Kubrick
A Kubrick Napoleon film would've been interesting.
shareKubrick's script (including all of Kubrick's budget estimates!) is widely available online, so you can read it and decide for yourself what you think about Kubrick's approach. A couple of things that even a cursory read of the script reveals are that Kubrick's Napoleon had a lot of fairly academic voiceover but relatively little action (battles are mostly just a shot or two of the aftermath paired with a page of two of voiceover explaining what the battle meant). I suspect that *had* Kubrick filmed his script, it would have driven a lot of people bananas and received very mixed reviews on release (much as Barry Lyndon and every Kubrick film after that did), only for the overdesignedness and visual meticulousness which Kubrick would have embued the material with to reward multiple viewings and build acclaim over time.
shareI read the script many years ago, it's terrible. The entire movie has voiceover, it's laughable, and the only batter in script is waterloo, which Napoleon lost. A biopic about a genius on wars, the only battle is he lost.
shareFrance ultimately lost the Napoleonic Wars so Waterloo was the most consequential battle Napoleon fought. It makes sense it would get the most emphasis. Napoleon's political impact goes far beyond his military strategy and it makes for a more interesting movie anyway.
shareIt was not "the most emphasis," it was the only emphasis.
shareI'm honestly not sure what some people expected with this. This had FIVE battle scenes and people are still complaining it wasn't enough. I guess they wanted a historical epic version of Transformers with a new battle every ten minutes instead of a real movie. Kubrick's wouldn't have been any different in that regard because he was rightly more interested in Napoleon the man then in giving the audience a blood and guts reenactment of every battle.
shareThese forums are mainly inhabitated by IQ89 magatards.
share