Finally got my hands on this very cool mini-series, which I have on the DVD since the year of release lay at home, and remained lying. A budget of 41 million euros (especially for those years) is visible in every frame - a huge extra in battle scenes, many costumes, excellent scenery (they shot, of course, at home, and houses and walls help), muskets, guns, cavalry - the scope here is certainly amazing. In a couple of small second general plans, the chart is certainly bad, but this does not spoil the overall picture. The cast here is bombastic: Christian Clavier, Gerard Depardieu and his son Guillaume, John Malkovich, Anouk Eme, Isabella Rossellini, Julian Sands, Toby Stevens and a bunch of familiar European faces in the background - all in texture and all this golden ensemble to look damn nice. Christian Clavier was surprised, who received a rare opportunity to briefly leave the comedy role, which he brilliantly used, because the artist in the frame is simply magnificent! Despite the rather calm pace, the series looks with extraordinary interest, and you can not break away from the plot twists and turns. Yes, some things here are given quite schematically and in large strokes, but the portrait of Napoleon here is clearly drawn and quite voluminous. It is clear that in the battle scenes there are no fashionable film flights of the camera, but without this everything looks very impressive, given that it was shot on nature and with a large extra. I also liked the main musical theme – it gets goosebumps. It was a beautiful project that won my heart.
This biography about Napoleon Bonaparte is not the first film adaptation of his life.
It's been incredible! Actor Christian Clavier, who played the comic roles of Jacuy, Asterix, who are close to the position of a submissive slave, in this film was chosen for the role of Napoleon Bonaparte! And Christian Clavier did a great job with the role. He looks like Napoleon. But the actor managed to show the real greatness, power, energy of the leader in this movie. This is really a man who amazed with his energy, conquered countries, peoples, followed by people. Some admired him, others did not. And Christian Clavier conveyed this great willpower of Napoleon in the look of his eyes calm and self-confident, in his posture, in his speeches, in his gait. Actor K. Clavier proved that he is able to play not only comic buffoons, but also a completely opposite person, imperious and strong, showing that he is a high-level actor, stressing that comic roles are not easy to play. The actor also conveyed the drama of Napoleon’s personality from his first victories in Europe, in Egypt, to meeting worthy resistance in Russia, preserving dignity from the realization of loss, from exile to the island. To withstand such a test - the loss of power after the triumph could truly strong personality. And when the actor managed to convey this sense of self-worth on the island of St. Helena, when many would have lost faith in their own abilities, they fell into despair. He didn't have that.
Two episodes in the film are important. When Napoleon begins a conversation with a simple woman of the people, ready to punish him for the death of his sons. And when he admits he's Napoleon, he'll be able to convince her. When he goes out in front of armed soldiers, he says, "Are you ready to shoot your emperor?" And not one soldier fired. Here it is – the power of Napoleon, which was transmitted by C. Clavier
And Napoleon's fascination with science, the desire to leave a trace in science.
And his personal life: love with Josephine, the happiness of fatherhood that he knew.
John Malkovich is suitable for the role of Talleyrand. His cunning ability to serve different masters, if necessary, his pragmatism, logic, lack of emotions, isolation. And all this John Malkovich showed in such distant images in Dangerous Liaisons, in Air Prison, Javeret from Les Miserables. And the human type is almost the same, almost unchanged.
Gerard Depardieu as Fouchet. Gerard Depardieu is one of my favorite actors, his appearance in any film is exciting. And he is able to transform beautifully!
In the role of a soldier Murat conveyed his excellent qualities as a soldier, weakness as a ruler.
And yet there are downsides to the film. If a film is made about Napoleon, why is his military activities in Russia almost not shown? Where is the Battle of Borodino, where is Moscow? This is necessary for full disclosure of the image. This is the European cinema, which left behind invisible brackets the activities of Napoleon in Russia. Where's Mikhail Kutuzov? And Leo Tolstoy in War and Peace clearly showed what Napoleon’s mistake was, comparing M. Kutuzov and Napoleon. Napoleon put himself above the people, M. Kutuzov put himself on the same level with the people. This is a very deep study. Without him, without Russia, Napoleon’s personality looks somewhat undisclosed, atrophied. Points removed.
And the most important point: in the film, Napoleon is shown as a hero, as if he was carrying salvation to other countries. Napoleon brought enslavement, evil, chaos, and destruction. In some ways, he's a terrible figure. That's not in the movie. And Mother Russia stopped him, as she stopped the Swedes on Lake Peipus, as she stopped Hitler, bringing peace, grace and peace to the world.
8 out of 10
A couple of weeks ago, I set out to read Alexander Dumas’s novel “Companions of Yehu.” From the very first pages, my attention was attracted by the silent companion of the protagonist, and, since I rarely give preference to the main characters (especially in Dumas they are all one person), I decided that I would empathize with this secondary, but immediately obvious, charismatic character. Twenty pages later it turned out that this mysterious person was none other than the young Napoleon Bonaparte. Until then, I had not been interested in Napoleon from the word "at all," and so far I know about him about as much as most - that is, only the general background. But now I will try to fill in the white spots in my outlook, because no matter what anyone said about Dumas and the quality of his works, he was able to cause curiosity to outstanding people, depicting them alive, active, breathing.
And, of course, as is usually the case, I immediately began to dig into my memory, looking for films on topics that I was excited about. I knew about this series for a long time, many years ago I even began to watch, but I did not “go” – love is not enough, there is a lot of war, especially, I am a fan of the Middle Ages, and not the XVIII-XIX centuries. Now is his hour. And it may even be good that in the question of Napoleon, I am actually a “teapot”, so I can evaluate the film as a film, without finding fault with appearance, historical inaccuracies and other blunders, from which no movie is immune.
Since I watched this series purposefully, not for the sake of romantic intricacies and adventure plot, but for the sake of Napoleon himself, despite the fact that the lyrics there are few, I found it exciting, easy, immersing the viewer in the atmosphere of what is happening. Sometimes the narrative looks torn, there is a feeling that something was “thrown out”, because logic sometimes lames, but this does not prevent you from enjoying a luxurious epic and does not take away the desire to look further.
Wikipedia says that “Napoleon” is the most expensive European mini-series: indeed, even today 40 million euros is a round sum, and after all, the film is already fifteen years old! Indeed, at first glance, you can see that colossal funds have been invested in filming, both for costumes, scenery, and battle scenes - you can argue about whether they amaze with entertainment, but you can not call them cheap or low-quality. For example, the moment after the Battle of Austerlitz, when Napoleon proudly looks at the fruits of his victory, and his soldiers pass by him, is a very beautiful, inspiring scene. Someone will complain about the absence of the Battle of Borodino, but given how many battles there are in the series, it can be omitted, besides, they have already shown one “victory with a taste of defeat” (it seems, at Eylau), so they may not want to repeat themselves.
The intrigue was also heated by the lead actor, Christian Clavier. I will say simply: if you do not know that this actor became famous for the roles of Asterix, Jacques-Obalduy and others like them, you will never guess that this is a comedian. I’ve seen a dozen comedies with Clavier before, and yet, while watching Napoleon, I found myself thinking that he should have gone into tragedy. I will not go into the discussion about whether Clavier resembles the French emperor in appearance, but the magnetic view of Napoleon, about which Dumas wrote that no artist could convey him, succeeded in the actor to fame. His Bonaparte is little emotional, he often retains an unflappable expression on his face, but his eyes are burning, in his eyes you can feel the power, the inner core of this person. You want to believe in him, you want to follow him. What was particularly exciting was his ability to keep himself in check. He did not lose his dignity with hysterics, screams, tears, even in the most critical situations, when the work of his life went to waste. It is even surprising that such a “silver” could wish to die, but ... it is rather not a sign of weakness, but that he was a living man with feelings and a heart that can be wounded. Napoleon in this film is a very convex character, he is understandable to everyone. Someone correctly wrote that the author is more interested not in the victories, but the defeats of Napoleon, not so much his joy as his suffering. The whole story initially led to a tragic ending. It is difficult to judge how this approach is correct, but it saved the film from excessive gloss and pathos, and also strengthened the impression as a whole.
In addition, as many people have canceled before me, John Malkovich is particularly distinguished in the series. He got a bright, colorful role of Tareyrand, where there was an opportunity to shine with aristocratic charm with a touch of mystery. At the same time, Gerard Depardieu, in my opinion, was here insofar as, perhaps, another actor could portray Fouchet more memorable, while Depardieu was simply lost, and by and large was in Napoleon purely for the tick. Isabella Rossellini in the role of Josephine did not make a special impression on me, and the question remained open: did she love Napoleon, or was he just a good friend for her? In general, as for women, it seemed to me, at least in this series, that Maria Valevskaya had real feelings for Napoleon, but about the rest, including Josephine ... who knows.
All the others are very many, there are remarkable faces, such as the Russian emperor performed by the handsome Toby Stevens, but they essentially pass in the background, because the purpose of this film, as the guess suggests, is not to display a multi-layered canvas of the historical era of the Napoleonic wars, but to reveal the complex and controversial personality of the “dictator”.
The best scene of the miniseries, its emotional peak, is Napoleon's return from the island of Elba, when he decided to conquer the hearts of the French with his mere presence. I even cried with joy when the soldiers lowered their weapons at the outstretched hand of the exiled emperor. Then I came across a similar scene from the movie Waterloo, and, as they say ... wrong. The first impression is usually the strongest and cannot be repeated.
Of course, to call this Napoleon perfect would be an exaggeration. There are many errors, even if you do not touch the historical aspect. But to date, this is the best that was filmed about Bonaparte, and only about him, and not about his time, as War and Peace. Some people are unhappy that the image of Napoleon is too embellished, but you need to understand that the French who honor him were filmed. At the beginning of the film "Fantomas raged" there is a phrase that in a moment of despair, a national hero always comes to the aid of France - Bayard, Bonaparte, Jeanne D' Arc. For them, he is a symbol, the greatest person in history, equal to Alexander and Caesar. This is how he is shown here, despite all the mistakes and shortcomings, by a great man to whom contemporaries were very far away.
10 out of 10
It is very difficult to make films about historical figures, especially on a scale like Napoleon. He was exalted and deposed, deified and demonized. It is very difficult to refrain from hollow praise, falling into the abyss of sticky pathos, it is easier (but not always correct) to come up with a fairy tale & #39; based on & #39; and make a movie about the context in which this person is necessary for the current viewer. You can make a film-the attitude of the director to it - sometimes it is more honest and interesting. But no matter how hard the masters of cinema, of course, it is most difficult to make a feature film-research, so that behind the pathos, fairy tale and attitude you can see the most truthful image, personality, and not one of its slices.
Strong Canadian artisan Yves Simono did everything possible to refrain from showing the usual Bonaparte. Napoleon is the least here - a monolith, a bronze statue or the Antichrist, which is his ' affectionate' called by some especially zealous detractors. Napoleon here is above all a person, a person. Warlord, soldier, traitor and devotee, genius, power lover, ready to sacrifice his vanity millions of lives, emperor who could not sit on the throne, incorrigible romantic, sage, fool, intriguer, creator, murderer, deceived husband and cheating lover, father, friend, brother, son, beloved idol and hated devil, winner and defeated, ' ruler of the condemned ' powerful spoiler of victories' who rose to an unafraided height and scolded in despair...
Simono tried to rid Bonaparte of prefixes ' great', ' genius', ' unsurpassed' etc., clearing the husks of myth. When you watch this impressive film, you get the feeling that the director is more interested not in Napoleon’s victories, but in his defeats. For defeats leave no less (or more) deep traces on individuals than victories. And the defeats are not only military, but also personal. In friendship, love, self-esteem... This Napoleon is full of weaknesses and shortcomings, not denying, but emphasizing the iron will and fanatical belief in the correctness of his path. Every hour he makes decisions that not only his fate, but also the fate of many countries and millions of people – he makes mistakes, rages because of this, laments, tries to correct them, fights with enemies external and internal, with his own demons. At some point he is touching, this Napoleon. Sometimes funny, romantic, often terrible, insidious and simply hopeless. And in all its manifestations, this strong, ambitious and complex man, a tyrant locked in a cage of power, is a real one.
And here comes the skill of the actors. When it was announced that the Exile of the Universe & #39 will be played by Christian Clavier, many people were outraged. And it does not look like de, and ridiculous, and become the wrong, and different posture, and in general, what Napoleon of Jacques-swindler? However, despite all distrust, Clavier took up the role and forced to forget everyone who was seen in this role before him. It's Napoleon. Real. Alive. Not exactly like the textbooks, but absolutely reliable. Clavier became his Napoleon’s lawyer and judge, forcing the audience to love this colossal personality, a fate destroyed by his own greatness, to reproach, justify and not forgive. At the same time, his Napoleon is not without self-irony and sometimes he does not understand how it turned out that he is a simple soldier from distant Corsica - the emperor. In the finale, it is a pity, not even Napoleon, but the divine spark, the greatest gift and fantastic energy that was spent on wars and senseless conquests. And in the end, the film is not about the greatness of Napoleon, but about the total loneliness of a man in power, the inability to defeat fate, control his fate, controlling the fate of millions, and the impotence of even the strongest of this world before death. Clavier does a great job, climbing with his hero to Olympus and leading him through all the circles of hell. His eyes glow in moments of triumph, and in the last series he is a completely different man - with an extinct look, empty, pathetic, who died long before his physical death.
Very convincing Isabella Rossellini in the role of the unfortunate Josephine, a wise woman, and perhaps the only person who understood Napoleon, John Malkovich in the role of cynical and absolutely devoid of any principles and conscience Talleyrand and Gerard Depardieu in the role of near Fouchet, a typical policeman, with difficulty keeping up with the changes in his country.
As for the film as a historical epic, it’s a bit worse. Despite the fact that the series is swallowed ' volley & #39;, fascinating and visually good, the director, nevertheless, tried to embrace the immense - to reproduce historical events on the screen, instead of analyzing them from an artistic point of view. The artist gives way to a naturalist who scrupulously recreates the appearance of the era, but loses any artistic generalizations. It turns out that there are two films on the screen - a historical reconstruction, of course, well done, but not so necessary, and a biopeak. From time to time, the director has to combine these two films, compressing the material at one figurative moment - that is why, in my opinion, the attack on Russia and the humiliating flight from there, which appeared only as a nightmare of the commander, turned out so cleverly. And, of course, such moments sound somewhat unconvincing and frivolous compared to historical significance.
However, all this pales next to the feelings and emotions that this tape causes. It not only revives absolutely lifeless dates and events familiar from the lessons of history, allows you to survive the triumph and fall of the French nation together with its leader, responds to the characters of the main people of that era, presents them in a somewhat unexpectedly human form, free from book platitudes and stereotypes imposed by the school, explores the era itself, without exposing it to any moral and ethical assessments, makes attempts to understand the actions and actions of one of the cornerstone personalities of the XIX century, who created history.
Of course, no film can be absolutely true and objective, especially if we are talking about such a controversial and odious figure as Napoleon. But if the authors are sincere and talented enough, they have enough strength to convince the viewer of the authenticity of the events shown and the reality of the character reigning on the screen. The creators of 'Napoleon' do not allow us to doubt that the little heavy man on the other side of the screen is a real alien from a distant era, with documentary accuracy recorded on film. This is not a memorial film, but a research film, an attempt to rethink and accept who this extraordinary man was and became for the world. And here they achieve the important thing - showing him at the best and worst moments, as a villain and a genius, without demanding to love him and in no way sucking up, they make him sincerely and deeply respect him. And is this not especially valuable in the age of debunked myths, non-recognition of authorities and the overthrow of idols?
Let it be overshadowed by shame
He is the one who is weak today.
The mad will resent the reproach.
His debunked shadow!
(A. Pushkin)
A real drama, consisting of the most important and inherent in the great Emperor of all France.
.. . It is generally accepted to consider Napoleon in the post-Soviet space not just an outstanding person: a legendary commander and bloody dictator, a brilliant strategist.
The film adaptation of Max Gallo’s book gives an idea of Bonaparte, from a slightly different side. At least, for Gallo, Napoleon evokes somewhat different feelings than those that are used to describe his personality in our time. Perhaps this is a lack and a mistake of the inspirers of the film, perhaps - their conscious step.
I don’t know what exactly the authors tried to convey with the film, but here we perceive Bonaparte more as a victim than a commander who should be envied. True, he had everything he wanted and dreamed of: fame, military career, respect and love of the people, well-being and fortune - but, as my further words complement the sad music on the screensaver of the series, he did not have the main thing: happiness and love. Although many people may argue, was life with Josephine a happy marriage? Or did the brief encounters with Countess Valevskaya fill his heart with the love he needed? Or was marrying an Austrian princess what he needed, not the country? . .
Napoleon, as the series reports, was not only obsessed with the idea of conquering all of Europe and becoming the full ruler of the Old World, but also did everything for the benefit of his France, his country and in the interests of the state. We are told repeatedly that Napoleon has a lot of blood of people, soldiers and ordinary Frenchmen on his hands, that his thirst for power and conquest brought not only victory, but also the blood of his compatriots, but in fact all these are words, and the impression of Bonaparte is purely as the ruler of France, but not as a bloody dictator.
For all the time he sentenced to death only an innocent relative of Louis and this was demonstrated with great tragedy. No more sense of cruelty on his part, except for words about it and empty threats. Just words...
Moreover, military victories and conquests, at the end of the series, are leveled along with all their glory. In Russia, Napoleon is still an enemy and a conqueror, but he is respected as a brilliant military commander and commander. Thanks to the series, despite numerous most believable and large-scale battles, the myth of Napoleon’s invincibility disappears, dissipates. Perhaps due to the many defeats mentioned in the film. Perhaps not quite as it was, we are presented with the history, invincibility and power of Napoleon in particular. . .
The fate of Napoleon in the film, of course, in love. Did Valevska love him? Josephine? Maria-Louise? His maid? Or maybe each of them just needed it. Whether for the good of his country, for the good of a luxurious life and status, on a state whim or for the sake of prosperity.
... Did he need their sincere love? I guess I need... Like any man. . .
The drama and tragedy of his life to the end is only getting worse! Friends die, comrades betray, he suffers defeats and failures. Well, in the final, we are shown not only his death - with a hint of a planned murder - but also footage of memories from childhood, when the character of the Great Leader of the Grand Army was tempered. . .
In terms of cinema... This is truly a large-scale, the most expensive European series, which involved 9 countries!!! Lead, as expected, the French, under the patronage of Gerard Depardieu in particular, with the participation of Hollywood star John Malkovich and French stars Clavier and Depardieu. For the latter, the series is another opportunity to meet on the site in a landmark project for the whole of Europe.
Clavier's selection for the role of Bonaparte is a separate chapter. Not similar in appearance, except for his height, Clavier was and is a talented actor, primarily a comedian. It is through comedy films that he is famous and popular, but the serious role of Bonaparte is a great challenge to him and his career. His Bonaparte is a self-confident, frowning, far-sighted, intelligent general, but overconfident and not cruel.
4 episodes are full of the brightest events of the career of the legendary Bonaparte, but the period of his death and beginning deserves special attention. Relationships with women, subordinates and enemies.
France and Europe, which helps her, allow you to feel the time of Napoleon. Extensive halls, luxurious gardens and estates, poor villages, then cities, residences of monarchs - reproach the costumes, interior, furnishings and entourage of the series is impossible. If only in very weak special effects, which are designed a little, but bring the eight hundred years closer to our viewer.
The French will give them their due, not ours, do not shy away from showing their country and their leader with their mistakes, mistakes and troubles. Because in life there is everything: bad and good. So Napoleon does not seem, thanks to the series, so great and magnificent.
.. Here he is a simple man who, thanks to his intelligence, prudence, purposefulness and willpower, was able to become nothing. Great!
And how merciless was the reference to St. Helena. ..
On the one hand, while many enemies were killed or imprisoned, Napoleon was exiled to the island, in a luxurious mansion. But how cruel was this prison for a man at whose feet was all Europe, and now there is only loneliness and the hated English enemy. Who again and again with particular fury the French & #39; extolled & #39; in their film art. . .
It is objectively impossible to find a historical figure like Napoleon Bonaparte regarding the number of reforms carried out, the battles won, and what Victor Hugo called a “change in morals.” In 1997, the French writer Max Gallo published a voluminous four-part work called Napoleon, in which he detailed the most significant events of the era of the rise and deposition of the active Emperor. Director Yves Simono made an ambitious attempt to transfer the life of Napoleon to the screen in the format of a miniseries (each episode corresponds to one of the parts of the literary source from Gallo), which at the time of its premiere in 2002, became the most expensive European TV project, the total budget of which was approximately 41 million euros.
Traditionally, biographical paintings are performed within the framework of one of three methodologies, the differences of which are in the proportion of documentary accuracy and artistic design. Brian Singer and his “Valkyrie” are an example of the maximum approximation to historical facts, in this film all interpretations are exclusively concerned with the experiences, hopes, inner world of Klaus von Stauffenberg. The creators of “Cambridge Spies” allow themselves to deal with history more freely – here, in order to better represent the characters of Kim Philby and his friends, many events are conjured up, and sometimes whole scenes are simply invented. And, finally, an example of when factology is nothing more than a canvas, can serve as a picture of David Fincher “Social Network”, in which the real Mark Zuckerberg left only details in the form of a name, habits, clothing style and a couple of events that took place, otherwise the director uses one of the main milestones of the information age to reveal the the theme of the peculiarity and uniqueness of the genius as such.
Yves Simono does not follow any of the above methods, working at their junction. “Napoleon” contains all, without exception, the most important dates and events of the period under consideration, but the figure of the main character is as far as possible from the idea that has developed in the layman under the influence of insufficient awareness, replaced by common places and paintings by Jacques-Louis David. The story begins in 1795, when a general without a place, on a half salary named Napoleon, causes ridicule in rich living rooms because of his battered moth and shabby uniform, and finds his finale in May 1821 on the island of St. Helena.
To accommodate an entire era, 360 minutes are catastrophically lacking, Mr. Simono strives to embrace literally everything that happened, from which the ratio of detail and scale suffers. Sometimes Napoleon has long romantic explanations with Josephine, and the Egyptian campaign, meanwhile, fits into tens of seconds and a couple of sentences. Therefore, “Napoleon” is rather not an enlightenment study, but a review illustration, which would ideally complement the historian’s informative lecture, since for an ignorant viewer all precisely calculated (and sometimes direct quotes) phrases about Borodino, the need for a metric system and “Code Civil” will seem only passing words, whose purpose is to fill the timekeeping. In other words, before such an audience, Napoleon will appear as a novel about a heroic commander of bygone centuries, who loved and loved.
All battle scenes, of which there are many in Napoleon, are the result of field shooting, which really amazes not only the scale of the work done, but also the complexity of directing. It should be said that at an incredible pace and saturation of action, Simono does not forget that cinema speaks the language of images, and now the figure of Napoleon suddenly flashes in the row of shooting one of the Bourbons, then a low rider in a triangular will jump on his horse from the arena right on the battlefield.
The inefficiency in combination with the metaphorical make “Napoleon” extremely controversial, containing seemingly everything necessary, but looking like a version of the film, pretty tweaked by the editor’s scissors. But most of all the criticism was caused by the figure of the on-screen Napoleon, both regarding the essence of the cinema of the presentation of a historical figure, and regarding the main actor - Christian Clavier, whom many considered "unworthy" of such an honor because of his predominantly comedic roles.
Tom Cruise with his striking portrait resemblance and filigree dramatic game, which allowed to embody on the screen the image of Count Stauffenberg not a glorious hero, but a great human spirit, leveled any subsequent efforts of filmmakers to film the events of the famous conspiracy. The story of Napoleon Bonaparte, after the eponymous role appeared in the resume of Christian Clavier, can also be considered complete. Monsieur Clavier is not at all like Bonaparte from classic canvases, but hardly anyone will say after watching the film that the Corsican who created an empire comparable in size to the Roman one could be different.
In "Napoleon" there are some minor inaccuracies, which will see an extremely meticulous look. For example, the uniforms of La Grande Armee were slightly different in some battles, and Nicolo Paganini had not yet written his Caprice No. 24 at a time when, according to Simono, Napoleon and Tsar Alexander were listening to him. By the way, Alexander, as you know, had a weakness for pantiness and external effects, would be flattered if he knew that he was played in the film by thoroughbred handsome Toby Jones.
Simono, beginning his narrative with the presentation of Bonaparte eccentric and unprincipled, comes to the end of the realization of the opposite, depicting Napoleon as a great and misunderstood exile. The final chord of the story becomes its apotheosis, if the whole series was made in such a metaphorical style, Napoleon would not have fit in either the 4th or 40th hours and would have become a real ode. Eve sums up his story, going to the level of philosophical generalizations. A girl bringing food to Bonaparte and listening to his stories on St. Helena represents Europe. She, according to the Emperor, will find out about his death only later, when she enters adulthood, until she is able to appreciate who is before her. The director does not try to play on the feelings of the viewer, perhaps that is why he manages to evoke empathy and sympathy, to make think of Napoleon not as a character, but as a person. A man of courage and courage, who went to the forefront not only of his own troops, but of all civilization, got rid of the vestiges of feudalism and gave the whole world a new set of civil code, which subsequently spread everywhere - from Quebec to Tokyo. The hero of “Napoleon” is not perfect at all, but the director bows to this figure who really changed the world, who gave him a new impetus.
Somewhere on a distant island under a low lead sky stands a squat man on the coast, his arms crossed behind his back, and his eyes wander along the horizon. With the mathematical precision of an artilleryman, he drew a map of the future, not taking into account only that no one without a fight will depart from the usual world order, no matter how wrong he was. One day at 5:49 the servant will stop the clock in the small room of the lonely house on the island of St. Helena and walk out of the room, because no one dares to turn his back on the Emperor, even if he never wears his uniform again.
This was my first film in which I was able to look at Napoleon in a different way, in fact, thanks to this serial film (it can not be called otherwise), I became interested in Napoleon Bonaparte and my knowledge of him became much clearer and more objective than ' just another unlucky gloomy silent conqueror of Russia' (as we always see him in films about the Franco-Russian War of 1812). And this is the main advantage of this film - it makes you interested and learn more about that era and in general about this interesting person.
It makes little sense to tell about the plot - it fairly reliably follows the real story (of course, enough historical blunders are allowed, but this is not a documentary). More attention is paid to the emotions and experiences of the emperor himself, but his environment is also very well revealed. Especially bright were the practical and cunning Commissioner Fouchet (greatly played by the inimitable Gerraard Depardieu) and a very careful and diplomatic intrigue Tolerand (probably one of the best roles of a rather interesting actor John Malkovich).
Speaking of actors, I’m not going to pick on Christian Clavier. He's a great comedian, but he's also a great emperor. In any case, if he was able to convince me in his time of the greatness and non-standardity of this person, then he fulfilled his task perfectly. Although for me personally, Napoleon was best shown by Rod Steiger in the film 'Waterloo'.
The scenery and atmosphere of the era are wonderful. What else can I say? Of course, the battle scenes are not at the level of Sergei Bondarchuk, but the budget was completely different. And for the not-so-big budget, they are just great. But the main thing in the film is not this, but the emotions and experiences of Napoleon himself - his rapid rise, triumph and equally rapid fall.
In the end, I want to say the following: if you want to start studying this era in an interesting way for yourself, to look at one of the most controversial and at the same time the greatest personalities in history from the other side - feel free to watch this multi-part film (or mini-series, as they say now), even now that I have become a fairly sophisticated historian who is ready to find fault with every little thing, the film still looks very interesting and delivers a lot of emotions.
The happiness you will experience seeing your son grow up is unlike any Empire.
This story is one man's tragedy. A man who dreamed of becoming a mathematician, but under the influence of money and gradually coming glory and power, who became an emperor, the arbiter of human destinies, for whom there are no prohibitions, and everything is subject to his desire. A man who conquered half the world and eventually lost everything. He stays alone. His biggest dream is a small house near London. Is it worth the power of such a collapse?
All this is brilliantly shown in the film. Napoleon is an ambiguous personality. In the film, he is a man with his own strengths and weaknesses. The cause of the tragedy of this great but at the same time insignificant man appears before our eyes at the end of the film. We all come from childhood.
Christian Clavier is beautiful. His character changes throughout the series. If at the beginning of Napoleon’s eyes burn, he is full of audacity, arrogance, self-confidence, then in the final series he is a tired, unhappy man with extinct eyes. Those who saw Jacuy in Napoleon simply did not want to see anyone else. I watched and watched the story of Napoleon. Not Clavier playing Napoleon. Thank you so much for Christian.
Isabella Rossellini and John Malkovich are equally beautiful. Just like all the other actors. The scenery is also high.
The music is amazing.
There are few battles in the film, and this is its orgomic plus. And those battles that are, filmed very cleverly, without excess blood.
The result: the film turned out to be harmonious, insanely beautiful and tragic. It is a pity that there are only four series...
History has always been my favorite subject. It is created by people who, with the help of luck or innate position, found themselves at the heights of power. For this reason, I often managed to see some historical character in the film I automatically turned on interest, which was accompanied by reading literary sources. So my favorite heroes were Alexander the Great, Cesare Borgia, Louis XIV. No exception for me was Napoleon Bonaparte, who is a man who made himself.
Boris Tenenbaum says that all the literature about him boils down to what some say, Bonaparte is a tyrant, others glorify him. I am not a writer, but I belong to the second and all thanks to this film.
By and large Napoleon was a great adventurer. Born in a time of change, he managed to squeeze for himself all the opportunities and all the losses. General, consul, emperor and finally prisoner of Europe.
I do not elevate this person, I do not put monuments to him, because he also had many shortcomings, because he was still a man who was also spoiled by the authorities. But he's still my hero.
Christian Clavier played very well, I didn’t see him as a comedian throughout the film. The series is recognized as the most expensive historical series in Europe. Make your own conclusions.
History is only a version of what happened in our interpretation.
Great careers, great achievements are born from the meeting of character, genius and luck.
It started with a paragraph on history, then there was Tarle, the disappointment after War and Peace, the various encyclopedias, and one day I realized I couldn't help but admire this man. Napoleon Bonaparte is a Corsican, husband, father, general, emperor of the French and simply a great man. Born on the small island of Corsica in 1769, at the age of ten his father sent Napoleon and his older brother Joseph to France, where they learned the language, and then entered the military school. After the death of his father, Napoleon, forced to support his entire family, enters military service as a lieutenant. From this period of his life begins the film, when Bonaparte, who has neither means nor connections, wearing a worn uniform, does not know what to expect from the future.
I could not find a movie about Napoleon for a long time. Although I know and have seen many battle movies, I was interested in biography. I heard about this series, but I associate the word series with a good hundred episodes and the lack of plot. How angry I was at myself when I learned that the main role here is played by Christian Clavier and the film is about the life of Napoleon, not about battles.
Christian Clavier – Before watching the movie, I found him cute, maybe extraordinarily cute, but not talented or handsome. To say that my opinion has changed is to say nothing. Now Clavier is one of his favorite actors and there is no doubt about his talent. The entire cast was selected extremely successfully. I was a little embarrassed that Gerard Depardieu looked more like a kind and loyal policeman than a cunning and dexterous minister, played well, but the role was not his. And despite my admiration for Clavier and Depardieu, they can't match Malkovich, there's something attractive about him. After all, initially he caused only disgust, but then you involuntarily begin to look at all his movements, catch every word. Talleyrand is one of the most extraordinary historical figures. He is not a traitor, a hypocrite, or a flatterer. He doesn’t lie, he says what he really thinks. He's just changing his mind.
Despite the fact that the plot covers the whole life of Napoleon, much is mentioned in passing, something is missed. Why is the entire Russian campaign only on a map? It would be worth showing the return of Napoleon from Russia to France. Show triumph, show defeat. The French emperor is a bit idealized in the film, I have to admit. At the end of the day, it’s pretty hard to watch. The last attempt to save France during the battle of Leipzig, when children and teenagers stood up for arms, talks with the Austrian ambassador, who announces the fifth anti-French coalition, which Austria is going to join, the death of the ex-empress. And all this after 15 years of almost one victory and luck. But a meager tear fell from my eye only at the very end.
The film is worth watching for anyone interested in the personality of Bonaparte and just lovers of historical drama.