Ridley Scott hasn’t been shy in stating that there’s a 4-hour cut of his new historical epic, "Napoleon.” I bet that lengthy version is a very different film than the 158 minute theatrical cut I saw 48 hours ago.
This is not to say that “Napoleon” doesn’t work; it does, in almost farcical fashion. Whereas this version of the film works more like an episodic, and quite breezy, run through of Napoleon Bonaparte’s showiest moments, I can just imagine the 4-hour cut being a totally different movie — one that extends scenes and has a very different flow.
I mentioned that “Napoleon” is a farce — because it is! It’s not shy in its questionable portrayal of the Emperor General. He’s played by Joaquin Phoenix as a stiff, childish, tantrumy, horny goofball. David Scarpa's screenplay doesn’t shy away from the comic hijinks, hell, wait until you see him fuck wife Josephine (a wondrous Vanessa Kirby) in bunny-on-steroids fashion.
Meanwhile, Phoenix is rather excellent in a role that demands a lot. Scott has decided to use Phoenix’s eccentricities to bring out the satire. Did Napoleon really say “Destiny has brought me this lamb chop!”? Of course not. It’s just part of the farcical nature of the film. There is no way the man who created the Napoleonic code, not to mention is renowned as one of the smartest battlefield practitioners, was this much of a fool.
In the film, Napoleon doesn’t achieve greatness as much as stumble upon it, and that’s left many historians puzzled by Scott and Scarpa’s decision to characterize him in such grotesque fashion. Scott’s answer to his critics? “Fuck off.”
"Napoleon" starts with the French Revolution at full peak, and in the film’s most gruesome moment, we witness the execution of Marie Antoinette via guillotine. Napoleon has also just won his latest battle, he’s been promoted from Captain to General, and will soon enough be promoted to Emperor.
It all happens very quickly; the film barely breathes, it’s a snapshot of Napoleon’s life, and again, the 4-hour cut will probably play better, and differently, expanding on the whys and hows. I gather it’ll feel like a much slower experience because this theatrical version has a fairly frenetic pace, storming through around 40 years of Napoleon’s life.
Scott stuffs his movie with political chatter and Napoleon's battles (again, each shot in brief 3-5 minute capsules) — they are staged beautifully, but they aren’t necessarily supposed to be as enveloping as, say, the action in “Gladiator” or “Kingdom of Heaven,” but, rather, play more like brief historical snapshots.
Among the highlights are the scenes between Napoleon and wife Joséphine. Kirby is playfully magnetic, capturing the shaky romance. Despite an innumerable amount of attempts, she can’t conceive a heir to the throne and Napoleon constantly threatens her with divorce if a pregnancy doesn’t happen soon. There’s also cheating, lots of it, which continuously circumvents the power dynamics of this strange marriage. However, Joséphine always seems to have the upper hand.
There isn’t much tonal narrative in "Napoleon,” as I mentioned, it’s more of an episodic romp. That’s also what makes this film wholly unique. The highly stylized frames, kudos to cinematographer Dariusz Wolski, look like classical paintings — the wide open vistas are breathtaking. It almost plays like an art film rather a historical “blockbuster.”
Scott’s 158 minute movie is its own thing, much like the 4-hour version will, in all likelihood, be a very different beast. There’s almost no chance it won’t be. The pacing in the theatrical version is odd, but that turns out to be part of its charm — it’s unlike anything Scott has done before. [B/B+]
Originally, Cregger was reported to be directing “Gladys.” He then dropped out. He was also supposed to co-write the script with Zach Shields, and apparently now he isn’t.