Napoleon and the movie with Bellerophon

Chestcutter

Chestcutter

Joined
Sep 12, 2022
Messages
229
Points
213

Location
Geelong Australia
I had the pleasure of seeing the movie by Ridley Scott of Napoleon, Emperor of France.

There are many great scenes in the movie of the great ships of the 18th century, including a scene on the Bellerophon when Napoleon was being sent into exile by the Duke of Wellington.

IMG_0371.jpeg

Lots of great details in the ships.

I recommend the movie too.
 
Last edited:
I came across a review on Youtube that called it a historic hit piece on Napoleon, portraying him as weak, ineffective, lacking charisma, and cowardly. And also too much time spent "humping Josephine" and getting cuckolded, not enough time explaining how he managed to inspire his men and get his enemies to switch sides. Ridley Scott apparently also told historians who criticized his work to "f--- off".

Link to Youtube video


Would you say his review is accurate? I was looking forward to this film, but I am not so sure any more ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice scene of the interior of HMS Victory which was used to portray Bellerophon. Unfortunately, the film is rife with historical inaccuracies. Two examples; Wellington and Napoleon meeting onboard Bellerophon. Never happened, the two never met, anywhere. The second, French artillery striking the pyramids, never happened. Oh, and a third; large numbers of Russian and Austrian soldiers and horses drowning after falling through ice on a very large and deep lake and river. Never happened, there were a few ponds at the battle site and some troops went through the ice. Scott also spends too much portraying Napoleon as odd sexually as well as a cuckold as well as showing his mother arranging a sexual encounter for him. Nowhere in the historical record does that appear. Some decent special effects but that's it.
 
Excellent topic.....

Small clarification, the HMS Bellerophon is the ship which transferred Napoleon from the island of Aix (Atlantic coast of France) where the emperor surrendered to the English, and Plymouth.
The ship which then took Napoleon to the island of St Helena was HMS Northumberland.
 
i have read the billy ruffian , by David cordingly,, i live near by the Greenwhich Maritime Museum, spend countless hours in the archives and being French ( but very passionate about both english and French Navy, build log, hms victory 1/72,le superbe, le soleil royal, royal sovereign, vanguard, and bellerophon, ocean , la belle poule, bellona.from zhl, la reale de France and few more ) I will have to say ridley scott movie is massively disappointing, great movie for sure , but don't bother thinking about accuracy both napoleon and nelson where both genius , but napoleon was not so much focus on the navy, which cause the downfall at Trafalgar if the french seaman had spend as much time at sea( french were able to desmebarque at port , (British kept the crew in lockdown in the ship due to fear of desertions ) and followed the same harsh training then the British had in place, things would had been different
 
maddog harry said:
I will have to say ridley scott movie is massively disappointing, great movie for sure , but don't bother thinking about accuracy both napoleon and nelson where both genius , but napoleon was not so much focus on the navy, which cause the downfall at Trafalgar if the french seaman had spend as much time at sea( french were able to desmebarque at port , (British kept the crew in lockdown in the ship due to fear of desertions ) and followed the same harsh training then the British had in place, things would had been different
Click to expand...
I share your analysis.
Napoleon completely abandoned the navy.
In fact, to be exact and fair, the work of demolishing the French navy began with the revolution, with 2/3 of the officer corps having been dismissed for being noble.
It took several successive reforms between 1789 and 1795 for the system of training and recruitment of officers to be redesigned.
Thus, during the Battle of Aboukir, 1798, the French navy was not ready and even in 1805, during the Battle of Trafalgar. 10 years is not enough to acquire the necessary skills. The navy is much more complex than the army (at least at that time).
This prevented the invasion of the British Isles, Napoleon having lost the means necessary to protect the landing fleet.
 
Mike52 said:
Nice scene of the interior of HMS Victory which was used to portray Bellerophon. Unfortunately, the film is rife with historical inaccuracies. Two examples; Wellington and Napoleon meeting onboard Bellerophon. Never happened, the two never met, anywhere. The second, French artillery striking the pyramids, never happened. Oh, and a third; large numbers of Russian and Austrian soldiers and horses drowning after falling through ice on a very large and deep lake and river. Never happened, there were a few ponds at the battle site and some troops went through the ice. Scott also spends too much portraying Napoleon as odd sexually as well as a cuckold as well as showing his mother arranging a sexual encounter for him. Nowhere in the historical record does that appear. Some decent special effects but that's it.
Click to expand...
You're right on the money on the movie's historical inaccuracies. In defense of the director, however, the movie is a fictional drama only based on the story of Old Bony, so he doesn't have to be exact if it's considered fiction and not a biographical movie. The movie left me a little on the "Meh" side and I'd give it a C+ for the action scenes, even though they are inaccurate (but fun watching Napoleon leading a cavalry charge at Waterloo that never actually happened.) There's a 2002 mini-series on Napoleon with John Malkovich as Talleyrand that is much better and more factual.
 
Recusant said:
ou're right on the money on the movie's historical inaccuracies. In defense of the director, however, the movie is a fictional drama only based on the story of Old Bony, so he doesn't have to be exact if it's considered fiction and not a biographical movie. The movie left me a little on the "Meh" side and I'd give it a C+ for the action scenes, even though they are inaccurate (but fun watching Napoleon leading a cavalry charge at Waterloo that never actually happened.) There's a 2002 mini-series on Napoleon with John Malkovich as Talleyrand that is much better and more factual.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the film and I wasn't aware of this scene.
It is indeed symbolic but what is ironic is that in Waterloo, Napoleon suffered from serious hemorrhoids...
Try riding a horse in these conditions......
It just goes to show that the future of the world sometimes depends on the details...
 
Boo-hoo-hoo to the maker of this video. Everyone goes to movies for their own personal reasons. Myself I go to a movie to be entertained. If I want historical accuracy I will read a book or seek other avenues. One must remember movies made in Hollywood have their own spin put on them for the sake of box office receipts.
Too each his own.
 
Don’t even get anybody started on the inaccuracies of that movie…
as mentioned earlier, it is historical fiction…
one has to wonder about the charge scene in Russia, where Napoleon suddenly has switched from his usual colonel of the guard outfit into an embroidered general suit. I bet it was intended to be used earlier in the movie and has been conveniently cannibalised.
as to the Bellerophon scene, yes, it is victory’s great cabin, but why, oh why did they CGI a three decker in the outside view, when a proper 74 was not more hassle?
intensive use of the old Grand Turk, now “Le Francais“, and so many scenes on Malta.
 
Stutzi said:
I haven't seen the film and I wasn't aware of this scene.
It is indeed symbolic but what is ironic is that in Waterloo, Napoleon suffered from serious hemorrhoids...
Try riding a horse in these conditions......
It just goes to show that the future of the world sometimes depends on the details...
Click to expand...
I believe I read once that Napoleon didn't ride horses well because he never finished his training. He preferred Arabians and Barbs because the were lower and easier to mount but even then looked awkward on a horse.
 
Recusant said:
I believe I read once that Napoleon didn't ride horses well because he never finished his training. He preferred Arabians and Barbs because the were lower and easier to mount but even then looked awkward on a horse.
Click to expand...
Napoleon never fought on horseback, he was an artillery officer, not a horseman.
Of course he rode a horse but to travel, not to fight.
It is a legend created from scratch by Napoleon himself, notably by means of a painting painted by the painter David. See more explanations here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Crossing_the_Alps
We often forget that Napoleon invented modern propaganda. It was damn effective, the proof continues to work more than 200 years later...
 
Leave it to Hollyweird & a left-winger like Ridley Scott to make a movie chock-full of inaccuracies. Some nice scenery, but that's about it. Don't take anything about Napoleon in this waste of film seriously.
Rick1011
 
rick robbins said:
Leave it to Hollyweird & a left-winger like Ridley Scott to make a movie chock-full of inaccuracies. Some nice scenery, but that's about it. Don't take anything about Napoleon in this waste of film seriously.
Rick1011
Click to expand...
Really? You had to make this thread political? Sad. PS: They don't use film anymore.
 
Recusant- What's sad is you misunderstood my point. There was nothing redeeming in this flick,& VERY little historically correct. Sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities. P.S. Sorry for using a cliche, such as the word "film".
 
rick robbins said:
Recusant- What's sad is you misunderstood my point. There was nothing redeeming in this flick,& VERY little historically correct. Sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities. P.S. Sorry for using a cliche, such as the word "film".
Click to expand...
What was to misunderstand? Not to drag out a political debate on this thread, but what you stated was clearly a political barb against the director and Hollywood. Additionally, my sensibilities are no more delicate than your own. I just choose not to make offensive slurs that others might find unsuitable for the forum I'm writing in. I found the movie somewhat entertaining, giving it a C+, which isn't all that high. You found "nothing redeeming" in it. That's your opinion, for what it's worth.
 
SAVE YOUR MONEY!
My wife and I went last Tuesday ($6.00 deal night) besides the inaccuracies, it was long,which is fine - but to us, so many sub stories were started and never given a defined ending....
His stomach issues weren't mentioned at all which he died from. The last scene has Napoleon talking with some children and then "tipping"over sideways which signaled the end of the movie. We, and many other couples just looked at each other as if to say " WTF?".
I did enjoy the battle scenes though, gave a sense of the era....
Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top