Ridley Scott has been typically dismissive of critics taking issue with his forthcoming movie Napoleon, particularly French ones.

While his big-screen epic, starring Joaquin Phoenix as the embattled French emperor with Vanessa Kirby as his wife Josephine, has earned the veteran director plaudits in the UK, French critics have been less gushing, with Le Figaro saying the film could have been called “Barbie and Ken under the Empire,” French GQ calling the film “deeply clumsy, unnatural and unintentionally clumsy” and Le Point magazine quoting biographer Patrice Gueniffey calling the film “very anti-French and pro-British.”

Asked by the BBC to respond, Scott replied with customary swagger:

“The French don’t even like themselves. The audience that I showed it to in Paris, they loved it.”

The film’s world premiere took place in the French capital this week.

Scott added he would say to historians questioning the accuracy of his storytelling:

“Were you there? Oh you weren’t there. Then how do you know?”

  • Akasazh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Second thing is age. Phoenix is 49. Bonaparte died at 51, after six years exile on Saint Helens. You can say what you want, Phoenix does look the part, but it’s easy too old.

    Just like Dafoe playing van Gogh it’s just not right.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t really care about that. If it makes for a good movie, then why should it matter? It’s his attitude about it all that’s uncalled for.

      • Akasazh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fair enough, I just think it’s silly and an exemplar of Scott not giving a monkeys about the historical person.

        • Sami_Uso@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, it’s a Hollywood movie telling a story… if you care about 100% historical accuracy, Hollywood is not who you’re getting it from, nor should you expect it at this point. It’s entertainment, not education.

    • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      On the other hand, I think a Hollywood actor with the benefit of modern medicine has probably aged better than someone with a particularly stressful job in the 18th/19th century

      • Akasazh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        To a point. But twenty years is quite significant. If any it’s more miraculous that Napoleon archieved what he did when he was in his early thirties.

        To portray that correctly would be an hommage.

        Plus I don’t really like the fact that older established actors get all these character roles. I mean I get it, but I don’t like it.