"Napoleonic Mini-Series" Topic

Could it be…?

link

Wow!

Cool! Hope it gets made!

If he follows Kubrick's plans it could be brilliant. I doubt the battles will be as big as a cinema film but…….

Can't picture many to play Napoleon….

David Suchet?
Ian McNeice?

The script is available for reading on line somewhere. My recollection is that the battle scenes were minimal, but still, it would be great to see this made into a movie/mini-series.

I have read quite a bit about this film and have the script and the set of all the notes Kubrick made with photos of the uniforms he wanted. These were to be very detailed and accurate for the near actors and extras and 'printed' ones for those in the background. They looked quite good and the script did include some battles. Either way, I'd love to see how Speilberg does 'Horse and Musket' (Lincoln is magnificent, but does not count).

But it's going to be made by Spielberg – will the Imperial Guard all be armed with radios?

"But it's going to be made by Spielberg – will the Imperial Guard all be armed with radios?"

Yes, and when the middle guard does it's finnal attack on the british at waterloo, the british jump up and say BOO! and they run away.

Sorry, but where is that coming from. I've always thought that Spielberg does history well. The cavalry charge in 'War Horse' is one of the best I've seen and his eye for historical detail and national balance seems first class.

I'm not sure Spielberg does history very well. He does sentimentality very, but history?

Hm, I don't feel the Napoleonic wars are very sentimental, except for the band of brother aspect between soldiers, there wasn't that much senimentalty, Napoleon was more sosiopatic then senimental, so I don't see how any movie centerd on him would be sentimental.

But it's going to be made by Spielberg – will the Imperial Guard all be armed with radios?

No, but they will only be stopped at Waterloo by the timely intervention of a flight of P-51s.

P-51s Guard busters, says Captian miller of the 52nd light infantry before he tels Private Ryan, earn this.

If Peter Jackson can turn 50 horsemen in to the charge of the Rohirrim then I am sure a few extras can be turned into actual battalions and squadrons.

Artilleryman:

I think they are referring to the scene in ET when the government men in black, was edited to be carrying radios instead firearms. But then there was plenty of firearms in "Saving Private Ryan" and "War Horse."

I too thought the charge scene in "War Horse" was as good as ever been done. Didn't turn out so good for the British.

I doubt there are very many battle scenes which is what I am interested in. I wish he would focus on one battle. A remake of "Waterloo" is in order or "Borodino" perhaps?

What I understood the story was, that Kubrick was well in to the planning stages when "Waterloo" came out. He didn't see any point in proceeding.

Napoleon led one of the most remarkable lives in history.

After 200 years of Tyrant! Tyrant! Tyrant! from the Anglophiles a sympathetic history would be appreciated. And Spielberg is just the guy to make Napoleon sympathetic.

Anyone can do battles. The quesdtion is, who will play Pauline?

Bob Coggins

I believe he stopped as Waterloo was a flop. If it had been a smash hit he'd probably been able to finish it.

A few minutes ago, Fox radio news reported the Napoleon mini series is being made as if it were a fact.

Bob Coggins

Many of the cries of Tyrant! Tyrant! Tyrant! come from those who are anything but Anglophiles. Still, why let reality get in the way of your Anglophobia? I do wonder what trauma led you to be so twisted in your views.

You don't to have an Anglophobia to want a balanced story on the life of Bonaparte. Just an ability to see through the nationalistic propaganda (and rightfully so for a period of war), but to maintain the outrage two hundred years later is a bit much. What is beyond the pale is take what on the face of it seems like a narrow view & result to insults. It has been said many times but "Insults are the last refuge of a scoundrel or the out argued."

Still. Anglophobic fantasies aside. It might be good.

Band of brothers was great, Speilbergs episodes had a little cheesiness to them though. If it starts from his youth and follows through his early revolutionary career… Could be worth watching. I hope they include the seige of Toulon in it, and him gunning down the mob, Marengo will have to be in I'm sure. And Austerlitz .. Moscow, Leipzig and Lingly and Waterloo will all have to feature in it at some point. Though I doubt it will be extensive battle scenes for his later career highs and lows in his youth hell be in the sharp end a bit more so they will need to show that.

I hope they avoid the Sharpe 50 man battalions. Though with Speilbergs budget I sure they can CGI anything.

It would be great and could wake up a napoleonic trend in Hollywood which I for one would like.
Regarding Ratisbon's comments, like them or not, but he is right. Napoleon has been much maligned, and happily put into the "merciless dictator" bunch, with a merry lack of insight.
Truth is that Napoleon's Empire was a hallmark in history, and it brought modern administration and legislation to many more than a few places. Guess it is not very funny to find out that British playing in the whole affair was for the worst of everybody else involved.

I was able to download a copy of Kubrick's screenplay (PDF). It makes an interesting & tempting read.

Available from here PDF link

Strangely, there seems to be a higher percentage of Napoleonophiles in Britain and the US than in France.

Everytime I vist France there is one more Napoleonophobe though ;-)

Wait – a phobia is an irrational fear or hatred. In that case I'm just aware of what he did to satisfy his ego. That is enough to dislike the man.

Not saying he is the only or worst, but he is hardly a shining light of how to behave in public.

pas de charge,

Heavens, I'm part English, Irish and German. My family was Church of Ireland and I am an Episcopalian or was till the church discovered communism. I don't dislike Britain some of my best friends are British. Indeed I'm picking up Duncan Macfarlane, the former owner/editor of WI, today and weather permitting we're travelling to Cold Wars together.

It's not that I dislike the British it's that when it comes to their enemies they are mostly hypocrites. They call Napoleon a tyrant yet replaced him with a true tyrant. They claim to have saved Spain from the Ogre then undertook to restore a tyrant worse than the Ogre to the throne. That they paid France to do it is just too Perfidious Albion.

Napoleon was no more, indeed much less a tyrant than George and his government, or the other kings and Emperors on the continent. Tyrants who ruled so poorly they caused rebellions in 1830 and 48. Tyrants who were given the green light by Britain to subjugate Italy resulting in tens of thousands of dead during the wars for Italian liberation.

It's just that Napoleon's desire to control the continent, when last seen France is located on the continent, clashed with Britain's geopolitical aims, when last seen Britain was not on the European continent.

The point Britian had the habit of meddling in other's affairs becuse they didn't conform with her geopolitical aims. In 1812 it was the US. In the 1850s it was Russia. In the late 19th and early 20th Century it was Germany. Well Europe was what Britain made it and when Britian's creation turned on her, millions died in WWI and the US had to bail-out Britain and her Allies only to be left holding the bag when Britain and France instituted a dictat which guaranteed WWII which again required the US had to bail Britain out.

Yet it's Napoleon who Britain claims is the tyrant, though I cannot see how if he had remained in power Europe could have wound up in a worse position than Britain's policies placed it.

Bob Coggins

And that was a most wonderfully one-sided and biased rant blaming Britain for all the ills of Europe. You really should take off those glasses; they seem to have some distortions in the lenses. Doing so might prevent you posting such utter garbage.

pas de charge,

Thanks, for being extemporaneous,I liked it.

For one who defends a nation whose military can fit into Wembly, you certainly are fiesty.

It's easy to call names, the British call Napoleon a tyrant, and in that tradition you write what I wrote is garbage. Where is your evidence? Refute it, don't dispute it.

Meamwhile, I'm off to Cold Wars with my British friend Duncan. You have a week to ocme up with an argument.

Be seeing you!

Bob Coggins

It's not the size it what you do with it Bob…

"tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos), in its modern English usage, is a ruler of a cruel and oppressive character who is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, or one who has usurped sovereignty." That's your boy.

every serving or retired member of the French armed forces I have ever asked has agreed that Napoleon was a tyrant who won power through a military coup, so its hardly an 'anglophile' position to agree with that.

Some of us forget that good things like the Code Napoleon and his role as an heroic liberator to the ancient regimes of europe (especially Italy) happened while he was first consul (or merely as a rather presumptuous general).

the bad stuff really starts once he becomes Emperor, it all changes.

so I'm with Beethoven on that.

As for the movie, I just hope Spielberg reads enough good books on Napoleonic tactics, and cuts out the exploding cannonballs and men running about all over the place like commandos. At least its not Oliver Stone doing 'Nam again, Man'

having just finished Lincoln, he might just be in the mood for something exciting, as he does tend to alternate moods with films, but I would rule out Kubrik's influence other than a general outline of what will be covered, and maybe some of the better lines.

Can't belive I'm dragged into this, but you are compearing Napoleon? an absolute monarch/dictator to britian and king george? You know britian the only country major country in europe that had anything close to democracy? the only country outside of the US to have free press? While napoleon controlled all press in France and the countries he had controll over? Napoleon that had a secret police that "took care of" all that apossed him? Napoleon that kidnapped and had a french aristocrat murded because he thought it would be good power play?

Napoleon that orderd the massacre of a whole garrison in Syria just to show off against a Ottoman general?

By the way, Britan was alot easier on Boney then most of the rest of europe, why did you think he surrened to the british? i knew that if prussia got their hands on him, they would lynch him from the nearest tree.

Britian had not been ravaged by war as the rest of europe was, so they could be partly neutral, Britian called him Boney, the rest of europe called him the ogre, tyrant and monster.

Ratisbon,

Size is not everything, quality is also important. If you had an argument, I might be bothered developing a counter argument. As it is, all that you have is an utterly bizarre view of European history. You never miss an opportunity to show your Britophobia so go and have fun at Cold Wars and maybe buy yourself a decent book on European history while you are there:).

A few minutes ago, Fox radio news reported the Napoleon mini series is being made as if it were a fact

Fox News reporting speculation as fact? Surely not!

Did Fox report that Napoleon had WMDs?

Glad that the film is out of Kubrick's hands or it might have ended up in Black and White, ala the otherwise great film, Paths of Glory.

Did someone just use the words fact and Fox News in the same sentence!

paths of glory was the film I had in mind when I considered how Kubrik would treat the whole thing.

focussing on the interpersonal relationships between some key characters rather than the bigger picture – it makes for a much better film, but cuts most of the battle sceens once an initial 'there was lots of fighting and they wore these clothes' type thing is established.

ryan is a good example of spielberg doing the same thing.

major opening battle
minor skirmishing and lots of character development until the very end (skirmishing would not feature in Napoleon, at all)
then a climactic battle focussing on the characters not the fighting.

vis napoleon, starting either austerlitz or marengo while the credits run.
then N the man and his battle with someone else (or himself – downfall style)
then waterloo, focussing on Napoleons state of mind etc.

lets hope Speilberg has not been to Hamlet or Macbeth lately…

Hmmmn. A really well made, well scripted and directed film focussing on Napoleon's battles/campaigns could be very worthwhile.

Frankly – I hope Mr Speilberg finds something else to do. He is categorically NOT the man for the job.