David Scarpa (“All the Money in the World”) penned the screenplay for the film, and it isn’t based on any particular book that has been written about Napoleon over the years, which is often the jumping-off point for a filmmaker when making a biopic. Ridley Scott further explained to Deadline that, at a certain point, the books become far less accurate, which seemed to deter him from feeling that they were necessary to tell the story cinematically:
“The 400 books are reports on report, on report. When probably only the original made sense, maybe written 15 years after Napoleon’s death. The next book, say 10 years later, already is writing on the first book probably is being critical, therefore is adjusting and romancing the stone a little bit. So by the time you get to the 399th book, you’ve got quite a lot of inaccuracy.”
The movie, as it exists, moves at a blistering pace and traces Napoleon’s rise to power as well as his complicated love with his wife Josephine, played by Vanessa Kirby (“Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning”). Scott does have a much longer director’s cut, which will eventually be released on Apple TV+, which might pad things a bit.
Will that help paint a more historically accurate picture? Maybe not. This does admittedly open up an interesting debate as to what responsibility — if any — a filmmaker has in getting a historical figure’s story “right” when making a biopic. In fairness, we are talking about a man who died in 1821. There are bound to be inaccuracies. At some point, it’s about trying to paint a portrait of the mythical figure history tells us about. Scott had his own way of going about that.
“Napoleon” is in theaters now.