Is Ridley Scott’s Napoleon realistic? His historical advisor answers us

Lorris Chevalier, French historian, accompanied the British filmmaker throughout the production of his epic biopic. He explains to us why dwelling on every historical detail makes no sense.

This is already his second film with Ridley Scott. Lorris Chevalier, doctor in medieval history, met the director in 2020, while the filmmaker was preparing the filming of Last Duel in France, in the Château de Berzé, in Burgundy. Initially a documentarian, to help with costumes and sets, the 29-year-old historian found a place for himself on the set. Having become a full-time historical advisor, he was contacted again by Ridley Scottwhen he started working on Napoleonhis great historical fresco, which is released this Wednesday in cinemas in France, with Joaquin Phoenix in the role of the Emperor.

What did Ridley Scott tell you at the start, when he told you about his idea to make a film about Napoleon ?
Lorris Chevalier : He told me that he wanted to focus his film on Napoleon and Joséphine. He asked me to accompany him, and as a result, I worked on the subject for a whole year. I studied Napoleon. I knew him as a historian, obviously, but I studied his whole life in detail, to be able to advise Ridley, the actors, the script…

What did you bring to the screenplay written by David Scarpa?
It’s especially at the level of the issues. To explain the motivations of the protagonists. The battles are Ridley Scott’s interpretation, but we had to explain the ins and outs to team members who didn’t always understand. The Napoleonic period is ultra-complex, politically. So I found myself doing short history lessons. We held meetings on set, to decipher the Coup d’Etat of 18 Brumaire for example. From there, they rethought the scenes, doing something more condensed, with the idea of ​​making these issues understood in 2 minutes.

How did you work on the role with Joaquin Phoenix?
When the actors wanted to modify their lines of dialogue, I was there to provide material, provide context. Napoleon was a very complex character. And before filming, the production asked me to take a little immersion walk with Joaquin and Vanessa (Kirby). We visited Napoleon’s emblematic places in Paris for two days. We were at the Château de Malmaison (acquired by Joséphine de Beauharnais in 1799), we were at Les Invalides (where the Tomb of Napoleon I is located) for 3 and a half hours at the Museum, examining each object, to try to understand soak up history. What interested Joaquin was to see the social side of the character. In which way Napoleon was also a man of the people, adored by his troops. He didn’t really have the image of the dictator that Americans sometimes have. He wanted to dig, go further. He had a broader approach and he worked hard on the issue. He was fascinated, for example, by the Corsican insurrection led by Pascal Paoli, against the Republic of Genoa, and which led to the island’s attachment to France. We must keep in mind that within a year, Napoleon was not born in France (Corsica was attached to the Kingdom of France in 1768, Napoleon Bonaparte was born in Ajaccio in 1769, Editor’s note)! Joaquin loves History, but be careful, he has an actor’s approach. He used all of that for his character.

Were you on set, guiding the battle sequences?
Yes, even if I immediately understood, for example, that the Battle of Austerlitz, in the film, was not going to be the reality of the Battle of Austerlitz. But rather a great visual feat. There, you have to let the Maestro do it. We must leave the artist to his music. Above all, I believe as a historian that we should not have too strict a vision of History. I see people getting angry, complaining about the placement of the medals or whatever. We must realize that the vision we have of History comes from paintings, from these official objects. This is not the reality of everyday life. You have to be able to distance yourself. We must get rid of this prism, go beyond the cliché of Napoleon on horseback. He was a normal man, a man of his time, whom Ridley Scott shows in his daily life – notably in the extended version of the film, which we will see one day I hope…

00But when Ridley Scott shows the cannons of the imperial army firing on the pyramids, isn’t that taking too much distance?
Of course that’s not true. They didn’t shoot at the pyramids. But it is a way of condensing a complex History, that of Egypt, occupied by the Turks, supported by the English. When Napoleon arrives to “liberate” the country, his soldiers are welcomed like crusaders by these Turks. Besides, initially in the script, they shouted “God is great“. Ridley found it too simplistic. So he asked me something else and we finally made them say: “Almawt alsalibiiyn“, which means “Death to the Crusaders“! Afterwards, they know very well, when they fire cannons at the pyramids, that it is not historically true. But to show the Egyptian campaign, it is clearer like that. There is a desire almost burlesque behind. The pyramids are fired upon. The Chief falls. And the battle is won.

Do you understand that it can still be annoying?
Those who wince are fans of Napoleon who almost deify the Emperor. It’s easy to criticize a historical film. Me, as a historian, I can spend 6 hours analyzing any historical film and point out everything that is wrong. But it’s actually a way of flattering yourself. There are a lot of things that are just details that aren’t really important, as long as they advance the story of the film, the storyline. No, Napoleon didn’t shoot at the pyramids at all. On the contrary, he was more keen to preserve the treasures of Egypt. But Ridley Scott’s idea was to show the superiority of the character, in the footsteps of Alexander the Great. He dreamed of himself like that. Ridley is an absolute history fan. But between legend and History, when the legend is more beautiful than reality, print the legend!

You think like Ridley Scott that “the French don’t love themselves“?
Yes I totally agree. Well, Napoleon had no problem with that… he loved himself enormously (laughs). But it is true that there is a modesty of the French in the face of their own history, which I find difficult to understand. Now Ridley knew. He often asked me during filming how we, in France, perceived Napoleon. And I explained to him that he was seen both as a providential man and as a dangerous man…