Are we shocked that Hollywood rarely gets it right? I'm not shocked. Ridley Scott’s Napoleon: A Historian’s Review
I'm a bit behind on my leisure reading... real life sucks sometimes. I thought it was worth including a movie review of a historical movie by an actual historian.
Ben Shehadi is a historian and author of the new book “Napoleon: The Revolutionary Hero” (available NOW on Amazon). He currently runs the newsletter “Hot History” on Substack, where you can find many more articles about Napoleon.
As for Hollywood and Napoleon.
Is Ridley Scott’s new Napoleon movie historically accurate? Does it capture the essence of France’s greatest military hero? No, not even close.
Five "huge" problems are outlined. Here is one example.
2) Austrians in Italy
Where are Napoleon’s two huge campaigns in Italy?
Following the French Revolution, France invaded Italy in order to kick out the Austrians. The campaign had been stalling for several years. But as soon as Napoleon showed up, the French were able to quickly reverse their stalemate into a triumph. He won six battles in just a couple of weeks, earning the nickname “the Little Corporeal” at the Battle of Lodi. When the Austrians reversed Napoleon’s gains, he came back and crushed them again—a second time!—at the Battle of Marengo.
None of this can be found in the movie.
How can you create a movie about “the Little Corporeal,” and NOT explain how he got that nickname?
Some of this I would excuse given that Scott wasn't making a mini-series, and he had limited time to work with, but some it seems like you are missing the point of documenting Napoleon's life.
There is more, including a comment on the acting. Click thru.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is in place. Your comment will be visible as soon as I can get to it. Unless it is SPAM, and then it will never see the light of day.
Be Nice. Personal Attacks WILL be deleted. And I reserve the right to delete stuff that annoys me.