Napoléon

"You can pretend to be serious; you can't pretend to be witty." Sacha Guitry

Guitry would have been very amused by some the comments posted here. It never was his intent to do an historically accurate movie. Anyone slightly familiar with his filmography knows the subtle derision he infused in all his storytelling. I found that movie very entertaining but I know, as some of my fellow commentators should too, that for factual accuracy one must look elsewhere. I too recommend his rendition of the highs and lows of the French monarchy in " Si Versailles m'était conté ".

Sacha Guitry is certainly on familiar ground here for in the 1940's he had already given a splendid performance as the wily diplomat Talleyrand in 'Le Diable Boiteux', adapted from his own play and was less than convincing as the older Napoléon in his 'Le Fabuleux Destin du Désirée Clary' in which Jean-Louis Barrault featured as Napoléon the younger. It must be said that both these films, despite being on a far smaller scale, are more dramatically effective than his later big budget, star-studded historical extravaganzas.

In this later film he repeats his role as Talleyrand and again we have not one but two Boneys in the shape of Daniel Gélin and Raymond Péllegrin.

Although cut by a third in the dreadfully 'dubbed' version designed for North American viewers, most of whom neither know nor care a jot about French history, Guitry's attempt to cram the life and loves of Buonaparte into three hours has resulted in a series of vignettes whilst the perpetual fast-forwarding reduces the Egyptian and Russian campaigns to almost minor events and completely ignores his escape from Elba.

Suffice to say it looks simply fabulous with production design by Réne Renoux and cinematography by Pierre Montazel but it remains alas show without substance and pageantry without psychology. Guitry was by nature a man of the theatre and the film's static direction and lack of camera movement do nothing to bring the material to life. He has wisely assigned the battle sequences to another, namely Eugene Lourié.

Guitry adored his actors and this simpatico is very much in evidence here. For this viewer at any rate the always excellent Raymond Péllegrin is one of the finest Napoléons he has seen whilst the glorious Michele Morgan as the hapless Josephine de Beauharnais beautifully captures the innate sensibility and nobility depicted in portraits of her by Prud'hon and Gérard. This director had a definite penchant for actresses and Marie Walewska is played by wife number four, Lana Marconi.

Totally superfluous musical interludes include a flimsy rendition of 'Plaisir d'Amour', not to mention 'Un Chanson des Maréchaux' by the film's composer Jean Francaix with lyrics by Guitry(naturally) and sung on the eve of Waterloo which provides a perfect excuse to utilise the manly baritones of Yves Montand and Armand Mistral. It is probably best to draw a discreet veil over the bizarre cameo of Erich von Stroheim as Beethoven.

Unsurprisingly Guitry's Napoléon is a national hero but to Beethoven he became anything but for when the composer heard that the consul had crowned himself emperor he famously scratched off his dedication to him of the 'Eroica' symphony and declared that Napoléon would become yet another tyrant who would tread upon the rights of man.

The poorly dubbed English version is appropriately available on a poor, slightly-out-of-focus and somewhat-drained-of-color Hollywood Classics DVD. Produced on a lavish budget with a galaxy of famous players as long as your arm, this is an egocentric production in which most of the famous stars – buried under loads of make-up – are totally unrecognizable. Robbing them of their voices doesn't help either. Daniel Gélin plays the young Napoleon, but the role is soon taken over by Raymond Pellegrin – who looks nothing like Gélin but bears a remarkable similarity to Charles Boyer's Nappy in Clarence Brown's 1937 Conquest. The movie is directed by Sacha Guitry as an almost endless series of boring tableaux which may have been reasonably effective in the original French production, but look old-fashioned and stagey in the carelessly dubbed DVD (which gives no indication of its length but is most obviously NOT 3 hours and 10 minutes, and I seriously doubt that it is even 105 minutes).

It appears that most of the comments here are based on viewing of the ridiculous Showtime American edition, which cuts out, if I am not mistaken, more than half the film, is dubbed and, apparently substitutes narration for dialogue, of which there is plenty, as well as the narration, ostensibly Talleyrand relating Napoleon's story on the day of his death, framing the historical episodes. At a little over three hours, this is a spectacular epic, and I recommend heartily seeing the French edition (an excellent print in gorgeous color, if a little dirty by American re-mastering standards). It looks gorgeous -- much more interestingly shot, designed and lighted than Guitry's other color epics, "Si Versailles m'etait conte" and "Si Paris nous etait conte," both of which have a very disappointing, glaring flat look. Many interesting star turns, notably a weird Beethoven by Erich von Stroheim and Orson Welles as Napoleon's jailer on St. Helena, but also some excellent more sustained performances, particularly Michele Morgan as Josephine and Daniel Gelin as the young Napoleon. (As in his earlier "Le destin fabuleux de Desiree Clary", Guitry -- who insists that after Austerlitz Bonaparte became Napoleon, another man entirely -- casts the younger and older Napoleon with two radically different-looking actors.) It's a very enjoyable film, and, if you know French, well worth seeking out in the French edition (no subtitles, unfortunately). The American one is a complete waste of time and money.

i'm sorry but for such a big fan of hist(e)orical accuracy i think, and it is just a honest opinion that you should have made a spell check on your post. Then you would have acknowledged the fact that the word "emporor" written with a capital E does not restore the Emperor's honor not even when compared to Sacha Guitry's terrible attempt...But your little spelling error tells us more about the "type of cat" you are more then it tells us about Guitry's failure to satisfy your taste in historical re- enactments. I'ts not like you had to direct a whole movie...you just made a small comment on it...and look how it turned out...well good chance in finding something better then Abel Gance's silly re-enactment...as if artistic films should do just that...re-enact things as close as possible to your own petty little view...and i see that you are not only an expert in historical movies and how they should be done, but that you are also an expert in type casting, movie business and what not...it's good to see that people like you are still around, so the whole thing doesn't crumble to pieces... keep up the good work of being you, and long live the Emporor...right right?