Napoleon explained (2023)

What is Napoleon about?

A lot of people will expect Napoleon to be like Ridley Scott’s other historical epics—like Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, The Last Duel. By that, I mean serious and conflict-driven. Except Napoleon isn’t serious. It’s “serious”. Scott, a knighted Englishman, actually made a satire that doesn’t explore Napoleon’s mythos and legacy so much as spit on it. It’s similar to Stanley Kubrick’s historical satire Barry Lyndon. Very dry. Very grounded. It’s not a parody like Monty Python & The Holy Grail so isn’t so obviously comedic. But make no mistake—Ridley Scott did not care for Napoleon Bonaparte. So the whole movie is about demythologizing the acclaimed general. To the point that the final shot of the movie is a list of the soldiers Napoleon lost in battle, a direct shot at the legend of Bonapate’s military genius. 

Cast

• Napoleon Bonaparte – Joaquin Phoenix
• Empress Joséphine – Vanessa Kirby
• Lucien Bonaparte – Matthew Needham
• Letizia Bonaparte – Sinéad Cusack
• Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington – Rupert Everett
• Paul Barras – Tahar Rahim
• Caulaincourt – Ben Miles
• Alexander I, Tsar of Russian – Édouard Philipponnat
• Marie-Antoinette – Catherine Walker
• Louis XVIII – Ian McNeive
• Talleyrand – Paul Rhys
• Written by – David Scarpa
• Directed by – Ridley Scott

The ending of Napoleon explained

Recap

The end of Napoleon begins following Bonaparte’s loss to the English at the Battle of Waterloo. When the Prussian forces arrive, the French army capitulates completely. Following this, we have a scene on an English ship. Duke Wellington discusses the terms of Napoleon’s fate, saying he’ll be exiled to the island of Saint Helena and kept under the watch of a family there, meaning there’s no opportunity for Napoleon to escape as he did from Elba. 

Prior to the conversation with Wellington, we witness Bonaparte regaling the midshipman, kids and teens who look at Napoleon as this mythic figure. This is what advice Napoleon has for them. 

Napoleon: I’m the first to admit when I make a mistake. But never do. But it is geometry. I simply know precisely where to place a cannon. But tragically I cannot transfer this knowledge to my marshalls. That might be what is most difficult in life. Accepting the failures of others. You must not do that. Encourage greatness. 

We have a voiceover from Joséphine, as it seems Napoleon images what she says to him. 

Joséphine: What will you do now? I hate to see you alone. Will you come to me? Will I forgive you? My sweet, stubborn emperor. I let you live so that you come to ruin. Next time, I will be emperor, and you will do as I say. 

Meaning

Preface

In high school and university, you’re taught to open papers with a thesis statement that overviews what stance you’ve taken in a work. You might open with “It has never been easier to travel internationally, so more people should go see the world.” Or, “Dry pet food may provide sustenance but wet food is the superior option for your furry friend’s long term health.” 

Narrative work tends to do the opposite. Most of the plot is spent setting up various ideas that eventually tie together into a perspective, statement, or commentary. In other words, it saves the thesis for the end. Which is why it’s often so helpful to watch a movie a second time, because now you have the core concept in mind and can pick up on the various ways the story develops its core conceit. 

The Lobster is a good example of this. It introduces us to a dystopian world where people find romantic partners based on a physical attribute. Having asthma could be enough. Or the same colored eyes. Or both having a limp. One woman has nose bleeds so a male character fakes having nose bleeds in order to be with her. If you can’t find someone within a set amount of time, you’re turned into an animal. The main character eventually falls for a woman who is short-sighted, just like him. Events unfold and the woman ends up blind. The movie ends with the character having to make a choice: does he blind himself or risk turning into an animal? How far will he go for love? Or for survival? The movie doesn’t provide an answer. It simply wants to ask the question. The whole story is a build up to that.

It’s the same for Babylon. 99% of the movie is about what it takes to make a movie. The chaos. The stress. The human cost. How the industry builds you up and spits you out. And for what? At the very end, though, one of the main characters sits in a theater and we get this jazz-inspired montage that spans the entirety of cinema from its origin to the 2020s. It leaves the character in tears. And the statement is clear—this is why people put up with all the horror of the industry, because they get to be part of something that’s greater than them and immortalizing. 

Napoleon, the fool

With that in mind, we can better understand the importance of the final scenes of Napoleon. 

First, the speech he gives to the midshipmen is the height of delusion. Napoleon had just lost the most important battle of his life. It cost him his title, his country, his freedom, and, in many ways, his life. But there’s zero accountability. Instead, he says he never makes mistakes then essentially blames the loss on his troops not having his genius. “That might be what is most difficult in life. Accepting the failures of others.” It’s a completely delusional thing to say.

And that’s the point. You expect a true leader to take responsibility for what happened. But the movie has him display only arrogance, narcissism, and ego. The opposite of leadership. This man of great renown who the French thought was excellent throws those who fought for him, who died for him, under the bus. It reduces the man. As opposed to something like Gladiator that ends in a way that elevates how we feel about the protagonist. 

This reduction continues in the conversation Napoleon has with the girls. He tries to brag to them that he was the one who burnt Moscow to the ground. Except the one girl corrects him—it was the Russians who burnt Moscow, specifically to run out the French. What’s actually going on here is an attempt to mythologize followed by a correction of the mythology that’s actually a denial of the mythology. 

Then Napoleon dies. 

And what do we see with the final card? A list of all the men Bonaparte lost in battle. Followed by the total amount of lives he lost on both sides. All told, 3 million people perished because of Napoleon. That’s essentially the population of Chicago. You could add up the people who live in Milwaukee, Baltimore, Detroit, Portland, and Boston—that’s 3 million. 

The enduring legend of Napoleon is that he is one of the greatest generals to have ever lived. But Ridley Scott has decided to reject that premise. That final conversation where Bonaparte takes credit for the burning of Moscow and the girl corrects him—that’s the thesis of Napoleon. The film attempts to redefine the idea people have of Napoleon Bonaparte. Instead of this terrific general, he’s someone who lost millions of lives. Instead of being talked about as a genius, wasn’t he just a needy goof who fell down stairs and was jealous over boats and thought fate brought him pork chops for dinner?

This isn’t a film attempting a historically accurate drama piece about the life of a legendary general. It’s a very expensive character assassination. 

And it also seems to take a larger stance against the idea of “great men” like Napoleon. The first hint of this is in Joséphine’s voiceover as Napoleon heads to Saint Helena. Quote, “Next time, I will be emperor, and you will do as I say.” If that was the only bit, then it’s just an interesting line that would primarily be framed through the dynamics of their personal relationship. But it’s not. 

“Because of the girls?” 

Absolutely. Notice that the girls aren’t having a tea party. They aren’t playing with dolls. They aren’t gossiping or reading poetry or doing any of the million things two wealthy girls in the 1800s might have been doing. They’re sword fighting. In a movie about a general who became emperor through military might, that’s not a coincidence. Especially so closely following Joséphine’s statement that “Next time, I will be emperor.” While that can be taken literally, figuratively, it refers to the next generation. The idea that women won’t just be close to power but will actually wield it themselves. And that’s what those girls sword fighting represents. This idea of fighting for power. Of obtaining power. 

So the movie ends not just by belittling the mythos of Napoleon but with a very feminist statement about power dynamics that’s a culmination of the Joséphine character arc and brings us back to the opening scene of Marie Antoinette’s beheading.  

The themes and meaning of Napoleon

The fate of leaders

Napoleon opens with the beheading of Queen Marie Antoinette. That was the culmination of the French Revolution. A few scenes later, we watch as the public turns on revolutionary leader Maximilien Robespierre, seizing him, then executing him. Soon after, another group has power—the Directory. But Napoleon and a few key supporters stage a coup that results in Napoleon’s rise to power. 

So in about an hour we watch France go from a monarchy to a republic to an autocratic state then back to a monarchy. Then Napoleon himself is removed from power. Then returns to power. Then loses power. 

None of the leaders fare all that well in this movie. Often it’s their own arrogance or ambivalence that does them in. And most of them are men. 

“What about Marie Antoinette?”

Women leaders

The thing about Marie Antoinette is that she got a pretty raw deal. For example, the quote “Let them eat cake” is famously attributed to her. What was the context? It’s said the French people were down bad, starving. When informed of this, the Queen apparently said “Let them eat brioche.” 

Brioche is a kind of fancier bread that the average person wouldn’t necessarily have access to. So it’s essentially the Queen saying “If they’re starving, they should eat bread.” Except her concept of bread is fancy—brioche. It’s the equivalent of the line from Arrested Development where the wealthy matriarch, Lucille Bluth, says “How much could a banana cost? Ten dollars?”

Or in Succession, the wealthy patriarch, Logan Roy, asks his nepo baby son, Roman, “How much is a gallon of milk?” And Roman says, “I don’t know. I mean, who the f*** knows? Literally, no one knows. Who gives a sh**?” Logan then freaks out on everyone in the room. 

Over time, brioche became cake. 

Except, here’s the thing. Apparently Marie Antoinette never said anything about brioche or cake. It was a popular story that cropped up in multiple countries, across cultures, throughout centuries. From Britannica: “As it happens, folklore scholars have found similar tales in other parts of the world, although the details differ from one version to another. In a tale collected in 16th-century Germany, for instance, a noblewoman wonders why the hungry poor don’t simply eat Krosem (a sweet bread). Essentially, the stories of rulers or aristocrats oblivious to their privileges are popular and widespread legends.”

Marie Antoinette suffered, for years, from reputation ruining propaganda like this. Within a short span people said she had an affair with Marquis de Lafayette, another affair with Lady Sophie Farrell of Bournemouth, and yet another affair with her own son. All rumored just to stir up public anger at the Queen in order to stoke the flames of revolution. 

History has pretty much shown that Marie Antoinette was a victim of Robespierre and other revolutionary actors who wanted power themselves. 

While the film doesn’t explore any of that directly, it’s the subtext of the opening of Marie Antoinette’s execution. A subtext that’s important when we see all the ways in which the men who seized power all flail and fail and are replaced.

Which brings us all the way to Joséphine’s last voice over where she says in the next life she will be emperor. That line gets at the idea of a new age of women in power. Something that’s further implied by the young women sword fighting as Napoleon drops dead. 

Why is the movie called Napoleon?

The film is a deconstruction of the myth of Napoleon. They could have called the film Napoleon Bonaparte but chose to shorten it. That might just be for the sake of brevity. The same way Oppenheimer used the single name. 

If you want to really reach for a deeper meaning, then here’s a theory. 

Given the overall negative sentiment the story has for its title character, you almost wonder if the shortening to just the first name might in some ways invoke the phrase “Napoleon complex” or “Napoleon syndrome”. 

The phrase comes from the idea that Napoleon was of below average height for a man, 5’ 2”, and he compensated for his smaller statue by being aggressive and egotistical. What he lacked in size, he made up for in a big personality. The thing is, Napoleon was actually around 5’ 6”. The French had a different measuring system than the English. That put him around average height. 

But according to History.com, a British cartoonist always depicted Napoleon as much almost the size of a child and extremely angry. Which is what popularized the characterization of Napoleon and gave way to the legend of the Napoleon complex.

I wouldn’t argue this should be a primary reading of the title. But given the film’s concern with the mythos around Bonaparte, it’s definitely worth a moment of speculation. 

Important motifs in Napoleon

Cannons

I don’t have a great analysis for this. I just think it’s hilarious how many times Napoleon resorts to cannons. It’s like every time there’s a problem, he fires a cannon. I can’t tell if it’s part of the satire, just historically accurate, laziness, or all of the above. But this movie has a lot of cannons. 

The English

The British are built up as a kind of boogeyman to Napoleon. When he finally confronts them in battle, it’s Bonaparte’s ultimate defeat. Given Ridley Scott’s nationality and knighthood, you almost wonder if there was a point of pride in how he built to and presented the English military. It’s almost like when the Duke of Wellington sneers at Napoleon that it’s Scott himself. 

Questions & answers about Napoleon

Did Napoleon really shoot a cannon at the pyramids? Is Napoleon historically accurate?

Nope. It’s one of many historical inaccuracies that historians have mentioned and that Scott has dismissed. If the movie was trying to be historically accurate, the complaints would make sense. But given its satirical nature—the firing upon the pyramids is pretty hilarious. Dryly so.

Did Napoleon say “Destiny has brought me this lamb chop?”

No. But I certainly have said it a thousand times since watching the movie.

How tall was Napoleon?

The legend of Bonaparte’s small statue is a combination of two things. First, at that time, the French measuring system was different from the English version. So his listed height of 5’2” would actually convert to the much more average height of 5′ 6” to 5 ‘7″. 

Second, James Gillray was an English cartoonist who released many famous pieces about Napoleon. All of which depicted Bonaparte as short and angry. The most famous of which is “The Plumb-pudding in danger”. 

The conflicting information of what 5’2” meant along with Gillray’s depictions led to the a mischaracterization of Napoleon that has persisted now for over two-hundred years. 

Now it’s your turn

Have more unanswered questions about Napoleon? Are there themes or motifs we missed? Is there more to explain about the ending? Please post your questions and thoughts in the comments section! We’ll do our best to address every one of them. If we like what you have to say, you could become part of our movie guide!