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?”

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ok but it seems some of the complaints were that it’s anti French. My argument there is that the French were indeed the bad guys in this period in history, and so was Napoleon, so no shit the movie is anti French of the period.

    • emergencyfood
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In that period (the Napoleonic Wars), the French were definitely the lesser of the many evils in Europe. Their opponents were the united nobility of Europe, and while Napoleon ultimately failed to end it, he weakened it to a point from which it would never recover. One could also argue that many South American countries were able to gain independence because the French weakened the Spanish and Portugese monarchies.

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

        You’re saying that as if Napoleon’s plan was to liberate and bring social progress. It wasn’t. The things that the Napoleonic wars brought about weren’t done by him on purpose, he was just out to conquer and be emperor

        • emergencyfood
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Everyone else was also motivated by the lust for power. At least Napoleon was more or less meritocratic, and his actions brought about some progress. Hence ‘lesser of the many evils’.