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?”
Out of everything, it is this response that makes Scott look like an idiot. This is some MAGA-level history reconstruction argumentation.
Seriously what a morom
Idk if you ment mormon or moron and I love that both would fit the context
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?”
What a dumb response. There's nothing wrong with tweaking history to improve a story, but claiming "It could be true. Who really knows?" is just pretentious puffery. Like the entirety of historical study around Napoleon is equivalent to Ridley Scott's made up stories. What a tool.
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?”
😂 That response sounds like moron creationists when you explain evolution to them.
Not sounds like, literally is. That was the crux of Ken Ham's argument when he debated Bill Nye. I'm not sure why he doesn't apply it to his own Bible.
Big "do your own research!" energy.
Ok, but hear me out. What if: aliens?
That’s James Cameron.
Second thing is age. Phoenix is 49. Bonaparte died at 51, after six years exile on Saint Helens. You can say what you want, Phoenix does look the part, but it's easy too old.
Just like Dafoe playing van Gogh it's just not right.
On the other hand, I think a Hollywood actor with the benefit of modern medicine has probably aged better than someone with a particularly stressful job in the 18th/19th century
To a point. But twenty years is quite significant. If any it's more miraculous that Napoleon archieved what he did when he was in his early thirties.
To portray that correctly would be an hommage.
Plus I don't really like the fact that older established actors get all these character roles. I mean I get it, but I don't like it.
I don't really care about that. If it makes for a good movie, then why should it matter? It's his attitude about it all that's uncalled for.
I'm just afraid, based on the critiques, that he has made it into MTV's Real World Napoleon.
This is just pure arrogance. I think everyone understands you can take artistic licence, or even completely disregard history and do pure fiction, but don't go claiming you know the history better than historians.
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?”
Because the people who were there wrote it down, and now we can read it. Scott's line of reasoning is inherently inconsistent because if followed it would mean we have to evidence of Napoleon Bonaparte existing in the first place. Boy is Ridley Scott going to feel dumb when he realizes he made a biopic of a mythical character combined from the real stories of several French generals after the revolution—if there even was a French Revolution, I mean, we weren't there.
Is there anything more embarrassing than people who think they know better than historians and reject the entire discipline of historiography? It's like being anti-vax but extended to everything you don't personally see.
He made the same arguments about Gladiator back in the day, pretty much word for word.
Thing is, it works for Gladiator. I have no idea how well it works here.
Well gladiator isn't named after one of the most documented people in history, so probably not as well.
Basically all we know about him is that his name is Maximus Decimus Meridius. Father to a murdered child, husband to a murdered wife, and he will have his vengeance; in this life or the next.
Which brings to mind something one of my history teachers taught us about the implausibility of that movie. The main characters name is essentially “Most Tenth Middle”.
Quite the heroic name.
I mean... sure, it's not named after him, but Marcus Aurelius is in that movie. They still have a column in his memory in Rome today.
On the minus side, he's in the movie just for a little bit and you can't really prove that he wasn't murdered by Commodus in a fit of jealous rage. On the plus column, Napoleon is already one of the most misrepresented historical figures, so... call it a tie?
Dude is almost 90, at that age logic goes out the window. He is already one of the most acclaimed directors in Hollywood, he got nothing to lose.
Someone ask Keanu
Scott, a veteran of big screen hits from Alien to Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, said he couldn’t resist telling the story of Napoloeon: “He’s so fascinating. Revered, hated, loved… more famous than any man or leader or politician in history. How could you not want to go there?”
I don't know about that, Ridley. More famous than Hitler? Or Julius Caesar? Genghis Kahn? The Buddha?
His legacy is very much still present and the moustache man took some inspiration from him
some inspiration
All the fun parts! Dictator for life, conquer Europe, stunning military victories, become fwiends with Russia, invade it, lose to general winter, all the later battles were kind of just frontal charges, and lose, trying to defend their capital!
Anti French? Do the French still deny that they were the bad guys of Europe when Napoleon was in power? Of course they look like the bad guys in this movie. That's like the Germans complaining that they're made to look like the bad guys in ww2 movies.
Do the French still deny that they were the bad guys of Europe when Napoleon was in power?
Of course, we generally deny it.
But some historical perspective first. When the French Revolution happened, everyone in Europe started to fight the new French regime to get the old monarchy back in power, with all privileges for the nobles to be reinstated. The French fought back for years, and Napoleon then came to power and continued the wars. He kinda got carried away. But every time he tried to settle down, the freaking English would start a new alliance against him and his new satellite regimes.
Now where does the assholery start? When defending yourself? No! When counterattacking a bit too much? No! When reinstating absolute power when you were chosen to stop absolutism in the first place? Maybe a bit. When trying to fuck up the English? Certainly not! When trying to rule over all of Europe? No, it was only inertia.
Lol…”He kinda got carried away.”
You know, when you sometimes wake up with the wrong foot, so you just have to march an army into Russia. Ughh, hate it when that happens.
Many such cases!
Just a little whoopsiedaisy.
Le Figaro and Le Point are two trashy nationalistic and regressives papers anyway, so if they didn't like it that's a good sign.
It’s fucking wild to make a film and then pretend to take HISTORIANS to task. Not like they know history or any thing like that… that’d be CRAZY!
Top that off with making films that counter normal intuition… I mean that’s just weird. Why would Ridley Scott make a film that counters every strength of Alien with multiple films of seemingly, equally, poor value… ?
Too bad we never got Kubrick's Napoleon. Knowing him and his obsession with detail and correctness he would've used real cannonballs for Austerlitz.
At least he didn't blame millennials and their cellphones again.. yet
Napoleon wasn't French though. Lol
Splitting hairs there. He is Corsican... which is French (like it or not).
Well... He's not wrong. The French don't like themselves either... ^^;
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
Posts must be:
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!