NAPOLEON

There has been a long tradition of films about Napoleon, especially the silent film classic of 927 by Abel Gance with its split screen technique. Since then many stars have played Napoleon, including Marlon Brando (Desiree, 1954), and Rod Steiger, (Waterloo, 1970). He is a familiar historical figure. He is familiar cinema figure.

…which means that audiences will be bringing their own presuppositions about Napoleon to this interpretation, admiration for Napoleon and his leadership, especially in battle, intrigued curiosity about his ambitions and achievement, interest in the range of battles, no Trafalgar here, but Toulon, Austerlitz, Borodino and, of course, Waterloo.

There has been great admiration for the film. There has been some high criticism by those who feel they know Napoleon very well and are determined to highlight deficiencies in the writing by David Scarpa and in Ridley Scott’s direction. But, those caught up in the film, as was this reviewer, it is almost 3 hours of immersion in, firstly, the French Revolution and the execution of Marie Antoinette, the bloodthirsty crowds, the Republican independence; secondly, in the portrait of Napoleon himself: lowly from Corsica, skilled in battle, and tactics, perhaps, rather than overall strategies (which led to a number of victories but also to several downfalls, Moscow and Waterloo). And, thirdly, this immersion, lavish sets and decor, costumes of the period, as well as the close-ups of battle, cannon fire deafening, thunder of troops on horseback, the hand-to-hand combat make an impact.

There is also the question of the casting of Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon. Ridley Scott directed Phoenix as the Emperor in Gladiator, (2000 film), and the actor receiving an Oscar nomination. He has had a long career playing character actors, even to playing an older Jesus in the film, Mary Magdalene (2018 film), and winning an Oscar for playing Joker (and he will appear in the sequel). Phoenix is rather short, especially in comparison with Vanessa Kirby’s Josephine, somewhat squat, not exactly an oil painting (although there are some sequences where he and Josephine pose for the official painter, Jacques-Louis David).

As portrayed by the screenplay, Napoleon comes across as quite single-minded, ambitious and vain, straightforward in intentions, step-by-step tactics, rather humourless, infatuated with Josephine but very blunt in his dealings with her at times, especially sexually, and preoccupied with having an heir.

Most audiences will know what happens to Napoleon and the end, disgraced, after the trek back from Moscow, exiled to Elba, his immediate escape, the ambitions at Waterloo.. Unlike defeated heroes in plays and novels, Napoleon did not tragically commit suicide. Rather, he went to the faraway island of St Helena for six years. Overreaching ambition and its consequences.

Audiences prepared for a cinema re-interpretation of Napoleon will be interested. Those who have formed their ideas about Napoleon have emerged as quite dissatisfied. This reviewer saw and enjoyed the film on the IMAX screen – and Napoleon himself would have wanted IMAX, or a large cinema, rather than on streaming where he will eventually find a more permanent home (a bit like six years at St Helena after the vastness of his battles).

Reviewed by Fr. Peter Malone, MSC

Further info re NAPOLEAN

UK, 2023, 158 minutes, Colour.
Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirby, Tahar Rahim, Rupert Everett, Mark Bonnar,
Paul Rhys, Ludivine Sagnier, Sinead Cusack, Ian McNeice.
Directed by Ridley Scott.

A HIDDEN LIFE

A Review by Fr Peter Malone

US/Germany, 2019, 174 minutes, Colour.

August Diehl, Valerie Pachner, Maria Simon, Karin Neuhauser, Tobias Moretti, Ulrich Mathes, Matthias Schoenaerts, Franz Rogowski, Karl Markovics, Bruno Ganz, Michael Nuqvist.

Directed by Terrence Malick.

The title comes from a quotation, George Elliot in Middlemarch. It highlights the power of small and hidden lives, their power for good and its effect. The quotation rightly applies to the Austrian conscientious objector to his country’s involvement in World War II, to the oath of loyalty that each soldier was required to make to Adolf Hitler himself.

“..for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.”

This is the story of Franz Jagerstatter, the Austrian farmer who was prepared to go to prison, prepared to die for his convictions, the conscientious objector against Hitler and the war. While the film shows his Austrian Catholicism, his life of faith and devotion, the advice he seeks from the parish priest as well as from the Bishop, the screenplay does not name his Catholicism so explicitly. And, at the end, there is no indication that, in fact, Franz Jagerstatter was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007, a strong witness to the injustices of the war. Jagerstatter is the Catholic stance while Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Lutheran pastor, is the Protestant witness to anti-Nazi defiance.

This film, running five minute short of three hours (which some reviewers and audiences have found rather long, languorously long) has been directed by the celebrated Terrence Malick and so has received more extensive release.

While A Hidden Life does tell its story in a continuous linear screenplay, Malick has never been a conventional storyteller. While he has a deep admiration for Jagerstatter and his stances and his faith motivations leading to ultimate self-sacrifice, Malick is something of a visual poet. With Italian mountain locations standing in for Austria and Jagerstatter’s village of St Radegund, so much of the film, with his using widescreen lenses, invites wonder and contemplation. Jagerstatter comes from a beautiful natural world, lives in harmony with it is a farmer, but is prepared to leave it because of principle and conviction.

He is portrayed by German actor, August Diehl, who makes a convincing character. He is matched by Valerie Pachner as Fani, his wife,. We see their courtship, their marriage, having a child, the hard work in those beautifully-shot fields, with the mountain backgrounds. We see their life with other people in the village. We see them at church.

Perhaps this should have been mentioned earlier, but the opening minutes of the film have substantial and disturbing footage from the 1930s, Hitler and his entourage, public rallies, his speeches, the adoring public, the spirit of Heil Hitler. Obviously, this creates an initial atmosphere for this story. So, Franz goes to a neighbouring town for military training, bayonet practice, encountering a friend who is a conscientious objector. When Franz returns home, he is troubled, sharing this with Fani, but their becoming victims of derision by their fellows, being vilified, finding it difficult to sell their produce (though some sympathy from the few older women). Fani’s sister, unmarried, comes to live on the farm and help with the work but strong moral support. Frantz’s mother, hostile to Fani, also lives there.

It is no surprise when Franz is called up, refuses the salute and the oath, is imprisoned, interrogated, mocked, treated badly. Fani tries to organise a visit to him but is baffled by bureaucratic manipulation. However, the screenplay relies on excerpts from their many letters, declarations of conviction, loving support, spoken in voice-over by the couple.

A lot of the second part of the film is spent in prisons, especially with the transfer of Franz to Berlin, the range of prisoners there, the maltreatment, interrogations, torture, squalid cells, time in the yards, the witnessing of executions. There is the pathos of their not being allowed to touch when Fani, accompanied by her father, is eventually allowed to see her husband in Berlin.

And, it is jolting for the prisoners to witness executions, a guillotine, and jolting for audiences to watch the men going to be killed. Martyrdom is demanding.

Terrence Malick, making this film in his 70s, drawing on his expertise in filming even drastic circumstances with beauty, exploring the nobility of the human spirit, has given this 21^st-century world a witness to faith and heroism, for which we can be grateful.

Winner of the Ecumenical Award, Cannes, 2019.

Photo: German actor August Diehl and Austrian actress Valerie Pachner arrive for the screening of the film “A Hidden Life” at the 72nd edition of the Cannes Film Festival on May 19, 2019.

German actor August Diehl and Austrian actress Valerie Pachner arrive for the screening of the film “A Hidden Life” at the 72nd edition of the Cannes Film Festival on May 19, 2019.

CHRISTOPHE SIMON—AFP/Getty Images

 

See Also Plot, Cast, Production (Wikipaedia)

Questions for film discussion

STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER

Reviewed by Fr. Peter Malone, MSC

US, 2019, 142 minutes, Colour.

Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Adam Driver, Ian McDermid, Billy Dee Williams, Richard E. Grant, Domnhall Gleason, Keri Russell. And, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford.

Directed by J.J.Abrams.

Peace at last in the galaxies. And, it has taken 42 years to achieve this, three trilogies, many spin-offs for cinema and television, and billions of souvenir merchandise! Fans of Star Wars should be happy, mission accomplished.

World box office would seem to indicate that everyone is happy. However, checking the critics, digging into the opinions of the bloggers on the IMDb, apparently some of the fans in the over 5000 entries are not happy at all. Condemnations galore. But, there was one writer who suggested that they all sit back, relax, watch the film instead of being on the edge of their seat to note every flaw, cataloguing every moment they disapproved of!

This reviewer remembers well the press preview in 1977 of Star Wars, excitement, off into the galaxies, off into another universe. It was pop mythmaking, a blend of comic strip adventures and characters with an enthusiasm for creating this new world. And, of course, there was The Force – and, glad to say, it is still with this final film.

This reviewer would probably fail a test if there were an examination on all the details of the three trilogies. But, that does not matter. This is a review of simply sitting in the cinema, watching what is put before us, surrendering to it, knowing it is not a perfect film (but what is!), accepting it for what it is rather than what obsessive loyalty might demand it to be.

That said, we focus on the character of Rey, introduced in Episode VII, a heroic character who is destined for leadership and greatness. We have followed her exploits, accepted Daisy Ridley as a Jedi leader, watched her being trained by Princess, now General, Leia, inspired by Luke Skywalker when she discovers him in his hermitage exile. We have seen her as an outsider, a wandering scavenger, teaming up with a sometimes-reckless pilot, Poe Dameron (a smiling Oscar Isaac) and a former storm trooper, Finn, (an earnest John Boyega). And, Chewbacca enjoyably back in grunt and action.

This time there are more problems, flights to different planets, friends and making friends of old enemies, technology to be discovered, expeditions, Chewbacca to be rescued, the group rounded up on the major starship, commanded by Richard E. Grant, aided by the obsequious spy (Domnhall Gleeson) and then off to find the wreckage of a vast spacecraft, immersed in a pounding sea and beyond-giant waves.

We are fortunate to have some stock film of Carrie Fisher, so she is able to be worked into the plot, desperate, preparing to die, wanting to be reconciled to her son Ben, who in previous films surrendered to the Dark Side and became Kylo Ren (Adam Driver). He confronts Rey, plenty of laser sabre duels, Rey and her appeal to him, an invitation to emerge from the dark.

And, of course, we are very pleased when who should appear to his son but old Han Solo, Harrison Ford pleading with his son. And, as Rey retreats from all the troubles, who should appear to her and urge her on but Luke Skywalker, Mark Hamill himself. And, emerging from the past, Billy Dee Williams as Lando Calrissian helping the cause.

The revelation of the film, which practically everybody knew before they went in, is that Ian McDermid is back as the Emperor Palpatine, devious dictator who has been manipulating the characters, determined that the Sith should defeat the Jedi, wanting Rey, now discovered as his granddaughter, to kill him, absorb his power, assume the throne.

So, the final Star Wars are the battles against the Emperor and his followers, his defeat, Ben emerging into the light and self-sacrificing, the Allies all gathering and prepared to follow Rey – and an old woman at the end asks her for who she is. She pauses for a long time and claims for herself the name of Skywalker. QED.

See also: Casts, Production, etc. (wikipedia)

Questions for film discussion

1917

Reviewed by Fr. Peter Malone, MSC

George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman, Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch, Richard Madden, Andrew Scarborough, Daniel Mays.

Directed by Sam Mendes.

1917 received a number of nominations for best film of 2019. It is a memento of World War I, a re-creation of life and war in the trenches, a tribute to the men. The stories were handed down by members of the Mendes family and writer-director, Sam Mendes, has gathered them into this screenplay, bringing to life the stories and the traditions in his family.

The action takes place from afternoon to night to the following morning. It is focused on two young men, George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman, seen initially on a sunny afternoon, some moments of lazing, before they are asked to report to the general (Colin Firth) and given a significant, if desperate, mission. They are to cross the fields, now abandoned by the Germans, make their way to a town and find some squads ready to attack the Germans – but to warn them that this is a trap and not to advance. The two young men are very earnest, accept the mission, and the film follows them. Time is limited and we wonder how the mission could possibly be accomplished given the dangers.

The cinematography is a tribute to veteran British photographer, Roger Deakins. The film seems to be seamless, like a single take, editing not obvious at all. Which gives the film strong continuity, immersing the audience in the mission of the two young men. For those observing the sections which are single takes, it is fascinating and intriguing to watch the directing, the movement of the camera, behind the soldiers, veering around, seeing them from the front, episodes which stop them and enable the camera to do close-ups and then send them on their journey again.

 And, the re-creation of the trenches (long, extensive, filled with men waiting, often just glimpsed as the two young men hurry past) is vivid. As is the wasted countryside, wires, explosion craters, abandoned buildings, interiors, rats. There are rivers, barns in the countryside, planes always flying overhead and a German plane crashing. There is darkness in the ruins of a local town. Certainly an immersion in the war experience.

There have been many traditions of war but World War I certainly highlighted the nature of trench warfare, British and Germans not far distant from each other, the guns and weapons, the dread immediacy of going over the top. (And with this, there are memories of other World War I films, Paths of Glory, King and Country, and the striking ending of Peter Weir’s Gallipoli.)

The two young actors remind the audience of the young British men, in their numbers, sent across the channel, fighting on the fields of Flanders, severe injuries, deaths.

Some senior British actors have almost-cameo roles as some of the commanders the two young men encounter along the way, from Colin Firth’s general, to Andrew Scott, to Mark Strong, to Benedict Cumberbatch as the officer in charge of the impending attack.

It is now over 100 years since World War I. It is remembered in the context of being the “war to end all wars” soon became a futile claim. In just over 20 years the world was plunged again into worldwide conflict.

War? Critique of war? Anti-war? 1917 contributes to all of these perspectives.

See Also: Cast, Plot, Producation (Wikipaedia)

THE IRISHMAN

US, 2019, 210 minutes, Colour.
Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, Ray Romano, Jesse Plemons, Anna Paquin, Stephen Graham, Bobby Cannavale, Harvey Keitel, Jack Huston, Paul Ben-Victor, Barry Primus, Gary Basaraba.
Directed by Martin Scorsese.

With Director Martin Scorsese turning 77, it might have been thought that this could be his final film. Not so, not at all. He has several themes in the pipeline.

But, at 210 minutes, with some of his favourite actors over the decades, this is certainly a landmark Scorsese film. It takes him back into American crime and political history. It takes him back to the Kennedy era, the election of John F. Kennedy and conflicting influence of powers from Kennedy’s father to the Mafia, and the hostility, especially to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, of the Teamsters union, led by Jimmy Hoffa. The action continues into the Nixon era, campaign politicking, Watergate… Later sequences occur in the 1990s and into the beginning of the 21st-century. Almost a half-century of American history.