Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
20+ years ago, Danny De Vito would have been perfect as Napoleon!
It is a common myth that Napoleon was short, resulting from propaganda cartoons by the British.
Napoleon was 5'6" which is short today but was average height in France at the time. British cartoons made him appear about 5'2".
A big reason some people think Napoleon was short, was that he was often painted with his Grenadiers. You had to be 6-feet tall to qualify to be a Grenadier. Now add a very tall bearskin cap. Grenadiers appeared towering, which was part of their fear factor on the battlefield.
If you keep seeing pictures of a 6-foot tall basketball coach with 7-foot tall players, you might think he is short. Same deal with Napoleon. It is just a myth.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 6 hours ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,160 posts, read 13,444,010 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Blevin
It is a common myth that Napoleon was short, resulting from propaganda cartoons by the British.
Napoleon was 5'6" which is short today but was average height in France at the time. British cartoons made him appear about 5'2".
A big reason some people think Napoleon was short, was that he was often painted with his Grenadiers. You had to be 6-feet tall to qualify to be a Grenadier. Now add a very tall bearskin cap. Grenadiers appeared towering, which was part of their fear factor on the battlefield.
If you keep seeing pictures of a 6-foot tall basketball coach with 7-foot tall players, you might think he is short. Same deal with Napoleon. It is just a myth.
Napoleon was never going to get a good press or historic right up from the British or most of Europe, as he's a deeply disliked figure in many countries, and rightly so.
I do think some of the French critics comments are amusing though.
I saw "Napoleon" in ScreenX - movie was excellent - Joaquim Phoenix was good as well as the supporting cast - Waterloo battle scene was intense. I recommend this movie!
My only concern is the pairing of Jaquin Phoenix with Ridley Scott. I am not sure the "charisma" is there.
Napoleon Bonapart was a dynamic, charming man and brilliant orator who used to make arguements in front of the Senate. He was never at a loss for words and knew all his facts, having a photographic memory.
He was very dynamic and was long beloved by both his soldiers and the people of France.
My point is, there is a tendancy for directors to make these iconic men into mysterious beings by having them sit stony faced all the time, or be pensive and moody. Napoleon was anything but. He could charm the pants off most women. He won over the leaders and the people of many nations he conquered because like Alexander the Great, he had massive charisma, presence, and charm. He also was a master at telling the people what they wanted to hear.
He was a nation builder. Every undeveloped nation he conquered, he founded schools, built roads, improved water and sewer systems, and promoted art.
He was a great pursuader and connected with people.
I just saw the trailer for "Napoleon' and I fear Scott has Pheonix playing the same role as in Gladiator -- a stern, silent, petulant figure. Napoleon Bonapart oozed charm and was a master of pursuasion, very dynamic, and had overwhelming personal charisma.
I woulld hate to see Phoenix driected to be that same old sour, moody, stoney-faced, detached mysterious type. Napoleon was anything but. He was very engaging.
Please tell me Phoenix does not just around quietly grimacing stony-faced throughout the entire moive as if he is constipated.
Last edited by Igor Blevin; 11-25-2023 at 03:47 PM..
My only concern is the pairing of Jaquin Phoenix with Ridley Scott. I am not sure the "charisma" is there.
Napoleon Bonapart was a dynamic, charming man and brilliant orator who used to make arguements in front of the Senate. He was never at a loss for words and knew all his facts, having a photographic memory.
He was very dynamic and was long beloved by both his soldiers and the people of France.
My point is, there is a tendancy for directors to make these iconic men into mysterious beings by having them sit stony faced all the time, or be pensive and moody. Napoleon was anything but. He could charm the pants off most women. He won over the leaders and the people of many nations he conquered because like Alexander the Great, he had massive charisma, presence, and charm. He also was a master at telling the people what they wanted to hear.
He was a nation builder. Every undeveloped nation he conquered, he founded schools, built roads, improved water and sewer systems, and promoted art.
He was a great pursuader and connected with people.
I just saw the trailer for "Napoleon' and I fear Scott has Pheonix playing the same role as in Gladiator -- a stern, silent, petulant figure. Napoleon Bonapart oozed charm and was a master of pursuasion, very dynamic, and had overwhelming personal charisma.
I woulld hate to see Phoenix driected to be that same old sour, moody, stoney-faced, detached mysterious type. Napoleon was anything but. He was very engaging.
Please tell me Phoenix does not just around quietly grimacing stony-faced throughout the entire moive as if he is constipated.
Yes, I would like to see the historical Napolean portrayed. I'm listening to Andrew Robert's "Napoleon: A Life" right now since I really hadn't known much of anything about this historical person or his battles. His command of the written language is astounding; he was a prolific writer. I'm only at 27 hours of an almost 34-hour audiobook but it's a fascinating one. I fear I'll be disappointed in the movie though as, as Kathryn commented, it appears we may not see much character development which is what I'm most interested in.
Well, I'm hoping to see it here within a few weeks--want to finish the audiobook first--so I'll let you know.
Yes, I would like to see the historical Napolean portrayed. I'm listening to Andrew Robert's "Napoleon: A Life" right now since I really hadn't known much of anything about this historical person or his battles. His command of the written language is astounding; he was a prolific writer. I'm only at 27 hours of an almost 34-hour audiobook but it's a fascinating one. I fear I'll be disappointed in the movie though as, as Katheryn commented, it appears we may not see much character development which is what I'm most interested in.
Well, I'm hoping to see it here within a few weeks--want to finish the audiobook first--so I'll let you know.
That is just it. The movie is called "Napoleon", not "Waterloo" or "The Hundred Days".
If you are going to do a biography of Napoleon, it should reflect the full nature of the man. It seems that Ridley Scott just wanted to make an action war movie. I am guessing it is all done with CGI and hoping it doesn't look it.
As jaded as I am about Hollywood today, I will eventually give this movie a try because it sounds like a defent "war movie", but I don't expect too much beyond the action. It is a shame because Napoleon's life was full of drama from his tumultuous relationship with Josephine, to the constant infighting of his Marshalls, to the poisoning of his son.
I mean, I would hope that Napoleon's rise would be well covered with things like the "whiff of grapeshot" he employed for riot control, that put him on the military map in the first place. Or his exploits in Egypt beyond the battles with the Mamelukes. Do they cover that Napoleon brought with him the first Egyptologists to study the pyramids and the sphinx, and for a long time what his team documented was the foremost study of Egypt for decades afterward?
I saw the movie tonight and liked it, but did not love it. There were two things that I thought were problematic, one small, and the other much larger.
The small one is that Joaquin Phoenix is just not the right actor for the role. He’s an excellent actor, but he lacks the charisma that Napoleon was famous for. Even when he tries not to seem dark and brooding, he is dark and brooding.
The second, much larger problem is that the movie is trying to cover too much ground. Most Americans are just not that familiar with Napoleon’s life. They’ve heard of Waterloo, and the march into Russia, and they may remember that he arose in the final days of The Terror, but that is pretty much all they know, and even with those three key events they are muzzy on the details. This should have been at least two movies (the first covering Napoleon’s rise to power, and the second covering his fall) or even better, a multi-part mini series. The shifting says between the various powers in particular is confusing because the audience is not given enough background to see why they are happening.
It’s a good movie, but it could have been so much better. Still, it is worth watching.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
