Reply With QuoteMore likely German ;)Originally Posted by wildheart
I'm intrigued by the latest Ridley Scott film and will be definitely watching it. However it has already come into some criticism as to its factual accuracy, and its portrayal of a dictator who caused Europe an enormous amount of pain.
Should will still be making feature films that don't tell the whole story about these huge figures in history? Years ago I read many books on Napoleon & I visited Corsica trying to understand the man. Navel Officers of the day would pay a pretty penny, to visit Napoleon when he was imprisoned on St Helena. He would hold audiences with a dozen or more, sometimes explaining his battlefield tactic's. Other times he would say nothing. Some of those that attended said they felt they were in the presence of a god like human being. Thank our lucky stars for Nelson & Wellington, or maybe we would all be speaking French to this day.
Last edited by wildheart; 22nd November 2023 at 21:46.
More likely German ;)
Didn't the arrival of Blucher and his Prussians save Old Nosey's bacon that day?
Definitely fancy the film, no expectations of historical accuracy mind.
The Duellists also by Ridley Scott. On the other hand is pretty accurate, reflecting military life, custom and swordsmanship in the Napoleonic period, based on a true story. Well worth a view if that´s your bag.
Last edited by Passenger; 22nd November 2023 at 17:38.
It is a theatrical film though isn't it? I don't think it's intended to be a historically accurate biopic/documentary?
I may be wrong....
Nah don´t think you´re wrong.
It´s the way though that there can be this kind of cultural- historical seepage from Hollywood Blockbuster to history ´fact´ in the common perception, which I think is WH´s concern.
Last edited by Passenger; 22nd November 2023 at 17:46.
Agreed - it's the twisting/reshaping of history that bothers me; not so much for my sake but for those who've never learnt/don't appreciate the difference between fact and fiction (or at least most historians' version of it).
Whilst I do not envisage it being of comparable heritage with Abel Gance’s 1927 magnificent avant-garde film par excellence, I must arrange a rendezvous for a tête-à-tête with a cinema connoisseur of my acquaintance who queued at a distinguished venue to attend the premiere.
We owe a proud candle.
Don't just do something, sit there. - TNH
That's what I learned in school, yes.Didn't the arrival of Blucher and his Prussians save Old Nosey's bacon that day?
For us westerners, It used to be Hollywood's privilege to rewrite history to fit the narrative in a way that was commercially satisfying.
Starting with westerns, of course. But it also gave us gems like U-571, an excellent film on all points except it shows that it's an American crew who captured the enigma machine from a U-boat, instead of HMS Bulldog.
The matter was discussed in Parliament and Bill Clinton had to write a letter specifying that the movie was a fiction, not history.
The problem with films based on historic characters and taking liberties with what is commonly known and/or historical research is that you have generations who will know no more than what was pre-digested for them in the form of an entertainment.
It's not as innocent as it appears, too: for example, and to keep it light-hearted, Josephine was 6 years older than Bonaparte, not 14 years younger. Sexism, much?
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Anyone watched Inglorious Bastards recently?
The Duellists is a phenomenal movie and is well worth a watch. One of my favs.
Yes I enjoyed the Duellists, and like a lot of his work. Once I’ve seen the film I’ll be able to digest the pro’s & cons and hopefully feel suitably entertained. But as others have said, massage too much of the truth and just becomes a fantasy. The film Cromwell back in the 70’s was a shocker, luckily it only gets re shown once in a blue moon.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Yes. Rewriting history becoming quite common.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Allegedly Wellington said 'give me night or give me Blucher' as the battle was turning in French favour
There is a very interesting series on BBC Sounds called Napoleon - The Man and the Myths. It delves into what we as a nation think of Napoleon and whether it is true or not. Unsurprisingly we see him through an early 19th century filter of him as the baddie as well as us, the victors, writing the history in that vein.
As ever the truth is a lot greyer and murkier than Boney bad, Welly and Nelson good. There was certainly some incentive for all the Royal families of Europe to demean and extinguish the flame of republicanism before it spread across the continent. It is well worth a listen.
I'll have to track down the Duellists on a streaming servic somewhere. Sounds like a good one.
Saw this last night well worth a watch
My all time favourite movie and Oliver Reed’s apparently.
“Don’t look back, you’re not heading that way.”
I often ponder did Napoleon have a Napoleon complex?
Stop pondering. It does you no good.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I watched it last night and over all, I was very underwhelmed, unfortunately. As a fan of Scott’s films and having an interest in the Napoleonic era, I had had very high hopes for the film.
The historical accuracy for the tactics used in the battle scenes was particularly poor.
I have little faith in historical accuracy in TV series these days, after watching a BBC offering where the pilot of a spitfire in the Battle of Britain was told to "eject" by another pilot seeing his plane on fire!
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Looking forward to Ridley's film, he has a penchant for historical epics, and Napoleon certainly deserves a shot and Jacquin seems like good casting. Saw a recent doc on Nelson In his own words and I thought he did all for King and Country and the Call of Duty, but turns out he was more in it for his own fame and glory, and would have been first in line for the Big Brother House were he around now.
Not a Ridley film but a recent example of history being 'adjusted' - Ammonite starring Kate Winslet portraying British palaeontologist Mary Anning.
In the film Anning has a lesbian relationship despite there being no evidence as to Anning's sexuality in real life.
The director, Francis Lee, defended his decision,(following extract from Wikipedia) "saying in a series of tweets, "After seeing queer history be routinely 'straightened' throughout culture, and given a historical figure where there is no evidence whatsoever of a heterosexual relationship, is it not permissible to view that person within another context?""
p.s. I didn't watch the film to the end
Re. Napoleon
Think Sharpe in HD and no Northern Monkeys
From people who know their Napoleonic stuff, it’s a lot of emptiness covered with a bicorne.
The battle of Waterloo is acceptable, Austerlitz is a joke. Waterloo (with Rod Steiger) was infinitely more accurate; Albert Dieudonné was an outstanding Bonaparte, and Abel Gance’s Austerlitz was also very good.
I am also on the side of the admirers of Duellists but I shall wait for this one to be on tv.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Many generals and leaders were probably driven by similar aspirations. I doubt Napoleon was in it to help the poor and create a fairer society.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Seeing this tonight. Read the Simon Scarrow quartet books on Napoleon/Wellington a few years ago which went into good detail, so I'll be interested to see what the film covers.. I understand there will be a longer directors cut later too.
Watched The Last Dual last night and it was superb. Wasn’t expecting much but great story told in a really interesting way, well put together and really well acted. Excellent movie!
As for Napoleon, not sure it will be up to much but I like all the people involved so will give it a go. Apparently was filmed in 62 days which seems odd…..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He brought us the Dutch Civil Code. That is some great law in writing.
Even longer?! Jeez, it’s plenty long enough (too much so) already…..
I found it rather dull and far too long.... Too much self indulgence from Ridley Scott.
This, there was easily an hour of material that could have been removed without affecting the storyline at all.
I do not often go to the cinema. Anyway went and watched this along with my wife. Disappointed to say the least!
Just got back from the cinema.
Really disappointed felt it never really got going and I wasn’t invested in him as a character at all.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions
