Napoleon (2023)
Director: Ridley Scott
Screenwriter: David Scarpa
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirby, Tahar Rahim, Rupert Everett, Paul Rhys

Almost a quarter of a century after his swords and sandals epic Gladiator became a critically acclaimed cultural phenomenon and Oscars Best Picture winner, Ridley Scott re-teams with one of its stars – one of this generation’s leading actors and a multi-time Academy Award nominee, Joaquin Phoenix – to revisit another of history’s most written about leaders, Napoleon Bonaparte of France. With more historically accurate locations and just as many period-appropriate costumes as in his turn of the century fable, this life and times of France’s great-then-disgraced general should be a lot more affecting than it actually is. This bullet point journey through Bonaparte’s rise and fall from power doesn’t make powerful comment on the corruption of man, nor does it evaluate the emperor’s influence on war or peace, on Europe or France or the United Kingdom or Russia. In fact, it doesn’t say much at all…

It would be difficult to chronicle Napoleon’s story and fail to capture the imagination in one way or another. This is one of history’s most important figures, an emblem of power and greed. His various roles in post-revolution France took him across continents, saw him as the figurehead of coups, and brought about the deaths of more than one million people. His was a life filled with so many historically significant events, moments, and decisions, that anyone with so much as an Encyclopaedia Britannica could recount his story with at least some drama, shock and awe. The issue with this $200million film is that the script does little more than precisely that, recounting the significant moments of his leadership as if listing them out of a book, with a cheap and at times barely legible love angle tacked on to evoke empathy and provide commentary on the events that come fast and often with little context.

Joaquin Phoenix tries his best. He dominates every scene, embodying a character he clearly sees as more of a creature than a man. Under his spell, Napoleon Bonaparte is worthy of attention, a character whom we are desperate to investigate, to interrogate. But the film doesn’t allow for that. As we depart the beheading of Marie Antoinette in revolution-era France to first meet our subject, Phoenix is not unlike a lion with his jaw clenched, his eyes glazed, his uniform as extravagant and symbolic as a mane. There is so much promise held within this introduction – a potentially world-shifting performance, some spectacular wardrobe work, effective framing and blocking – and instead it sadly becomes emblematic of a film that leaves so much of its potential unfulfilled.

The bullet point journey through Napoleon’s conquests, political manoeuvres, and exiles, requires an emotional core for any potential audience to attach to, and it finds that in the would-be emperor’s marriage to his beloved Josephine. Vanessa Kirby embodies the infamous leader’s muse as if a witch who has cast a spell, and the Oscar-nominated performer’s turn is at times just as beguiling as Phoenix’s. Together, they never hit the highs of some of their other on-screen relationships (Phoenix in Her, Kirby in Pieces of a Woman), nor is their relationship as moving as that presented by Mel Gibson and Catherine McCormack in Braveheart, or as lustful as that presented by Omar Sharif and Julie Christie in Doctor Zhivago. There isn’t even a sense of dangerous plotting as underlined by the incestuous relationship hinted at between Phoenix and Connie Nielsen in Gladiator, which at least provoked a reaction. In Napoleon, Phoenix and Kirby are believably brought together, but they are far from enchanted by one another, and as time passes and events occur, you expect that to become part of the commentary on Napoleon’s lack of humanity, but it doesn’t. Napoleon instead frames this relationship as the beating heart of its subject, as the primary motivating factor, the biggest achievement, the biggest regret. And the film only takes brief moments to dissect this, or even present a valid argument as to how the relationship motivated the man to achieve otherworldly horrors. Theirs is a story that runs parallel to the story of Napoleon’s “achievements”, evolving from time to time but largely suffering from the same “this happens and then this happens and then this happens” that plagues the rest of the tale.

Beyond the limitations of David Scarpa’s screenplay, which was no doubt limited in its potential by the vast period of time it sought to cover (a period of more than 25 years), and the effects this has on Claire Simpson’s editing and pacing of the film, Napoleon does achieve a lot cinematically. First and foremost, the costume work is spectacular. David Crossman and Janty Yates’ work in costuming is nothing short of stellar, and a glimpse at the level of quality many expected a modern Ridley Scott historical epic to achieve. Everyone looks unique and period-appropriate, but the smaller details on the limited selection of main characters are worthy of the biggest screen possible and plenty of critical acclaim. Similarly, the production design by Arthur Max is a significant factor in bringing cinematic qualities to scenes that are otherwise inconsequential or at least far from unmissable. The party and governmental scenes are where the latter shines the brightest, some sequences decked out and presented as if the period’s great paintings.

Ridley Scott must be commended for his role in bringing this to life, too. Some shots are of the highest cinematic calibre, a master clearly touching on the greatness that has been foundational to his visually impressive career to date. His party scenes are filled with life, there are unique physical qualities to many of the major historical figures at play in the story, and he seems intent on ensuring that not a single battle is presented in as bland a fashion as many other director’s have long since settled. His work with cinematographer Dariusz Wolski in the capturing of cold, of fog, of early morning winter sunrises, imbues the piece with a sense of reality and ensures that nobody can be bored by the achievements held within each frame. Some sequences, such as the one in which Napoleon takes Moscow, are worthy even of a highlight reel that includes The Duellists, Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise and Gladiator.

As has often been the case in more recent Scott movies, there are also shots, scenes and sometimes even entire sequences that seem absent of his once unique and form-topping touch. Early on, it is easy to be removed from the reality of the time period courtesy of poor CGI, such as that showing Joaquin Phoenix riding a horse on a beach or large crowds resembling AI renditions more than actual people. The picture is also so awash with greys that it seems more like a mid-2000s early digital filmmaking release than even Scott’s own from that era. Some night time shots are utterly spectacular, and seem to be of the same school as those celebrated in Jordan Peele’s Nope, but there are vast periods in which everything looks washed out, and it is almost certain that minutes of this film will be barely legible (too dark) to anyone who eventually watches it at home.

Ridley Scott has spoken a lot in the press tour for Napoleon about how his movies do not need to be historically accurate. When a film seeks to explore something thematically, personally, or ideologically, then Scott is most certainly correct. Film is art, and art seeks truth rather than fact. Gladiator worked because of this perspective, because of how it abandoned fact in search of the truth held within the myth. But Napoleon doesn’t do that. It presents moment after moment from the history books, often inaccurately out of negligence as opposed to deeper purpose. There is no doubt that a lot of care and artistry can be seen on screen in Napoleon, but that negligence will be the story of this film: a movie that could have been great, that could have meant something, that could have simply been accurate, and ended up being none of those things. Like Napoleon himself, Napoleon thinks itself as greater than it is. It isn’t insulting like Ridley Scott’s idea of Napoleon firing canons into the Great Pyramid of Giza was to historians the world over, but it does offer only glimmers at its full might. Some individual pieces are greater than the whole in this instance, and what a shame that is. This should have been special.

Score: 15/24

Recommended for you: Ridley Scott Films Ranked

My Policeman (2022)
Director: Michael Grandage
Screenwriter: Ron Nyswaner
Starring: Emma Corrin, Gina McKee, Harry Styles, Linus Roache, David Dawson, Rupert Everett

After Harry Styles’ abysmal performance in Don’t Worry Darling, fans were nervous about his return to the big screen in Michael Grandage’s LGBTQ+ period drama, My Policeman. The good news for Styles fans? He’s not terrible. The bad news? The film is so understated it hardly says anything at all.

Based on the eponymous 2012 novel by Bethan Roberts, My Policeman explores a complicated love triangle between a school teacher, a museum curator, and a policeman. Set against the quaint but highly conservative 1957 Brighton, UK, Tom (Harry Styles) meets Marion (Emma Corrin), a traditional woman who works at a school. The two quickly strike up a relationship which is confused by Tom’s close relationship with museum curator Patrick (David Dawson). Patrick becomes ensnared in the couple’s lives and the three of them must wrestle with sexuality, guilt, and jealousy.

Though My Policeman wants us to believe that Patrick and Tom’s relationship is worth their many sacrifices, we don’t see very much of it. There is a before the relationship and a tragic after, but almost nothing in between. Besides a sparse trip to Rome and a drunken encounter when the pair first meet, most of the film concerns itself with the tense friendships between the three central figures. Dawson and Styles deliver fairly believable performances, but it doesn’t make up for the stiff dialogue and lack of chemistry. Slow burns undoubtedly have their place in the romance genre, but My Policeman’s central romance dwindles instead of burns. With more concern for the repercussions of queerness in the 1950s, the film doesn’t make space for the actual relationship between its gay characters.

One of the most anticipated aspects of the film was its sex scenes. Earlier this year, Harry Styles told Rolling Stone that “so much of gay sex in films is just two guys going at it”. Forget the fact that Styles is an international pop star, this comment made sex a hyper-focus. People wondered if Styles had seen any queer cinema or could truly portray a tender, gay love seen. The scenes were understated and didn’t feel garish or exaggerated, but they certainly didn’t transcend “two guys going at it”. Compared to other queer cinema like Portrait of A Lady on Fire or even Call Me By Your Name, My Policeman didn’t feel particularly revolutionary. Not every queer movie has to break new ground for the LGBTQ+ community, but there is a certain expectation when one of the stars calls out every other film in the genre.

It is essential to dissect the political act of centering a policeman in this queer story. Though the film portrays acts of violence at the hands of the police, Tom is still a sympathetic and gentle character. There was an attempt to understand the layers of oppression within these three relationships but the film didn’t seem to know what it was working with. At every point it verges on political, the film takes a sharp narrative turn. It’s not directly harmful to the community, but the writing could’ve taken a more definitive stance on the social world it lives in.

More than a political or communal discussion, My Policeman is a quiet, meditative space about self-acceptance and repression. This is reflected in the narrative time shifts between the 1950s and an equally subdued 1990s. We See Tom, Patrick, and Marion (now portrayed by Linus Roache, Rupert Everett, and Gina McKee respectively) grapple with the consequences of their past in this later timeline. Patrick has suffered a stroke and Marion has faithfully (albeit, a bit reluctantly) taken him in. The older cast delivers a solid performance, but ultimately this storyline doesn’t come to fruition either. Marion (who takes center stage in this timeline) is not three-dimensional enough to function as a solid protagonist. Though we pity her at points, she doesn’t have a leg to stand on without her relationship with Tom.

That being said, Tom and Marion’s relationship is arguably the most fleshed out of the three in the earlier timeline. As a married couple, the pair love one another, even if it’s not in the traditional sense. It’s fascinating to watch the pair struggle to be good to one another whilst living their truths. Styles has the boyish charisma and innocence for Tom, but none of his quiet, bubbling anger. He doesn’t ruin the film by any means, but he struggles to deliver the high-intensity emotional climaxes necessary for the story. Important moments are often undercut by uneven performances and stilted dialogue.

My Policeman’s ambitious storytelling is admirable but fundamentally falls flat as a character study and political piece for the queer community. If nothing else, My Policeman is an opportunity to watch good actors work with a mediocre script – Harry Styles (originally the wildcard of the project) gave a good performance while the rest of the cast excelled. Despite the film being underwhelming, it’s exciting to see queer films enter the mainstream in such a big way. If anything, My Policeman points to a growing acceptance of LGBTQ+ relationships on screen. As the collection of LGBTQ+ films expands, community dialogue will continue to take place in the movie theater, and that is something to be grateful for.

Score: 12/24

Written by Emi Grant

You can support Emi Grant in the following places:

Instagram – @emi.grant
Portfolio – grantemi.portfolio.com
Twitter – @emii_grant

A Royal Night out, directed by Julian Jarrold (Brideshead Revisited, Becoming Jane) explores the wonders of V. E. Day and how it has become iconic as a night where anything could happen, even for the Princesses of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth and Margaret. This movie explores the maturity of two sisters whose lives are significantly different to those of most ordinary people and how one night can change their perspectives forever.

On V.E. Day, 1945, when Winston Churchill made his announcement to the millions of people residing in Britain that the war would officially be over on the 11^th day of the 11^th month at 11:11, everybody cheered and took to the streets to celebrate the end of the war. The royal Princesses, Elizabeth, also referred to as ‘Lizbeth’, and Margaret who refers to herself as ‘P2’, convince their parents that they should be allowed out to celebrate the victory in order to find out how the people really felt about King George’s speech. After tricking their chaperones and two soldiers from the Army, both daughters escape the confines of the Ritz. However, they are separated from one another, with Elizabeth chasing Margaret all around London in an attempt to be able to spend the night with her. Through her frantic searching, Elizabeth meets a young soldier named Jack (Jack Reynor) who reluctantly helps her search for her sister. By the end of the movie, they realise that they enjoyed one another’s company greatly, yet know that their relationship could never work. Once they depart, both Jack and Elizabeth leave with smiles on their faces, knowing that they had one truly great adventure with one another.

A Royal Night Out is a brilliant blend of comedy, drama and love. Although the story may seem cliché at first – one person is not who they say they are, two people who dislike one another grow affectionate due to their circumstances etc. – it really is not your typical romantic comedy or drama. The ending is not what you’d expect. There is no happily ever after nor a skipping off into the distance with the two main characters hand in hand. Instead, it tells an almost realistic story of an adventure that could happen anywhere, to anyone. Add to this a wonderful blend of music, both very much relating to the time in which the movie is set yet also emotive enough and moving enough for every scene of A Royal Night Out, and the movie becomes a legitimate look at the life of a cultural and historical icon as well as a time long-since glorified around the world, but in the UK particularly. This works towards making the picture particularly engrossing.

Elizabeth, played by Sarah Gordon, is first in line to the throne and therefore is required to be the ideal young woman – a role model for both her sister and the female population of the United Kingdom; someone that the public would happily support. Her sister, Margaret (Bel Powley) on the other hand, knows how little pressure is placed on her shoulders, regularly stating throughout the movie: “Oh it’s okay, nobody really cares about what I do”. Powley adds a certain sense of comedy to the film, due to her nonchalant attitude towards being a Princess, clear naivety and utter enjoyment of being able to live as a normal person for the first and only time in her life, even going as far to get utterly drunk (and being wheelbarrow-ed around London). The mixture of these two sisters, both of whom are so very different from one another, creates an interesting and lovable movie that can be enjoyed by everyone, no matter their age or nationality.

It’s great to watch a movie about such a historical event from a different perspective: a person of royalty as opposed to the more popular ‘joe public’ approach. Such individuals create different moments and see things in an alternative way to what we’re used to, making for interesting scenes throughout the movie due to their understanding of what life is like – Lizbeth doesn’t realise the importance of money, constantly making Jack pay for everything, even admitting that money isn’t an aspect that her family ever think about (obviously, being Royals and all). Although Jack pays for the taxi’s, drinks, bus fare and more, he does seem increasingly more reluctant as the night goes on, making the audience chuckle at Lizbeth’s naivety regarding cash, and pay thought towards her privilege and her position regarding the war.

Overall, this movie was enjoyable, but it did not excel in any way – it’s not mind blowing, but an enjoyable watch for a rainy day.

16/24