid genre.
It seems to me what you’re bitter about is that you had your hopes up for a documentary or extremely accurate and respectful drama. Sorry this wasn’t that, but IMO the last thing we need right now is a movie glorifying any emperors here in the States.
Rolando@lemmy.world 9 months ago
You’re right, my comment was pretty condescending, I apologize. Your points are well-taken, thanks for giving me something to think about.