[.ca] Empires - Napoleon

From Amazon.com:
Until someone invents a time machine, history buffs and more casual viewers have to time travel by watching productions like Napoleon, a rich documentary about one of the most compelling figures in history. This four-hour historic drama by Emmy-winning filmmaker David Grubin masterfully transports audiences to 18th- and 19th-century Europe. Narrated by historian David McCullough, this impressive production chronicles Napoleon Bonaparte's life--from a relatively humble farmhouse in Corsica to his days as a soldier, statesman, and overzealous emperor. Weaving lush footage of landscapes, stunning paintings of Bonaparte and his two wives, close-up shots of museum pieces, and interviews with top historians, this classy documentary delights and informs. The best bet is to not watch it all in one take. PBS aired the show in two two-hour segments, which is about right. The piece is polished and dramatic but lags during some lengthy battle scenes. Yet by the end, viewers will feel like they've just finished a quickie college history class--a very good one. Watching Napoleon is like stepping into a glorious painting, one that tells in vivid brush strokes the story of a man determined to be master of the universe. --Joni Balter

Just scratched the surface...:
For anyone who knows next to nothing about Napoleon, this four hour documentary will serve as a good general introduction. The key word there is "general" because the documentary gives us merely a whirlwind tour through some of the highlights of one of the most amazing and complex figures in history. It had a promising beginning, with nice background about Corsica and Napoleon's parents. But by the time the young Bonaparte becomes an artillery lieutenant, the sense of trying to cram too much into a limited time frame soon overwhelms. I found myself shaking my head over the gaps and glossed over information - and the tendency to over-simplify. What is presented is presented fairly well. But I kept wondering about the bits that were left out. Several times, the program mentions that Napoleon gave advancement based on merit rather than birth or privilege. But we never hear about any of those extraordinary men such as Lannes, Murat, Duroc, Berthier, Junot who made it such an age of heroic and remarkable men. Marshal Ney is mentioned only once - at the battle of Waterloo. Talleyrand is quoted (once) but his contribution totally overlooked. Wellington comes out of nowhere at Waterloo - his campaign in Spain left on the cutting room floor. The fascinating thing about the Napoleonic age was that there were so many larger than life figures making history at the same time. Napoleon was probably the greatest, but not the only one. And more than a little of his success was due to these other men. Similarly, the program gives the impression that Napoleon is still buried on St Helena. There is no mention of the triumphant return of his remains to France - not a single shot of his magnificent tomb in Paris. And nothing is said about the subsequent behaviour of Empress Marie Louise or the fate of Napoleon's unfortunate son. It could have been so much better.

Superb history of a man who named an era:
It is a truism of history that empires that rise quickly due to force of arms fall fast and hard. The two most pronounced are the German "empire" of the 1930's and 1940's and the French empire under Napoleon in the early nineteenth century. Both rose very quickly and fell even faster, ironically due to making the same mistake, invading Russia with a mighty army, only to see it swallowed up by the land and the weather. Both Hitler and Napoleon aspired to dominate the heart of the European continent, yet were not satisfied when they achieved it. Each planned an invasion of the British Isles, yet both were unable to carry out even an attempt. Finally, both rose from humble origins, and neither was originally from the country they came to dominate. Hitler was Austrian and Napoleon was Corsican, and each at some point believed in their own great historical destiny. Napoleon was clearly the greatest military genius of his time and one of the most dynamic personalities of all time. His drive to succeed was incredible, what he created was a genuine, popular personality cult based on his powerful charisma. As I watched the tape, it was easy to be impressed at how he rose to such heights. Of course, he had help in his rise to power, as all who manage to rise to such power must have. The pent-up forces that launched the French revolution, the subsequent terror and backlash all led to a nation that was eager for a great savior. Given his military victories and the hostility of the monarchist states in Europe to Republican France, it was probably inevitable that a military dictatorship emerged. Napoleon's rise to power was not a social retreat, only a political one. He was shrewd enough to maintain the measures of social equality won by the revolution, which was guaranteed to win popular support. Until I watched this tape, I was unaware of how much energy Napoleon had. He was directly involved in many of the details of government, often dictating correspondence until his secretaries collapsed out of exhaustion. His love for Josephine was also genuine and deep, even when he was preparing for the battles that would expand his empire, he took the time out to write her detailed, thoughtful letters. Unfortunately, Josephine was unable to bear the required male heir to the throne, and political necessity dictated that Napoleon divorce her to marry someone who could. He was quite generous in his treatment of Josephine, giving her a palatial home and a large pension. One of the most interesting and debatable points in the tape concerns the changes that came over Napoleon after his son was born. There is no question that he was a devoted husband and father and there are suggestions in the tape that the time spent performing these duties kept him from ruling effectively. I believe that the empire was largely doomed anyway, any reduction in his effectiveness due to family obligations could only have hastened the fall. There have been three great revolutions in the last three centuries, one that spawned the United States, another in France and the third that created the Soviet Union. While the last two led to dictatorships, terror and empires, the difference was that the French empire was led by a man who exhibited many human traits and whose life is interesting in the human as well as historical sense. No one could ever say that about Joseph Stalin. This tape captures all the grandeur and humanity of Napoleon, the passion for war, the passion for Josephine and his boundless energy that drove him beyond what even he could achieve. Since it is not possible to understand nineteenth century Europe without learning about the Napoleonic era, any study of that century should begin with a viewing of this tape.

Russian Winter Again . . . And Summer, Too:
Oh, Josephine . . . flowers, gardens and harp-playing. An acute and penetrating analysis of historical events! Vive l'Empereur! . . . It is amusing how even almost two centuries later, a French historian (!) refuses to admit that someone could have possibly understood The Great French Military Genius. Why on Earth Mikhail Kutuzov 'possibly did not understand, but just sensed' Napoleon's intentions for the battle of Austerlitz? No wonder the General, who broke the backbone of Le Grand Armee in Russia, wasn't even mentioned again in this rather lengthy documentary. Why bother? The Spaniards revolted against Bonaparte because 'they loved their country more than he loved his,' but the invasion to Russia turned out to be a mistake because Russian summer was too hot and Russian winter was too cold (same all too often applies to Hitler). According to the creators of the 'Empires,' Russians were able to give only one battle and burn their own (former) capital city down . . . um, yes, there were also cossacks, but that's it. I'd expect something like that from the History Channel, but not from PBS . . .

excellent:
excellent look into the life of napoleon. i wasn't sure if i felt napoleon deserved what he got in the end or if i should feel sorry for the guy. very informative. i use it for my 10th grade world history class.

Fine Series, Well Done:
I really enjoyed this presentation, and it covered a remarkable amount of material. It was a bit dumbed-down, but I think it's intent was to be an introduction to the career of a most remarkable man- not a summation. It was too bad that the ending couldn't have been re-shot to include the new developments in research, that Napoleon was in fact slowly poisioned to death with arsenic, by one of the trusted and closest members of his entourage. The video presents Napoleon's death as being essentially from despair, which might have some validity, but it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he had survived into old age. After all, no one would have predicted that our country could ever have respected Richard Nixon again after Watergate and his resignation in disgrace. He managed to be, after a number of years, well-regarded as a kind of elder statesman, with his acumen and hindsight much valued. It's possible that such might have happened with Napoleon, for he certainly had the gifts of intellect and energy with which to start a second career. Oh well. Worth having in your collection.