Napoleon director Ridley Scott is calling on us historians to ‘get a life’ – and he has a point. Art is about more than historical facts

The release of Napoleon unleashed a torrent of objections to historical errors in the movie.

Social media platforms were inundated with outrage – particularly from military historians – objecting from everything from details on uniforms to military formations.

These heated responses highlighted a more fundamental question: how should historians respond to creative works about history? Do historians have a public responsibility to apply their specialist knowledge to contest spurious claims about the past? Or should they simply respect creative licence, and let moviegoers have their fun?

Historical accuracy matters. But more important for historians should be whether creative works pass the test of authenticity: whether a creative work “rings true” to the historical context as a whole.



Historical inaccuracies​

Whatever the cinematic opulence of Ridley Scott’s battle scenes and of the coronation of Napoleon and Josephine in 1804, historians have railed against a plethora of shortcomings and silences.

Careful makeup could not disguise 49-year-old Joaquin Phoenix as the 24-year-old lieutenant who first came to notice at the battle of Toulon in 1793. The portly, middle-aged Robespierre (Sam Troughton) bears no resemblance to the young revolutionary in appearance or style. Napoleon was not at the execution of Marie-Antoinette, nor did he order his troops to open fire on the Pyramids when in Egypt.



There are many more serious objections one could make – notably of silences about Napoleon’s failure to suppress guerilla resistance in Spain and his disastrous attempt to reimpose slavery in French colonies in the Caribbean after its abolition in 1794.

But historical inaccuracies are nothing new. Similar, if less strident, objections may be made about all historical recreations on film or in theatre.

In the celebrated Australian movie The Dish (2000), Rob Sitch and his team located the first reception of news of the Apollo 11 moon landing and Neil Armstrong’s famous words about his “one small step” at the iconic Parkes Observatory rather than, as in reality, at the NASA stations at Honeysuckle Creek near Canberra and in California. Cinematic attraction trumped accuracy.

The 1982 film Breaker Morant is still receiving criticism for its lionising of Morant. The pivotal Battle of Stirling Bridge scene in Braveheart didn’t include a bridge in the film. Hospitals weren’t a target during the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Far more controversial was the scintillating musical Hamilton (2015) created by Lin-Manuel Miranda, based on the prize-winning 2004 biography of Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow.


file-20231204-29-p27cgk.jpeg

Hamilton cast people of colour as the Founding Fathers. Disney





Miranda explicitly recognised the musical was his interpretation of the founding of the United States from today’s perspective, deliberately cast non-white actors as the Founding Fathers and drew on musical styles ranging from R&B to soul and hip hop.

Despite his candour, historians rushed to point out errors, exaggerations and elisions. Hamilton’s contributions to the battlefield during the American War of Independence are exaggerated for effect. The Schuyler sisters articulate feminist ideas far from those they would have had at the time. While Miranda makes much of Hamilton’s opposition to slavery, Hamilton was personally involved in purchasing slaves and his wife came from a wealthy slave-owning family.

But artists create works within different genres to that of professional history. They are not creating documentaries that can be evaluated according to the historical conventions of the careful use of available evidence, and respect for ambiguity and uncertainty. These need to be considered, first and foremost, as creative works.

A place for historians​

As Scott snapped, the fact-checkers should “get a life!” and join the crowds enjoying his interpretation.

Instead of nitpicking the historical details of entertainment, perhaps historians should celebrate the fact that a long historical drama has been an immediate box office success, including in France – home to some of the film’s most vocal critics.

People who attend Napoleon, or any historically-based work of art, are more likely to be curious to know more rather than be gullible about its historical accuracy.


file-20231203-19-bw5qds.jpg

Jacques-Louis David’s 1810 portrait highlighted the Napoleonic law code on his desk. National Gallery of Art





Of course, historians should not fall silent on failings of historical accuracy, but the central issue for historians should be authenticity. That is, a creative work should be evaluated by historians not so much on whether specific details are accurate but on whether the producer’s imagination captures the essence of the historical moment.

“Poetic licence” permits selectivity and exaggeration in the interests of evoking a deeper meaning. (Of course, that cannot excuse deliberate distortion unless, as in Miranda’s case, it is openly acknowledged.)

The real weakness of Napoleon is Scott’s failure to ground the Emperor’s motivations in the principles underpinning his 1804 legal code – which he saw as his greatest legacy. Scott’s focus on Napoleon’s brutality and megalomania means the explanation for his behaviour boils down to a mixture of murderous territorial greed and a pathetic need to impress Josephine, instead of a more complex impulse to also impose revolutionary reforms.

In their public comments, historians might focus more on the level of contextual veracity in creative works and leave their long lists of errors of detail to professional journals. The problem with the Napoleon movie is not so much its errors of detail as its lack of authenticity about what we know of the man and his world view.

This article was first published on The Conversation and was written by Peter McPhee, Emeritus professor, The University of Melbourne

 
Sponsored
The release of Napoleon unleashed a torrent of objections to historical errors in the movie.

Social media platforms were inundated with outrage – particularly from military historians – objecting from everything from details on uniforms to military formations.

These heated responses highlighted a more fundamental question: how should historians respond to creative works about history? Do historians have a public responsibility to apply their specialist knowledge to contest spurious claims about the past? Or should they simply respect creative licence, and let moviegoers have their fun?

Historical accuracy matters. But more important for historians should be whether creative works pass the test of authenticity: whether a creative work “rings true” to the historical context as a whole.



Historical inaccuracies​

Whatever the cinematic opulence of Ridley Scott’s battle scenes and of the coronation of Napoleon and Josephine in 1804, historians have railed against a plethora of shortcomings and silences.

Careful makeup could not disguise 49-year-old Joaquin Phoenix as the 24-year-old lieutenant who first came to notice at the battle of Toulon in 1793. The portly, middle-aged Robespierre (Sam Troughton) bears no resemblance to the young revolutionary in appearance or style. Napoleon was not at the execution of Marie-Antoinette, nor did he order his troops to open fire on the Pyramids when in Egypt.



There are many more serious objections one could make – notably of silences about Napoleon’s failure to suppress guerilla resistance in Spain and his disastrous attempt to reimpose slavery in French colonies in the Caribbean after its abolition in 1794.

But historical inaccuracies are nothing new. Similar, if less strident, objections may be made about all historical recreations on film or in theatre.

In the celebrated Australian movie The Dish (2000), Rob Sitch and his team located the first reception of news of the Apollo 11 moon landing and Neil Armstrong’s famous words about his “one small step” at the iconic Parkes Observatory rather than, as in reality, at the NASA stations at Honeysuckle Creek near Canberra and in California. Cinematic attraction trumped accuracy.

The 1982 film Breaker Morant is still receiving criticism for its lionising of Morant. The pivotal Battle of Stirling Bridge scene in Braveheart didn’t include a bridge in the film. Hospitals weren’t a target during the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Far more controversial was the scintillating musical Hamilton (2015) created by Lin-Manuel Miranda, based on the prize-winning 2004 biography of Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow.


file-20231204-29-p27cgk.jpeg

Hamilton cast people of colour as the Founding Fathers. Disney





Miranda explicitly recognised the musical was his interpretation of the founding of the United States from today’s perspective, deliberately cast non-white actors as the Founding Fathers and drew on musical styles ranging from R&B to soul and hip hop.

Despite his candour, historians rushed to point out errors, exaggerations and elisions. Hamilton’s contributions to the battlefield during the American War of Independence are exaggerated for effect. The Schuyler sisters articulate feminist ideas far from those they would have had at the time. While Miranda makes much of Hamilton’s opposition to slavery, Hamilton was personally involved in purchasing slaves and his wife came from a wealthy slave-owning family.

But artists create works within different genres to that of professional history. They are not creating documentaries that can be evaluated according to the historical conventions of the careful use of available evidence, and respect for ambiguity and uncertainty. These need to be considered, first and foremost, as creative works.

A place for historians​

As Scott snapped, the fact-checkers should “get a life!” and join the crowds enjoying his interpretation.

Instead of nitpicking the historical details of entertainment, perhaps historians should celebrate the fact that a long historical drama has been an immediate box office success, including in France – home to some of the film’s most vocal critics.

People who attend Napoleon, or any historically-based work of art, are more likely to be curious to know more rather than be gullible about its historical accuracy.


file-20231203-19-bw5qds.jpg

Jacques-Louis David’s 1810 portrait highlighted the Napoleonic law code on his desk. National Gallery of Art





Of course, historians should not fall silent on failings of historical accuracy, but the central issue for historians should be authenticity. That is, a creative work should be evaluated by historians not so much on whether specific details are accurate but on whether the producer’s imagination captures the essence of the historical moment.

“Poetic licence” permits selectivity and exaggeration in the interests of evoking a deeper meaning. (Of course, that cannot excuse deliberate distortion unless, as in Miranda’s case, it is openly acknowledged.)

The real weakness of Napoleon is Scott’s failure to ground the Emperor’s motivations in the principles underpinning his 1804 legal code – which he saw as his greatest legacy. Scott’s focus on Napoleon’s brutality and megalomania means the explanation for his behaviour boils down to a mixture of murderous territorial greed and a pathetic need to impress Josephine, instead of a more complex impulse to also impose revolutionary reforms.

In their public comments, historians might focus more on the level of contextual veracity in creative works and leave their long lists of errors of detail to professional journals. The problem with the Napoleon movie is not so much its errors of detail as its lack of authenticity about what we know of the man and his world view.

This article was first published on The Conversation and was written by Peter McPhee, Emeritus professor, The University of Melbourne


Professor McPhee seems to making an easy apology for the arts for its lack of substantive soundness. His main point seems to be that as long as the work of art titillates someone's imagination, there is no reason to attach the bases of that titillation to substantive fact. If that is to be so, perhaps the artist should refrain from using the historical backdrop to give any element of realism to the work, at all. I agree that, as long as historical substance is conformed to, the minutiae can be explained in the artwork. Otherwise the viewing public are left with a cartoon-like absurdity, as was the case in "Braveheart".
 
Napoleon was just a crap film a waste of time and money. Okay if you're keen on too many
tedious battle scenes! Time to retire, Ridley Scott!
 
Yet the movie Saving Private Ryan, which more than likely held some artistic licence, garnered immense praise for the realistic battle scenes which triggered many memories of the veterans who fought there.
Go figure.
 
I think if you are recreating a historical figure,it’s the duty of the creator to stick with historical fact as closely as possible. Yes,the movie needs to be entertaining but it can still be that while maintains the characters credibility.. Napoleon was a ratbag but his military genius shouldn’t be ignored nor the fact that he practically ruined all he had for his love of a woman.
Ive found,too,that people can learn from both books and movies…..let’s make sure they are learning facts not fiction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knell and DLHM
Typical Yankee trash movie - never let the facts get in the way of a story. Most movies made by USA are tedious to watch and full of violence. The only movies worth the time feature Tom Hanks (cant get enough of him) or are made in Australia, UK and some of the offerings on SBS movie chanel.
 
My first thought leaving the movie was " Napoleon administrative genius did not even rate a mention..". Interestingly whenever I mentioned that it was received with a blank look, ie the movie was just the expected cliché on a defeated adversary,(Knew how Joséphine character was treated beforehand, ie from a male point of view, so no surprise there: apart from warmongering you had to have a human !!! side).
 
I think if you are recreating a historical figure,it’s the duty of the creator to stick with historical fact as closely as possible. Yes,the movie needs to be entertaining but it can still be that while maintains the characters credibility.. Napoleon was a ratbag but his military genius shouldn’t be ignored nor the fact that he practically ruined all he had for his love of a woman.
Ive found,too,that people can learn from both books and movies…..let’s make sure they are learning facts not fiction
 
Yes a little bit of hstorical facts would not do any harm...but then the movie is American. However he certainly was not a ratbag, but a military and administrative genius, and like all people in his position his power corrupted his judgment big time.
 

Join the conversation

News, deals, games, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.

Seniors Discount Club

The SDC searches for the best deals, discounts, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.
  1. New members
  2. Jokes & fun
  3. Photography
  4. Nostalgia / Yesterday's Australia
  5. Food and Lifestyle
  6. Money Saving Hacks
  7. Offtopic / Everything else

Latest Articles

  • We believe that retirement should be a time to relax and enjoy life, not worry about money. That's why we're here to help our members make the most of their retirement years. If you're over 60 and looking for ways to save money, connect with others, and have a laugh, we’d love to have you aboard.
  • Advertise with us

User Menu

Enjoyed Reading our Story?

  • Share this forum to your loved ones.
Change Weather Postcode×
Change Petrol Postcode×