|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Make sure to read Daniel Greenfield’s contributions in Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]
Before 2020, movie theaters were dominated by superheroes. After the pandemic and the race riots, it’s been biopics. 2023 superhero movies like The Flash, Blue Beetle and The Marvels bombed, but biopics are booming. From Elvis to Oppenheimer to Napoleon, audiences have grown tired of special effects superpowers and are longing for real life larger than life figures.
But Ridley Scott’s Napoleon is every bit as unreal as Batman or Captain America. The lavish but hollow spectacle stretched out at its longest to four hours is not about Napoleon, but about the postmodern idea of him and of all the great men of history as both superhuman and flawed.
The seemingly wide range of biopics actually tell the same story over and over again. The protagonists may be rock stars, race car drivers or dictators, but they succeed without really trying and fail because of their troubled personal lives, not their lack of skill. The dramatic arc makes human beings seem superhuman only to cut them down to size for being all too human.
Napoleon the movie perpetuates many of the myths that Napoleon the man wove around himself. Where a French king might have proclaimed, “l’etat, c’est moi” or “I am the state” by virtue of divine right, Napoleon briefly made himself equivalent to France through heroism. The heroism was part real and part fiction. Napoleon was only the latest heroic figure to bestride the stage of the nation after the Revolution replaced monarchy with cults of personality.
The Renaissance had unleashed a wave of celebrities, artistic and criminal (some like
Benvenuto Cellini, the Florentine sculptor who alternated between stunning works of art and brutal murders which were overlooked because of his talent, managed to do both). Italian cities warred with each to bury great artists the way that they might have once competed to provide a resting place for the bones of saints. Greatness had become holiness and fame was a pagan immortality that could outlast the centuries better than any dream of heaven.
Scott’s Napoleon biopic has a poor understanding of European warfare or French politics, all it knows is fame. It is no coincidence that the dead Corsican stands out among a wave of biopics about rock stars, musicians and other celebrities. In the style of the conclusion of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, it collects as many apocryphal Napoleon legends as it can, then strings them together with grandiosity and insipid dialogue. Want to see Napoleon take a shot at the Sphinx? It never happened, but like so many made up stories, it’s there in the movie.
Ridley Scott, a director who specializes in making movies that look good with nothing more underneath, and David Scarpa, the writer responsible for the equally hollow Man in the High Castle streaming series, have wasted hours of film and countless millions of dollars to distill a major historical figure to the ahistorical cliches that people who don’t know much, know.
Napoleon the movie isn’t in the business of history, but of celebrity, yet it has no actual insight into its real narrative, not about a long dead historical figure, but about the hunger for fame. To Napoleon, the cult of personality he developed was a political tool that allowed him to wield power, but to those who perpetuate the legend, fame becomes an end in and of itself.
The French turned to Napoleon, as the Italians would later turn to Mussolini and the Germans to to Hitler, because he appeared superhuman. Napoleon accomplished many things, including social and educational reforms, which are usually ignored in favor of war stories, and rallied men under impossible conditions on the battlefield, but he could not save France from itself. Nor could he save himself from his own weaknesses and frailties. No man, no matter how accomplished or lucky, which Napoleon also was, can ever live up to a cult of personality.
The cult of personality clashed with the cult of democracy that France had introduced with the Revolution. And it never resolved the question of whether ordinary men were fit to rule. While America ultimately (and perhaps temporarily) came out for the right of the common man to decide his own affairs and to govern: the cult of personality sidestepped that vital question.
Great men elevated from more ordinary ranks appeared to overlay meritocracy atop democracy, but the lie at the heart of the cult of personality was that extraordinarily gifted people were like gods who bestrode the earth and could accomplish what no amount of ordinary men could. Much as after the Revolution, Napoleon’s cult of personality once again convinced French military men to abandon reason and pursue grandiose wars that made no strategic sense:
That same destructive notion has a sizable footprint in American life. Superhero movies alternate with biopics for unrealistic depictions of great men who seem to accomplish the impossible because of some intangible gift. This narrative satisfies a belief that greatness is inaccessible to ordinary people (and we shouldn’t even try) but when applied to real figures it also dooms those mortals who possess it. It’s a quintessential belief taken from Ancient Greece with its obsession with hubris and the fickle favor and scorn of their all too human gods.
While it helps to have certain natural gifts, accomplishment in real life is the result of hard work, persistence and a certain amount of luck. Even those geniuses who have incredible inborn talent in a particular area have to struggle to apply it in a way that makes a difference in their chosen profession. In real life, genius is overrated. Like child actors, the 11-year-olds you hear about applying to college and then graduating rarely amount to anything in their adult lives.
But that’s a message few want to hear. In a culture where every other urban high school boy wants to be LeBron James and every other urban high school girl wants to be Kim Kardashian, celebrity, with its magical ability to do anything, is a much more compelling vision whether it is represented on the big screen by Superman or Napoleon.
The roster of narcissistic influencers who have never learned how to do anything except be famous makes celebrity seem empowering, but it’s actually disempowering. Accomplishment is democratized and merit isn’t a magical gift you’re born with: it’s one you work hard for. Potential isn’t entirely universal, but it’s much more so than celebrity culture would have you believe.
Cults of personality urge us not to try. They assure us that if we were going to be successful, we would have done it already. Famous people have innate gifts that we do not. And they succeed without having to work hard. That is the opposite of the actual message of Napoleon’s life. And that of the lives of many successful people, including celebrities, who worked hard to succeed.
But in a culture whose leftist politics have convinced much of the public of the general unfairness of life, cults of personality resonate much as they did in post-revolutionary France. Democracy appears to have failed and hard work seems futile in a social setup that leftists have indoctrinated people to believe is rigged against them. Why even bother trying?
A cult of personality offers the possibility of a savior who can do what we are convinced we cannot. And so many Americans wait for someone special to come along and save them.
But no human being can ultimately do for us what we cannot do for ourselves.
Biographies of famous historical figures used to offer inspiring and meaningful lessons, but Napoleon the movie is never more its lavish costumes and sets, the strained performances led by Joaquin Phoenix who in every movie is in can’t help playing an actor who’s trying too hard, and the theatrics of what a top-level historical drama should be, but without the content.
Why make a biopic of Napoleon or anyone else? The invariable answer is because they’re enormously famous and controversial enough to be debated, but not canceled. Fame is the only true narrative in Napoleon, not his fame, but the fame of an industry that is addicted to it, which trades in it as the only vital currency and whose obsession with fame has deranged our culture.
Cults of personality are a form of despair masquerading as glory. A people who become obsessed with them have given up. That is in some ways as true of America as it was of Napoleonic France. The real Napoleon complex is not the one he suffered from (he was actually 5’6) but that of nations who stop believing in themselves and embrace cults of personality.
We don’t need strongmen or superheroes to save us, we need to find our own strength.
Why do people make these long movies, putting the audience at risk of blood clots in their legs and burst bladders? A desire for fame, or the skim from bloated casts and support staff?
“While it helps to have certain natural gifts, accomplishment in real life is the result of hard work, persistence and a certain amount of luck. ”
It’s worth it so you can have D. Greenfield tell you the meaning of life in one sentence. How did he come to this conclusion about all types of accomplishment in human history? No clue. But he says it with authority, so he must know what he’s talking about.
Still being funded by the United Nations misinformation campaign?
And what part of that statement do you disagree with? The part where he doesn’t credit the (Dirtbagocrat) government, trannies, gays or women?
“We don’t need strongmen or superheroes to save us, we need to find our own strength.”
Truer words could not be written.
The Age of Man(the Enlightenment) produced Napoleon.
The high priest of the cult of the Superman was Nietzsche.
We’ve seen the results but we will not learn.
When the Russians burned Moscow to the ground before the advancing French army……….they exhibited the proper mentality toward “The Great Man”.
But Bonapartism infected Russia.
Communism(which gets its name from the Paris Commune of 1800s France) returned in 1917 to shake the world.
Hitler drew great inspiration from Stalin.
The Gulag, the Holocaust, WW2 and the Cold War can all be traced to Napoleon.
“Great Man” my ass.
Yes, certainly France can be connected to all of them. The French Revolution, the reaction to it, went on tearing Europe (and much of the world) apart in the 19th and then the 20th centuries.
Germany in the first half of the 20th arguably condensed the worst horrors of it into two decades.
The tree of Russian Nihilism of the late 1800s had three branches which became Communism, Fascism and Anarchism.
The Russian nihilists were all infatuated with Napoleon and his movement.
“A cult of personality offers the possibility of a savior who can do what we are convinced we cannot. And so many Americans wait for someone special to come along and save them.
But no human being can ultimately do for us what we cannot do for ourselves….
Cults of personality are a form of despair masquerading as glory. A people who become obsessed with them have given up.”
Anybody know when Jesus is coming back to save us? It’s been 2,000 years but Jesus will save us.
Fortunately for us no one will ever make make a biopic about your “cult of personality” because you have no personality. All you do is live vicariously through your heroes, Rand and Piekoff.
Oh yeah the article is not about Jesus. But you are so full of hate and vitriol you just couldn’t help getting in a cheap shot. One thing we do know is Jesus won’t be “coming back” to save you. Your unrepentant arrogance has already put you into your own special Objectivist hell. And you have been there quite a while.
The tired fool is consumed with it, making him a “broken record”, or a one note song.
Occasionally he can manage enough focus to make some good observations, but like Ann Coulter on Trump, he can rarely keep himself from taking a long winded swipe at Judeo-Christian values. (At least Ann’s swipes at Trump are sometimes brief.)
It seems that is all he has going for him.
I read enough from reviews to realize they hadn’t captured Napoleon’s personality nor were they historically accurate. Not sure if i want to see such a misinterpretation represented as non-fiction. What is the point of such an exercise?
I saw the film and it was not very good.
Ridley Scott focused a lot on the strange and misguided relationship between Napoleon and Josephine which was not very interesting.
I went to see it mainly for the French Revolution aspects and particularly for the scene where the Russians burned Moscow to the ground after their loss at Borodino.
Those scenes were worthwhile………..but not the main focus of the film.
Napoleon’s strategical ideas were brilliant, at first, but Wellington found ways to exploit them in the end. For example, Napoleon’s armies increased their mobility by foraging (stealing the food of the civilians) which was an advantage at first, but they couldn’t stay in a particular area too long, once the resources had been exhausted. Plus they exasperated the civilian population, leading to guerrilla war against the French.
Yeah, foraging was an ancient practice that always angered or created deadly enemies.
General Green used that tactic to string the British along in the South.
It forced the Brits to take from the locals, many of whom were neutral. They weren’t neutral after they were pillaged.
Whoever down voted me is a reality denying douche. I bet you believe in the global climate warming hoax.
Probably THX … 😉 …
… he’s the only one on the board who denies actual history.
The French revolutionary armies began effectively ‘living off the land’ since they didn’t worry about the reaction of the population, and occasionally functioned more like insurgents.
One of Wellington’s moves at Waterloo was to have his men stand at attention nearly but not quite out of range as a target for the French cannons . It was a major factor in Napoleon’s defeat that day, but I can’t imagine being one of the British regulars watching cannonballs take out your buddies and not run. What a cold blooded tactic. I agree, a flaw can always be found against a great strategist, even if Pyrrhic in nature. Very often the trap is the place the battle is fought, but every battle does not have a master strategist at the root and trump of other factors for it’s final result. Once battles start, plans most often dissolve. If you are going to take on the whole world it’s only a matter of time before luck, weapons or something else causes defeat.
War is high stakes. They found ways to get rid of the Mongols even with their huge advantage in weapons. So if nothing else, if a tactic isn’t smart or doesn’t work, it tends to have Darwinian pressures. to find solutions quickly.
Mike Tyson used to say “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face”!🤕
For a short time Napoleon made the French feel like they were not the sorry bastards that they always were, and still are, and always will be.
Hollywood can make a mess of any historical figure, and 9 of 10 idiots that waste time watching the crap, walk away thinking they have shared a learning experience.
First thing I tell people is that it’s the movie version. If you want accuracy (providing it’s not made by a flaming democrat) watch a documentary.
One movie I got a kick outta was “Charlie Wilson’s War” even though the inaccuracies are abundant, especially the bullshit swipe at Reagan at the end.
When I’m asked how I know, I refer them to “Afghanistan: The Bear Trap” by Mark Adkin.
It was amusing to see idiots call talk radio & say Rep. Wilson brought down the Soviets, right after the movie was released (shifting from the “the Soviets collapsed on their own” argument).
Liberals don’t bother with research; they just see the movie version.
The same morons probably think the Marvel movies are documentaries.
Not sure about that Roberta. The French have a lot of great things in their history. One I find incredible is their early adoption of female rights, particularly their demand for women’s medicine which sped up care and treatment of women using modern medicine. An awful lot of modern medicine was rooted in France and Paris as the center of the revolution. The usual hallmarks are too numerous to name and well known anyway. There was a sea change of the French viewpoint on life and the world with the communists sending out their roots of corrosion after 1920 and well, Vichy will always be a national horror and embarrassment that smears the whole French nation with the silly and repulsive label. But maybe they shouldn’t be judged on recent history, even though it is fun.
The French gave the world Albert Camus.
Who actually grew up in Algeria before moving to France.
His book “The Rebel” displays the genius that very few people ever achieve,
It is a psychological discussion of all the major totalitarian movements from the French Revolution to the Bolshevik Revolution to the birth of National Socialism.
Camus analyzes Nietzsche and Bakunin(the founder of Anarchism) among others.
I generally have a certain disdain for French culture.
But Camus is the exception.
And his total fascination with Dostoevsky(who makes several appearances in The Rebel) proves that great minds think alike.
Just like the clowns who flock to Hamilton on broadway and take that as history🤡🤪😂
Israel is Napoleon and I have spent my life as one of its cultists.
I rented “Factotum” last night but haven’t watched it yet. I look forward to doing so today.
I saw “Factotum.” It’s alright. Matt Dillon is good in it. If you like it, you might want to try “Barfly,” with Mickey Roarke and Faye Dunaway. Roarke plays Bukowsi. It’s pretty good.
I own Bar Fly on DVD. Bukowski was the highest order of man: no arc whatsoever and he couldn’t have cared less.
Well, I guess I just changed my mind about watching that movie.
All of Scott’s movies are the same: visually stunning, but historically inaccurate.
Another vital and brilliant essay, Daniel, among your many. Thank you for your hard work, study, good heart, and for listening to your muse.
Thank you so much, Stephen. They are very much appreciated.
The rule of thumb in Hollywood has always been to never let historical or scientific fact get in the way of a good yarn, so this doesn’t surprise me.
The movie got well-deserved bad reviews, lost many millions of dollars, and now everyone believes that Napoleon was a toxic male. Chic alors!
READING TOO MUCH INTO THIS MOVIE!
SCRIPT SUCKED
ACTOR WAS TOO OLD TO PLAY NAPOLEON FROM THE 1790’S TO 1815
ACTOR WAS MISCAST, RIGID AND BORING
HISTORIC CHARACTERS AROUND NAPOLEON WERE 2 SOMETIMES 1 DIMENSIONAL
HAD NO BASIC MUSIC THEME TO FOLLOW
NO REAL UNDERSTANDING AS TO HIS GENIOUS
HOPPING ALONG EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS(THANK GOD)
JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW MUCH BETTER IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN A NETFLIX 6 HOUR SERIES TO EXPLAIN -NAPOLEON!
A WASTE OF TIME TO GET IN THE WEEDS OF THIS STINKER!
ALTHOUGH THE CINEMATOGRAPHY WAS GOOD AS WELL AS THE COSTUMES.
For an interesting comparison, see Albert Dieudonné’s performance in Abel Gance’s “Napoleon” – made in 1927. It’s on Archive.org – https://archive.org/details/napoleon-1927-1080p. Good but long (5 hours).
Yes!!! And to think Gance planned 5 more titanic movies on his life
Thank you, Daniel … I’ll take your word for it.
I haven’t been to a Hollyweird film since the plandemic began in 2024 – excluding old re-runs.
Not planning to.