This 2002 Miniseries Puts Ridley Scott's Napoleon to Shame

In remarkable contrast to Ridley Scott’s Napoleon, this 2002 French miniseries depicting the life of the emperor highlights Napoleon’s bravery, genius, and greatness.

Christian Clavier as Napoleon Bonaparte (Phoenix Worldwide)

A note to readers: Hey, everyone. I realize it has been a minute since my last post, and for that, I want to extend a quick apology. I have been trying to figure out a few things in my life, and, at the same time, contemplating on how to proceed with content here on my Substack. You can me expect me to be much more active here and I will certainly be releasing more content. In the near-future, I will be releasing a piece on George Washington’s Farewell Address and another piece in which I gather more quotes from various presidents on Robert E. Lee. For now, it’s good to be back. Cheers!

---

Any honest examination of Ridley Scott’s 2023 Napoleon biopic would describe the film as a multilayered character assassination of one of the greatest and most accomplished men who ever lived. Scott portrayed Napoleon as a deranged, narcissistic, and mentally unstable man and went out of his way to erase and obscure any hints of Napoleon’s genius and greatness. On top of the abundant historical inaccuracies in the film, Scott openly intimated that if there was any worthwhile quality to be found in Napoleon, it was entirely due to the influence of his wife, Josephine.  

Unfortunately for those of us who were looking forward to the film, Scott seemed determined to crush the emperor at every turn.  

Contrast this to a 2002 French miniseries titled ‘Napoleon’ that is today relatively unknown and unheard of (at least compared to the popularity of the latest film). Recently watching the series felt like a breath of fresh air in comparison and served as a much-needed palate cleanse from the abject atrociousness of Scott’s movie.  

Although the makers of this miniseries didn’t harbor the exorbitant budget that was used by Ridley Scott to create his film, Napoleon (2002) shines in many areas where Scott failed and accomplishes much of what Scott simply couldn’t, all the while never going overboard with historical inaccuracies and never overemphasizing in film the faults of Napoleon and damaging his precious image and reputation.  

Separated into four episodes, the miniseries chronicles the life of Napoleon from his time as a young, ambitious artillery officer to his death in exile on the island of Saint Helena in 1821. It encompasses about thirty years of Napoleon’s life and depicts the most significant events of his story as well as the numerous important battles that shaped and propelled him to eternal stardom.  

Major Differences

Indeed, one of the many things the miniseries capitalizes on is time management. Each of the four episodes is exactly an hour-and-a-half long, which allowed director Yves Simoneau to cover more ground historically and left much more room for character development and bonus details. On the other hand, Ridley Scott’s version smacked of a hurried, rushed highlight reel that had no real substance or detail, which was altogether unpleasant and disorienting. The fact that the series had more time to work with and made use of it is an obvious advantage.  

Many more important and consequential figures from the life of Napoleon are also extensively portrayed: Talleyrand, Murat, and Ney, to name just a few. The small-mindedness of the recent film in only focusing on Josephine was a major loss and a missed opportunity for Scott. By inserting more characters into the miniseries, Simoneau added immensely to the complexity of Napoleon’s story.  

Another advantage the series can boast is its on-screen beauty. Unlike the latest film, in which a dreary, gray color filter dominates the film, color is allowed to shine, and the beauty of the palaces, battlefields, and countryside is readily apparent. This is often reflected in the uniforms of the time period, both political and military. Remarkably detailed, the historical uniforms were free to showcase their full color, which only added to the objective beauty of the series. Napoleon (2002) is exceedingly colorful and aesthetically vibrant, boldly stating that Napoleon and the Napoleonic Era are worth celebrating.  

But the most palpable of the differences between the two adaptations is the way in which Napoleon himself is depicted.  

Played by Christian Clavier, Napoleon is bright, charismatic, and forward-thinking. He is portrayed not as deranged, but as clear and concise; he is not rash in making decisions, but calm and deliberate; he is not frightened of battle, but willing and eager to join the fray; and, most importantly, he is rightly shown to be a man of unparalleled greatness and excellence. And often, his greatness is displayed openly throughout the series.  

Numerous instances of his personal bravery and courage in battle are shown. In the first episode, Napoleon embraces the French flag in battle and carries it at the head of his troops across a hotly contested bridge in which numerous Austrian projectiles and shrapnel are whizzing in the air all about him (The Battle of Arcole, 1796). When, in a later episode, a cannonball ricochets from a tree and eliminates a soldier right beside him and violently knocks him off his horse, he quickly gets back up and carries on as if nothing had happened.  

In the last episode after he returns from Elba, he boldly faces down an assortment of French troops led by Ney sent to halt his advance, saying, “If any one among you wishes to kill his emperor, here I am.” This was a major difference from Scott’s film, where Napoleon pathetically cried and begged the troops to let him by (which was historically inaccurate).  

Napoleon’s insatiable appetite for remaking France and improving its architecture and physical beauty is discussed and shown, another aspect of Napoleon that Scott conveniently left out in his latest film. The great and significant Napoleonic Code (his greatest political achievement, a system that still exists to this day) is mentioned, alongside his numerous designs for French parks and memorials. Napoleon was utterly consumed with enhancing the beauty of France, both in the government and in society; a part of him rarely discussed, and not once in Ridley Scott’s film. (As Scott would have you believe, Napoleon was just a dumb brute who got lucky a few times on the battlefield.) 

Napoleon’s vast interest in mathematics and science as potential and different life paths is also shown. In the opening episode, when Talleyrand attempts to gauge whether the young officer has any higher political ambition, Napoleon flatly states that he wishes to become an elite mathematician. Later on, he boasts endlessly during and after the expedition to Egypt that his scientists made many important discoveries and archaeological finds, which was one of the goals set out by him in his going to Egypt. When he is forced to abdicate the throne many years later, he vocally considers traveling to America and becoming fully immersed in the world of science.  

Napoleon is also accurately portrayed as quite the ladies' man, carrying on numerous affairs and dalliances with an inordinate number of women. This is yet another noticeable deviation from Scott’s depiction. If you didn’t know much about Napoleon and watched the recent film and took it at its word, you would probably believe Napoleon to be a pathetic simp in his love life, a man who practically begged his wife to sleep with him (as is shown in the movie). Not so. As the series correctly lays out, Napoleon had his way with women, having numerous mistresses and many illegitimate children. (This is, of course, one of the many dark sides surrounding Napoleon, but it bears mentioning in order to dispose of the idea that Napoleon was somehow an obsequious simp in his dealing with the ladies.)  

Napoleon as head of the French army was also decidedly dissimilar from Scott’s version of Napoleon. Simoneau’s Napoleon, as any leader on a battlefield should be, was engaged, hyper-focused, and wielded a commanding and charismatic presence. According to Scott’s film, Napoleon seldom, if ever, overlooked a map and formulated strategy with his marshals, only now and then giving out cold hand signals and deranged looks. In the 2002 version, Clavier deliberates strategy over a map many times and creates detailed plans with his marshals based on the realities of the battlefield.  

The Series Wins

The series also wins in its ability to steer clear of exaggerated historical inaccuracies and unjust attacks on Napoleon’s historical image, two aspects that Scott didn’t care to minimize or correct. As a result, the series edges out Napoleon (2023) in that it’s far more historically complex, cinematically invigorating, and factually precise.  

But for all the positives of Napoleon (2002) it has observable shortcomings in numerous areas: cinematography, graphics, and special effects. Many scenes feel uncomfortably fake and artificial, and the series’ special effects are rather poor at times. (A good example of this is the scene depicting the royalist uprising on 13 Vendemiaire.) Other than these relatively minor faults, Napoleon (2002) stands proud as an excellent, thorough series which correctly remembered Napoleon Bonaparte as the man he was and placed him in the proper spotlight.  

Napoleon, a great and monumental figure and a man of superior genius, is a man worth celebrating and commemorating. Yes, he was a faulty man and made horrible mistakes. But those moral faults and strategic mishaps don’t define him. His greatness defined him and continues to define him. Scott committed a great disservice to society and posterity by launching petty personal attacks and leveraging historical inaccuracies in an attempt to bring the emperor down. The reason why the miniseries is objectively better is because it does the exact opposite.  

It doesn’t try to destroy Napoleon’s historical reputation. Instead, director Yves Simoneau laid Napoleon out as history has laid him out: a mortal man and leader of unmatched greatness who conquered Europe and created a political system which still governs France to this day; a man who is routinely placed alongside Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar as one of the greatest military commanders in history. Napoleon (2002), despite its shortcomings, wins because the emperor is rightly recognized and depicted as such a man.  

Instead of watching a flop with an overpriced budget made by a bitter and angry old man, you should instead watch the 2002 miniseries and save yourself some time, money, and personal agony. It is free to watch on Prime as this is written.