Napoléon (1927)

Country: France

Released: April 7th, 1927

Genre: Biographical, Historical Fiction

Directed by: Abel Gance

Produced by: Abel Gance

Written by: Abel Gance

Studying to become a historian was a stupid decision. Not because of the poor job-prospects or mind-numbing tedium of much of the work but because the effect it's had on my movie watching. Although on second thought the latter two should probably be of bigger concern to me. In any case, the problem with studying history or any specialized field for that matter is that when Hollywood tries to  be all hip and talk about it they usually screw the pooch so hard the pooch needs ointment and my friends need stop wringing my neck, because after hearing me say "actually in Napoleonic France..." for the hundredth time would trigger anyone into trying to strangle me. Napoléon isn't the most historically accurate flick, unsurprising considering that it was filmed at a time when "history" meant jerking off you're nationalism boner and telling everyone how gosh darned special your country is. And I promise that will be the last sexual analogy I will use for the rest of this review.

This will also be the last I talk about the film's merit as a historical piece because my speciality is in Meji Japan and not in Napoleonic Europe. So unless Schneider comes down with a case of the stupids and decides to put The Last Samurai on his list it seems that you'll all be missing out on my smug, sanctimonious history lectures. What I will say though is that the film is somewhat immune to any historical criticism because the actual title is Napoléon vu par Abel Gance/Napoleon as seen by Abel Gance, thus making it's more fictionalized approach clearer. I must say, wish modern movies did this instead of that whole "based on a true story" cop-put. See, by saying "based" on a true story the filmmakers get a carte blanche to pretty much make shit up, which is why The Imitation Game can be largely B.S. and still get nominated for an Oscar.

But that's enough historical bitching for one review, let's get onto today's movie. Napoléon is a biopic (probably the first of its kind) about Napoleon. That's it. I mean, I don't know what else anyone could expect, the movie is called Napoleon, it ain't going to be about John freaking Landis or whatever celebrity makes this joke funnier. If you don't know who Napoleon Bonaparte is then please stop reading my blog and open a god-damned book.
The film follows the would be world conqueror from his childhood up to his successful Italian campaign, largely leaving the rest of his life untold. Probably a good decision as this is clearly trying to celebrate the French nation, and watching a bunch of Frenchmen slowly freeze to death in Russia is not hella patriotic unless you're eating borscht. At this point I should mention that the version I watched was the original restoration headed by Francis Ford Coppola, which clocks in at about four hours, one hour and a half short of the original run-time. The latest restoration supposedly has most of the original movie but to my knowledge it was never released to the masses, and even if it was I was unable to find it. To be honest though I didn't look very hard. Look, watching the four hours director's cut of The Return of the King is already hard enough there's no way in hell I'm putting myself through another Les Vampires unless I absolutely have to.

Even at the "shortened" running time the movie was a slong. I could not get invested in Napoléon. Much like Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans there was something about the movie that disconnected me from the experience. Maybe it was the overt nationalism of the piece, the obnoxious editing style, or the length. Or maybe it was that everything felt clinical; these weren't characters on the screen these were Historical Figures, pawns caught in the unebbing flow of history that's being projected to us on the big screen. This is not the story of people but the story of legends, devoid of any humanity. Napeoleon is not a man but a symbol for the director's political message, which is "Vive la France!" The true main character here is the nation and I must say she is a cold mistress.

Nothing felt personal so there was nothing worth investing oneself in. Compare that to contemporary historical movies. Characters like Tadamichi Kuribayashi in Letters From Iwo Jima or T.E. Lawrence in Lawrence of Arabia are imbued with humanity through their flaws and their personalities, adding heft what's going on around them. The characters in Napoleon by contrast are caricatures, either embodying a single personality trait or, in Napoleon's case, being flat out flawless. He commands authority and brings a nation together through his iron will, braving a thunderstorm in a dingy using a French Tricolore as a sail and running down the enemies of the Republic in a patriotic fervor. One of the sillier instances of this is early in the movie when a young Napoleon takes a class on the "Geography of Islands" and is taught about Saint Helena. The chalk drawing of the island looms over him and he looks visibly uncomfortable under it's shadow. Are we really supposed to believe such a foreshadowing event happened in little Napoleon's life? Of course not, because this isn't a story about the man but about his legend and the legend of the French Revolution, and the film feels almost celebratory in it's stiffness. Perhaps it is a personal thing or perhaps I just didn't realize the films intentions until it had already lost me but the sterility of the legend just didn't do it for me. I enjoy a little humanity in my characters, which is why my favourite parts were the brief moments when Napoleon's personality shinned through; moments like when he makes the chaplain speed through his wedding vows to appease his excitable impatience, or when he barks "olives, bread, and silence" to an inn keep he doesn't recognize from his childhood, or anytime his puppy dog affection for Josephine (Gina Manès) is displayed. Sadly these moments are few and far between and we are instead largely left with a sensationalized portrait of the man.

That being said Albert Dieudonné is phenomenal as Napoleon. He successfully conveys the heft demanded of the role, and despite a couple of hiccups in the performance early on his presence on screen is always felt, which is the most important part of portraying such a mythologized figure. Not once did I ever feel like Napoleon wasn't in control; even when imprisoned and virtually at the mercy of Robespierre, Dieudonné gives the impression that Napoleon knows exactly what he's doing. All in all it was a performance that left an impression that I couldn't shake, and any shortcomings with the character are not to be heaped on Diedonné's shoulders.

As for the filmmaking itself as I mentioned the editing is obnoxious. How obnoxious? Well, let's just say I fantasized about punching Abel Gance in the throat on more than one occasion. Gance's favourite trick is rapid-fire editing that feels like an early version of shaky cam. Whenever a crowd got rowdy or a riot broke out the film decided to go into epileptic shock, making me feel disoriented and confused. Now I understand that that was the intention, but Gance pushes it to flat out incoherence, effectively taking me out of the experience. Had he shown just a smidge more restraint it would have been far more effective. It truly feels like Gance is just experimenting with what he can do in an editing bay. Now that's all well and good but the problem is that most of the time it doesn't work. The final battle sequence for example does this baffling thing where it splits into three separate screens simultaneously showing three different pieces of footage. The choice is seemingly pointless until they tint the three screens to portray the Tricolore. And so the film ends with Napoleon literally conquering Italy over through a French flag filter and with French audiences feeling slightly better about throwing millions of their boys to the slaughter not ten years prior. Huzzah?
Perhaps I'm being too harsh, afterall one can really feel the influence such techniques much have had on subsequent films. However this is not review on Napoléon's legacy but on the film itself, and sadly when seen through contemporary eyes such techniques just don't hold up.

And that's it really. Much of it is really hit or miss. The miniatures used when Napoleon is sailing through a storm is cool but the tinted film is distracting, Dieudonné's Napoleon is great but the film's reverence for the figure is awkward, the scenes of the French Revolution are interesting but it expects the audience to have a lot of prior knowledge on the event to fully understand everything. So I suppose ultimately the best way to describe Napoléon is, a remarkable cinematic achievement that unfortunately has not aged well.