Ridley Scott has been countering reasoned criticism of the historical accuracy in his film Napoleon. “Excuse me, mate, were you there? No?” he is reported as saying in several variations. “Well, shut the fuck up then.”<\/p>\n
There is a bit of me that can admire that because criticism is easy — I’ve been a critic before, I look like I’m about to be in the next couple of paragraphs — and making films is hard. <\/p>\n
Only… no. Scott does seem to have had no interest in accuracy, but that appears to be less some new disregard for limitations, it’s his long-standing disinterest in the script. I cannot find this quote so I am possibly making it up, but I seem to remember Scott saying something along the lines of how he could make a great film out of a sock. <\/p>\n
It would look brilliant, no question, but to me, it would still be a sock.<\/p>\n
Looking brilliant will not hold me for the 158 minutes running time of Napoleon, and most definitely not for the 210 minutes of the promised director’s cut. True, that extended version reportedly includes more of Empress Josephine’s story, and actor Vanessa Kirby has said “I read every book I possibly could about her,” so as long as writer David Scarpa was also up for research, maybe it’s more accurate.<\/p>\n
Yet I’m not wedded to historical accuracy, I’m wedded to making the best story possible. It’s just that if you don’t give a shit about the accuracy, don’t pretend it doesn’t matter. Write a new story instead.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Ridley Scott has been countering reasoned criticism of the historical accuracy in his film Napoleon. “Excuse me, mate, were you … Continue reading