Stevecorp
Don't listen to the negative reviews
Hadrina
The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful
Brennan Camacho
Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.
mlink-36-9815
I saw it in 1978 Shrine Auditorium & it was great. Then later on I got a bootleg off British TV with Carl Davis. Finally the DVD from BFI. The photographic quality has improved immensely and there are many differences between the two Carl Davis versions. It seems like a new movie. I'm halfway thru the DVD Act 3. I'm wondering how or if the triptych footage comes out. The 3 giant screens live cannot be beat.I'm in a unique position to talk about Napoleon as I own all 3 versions. Kevin Brownlow reformatted the titles making new more accurate translations from French. The original french titles took for granted you knew the facts of the revolution & the new titles explain it more. + some of the titles where handwritten but replaced in translation by typewritten titles. in the DVD the handwritten titles are replaced by handwritten translations. in the British TV version scenes are tinted and in the DVD they are b/w? Its quite possible they received original footage and the tinting was not accurate.Brownlow also was able to get 1st generation footage of export negatives where it shows a different angle & distance but the clarity is increased by a lot. I did not listen to Davis' music (hard to believe) but I watched at night to as not to annoy neighbors.On the British TV bootleg, the triptych was missing but on the DVD it was there. There was triptych footage early in the film and you could see the edges of the screen. It was decided to save all the triptych until the end. The TV bootleg is very important and valuable to have as students of the film to find out how all this is done m234link@gmail.com and it can be got thru a trade.
TheFamilyBerzurcher
It is impossible to see Napoleon without recalling several scenes from the film repertory. An unenlightened know-it-all might rave about the Odessa Steps and the innovative camera techniques in Barry Lyndon. The truth of the matter is that, "Abel did it first" might as well become a mantra in Film 101. Without ever achieving a level of even modest storytelling success, Napoleon manages to remain legendary on the strength of its imagery alone. In this way, the comparison of Gance to Eisenstein and Kubrick isn't far-fetched at all.Now, I must concede that some of the mystique of the film is lost on me since I have never seen it in a theater and was re-watching the film from a Laserdisc on a 27″ TV. Thus, the famous triptych at the end was about the size of my foot and the "overwhelming power" of the piece, as one critic puts it, becomes harder to receive. Nevertheless, that fact doesn't stop me from wanting to advocate (as loud as possible) for the release of this film. I'm about to be unenthusiastic about it, but it doesn't change the fact that it really is a chunk of boss filmmaking that crosses the road long before many others would.While the final triptych is certainly the most cited excerpt from the film, its best moments are undoubtedly on the other end. Napoleon begins with a short (meaning about 35 minutes in this context) series of scenes from Buonaparte's childhood. In depicting a large, organized snowball fight, we don't only learn of Buonaparte's precocity as a strategist, we get to play along. This segment, along with the following interpretation of Le Marseillais' proud beginnings, is the most organized and taut in the entire film. Slicing between moments of genuine chaos and big shots of Napoleon's face, the audience can do nothing but hold on for Dear Life. After the first 50 minutes of the film, I was thinking that if the pace held up, it would outrun virtually every multi-million dollar action movie ever produced. It didn't, but that doesn't overshadow the fact that there are portions of filmmaking bolder than your deepest imagination — even today. Segments remain modern and will for time to come. The breadth of setting and stylization is difficult to anticipate. The coordination alone is admirable.Gance tries to tell this story in a number of ways. Indeed, it is one almost told in faces. Close- up's litter the bulk of the film, populating the most placid and erratic moments. Even without genuine character motion and acting, Napoleon is still a testament to how much bare expression lives on the surface of the human face. Andy Warhol and a few others have learned to trust the face, but more filmmakers need to take this page from Gance's book and paste the shaky camera pages back in. Another mildly shocking element is the degree to which Gance decided to tint and expose the film. At times, the contrast and color is so intense that it is very literally difficult to understand the images. It's not subtle and it's not tasteful, but who said it had to be?The thing that knocks Napoleon down from A- to B is the substance — the meat. This argument has been made before and has been over-emphasized too much in criticism of the film. In fact, I wouldn't be nearly as upset about the storytelling if I didn't know that Gance was more than capable of sustaining a better narrative. As the opening of the second half proves, when he puts down his bag of tricks, the picture assumes a level of experience that is comparable to Intolerance and Birth of a Nation — you have to start working at it. Gance tells you that he's got the stuff. The scene where Napoleon sees Josephine's face in the globe and begins kissing it. When he begins to see the ghosts of the Reign of Terror. These are two brief moments of mature storytelling. But it's also TWO brief moments of mature storytelling out of about 2,000 possible. Unless I'm missing something (very possible), the general level of visual narrative is not high enough to sustain a 240+ minute film. Gance relies too heavily on flowery, descriptive intertitles and not enough on solid visual representation. If I'm willing to sit still for 5 hours, I want to travel. Not just drop my jaw. Of course, the counterargument would be that the dropping of the jaw must be the point and Gance probably didn't expect to get all 5 hours in the final cut. Great. I'm perfectly okay with getting WOW'ed for about 90-110 minutes. Longer does not mean better in Napoleon's universe. Which is why I find it legitimately surprising that so many cinephiles devote large segments of their lives to stretching out the picture. I know I'm being that guy. But the film mainly functions as an episodic treasure box. And treasure's they are! But, as a good friend says, "there's not enough there there."But no criticism can push away Napoleon's deserving status as a must-see piece of art. The first 50 minutes will match the excitement level of any action sequence you'll ever see and there are some passages that will make you want to leap out of your chair and holler. The triptych is orgiastic French grandeur of the highest order. Moments of the film are on par with The Big Parade in measure of pure cinematic and patriotic ecstasy that surely would have been overwhelming to see in a theater 90 years ago. It should be required viewing in Film 101 and "Abel did it first" should begin to enter the rotation.84.4
mccgarden
I thought I had entered a review, but I can not find it. . This movie came to Sacramento, California, as a premier in 1983 prior to my transferring to Germany. I do not know if it came with the new sound track, as I seem to recall that the piano down front was played, maybe only for the before the movie begins. I had difficulty with the costuming, as I was of the opinion that Josephine liked filmy dresses, so I thought the costuming was more 1890 than it should have been. But after watching the actors and actresses for a bit, the viewers get caught up into the beleiveability of each actor. One could only wonder what colorization would do for it. The final battle scenes were awe inspiring. The three screens tended to give a three dimensional effect, and let the audience be almost in the middle of the battle. As I recall in the write-up, the camera man tied his camera to a rope and spun it over his head, while on a horse to film those scenes. I do not understand why this film is not available to the public. I am unable to find a copy. Arne Sampe, Paul, Idaho,
guidon7
Firstly, let me say that I believe Abel Gance's Napoleon to be without question the greatest film of all time. Unfortunately I have not seen the longer version but it is my earnest wish that it become available in the future on DVD. However, to echo the general acclaim previously noted in these user comments on the merits of this unique film is not my purpose today.Instead, I would like to comment specifically regarding remarks above by *HARRY-76* regarding Napoleon Bonaparte: "barbarian....sick and warped mind in need of therapy while being institutionalized" and also the comment of *JAYBABB*: "Napoleon was a madman". I really wonder how deeply both of these film reviewers have actually delved into the persona of Napoleon the man and his life -- if at all -- or perhaps they have made their referenced opinions based on the film alone? Or maybe they are erroneously relying on the long standing joke about insane people believing they were Napoleon Bonaparte? That is a popular one, but an unfortunate one. The very real accomplishments of this man are far too extensive for me to go into here. I will note one or two of the more far-reaching events however. The Code Napoleon of 1804, which covered all of Napoleonic France, much of which is not only still in effect in modern day France, but also from which a number of our own U.S. civil laws are based. The Code Napoleon, conceived for the guidance and protection of French citizens, covered areas such as: Civil Rights of Citizens, Rights and Duties of Married Persons, Divorce, Paternal Power, Acquiring Property, Donations and Wills. All this, remarkably, was not created by a statesman known as a man of peace but produced under the aegis of an unquestionably talented warrior, while at the same time he was quite busy consolidating his dominion over most of the European continent. I might add here that while we all acknowledge the militarism of Bonaparte, he certainly had plenty of company in an era beset by European military conflict, even discounting his presence on the world stage. A common error here is that his actions needs to be seen in the context of his times, not of our time. Although his career was cut short before achieving his goal, his prophetic vision of a United Europe without borders while all within would be equal, would seem to be identical with the powerful movement we see today toward European unity 200 years later.While there was no testing as such in the 18th Century, Napoleon is universally considered today to be among those notables in history who were geniuses; this man with a brilliant mind who could dictate to three secretaries all at the same time, on three totally different subjects.I do not wish to take up too much space here with a subject which -- while I nevertheless find interesting personally -- I yet have the knowledge that it is not directly related to filmdom and IMDb, so I will therefore close. However I have a final question which I direct to both *HARRY-76* and*JAYBABB*, which is this: Assuming your criticism of Napoleon is based on that which is more publicized, his military career, I would be greatly interested to know if you also consider such figures as Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great and even a couple of home-grown Americans, Douglas MacArthur and George Patton, to be "madmen.....who should have been institutionalized"?
