* The author is part of the community of readers of La Vanguardia
After hearing all kinds of comments about Ridley Scott's Napoleon, I was interested in knowing the script, the way it was told, the quality of the characters, the music, the editing... Now, having seen the film, I can give my opinion, like anyone else, without basing it on the historical, political and military rigor of a student of the life of this character, since I am not a specialist in the Napoleonic period.
Surely everyone who has seen it will be able to make a list of pros and cons, regardless of cinematographic values, and I have no doubt that they will also feel invited to the debate, as has happened to me and other viewers, both those who liked it and those who felt dissatisfied.
I admit that the film did not seem heavy to me, despite its more than 150 minutes duration. It was only at the end, at the Battle of Waterloo, when as I dissected the screen trying to capture all kinds of details, I felt somewhat overwhelmed by that war, which led to Napoleon's retreat and his exile on the island of Saint Helena.
In the same way, other contests came to impact me. This is the case of Austerlitz, which takes place in a frozen setting, being very complex to recreate, especially when the horses sank into the ice, just like the soldiers, adding moments of tension.
In general, I think the scenes that appear are spectacular. They perfectly show that intelligence for battles that Napoleon possessed, always being ahead of the enemy.
Perhaps, I miss the Bailén war episode in the film, which was fought in Andalusia, and the entire Spanish campaign. It marked the first defeat of the Napoleonic army on European soil and the evacuation of Joseph Bonaparte, Napoleon's brother, from Madrid, where he was king for almost six years.
The performances of Joaquín Phoenix, as Napoleon, and Vanessa Kirby, in the role of Josefina, seem brilliant to me. The first one has to play a complicated role, as happened in Joker, and he does it with the same genius. This contrast between greatness and the ridiculous shows both facets of it.
As for the protagonist, in the first appearances we see her seductive and impudent, later adopting a hedonistic behavior. Little by little, she demonstrates the fascination she feels for Napoleon, while she is the first to see the character's intimate miseries.
The ending is very well told, and you can see the fragility of his charm in the face of his inability to produce an imperial heir. The letters that are sent, intense and innocent, show the general's immaturity in matters of love, and the security and protection that his wife provided him.
I also liked the incredible set and costume design work, and the amazing photography and staging that make that historical rigor expendable.
There is a part that positively surprised me and it is the scene of the coronation of the young general of the French army in the middle of the French Revolution. Before I started watching the movie, I researched the locations where it had been filmed and discovered that one of the locations was the city of Lincoln.
Last October I took a trip to England and, despite having been to this country on several occasions, I had the opportunity to visit this town for the first time. The reality is that I was overshadowed by its beauty and, especially, by its wonderful cathedral, one of the four largest in England. What was my surprise when I witnessed the coronation ceremony in the cathedral choir, where I was listening to a concert.
I would have liked to know more about the intellectual side of this character, who, I understand, dedicated a good part of his time to the study of classic works and was also a great lover of mathematics.
Finally, I have read that the director Ridley Scott has a somewhat Napoleonic character and that he was delighted to direct, in his own words, "900 people, 100 horses, 50 trucks to transport them, one hundred drivers and 700 extras" whom he organized with military rigor.
