Napoléon

I was never interested in Napoleon. Although I visited the Louvre I didn't go to see Napoleon's chambers, which are on display there. I would have never watched this series if it wasn't for the actors in it. And now, after six hours of Napoleon and nothing but Napoleon, I actually got interested in the chap and think about reading a biography. And I'm sure this is down to the excellent performance of Christian Clavier. Simple as that.

Okay, his English could be a tiny bit better, agreed, but I rather get used to an accented English than to a bad performance by English native speakers. Christian Clavier is truly an excellent actor, although he might be best known (in France) for his parts in very silly comedies. If he only decided to take more "serious" parts, maybe more people would notice what a fantastic talent he has. What he can express just with his eyes is quite stunning. But that may be a female point of view...

The other well known actors had, of course, smaller parts, in comparison. But none of them was miscast. And I especially liked how actors from different countries once again worked together. This as well is what the European idea is about.

One of the few things I didn't like were the flashbacks at the end. They were completely out of place and should be cut out. They don't make sense at all at the end of the film.

And a last remark about Monsieur Clavier's language skills: The first way he said "Ich liebe dich" got me guffawing, the second way he made my heart melt. Maybe he should think about doing a film in German...?

I admit I found it a little hard to stomach Christian Clavier (Jacquouille la Fripouille from « Les Visiteurs » and Astérix from the Astérix films) as Napoléon, especially when that role has been interpreted in English by the likes of Marlon Brando, Charles Boyer, Herbert Lom and Rod Steiger and in French, by the likes of Albert Dieudonné, Daniel Gélin, Sacha Guitry, Raymond Pellegrin and Jean-Louis Barrault. Because of all those famous precedents, one has come to expect in the role a kind of forceful but graceful personality. Clavier plays him a little bit on the educated warthog side, but that's OK because so did Marlon Brando.

IMDb users seem to hate this TV movie for all the wrong reasons. It can't be faulted for historical accuracy. There is every indication that almost every single word spoken in this script was actually said by the protagonists. And here is at least one English-language movie that doesn't show Napoléon's soldiers taking aim at the Sphinx's nose for target practice (an English myth). The sets and costumes are magnificent. The action is a little simplified for my taste but it allows the viewer a more unencumbered comprehension of the timeline. I have seen many French movies that naturally expect their French audience to know all the dates and the battles by heart and take it from there, so to speak. I am sure that the DVD version, which is longer, will reconcile many critics with scenes that seemed a little too short on TV.

I only noticed two major goofs in the whole four hours. John Malkovitch seems to think he is too great an actor to accept suggestions as to the pronunciation of French names, either from his co-stars or from a French coach, which must be responsible for his coasting through every possible phonetic permutation of the words 'Duc d'Enghien' in the course of an hour, some of them successful. Also, the same character warns Joséphine not to go to Poland before Napoléon has even met Marie Waleska, which is mysterious indeed. Did he actually know they would meet and fall in love?

But, all in all, it is a magnificent effort in a TV series, one that is not without its artistic and poetic merits.

Although I'm a historian, the Napoleonic period isn't exactly my specialty. Even so, I managed to enjoy this miniseries, which lasts about six and a half hours, divided into four films of one and a half hours each. And one of the points that most caught my attention and highlighted is the effort of the production, which brings together several countries, but is led by France, to make a work that is historically accurate, even though it corresponds to the French perspective of his life.

Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the great historical personalities without whom it is difficult to conceive the course of world history. A brilliant military commander, with ideas and tactics that are still the subject of study in military academies, he knew how to take advantage of his prestige among soldiers to impose an almost stratocracy on republican France, and gave solidity and stability to a country tired of political turmoil. However, decades of warfare led the French to despair, and Europe to a unanimous coalition against him. Although he did not get to rule for even twenty years and his achievements were quickly nullified with his removal, he managed to put the whole of Europe in check.

Christian Clavier seems to me a sensible option for the lead role, as he reasonably resembles the emperor. He's also a capable actor, giving his character a certain rough, ungainly, soldier's roughness. Isabella Rosellini was excellent as Josephine, and Gérard Depardieu seemed to me pleasantly hypocritical in the role of one of the ministers of the new emperor. John Malkovich also brings to life an important French political figure, who will go through several governments and adapt as a chameleon. The actor managed to give him that adaptability and latent hypocrisy. Much less interesting was Claudio Amendola, who stripped Murat of all personality to transform him into a mere blind follower of Napoleon.

Very significant in this film, costumes and sets are an inseparable part of the visual beauty and historical rigor of the production. There was a good team of historians working here, and the details were taken into account down to the smallest detail. The selection of filming locations, from a series of historic French palaces and other imposing locations, was judicious and intelligent. All the filming and photography work, despite not being brilliant, fulfills its role well and does what it has to do. The editing looks good to me. The battle scenes are actually very well staged, despite being few and not relevant... at least if we take into account the countless fights that Napoleon experienced, personally. The soundtrack, amidst all this, is the aspect I have to criticize the most, oscillating between the irritatingly pompous and the bland.

This is the first Napoleon epic where the chief speaks with a French accent; that is good. HIs words are his, many of the events are accurate. Because his life was crowded with events, all detail is left out except the love interest of Josephine.

This is a modern interpretation, so any glory of war is ruthlessly stamped out, to the point that great battles are always seen as useless slaughter with piles of corpses. Well, in part they are.

If you're looking for any of La Gloire, a big part of the period, you'll look in vain. The people rarely cheer Napoleon. We know his soldiers often shouted "Vive L'Empereur" as he passed. Instead, in the film, they barely notice him on the battlefield.

Isabel Rossellini as Josephine is seen too often, as (one of the) the women of his life. Murat stands in for all his Marshals, as a film can only pay so many actors. John Malkovich as Talleyrand is very good.

An interesting and intelligent film. Clavier plays the part of Napoleon well, although in the interests of covering all his life, he is a bit one dimensional. If you thirst for battlefield tactics, and scenes of battle, you'll be disappointed. Only one battle is covered in any detail is Austerlitz, his finest victory.

Napoleon was an extremely intelligent and relatively peaceful man. Most of the wars he fought were forced upon him by European nations in the pay of the English, who could not abide him. He was a better man than they were.

It is probably pointless recommending or not recommending this series as there are two types of people that are going to buy this: The Napoleon nuts like me and the period drama people. The latter will be in their element as the domestic sets are both lavish and authentic. There are also some remarkable likenesses such as Josephine, Murat and Caulencourt.

On first viewing I was left a little cold. I thought that at last a substantial amount of time had been allocated to this, perhaps the greatest of all individual subjects. However, if there is one thing that any expert on the subject will tell you, it is that there is no way that you can even begin to condense this subject into 60 hours, let alone 6. The worst mistake that this film makes is attempting to replicate the battles themselves. The camera angles pan across large expanses revealing (at best) eight or nine hundred extras. All this whilst regular references are made to 20,000 losses on each side (Austerlitz, Eylau, Essling and especially Waterloo). Sometimes, it is almost laughable and cheapens the rest of the film. The makers would have been much better off by excluding any military action and just leaving it to innuendo – after all, Borodino is just referred to by Caulencourt when in Moscow conversing with Murat.. Thank God they didn't try to replicate that terrible battle! So, the plus points: Napoleon: At first I thought that Clavier was miles off the mark. If, like me you have seen and were bowled over by Rod Steiger's rendition in Waterloo then this will get some getting used to. After all, Napoleon is a red-blooded Corsican genius, capable of flying off the handle at any time, exhausting his counterparts and friends alike. Not in this version. Yet, Clavier has one saving grace. He introduces a measured, human approach that we know Napoleon had to have had from time to time. Almost schizophrenic some might say (Megalomania is the preferred terminology). I don't prefer his interpretation of Napoleon's to Steiger, but it is warmer if not necessarily more Corsican. If we could introduce this to Steiger's approach you may have the perfect Napoleon.

The relationship between Napoleon and Josephine is also one of the better points of this series. Clavier's in-love out-of-love relationship is perfectly handled without the usual mushiness. Here is a relationship based on love, intensity, necessity and ultimately friendship and loss.

Finally, Caulencourt is dealt with in some depth, as is Fauche, Murat and Talleyrand. But where is Berthier, Bessieres, Augereau, Davout and Ney (who suddenly appears towards the end despite his Russian campaign heroics)? Holes? Yes. But unless we get someone with $500,000,000 willing to approach this subject with the endeavour it deserves then we are left with this kind of product. So overall, not too bad. Vive l'Emperor!