Tweet The full Napoleon to be screened in the US at last.....

Deudonne isn't that great an actor but for the most part he doesn't have to be.
greta

I think Dieudonne was hired because he looked like Napoleon (before Napoleon began being portrayed in later propaganda portraits with a consciously Caesarian affect). Portraits and drawings of Napoleon done when he was younger, and his death mask, look strikingly like Dieudonne:
http://www.bonaparte-art.com/portraying-napoleon.php" target="_blank

You're right, he doesn't have much to do in the film other than stalk around looking imperial, but he handled it very well. I'm not sure, but I think the horse he rode across the triptych was supposed to be Marengo (Napoleon's famed war horse), at least Gance's choice of a grey suggests it.

Ok, i've been mulling this over for a couple of days and need to get this off my chest.

Yes, this was an incredible viewing experience. The venue was fantastic, the Paramount is an Art Deco dream come true (The mezzanine ladies powder room is right out of The Women). The music was incredible, really top notch and got a well deserved ovation. It was so fun getting to see and talk to so many of you, and enjoyed the really yummy Vietnamese dinner. And glad to see that a few of you made it to Niles the next day, too.

As for the film itself, i have mixed feelings about that. It is an incredibly impressive, bold, and audacious film, and watching it in these circumstances is an unforgettable experience. But it is also grandiose and self-indulgent. Certainly Gance picked a subject he was sympathetic with, as one megalomaniac's tribute to another. And Napoleon is at least a subject big enough to stand up to such a treatment--in contrast to La Roue, with a slight story blown up to grotesque proportions.

For me the first 2 hours worked the best, despite the over the top hagiography (which i often found excessive to the point of amusement). I thought it worked well dramatically and the technique is overwhelming, particularly in the double storm sequence that left me exhausted (and somewhat seasick). One of the most incredible pieces of filmmaking i've ever seen. Actually if the film had ended there, i'd have been happy.

The Battle of Toulon eventually got to be somewhat trying for me, it was spatially incoherent, and the red tinting eventually made me feel like i was seeing the film in a dark room. Oddly, the third part of the film contained the parts that i remembered most clearly from the 1981 showing--the man who eats the documents (which may say something about who i think is the real hero of the film) and the Terror survivor's ball. This part was interesting (and more straightforward technically), but did drag in some places and it could lose the whole subplot with Annabella, which was definitely the weakest part of the film.

The polyvision is cool, even though the joins are not seamless, and very exciting (i remembered clearly the horse running across all 3 screens). But since there wasn't really much narrative content to it, just Napoleon giving imperialistic speeches and rallying the troops to invade Italy, i'm afraid that all that spectacle just made me think of Triumph of the Will.

Deudonne isn't that great an actor but for the most part he doesn't have to be. The woman playing Josephine was very striking. Robespierre was great, and Gance cast himself well as Saint-Just (loved the earrings). We were speculating over dinner on why Marat was wearing a leopard skin (i just checked, it's definitely not in the David painting). What was with that guy with the rabbit?

Anyway, despite the misgivings, it was a great show and i'm really glad to have been able to experience this extraordinary event.

greta

My thanks,Greta, for saying some things I did not have the nerve to say (I admit it). I did find the tinting on Toulon excessive (I assumed it was only me) and it was often difficult to tell exactly what was going on. I must admit that The Triumph of the Will flashed through my mind, as well. I saw the film twice and during my first screening, despite some reservations, I was swept up in the grandeur of the event, the amazing orchestra conducted by Mr. Davis, and the undeniable genius on display. The second viewing I took in a bit more dispassionately and saw a lot of fantastic filmmaking that worked brilliantly and some where a nun should have slapped Gance's hand with a ruler and said "enough, Abel." My one area of disagreement is La Roue, which I personally find to be Gance's most satisfying film. No disrespect intended to Mr. Brownlow, whom I venerate. It remains an event I would not have missed, but can a film be great, yet deeply flawed?

Deudonne isn't that great an actor but for the most part he doesn't have to be.
greta

I think Dieudonne was hired because he looked like Napoleon (before Napoleon began being portrayed in later propaganda portraits with a consciously Caesarian affect). Portraits and drawings of Napoleon done when he was younger, and his death mask, look strikingly like Dieudonne:
http://www.bonaparte-art.com/portraying-napoleon.php" target="_blank" target="_blank

You're right, he doesn't have much to do in the film other than stalk around looking imperial, but he handled it very well. I'm not sure, but I think the horse he rode across the triptych was supposed to be Marengo (Napoleon's famed war horse), at least Gance's choice of a grey suggests it.

He's a bit mature, but he's certainly got the build and face for Young Napoleon, he would not be so well suited for Fat Napoleon.

greta

It remains an event I would not have missed, but can a film be great, yet deeply flawed?

I'd say "yes." There are few works of art (of any kind) that don't have a flaw or two present--would you not consider BOAN deeply flawed? I do. What was remarkable about the Oakland presentations was the presentation itself, the SHOW, the entire package, and Napoleon the film is well suited to that type of presentation. Is Salome the Greatest Opera Ever Created? Probably not, but it is a great opera, and the Feb 2, 1998 LA Opera presentation of Salome with Helen Field in the title role is the most exciting opera performance I've ever attended (and you'll never capture that on a dvd). Napoleon is a big, sweeping, amazing, epic film. It is also imperialistic claptrap, hagiography of a megalomaniac, a series of set pieces lacking narrative cohesion. AND IT WAS FABULOUS.

Gance cast himself well as Saint-Just (loved the earrings). greta

I thought he looked like Gene Wilder.

I was thinking a young Stewart Granger; but I see what you mean.
It is entirely a hagiography; it would have been intriguing to see how Gance would have portrayed the Napoleon who lost all that he had won, going from the Fascist Imperialist the French feel OK to love, to a man dying practically alone on distant St Helena. It is Napoleon's Triumph of The Will; that too is powerful filmmaking and you have to keep your personal politics insulated from the film as you watch. As it is, come the end of Napoleon, you feel proud to be French......Napoleon's Untergang would not be made.

To the people who claim this movie has serious faults... you're right! "Napoleon" has enough things wrong with it to get any conventional movie laughed out of the theaters.

Technically it's not up to the same level of polish as the best German or American films of that same time. It's got enough shaky-cam to embarrass any Film-making 101 student. Abel, get a tripod! And learn how to frame a shot! People have only known how to do that right since... the Renaissance.

The storytelling is a throwback to pre-WWI films that precede every scene with a title card that tells us whats' going to happen in the scene.

It trades on specific historical personalities that may be well-known to the French but are mostly baffling to us in America.

It's long.

The symbolism is heavy-handed.

Gance pursues story points way longer than they need to be.

"Violine"... what's the deal with her? I've since read she's a fictional character inserted to represent "France." I have to hope that all the time spent on her would have paid off in the planned but not filmed sequels. She's a very odd presence in what we have.

And yet, by the last frame, all is forgiven and I can't contain my excitement for it. Perhaps sitting in the 2nd row (the cheap seats!) had something to do with making it so impressive.

It doesn't make sense, I can't justify it... but there it is.

The only other movie-going experience in my life I could compare it to was seeing "2001: A Space Odyssey" in its first run when i was eight. I was stunned by even though most people are quite indifferent to it.

Deudonne isn't that great an actor but for the most part he doesn't have to be.

And exactly what would you have like to see in his acting that wasn't in this film?

Napoleon was the central character throughout. If his character comes across as being stiff, that's what history would have us believe.

I think Dieudonne was hired because he looked like Napoleon (before Napoleon began being portrayed in later propaganda portraits with a consciously Caesarian affect). Portraits and drawings of Napoleon done when he was younger, and his death mask, look strikingly like Dieudonne:
http://www.bonaparte-art.com/portraying-napoleon.php" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

He's a bit mature, but he's certainly got the build and face for Young Napoleon, he would not be so well suited for Fat Napoleon.

greta

I loved the way he suppressed rebellion in the Generalship ranks (yes, even Massena) by the power of his icy glare. I would have handed him a bottle of pepto-bismal, but hey, it's a movie.

I loved the way he suppressed rebellion in the Generalship ranks (yes, even Massena) by the power of his icy glare. I would have handed him a bottle of pepto-bismal, but hey, it's a movie.

You missed Miss Dupont and i reenacting that scene in the ladies room line.

greta

I loved the way he suppressed rebellion in the Generalship ranks (yes, even Massena) by the power of his icy glare. I would have handed him a bottle of pepto-bismal, but hey, it's a movie.

You missed Miss Dupont and i reenacting that scene in the ladies room line.

greta

Gee, sorry that I missed that. No the line, but the reenactment.

I just came back from my vacation in San Francisco and I saw the April 1, 2012 performance of Napoleon. Easily one of the most cinematic experiences I ever encountered in my whole life until I get to see the restored Sparrows on the big screen j/k.

Anyway, I shall return later tonight to give my little review on the film. I think what Greta said above is the same sentiments I share as well, a wonderful obviously lifelong memorable experience but if we were to get down to the film itself, I have to disagree with Kevin Brownlow in that it's not the greatest silent movie ever made(hopefully I'm not misquoting him).

I got back from my vacation this morning. It seems booking my tickets on July 20th, 2011 paid off, because on the 31st I was seated directly across the aisle from Mr. Brownlow for the entire performance, and on the 1st, I was in the same seat and he was two rows back. I was so nervous that I didn't speak to him until the second performance, and so on the 31st, all I could do was look over at him and smile and wave, which he probably found disquieting. Finally after the dinner break on the 1st, I worked up the courage to get him to sign my essay book.

We had the following exchange:

Me: "Mr. Brownlow, would you sign [this] for me?"
Kevin Brownlow: [Something to the effect of "Of course."] "What's your name?"
Me: "Sean".
KB: "Oh, Irish. My father was from Cork."
[...]
Me: "My mother was from Belfast."
KB: "Ah! So you're the enemy."
Me: "And my father was from England [...] Blackpool."
KB: "And do you know what 'Blackpool' means in Irish?"
Me: "No."
KB: "'Dublin', and they're right across from each other."
Me: [Stunned reverence followed by profuse thanks]

Kevin Brownlow is awesome.

Robcat,

From the looks of the photo you posted of the screening you attended, we were sitting near one another. My friends and I were in row G.

A week and a half later I am still thrilled that I was able to attend the first screening and in the Paramount, it was, as many here have said, a magnificent experience.

I am so glad I got to experience it and hope Kevin Brownlow knows how much so many of us appreciate his dedication, perseverance and love for this film and being able to share it with us.

Gance cast himself well as Saint-Just (loved the earrings). greta

I thought he looked like Gene Wilder.

Actually, he looked more like Gene Tierney!

I don't think I can add anything to what everyone else has said--especially that one must think of this as a sort of concert experience, as opposed to merely a film. But one technical bit of interest: In the three previous times I saw it (the Coppola in Columbus and L.A., and this version in London in 2004), the Polyvision sequence was run on three flat screens, with the projectors running in line. But for this showing, the A & C panels were bent, somewhat resembling a Cinerama screen, and they were projected criss-cross. When I asked Patrick about this afterwards, he explained that the screen was simply too wide for the proscenium arch, so they had to be slanted to fit.

And how wonderful to find myself in a non-festival situation, hundreds of miles from home, and encountering literally dozens and dozens of friends and acquaintances, most of them also out-of-towners. What a blessed community we are!

Mike S.

But one technical bit of interest: In the three previous times I saw it (the Coppola in Columbus and L.A., and this version in London in 2004), the Polyvision sequence was run on three flat screens, with the projectors running in line. But for this showing, the A & C panels were bent, somewhat resembling a Cinerama screen, and they were projected criss-cross. When I asked Patrick about this afterwards, he explained that the screen was simply too wide for the proscenium arch, so they had to be slanted to fit.

How interesting. I had read so many comparisons of Polyvision to Cinerama that I just presumed that that bent arrangement was intended from the start.

I liked the wrap-around effect I got in the second row and maybe it helped the 3-part panorama shots.

In retrospect, and as Bob Furem says, once the initial excitement dies down, you sit back and (being the good film-nut that you are) you try to sort the screening from the film.

It is not the greatest film I have ever seen, silent in particular; nor do I believe it ever will be. This is based on viewing the "Coppola" in '81 and now this one.
It is rambling, it is indulgent, it is quite un-focused from time to time in the narrative.
Gance's idea of symbolism is not exactly subtle. The eagle is lovely, particularly with Roudenko and the cannon, but....
It treats a man who really was a role model for Hitler (all of Europe under French control?) as the saint who purifies Le Republique.

It is, however, also one of boldest, most unrestrained emotional statements I have ever seen on film, with Gance throwing absolutely everything, several kitchen sinks included, at the screen in the pursuit of this character.

To think of six films.....what, 5 hours plus each, was that really the idea....he was working on a canvas so huge only he could see it. I dearly wish he would have succeeded, but that would have to be in some alternate universe.

His beautiful, restless, terrible intelligence as a film maker gave us this, "Napoleon, part 1."

As I watched the gorgeously tinted shot of Dieudonne standing on the cliffs by the sea, gazing into the horizon, I figured this might have been the end shot, at Saint Helena, when all was said and done, and Carl Davis' music would have swelled at the end of countless hours at the Paramount with part 6 coming to a close....alas, in some alternate universe.

I am thankful for what we have.

It treats a man who really was a role model for Hitler (all of Europe under French control?) as the saint who purifies Le Republique.

It's worth remembering that the young Napoleon was idolized by many other artists, including Shelley, Stendahl, Victor Hugo, Beethoven, and Goethe (whose gushing sounds exactly like Gance: "Now Napoleon--there was a fellow! Always enlightened by reason, always clear and decisive, and gifted at every moment with enough energy to translate into action whatever he recognized as being advantageous or necessary. His life was the stride of a demigod from battle to battle and from victory to victory..."). Beethoven even dedicated his third symphony to Napoleon, but revoked that when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor. To many of these figures, Napoleon (or at least the young Napoleon) had inherited the revolution and was exporting it across Europe, sweeping away the old monarchies and spreading the ideals of the Enlightenment through such concepts as the Napoleonic code and so on. This romantic view began to sour once Napoleon made himself an overreaching monarch, and Gance, to his credit, intended to darken his portrait and show Napoleon gradually losing his way. I haven't yet seen Gance's other Napoleon film, Austerlitz, but hopefully someone who as can report on whether he is less idolized there.

I am somewhat amused by the comments regarding Napoléon as a proto-Hitler, Fascist-Imperialistic. First, let me tell you that over here, Napoléon is not necessarily regarded a great leader. Among academics, you would find severe disagreement. In the general population, he is now just a historical figure like Louis XIV or Henri IV.

When Gance's picture came out, some French critics were extremely severe in their appreciation (and he had huge difficulties to finance his film). Nowadays, you can still find people who dislike the film because of its subject (even if they haven't had a chance to see it). The result of all those prejudices is that in France, Gance is not getting the kind of recognition he deserves as a film-maker. None of his silents are available on DVD. And the latest restoration of Napoléon has yet be screened in France.

When I worked in Britain, I was struck to hear people compare Napoléon with Hitler. The comparison is totally ridiculous. First, you cannot compare the early XIXth century (with the end of the French Revolution) with the upheaval of the XXth. If Napoléon was certainly a war-monger in his later period, he also created a lot of institutions and laws that remain to these days. And he also gave the Jews (for the first time) French citizenship. And I advise you to visit the lovely Malmaison castle (in the West suburb of Paris) where Joséphine lived. You'll be able to enjoy the delicate and charming 'Empire' furniture. As somebody said in a previous message, a lot of musicians (Berlioz, Beethoven) and writers admired the early Napoléon. You have to put that into context. We were just coming out of the 'Ancien Régime' (the Royalty by divine right) where people's fate was determined at birth. If you were born an aristocrat, you were an aristocrat, a ruler. If you were born a commoner, you could not aspire to anything. The Revolution and Napoléon changed that. Suddenly, people with talent could have a future. And if you compare it to the Austrian Empire of the time (with Metternich in charge), you would be astonished to see how repressive it was compared to France.

Anyway, I am not a historian, just a scientist by training. But I wanted to give you an idea of how Napoléon and Gance are regarded in France.

The first films I watched when I got home from Oakland were Ivan the Terrible Parts 1 and 2 by Eisenstein. These are also films about a politician who dreamed of uniting his shattered country for reasons he considered noble, but wound up a mass murderer. Of course, this film was commissioned by Stalin to justify his reign, and, in Eisenstein's hands, wound up an indictment, part two of which was banned until 1958. Contrasting Napoleon's majestic, epic sweep, Ivan is a complex character study of what drives someone with relatively pure intentions to become a maniacal despot. Perhaps the greatest compliment I can pay Gance's film is that it still occupies my mind ten days later and I would see it again next weekend if I could.

To Ann Harding: I don't think anyone is calling Napoleon a proto-Hitler. There are obviously profound differences between the two. Hitler even wrote a book saying what he would do if elected. However, he did temporarily raise the spirits of a Germany who got their butts kicked in WW1 and by the Treaty of Versailles, though he slaughtered millions of Jews and others to do so... and Mussolini got the trains running on time. Still, I wouldn't want to have any of these guys over for supper! Many paths to tyranny, but always the same result.

Here is my full review from The Daily Mirror:
http://ladailymirror.com/2012/04/04/mar ... -napoleon/

I am somewhat amused by the comments regarding Napoléon as a proto-Hitler, Fascist-Imperialistic. First, let me tell you that over here, Napoléon is not necessarily regarded a great leader. Among academics, you would find severe disagreement. In the general population, he is now just a historical figure like Louis XIV or Henri IV.

The comparison is totally ridiculous. First, you cannot compare the early XIXth century (with the end of the French Revolution) with the upheaval of the XXth. If Napoléon was certainly a war-monger in his later period, he also created a lot of institutions and laws that remain to these days. And he also gave the Jews (for the first time) French citizenship. And I advise you to visit the lovely Malmaison castle (in the West suburb of Paris) where Joséphine lived. You'll be able to enjoy the delicate and charming 'Empire' furniture. As somebody said in a previous message, a lot of musicians (Berlioz, Beethoven) and writers admired the early Napoléon. You have to put that into context. We were just coming out of the 'Ancien Régime' (the Royalty by divine right) where people's fate was determined at birth. If you were born an aristocrat, you were an aristocrat, a ruler. If you were born a commoner, you could not aspire to anything. The Revolution and Napoléon changed that. Suddenly, people with talent could have a future. And if you compare it to the Austrian Empire of the time (with Metternich in charge), you would be astonished to see how repressive it was compared to France.

Anyway, I am not a historian, just a scientist by training. But I wanted to give you an idea of how Napoléon and Gance are regarded in France.

It is very interesting to read about the interest or lack of interesest and general opinions about Napoleon in modern France. As a teacher of history, I would caution some of the other statements as being open to criticism, and I appreciate the disclaimer, I'm no scientist, and not a historian (since I don't make my living by writing, but just a teacher) so I want to provide a different point of view on a few of the ideas you outline which are part of the general popular conception of the late 18th century, but in many ways they are also not very helpful or accurate in my opinion, which is just that, an opinion.

First to the relationship between Hitler and Napoleon. There is a direct line from some of the ideals of the Revolution and the ideals of both Fascism in it's various guises, and specifically the Third Reich (which can get very tricky because the Nazi's actual ideas beyond their racism was constantly shifting, never centralized, and depended on which party leader was writing or speaking, several key Nazi's denounced the Revolution and it's goals, but in other places other figures, and sometime the same, spoke the same language or emulate it or even praise the Revolution); so there are some direct connections between some of the ideas of Robespierre and Co., (ideas that also remain in Napoleon's thought and governance) and which are also continued in varying forms of Fascism. A direct comparison between Napoleon and Hitler (or their respective "Empires") is of course facile and inaccurate, but you can find a more profound and nuanced set of shared ideas between them, many of which Napoleon carried forward from his revolutionary predecessors.

Likewise the ancient regime fell in large part do to the incomplete reforms that began in the 1760/70s and were developed by the Physiocrats, these actually allowed for social and economic mobility, rationalization of rates and measures, lowering of taxes and internal tariffs, but they were a painful transition from the older feudal patterns, they caused a great deal of social dislocation for the nascent middle class and the lower classes, and were resented or alternatively exploited by some of the nobility who do fit the image of the typical rapacious, vain, cruel, and idle powdered-wig ninny's of popular and literary legend; however, much of the agenda of the revolution was to actually undo many of these reforms and re-establish a more just (but in reality) more feudal society under the quise of egalitarianism. Some of this interpretation can (and is) in both the details and broad sweep debated and debatable. I add it as just another approach to the historical material behind the movie, and would recommend two readable, well researched and popular histories in one volume for non-specialists on the Revolution, many of you probably know the first, but just in case it's new and anyone is interested, and try the second for a less traditional picture and a slightly more left wing bent and a reading in light of what was then recent life under Fascism.

Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution by Simon Schama

and

The French Revolution 1788-1792 by Geatano Salvemini.

As far as the political climate in 1927 when the film premiered, I think that is a separate and interesting discussion.

However, I think that we can see, enjoy, hate, and discuss the film both with or without reference(s) to the actual Revolution, Napoleon, or the politics of Europe circa 1927.

Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution by Simon Schama
and
The French Revolution 1788-1792 by Geatano Salvemini.

As far as the political climate in 1927 when the film premiered, I think that is a separate and interesting discussion.

However, I think that we can see, enjoy, hate, and discuss the film both with or without reference(s) to the actual Revolution, Napoleon, or the politics of Europe circa 1927.

Thank you, Eric, for the book recommendations and thanks to Ann Harding for the French perspective. I realized last night (to my great embarrassment) that I've never read a biography of Napoleon, or a history of the Revolution; what I've read about the period and the events has always come from the English or American perspective. I'm now on a quest. Have you read Steven Englund's Napoleon: A Political Life? I downloaded a kindle sample last night and have been very impressed with it so far, not the least for its elegant writing, always a plus.

I don't think anyone is calling Napoleon a proto-Hitler.

My Russian colleagues at work do! Of course, Russia has a special relationship to Napoleon.

Perhaps the greatest compliment I can pay Gance's film is that it still occupies my mind ten days later and I would see it again next weekend if I could.

Indeed, there are few films that occupy my for days like this one has. And i notice how much more strongly i feel about it than i did seeing in in 1981. Of course, i was a simpler person 30 years ago, and, therefore, to me the film was also simpler and easier to accept at face value. I love my simple eye-candy films and that's sufficient most of the time, but i'm enjoying being intellectually engaged with a film for a change.

The score really sucked you in, too, as well as the feel of the orchestra all around you. I think this would be a lot harder film to watch on video or, worse, in silence. Kudos to Kevin Brownlow for being able to see the possibilities from his little 9.5mm clips when nobody else could.

greta

Thank you, Eric, for the book recommendations and thanks to Ann Harding for the French perspective. I realized last night (to my great embarrassment) that I've never read a biography of Napoleon, or a history of the Revolution; what I've read about the period and the events has always come from the English or American perspective. I'm now on a quest. Have you read Steven Englund's Napoleon: A Political Life? I downloaded a kindle sample last night and have been very impressed with it so far, not the least for its elegant writing, always a plus.

Yes, thanks! I was up until 1 that night (courtesy of my coffee at dinner) reading all the biographical info i had in the house, all of which were written before the 1950s, so i'm due for an update as well. One interesting bit of trivia i discovered was that many of the crowned heads in Europe today are Josephine's descendents, not Napoleon's.

One part that creeped me out was that if you took Napoleon's speech near the end out of context, it would sound like an argument for the European Union. Which always seemed like a good thing to me. Seeing those words in Napoleon's mouth was very disturbing!

Gee, when we visited Fontainbleau, we could have sworn that Napoleon worship was still alive and well.

greta

A big thank you to Joan for hosting a fabulous party at the Palace Hotel in SF on Friday Night.

Great food, wonderful company and the cigars were might fine too.

However, I think that we can see, enjoy, hate, and discuss the film both with or without reference(s) to the actual Revolution, Napoleon, or the politics of Europe circa 1927.

I completely agree with that. I think the film is just a recreation of the Revolution by Gance like Alexandre Dumas was recreating the XVIIth century in The Three Musketeers, mixing history and fiction. Like with Dumas, it becomes even more vivid than real facts. BTW Dumas is certainly the best author to discover French history.

However, I think that we can see, enjoy, hate, and discuss the film both with or without reference(s) to the actual Revolution, Napoleon, or the politics of Europe circa 1927.

I completely agree with that. I think the film is just a recreation of the Revolution by Gance like Alexandre Dumas was recreating the XVIIth century in The Three Musketeers, mixing history and fiction. Like with Dumas, it becomes even more vivid than real facts. BTW Dumas is certainly the best author to discover French history.

Absolutely Ann,

I think the best take on the what the Revolution and Napoleon did to France and the contrast between a corrupt lassie-fair semi republic is the Count of Monte Cristo - the aftershocks of the Empire and trying to find a new way forward and the dangerous of greed and crony-capitalism are an amazing tale - the disguises are a key part not just melodrama.

Gance's film for me, and sadly I could not afford to travel to the West coast to see the new incarnation, is about the confluence of history and myth, like all great re-tellings, and it would have been interesting to see where he would have went with Napoleon. In many Victorian homes in the US and UK you would find a portrait of "Old Nappy", usually with a paunch looking downcast and on the verge of Waterloo or exile, a reminder of the hubris that can destroy a great man and a great opportunity, and all the lives that get caught up or destroyed in the meantime.

We were speculating over dinner on why Marat was wearing a leopard skin (i just checked, it's definitely not in the David painting). What was with that guy with the rabbit?

greta

Hi Greta, was wonderful to finally meet you and Ray; firstly Marat and Leopardskin (having the benefit of a second viewing, Marat wears it in a previous scene, unsurprisingly wearing something else in the bath). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jean-Paul_Marat_portre.jpg

Secondly some Guy With Rabbit Info (Rabbit not included) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couthon

So, seeming that Mr Gance got some historical details from paintings, the one image I could have sworn came from a painting from Gericault or a contemporary was the tableau-like end of Toulon, Napoleon found asleep on a drumhead with the extras draping regimental flags just so.....but I can't find a painting to match, on the net, at least...

some Guy With Rabbit Info (Rabbit not included) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couthon

Thank you for that! We wanted to know at my house too. Now knowing his name, I found this in a chapter called "Couthon's Bath-Chair" in the book Romances of the French Revolution (via Google Books):

Couthon had a kindly face and rather distinguished manners... . He occupied, near the Tuileries, a fine apartment, the furniture of which showed great elegance. He wore a white dressing-gown, and on his arm was a young rabbit which he was feeding with clover.

I'm really enjoying this discussion... and loved the film. Thanks all.

some Guy With Rabbit Info (Rabbit not included) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couthon

Thank you for that! We wanted to know at my house too. Now knowing his name, I found this in a chapter called "Couthon's Bath-Chair" in the book Romances of the French Revolution (via Google Books):

Couthon had a kindly face and rather distinguished manners... . He occupied, near the Tuileries, a fine apartment, the furniture of which showed great elegance. He wore a white dressing-gown, and on his arm was a young rabbit which he was feeding with clover.

I was worried about that bun. Suspected the next scene might involve lapin a la cocotte. Phew.