Pluskylang Great Film overall

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Jape0808 85 years ago was released a film that was visually outstanding and completely unbelievable and that film was Napoleon. This great spectacle was achieved by completely new camera techniques, color and really ambitious crowd scenes. The film was an instant masterpiece. This was proved when the film was restored in 1970s and the film was as good as it was 50 years earlier.I must say I saw that Napoleon had become a victim of the fang of time even though many people don't want to confess it. Bad picture quality and fastened scenes made this film a bit boring in some places (particularly Revolution scenes). Another thing that showed Napoleon's age was the music. The film had some five pieces that were repeated all over again. Even though they were pretty good, they began to test my nerves after 3 hours.Even then the weaver may see what he wants and if one concentrates enough these faults don't bother. At times I forgot the the outlook and just watched great art direction, acting and great story. The film offers a very deep look into Napoleon's early life, a period rarely talked today.Ironic as it is this film would be terrible if it was released today because it would be too talkative and slow. This is something why Gance's Napoleon is a good and very important film. It benefited the whole film industry by introducing technology that was superior even when compared to 50s. What I expected was a boring film that was too ambitious but it turned out that I was wrong. The film is extremely potent and should be more known. Because of a dated look and weak moments this film receives a score of seven.

Cooper Stimson The following is the text of the program notes written for a screening of Napoleon by the Dartmouth Film Society, 24 February 2010.In the popular consciousness, Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of the French and President-cum-King of Italy, is remembered as a man of small stature but massive influence (although he was of average height for his time). Conversely, the film Napoleon vu par Abel Gance, as it is properly titled, is a film of massive proportions but seemingly little influence (note the modifier). Its full, gargantuan, 340-minute, 16,800 ft triptych glory has been screened only a few times. Even its triumphant premiere in Paris in April 1927 was in the form of a truncated version; a month later, a private showing of the full cut was met with even greater accolades, but afterward the film quickly spiraled into obscurity, hastened by a massively delayed American release of an even more greatly truncated version. This delay let not only other large- scale epics but also talkies hit the market first, diluting Napoleon's impact. Luckily, like its subject, Napoleon would live to return from exile... eventually.Even though it was seen as "just another movie" and was a financial disaster upon American release, Napoleon left an indelible mark on the art of film-making. Decades ahead of its time, the film pioneered many techniques that would eventually become standard, including the use of widescreen. Always eager to break the restrictions of the frame, Abel Gance tasked engineer Andre Debrie with developing a system for wider- than-normal shots. The outcome was an impressive technique dubbed Polyvision: as the last reel began, curtains rose, revealing a screen three times as wide as normal, or a triptych, with to this day unprecedented aspect ratio of 4:1 (widescreen movies today are generally either 1.85:1 or 2.39:1). A sweeping panoramic view of the ragged army fills a field of vision wider than can be taken in at once; Bonaparte enters the scene and shouts "Attention!" but unlike his soldiers, the audience needs no such urging.With his editing and camera techniques, Gance foreshadowed the cinematography of many a modern action film. In an effort to immerse the audience in the battle sequences, Gance made extensive use of hand-held cameras, and edited his footage in an idiosyncratic, rapid, rhythmic style, sifting through roughly 250 miles of film for the perfect take. At the time, celluloid was not marked by shot or take as it is today; to differentiate one take from the next, an editor would examine each frame closely with a magnifying glass, looking for clues like blinks or shifts of light. "The whole thing is musical, of course... The whole film is cut to a rhythm," Gance said of the editing; in service of this rhythm he cut miles of footage, including sequences shot in first-person with chest mounted cameras, color sequences, 3-D versions of the triptychs.The American release was a multivalent disaster. Unhappy with the length of the film, the American company MGM made drastic cuts. The triptychs were trimmed, only the middle thirds remaining, and the film was entirely re-edited, using second- and third-camera footage, alternate takes, and mixing shots from one scene into another with reckless abandon; dialogue was at times completely rewritten, often with changed tone and meaning. As a final insult, the American edit ended with Bonaparte declaring his goal to be "A United States of Man," followed by an American flag and an image of George Washington. Where the original film had brought audiences to their feet and critics to apoplectic rapture, this incarnation was met with boredom and hostility. Many theaters dropped it after a few days, some even paying money to not show it. Two days at one theater in Florida grossed only $77.35; Napoleon was a flop.Decades later, Gance was still working on Napoleon; in 1935 he converted it for sound (inventing stereophonic audio for this purpose), and in 1970 he released another edit; both times he shot additional footage to add in, and both times the film lost something of its original appeal, the definitive print being long forgotten. Then, in 1979 filmmaker and film historian Kevin Brownlow painstakingly reconstructed the original version, including the triptychs, and premiered it at the Telluride Film Festival, in the Abel Gance Open Air Cinema (constructed specifically for this film), with Gance in the audience. It was a resounding success; half a century after the fact, Gance and Napoleon received the recognition they had been denied.As Bonaparte was in fact taller than reckoned, so too was his biopic's influence greater than it initially seemed. Poetry critic Edmund Wilson wrote of TS Eliot's The Waste Land that it "was dropped into the waters of contemporary verse without stirring more than a few ripples. But when two or three years had passed, it was found to stain the whole sea." Napoleon vu par Abel Gance is much the same; an initially ignored work which has come to be recognized as a masterpiece.Cooper Stimson, 2/21/2010

dbdumonteil I'm the first French user to write about the best French movie of the silent era.Even a poster from Slovenia wrote about it (he or she had a French relative).But no French .Part of the reason can be found in the fact that it has become almost impossible for the French to see Gance's work in its native land;my copy is the Coppola version,with English subtitles ,which is a bit amazing all the same.Believe it or not,it is never screened on French TV:about ten years ago ,it showed a digest "Napoleon et LA revolution" which essentially consisted of extracts of roughly part one;it's not available on DVD ,it has not been shown in movie theaters for years ;a lot of people know the existence of this film,few have seen a decent version,and less have seen the original version ,with Gance's dialogs - a work always loses something when translated in another language- The Coppola version is quite satisfying ,Carmine Coppola's music really enhances the phenomenal pictures and displays a good knowledge of the French culture:the original music often segues into French hymns (of course "La Marseillaise" which was written in 1792,but also 'Le Chant du Départ " as well as English anthems ("God save the king" and "rule Britannia" );revolutionary songs ("Ah ca Ira " -"Chanson des Sans -Culottes" - "La Carmagnole " ) are also present.Coppola sr also included French folk songs such as "Malborough S'En Va t En Guerre" or the obscure "La Chanson du Carillonneur" which is heard during the siege of Toulon .This "drummer song" which I sang at school (and never heard of afterwards)has several versions,one of them is about the appalling army of king Louis (I cannot tell which one" whose soldiers would bravely serve if he paid them well;that's really a smart idea to have included it in the soundtrack.On the other hand "Auprès de Ma Blonde" ,which Gance had selected to enhance the final on the "Triple Ecran" in Italy did not make the Coppola score.Technically,it's stating the obvious to write that Gance was very advanced ,using his camera in a way most (and in France all of them) did not start using before the talkies when they did.Most of basic filming precepts came into as being innovations on particular Gance techniques .He had begun experimentation long before 1927:the scene when Danton's,Robespierre 's and Saint-Just 's ghosts come back to "inspire " the hero to help lead the French on their way to freedom (which was a naive idea if you know -and of course you do-what Bonaparte will become later)directly comes from the wake of the dead from "J'Accuse" (1917).To think that this director used the split screen (scenes in the snow) and the triple screen (Italy).Nonetheless,the most impressive moment is the hero alone on his boat tossed by the raging sea ,while l'Assemblée is caught in the whirlwind too;a scene which was borrowed from Victor Hugo's "Quatre Vingt Treize " (93)"Napoleon" cast a giant shadow on the rest of Gance's work ;his two other silent major oeuvres "La Roue" and "j'Accuse" are still highly thought of,but it is considered polite to ignore most of his talkies.And he never stopped trying ;his first talkie was a sci fi movie ("La Fin du Monde" 1930) whereas almost all his colleagues stayed in the filmed stage production style.He continued his experiments with "Un Grand Amour de Beethoven" where he invented the "subjective" sound .He often partially failed for lack of means : for his remake of "J'Accuse " (1938) he had to use shots of "La Fin du Monde" .But until the very end he never produced anything mediocre:his last work "Cyrano and D'Artagnan" was in verse.If someone tells you there was nothing interesting in the FRench cinema before Bresson or- yuk !-Godard ,set him down with a DVD player for a screening of "Napoleon".It will blow his mind.About the actors Albert Dieudonné would play Napoleon again in Roger Richebé's fine comedy "Madame Sans -Gene" (1941)Gance told the young Suzanne Charpentier who played Violine (Toulon segment) she made him think of Poe's "Annabelle Lee" ;and she became Annabella .She would marry Tyrone Power.

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"?