 |
| Depiction of a Napoleonic Battle. |
'What's the difference? It's all food. This is how Napoleon used to eat.'
-Stanley Kubrick allegedly to actor Malcolm McDowell, when the
latter asked why Kubrick ate ice cream at the same time as his main course
steak, at a dinner meeting during the pre-production of 'A Clockwork Orange'.
Expecting to be filmed and released after ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, ‘Napoleon’ stood at the era when Stanley Kubrick’s films were the most innovative and vibrant. ‘Napoleon’ could be the most Kubrickian film of all, and it was not only because of the style and themes that would be presented in the unfinished work. Experiencing ‘Napoleon’ would be like viewing Kubrick in action – observing his approach to challenging filmmaking issues and understanding how he devised ingenious ideas to solve the numerous problems during the process of making a film.
What made Napoleon ‘Kubrickian’?
Kubrick has described the Napoleonic Wars as ‘lethal ballets’. He could perceive the analogy between the heavily choreographed dance numbers and the large scale battles in Europe at Napoleon’s times. Napoleonic Wars had the legacy of innovations in military weapons, enlarged scope, and the ingenious or even elegant applications of strategies. If you have seen any paintings regarding Napoleonic Wars before, you should most likely notice an aesthetic elegance of these bloody encounters. Dressed in differently colored military suits, the large number of troops moved, or literally flowed, slowly through a vast natural landscape. Every strategy, leading to a very specific movement or turn, was so dynamic that even the gunfire has not started, these preludes to the bloody battle could already raise any audience with awe.
Kubrick has always understood that, even for the simplest movement, if it was filmed in a very vibrant and dynamic way, and added with the relevant use of music and other filmic techniques, could give rise to a lyrical and rhythmic outcome as stunning as great music. Kubrick has always felt that image was his prime concern when he made a film, rather than dialogue or narrative. It was through this firm belief that gave him the courage to make something as abstract and subtle as ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’. How can a few flowing spacecrafts contribute to something we now call ‘art’? That is Kubrick’s signature touch- the way he staged the slowly moving Ferris wheel and the space station, the color tone he has employed and his inclusion of ‘The Blue Danube’ throughout the sequence. It was the mélange of all these parts that gave the audience an extraordinary impression they have never experienced before, and thus provided the viewers with the feel of an ‘odyssey’. It was Kubrick’s musical, rather than narrative, treatment of the scene that would lead to his famed signature style.
With this approach in mind, we can try to speculate how Kubrick would have approached the battle scenes in ‘Napoleon’. Imagine an extreme long shot, where an aerial view could show the outline of the battleground. The large number of troops from opposing sides, in different colored suits, moved almost like patches amidst the greenness of the natural landscape, or, in the case of the Russian battle, the whiteness of the snow. The dynamic formations and dissolution of the various troops addressed by the interactions and changes in strategies throughout the duration of the battle, and the ingenious arrangements and configurations of the forces, the wisdom behind these military ideas could be conveyed to the audience through narration or clear descriptions. Nevertheless, it was the vibrant color, lyrical movements, and dynamics that would heighten the visual sensations of the audience the most and immediate, and this was the aspect that was guaranteed in any film from Kubrick. The slow-paced mobilization of the troops, the turn of direction for the massive army, would make it as elegant as a Waltz. As Kubrick has succinctly stated in an interview, the aesthetic brilliance of these battles did not require someone with a military mind to understand, an ordinary viewer could easily feel the elegance through simple cinematic images. Kubrick drew a nice analogy that, if one could appreciate the beauty of a symphony or something mathematical like the Fibonacci sequence, they would be moved by the heightened and dynamic images from his ‘Napoleon’ film.
Now, some readers may sense a tension between style and substance here. If Kubrick was committed to explain to the audience objectively about the details of the execution of the battles, would his stylized signature approach divert from the objective truths he was trying to convey to the audience?
To me, the most important issue is to strike a delicate balance between personal style and substance. From what we have in ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, I am confident that if Kubrick could have an opportunity to direct ‘Napoleon’, he would be able to achieve that.
It is quite evident the more heightened scenes, such as ‘The Blue Danube’ and ‘The Stargate’ sequence, has not compromised the other more informative sequences that can provide the viewers a window to speculate about the future life and technology. The aforementioned sequences are special because Kubrick has attempted to convey the feelings and meanings (if there are any) only through filmic images and music, without recourse to any narrative elements. He has done so well in this regard that the style has eventually borne his name. If Kubrick could keep in mind about this balanced approach, then I believe the end result of ‘Napoleon’ would be a brilliant mélange of stunning filmic images and Realist depictions of fascinating historical events.
What would be the ultimate challenges for ‘Napoleon’?
‘Napoleon’ was an extremely ambitious project for Kubrick, and to translate a complex character like Napoleon Bonaparte into cinematic forms, it was going to present much challenges for this master in film.
It is almost impossible to compress Napoleon’s life into a three- or four-hour film, as Kubrick might have expected, without compromising or taking out certain aspects of Napoleon’s life. Apart from the various warfare Napoleon has found himself in, many aspects of his life are worth a closer inspection. How he has risen to the top from his humble start as a Corsica-born young man; his passion for Josephine; the reasons for his fall; or even his life style as an emperor (with a Viscontian touch in this case), are all interesting topics for any Napoleon-themed films. The challenges of making an epic often stem from the multi-faceted topic or the complexity of the protagonist. To be honest, not that many people can write something brilliant like ‘War and Peace’ on this planet!
Kubrick would be likely to show his filmmaking caliber through the portrayal of the Napoleonic Wars. Through many abstractions in the topic, this would likely ignore the minor, yet contributing, aspects of Napoleon’s life. This would likely attract criticisms from the audience and critics alike. And if the film was not doing as well as expected, like many re-assessed classics throughout the film history, it would certainly serve as a giant blow to Kubrick’s career, and would limit the scope of his future projects. The Napoleon was going to be extremely risky project for Kubrick, because he was working at full force at that era, yet there was no guarantee that his efforts would equate to the rewards he would get from the film. Indeed, Kubrick would most likely have to make a 10 hour film to do Napoleon justice – like, in the case of Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter nowadays!
Thus, his eventual abandonment of the project could be seen as a wise move. It is certainly an all-time shame that Kubrick had no chance to present his most ambitious project to the world, yet through the advancement of technology and the change in audience expectation, he understood that he had to come to terms with the trend. Since ‘2001’, every Kubrick film could capture the mindset of the contemporary audience, and even more they stroke resonance in the future viewers, too. Kubrick’s character was that of moderation and control – he knew when to stop and let things go, and then moved on. If he has forcefully pushed on, and ended up with a cinematic disaster, his reputation would be tarnished, and this has often happened to a number of great filmmakers over the course of film history.
Concluding Remarks
There is another old saying – often what is not present is the most interesting aspect. Kubrick could not make his Napoleon film, yet the effort and passion he has devoted to his unfinished film is what has made the whole saga legendary.
(2/2)
by Ed Law
22/8/2016
Film Analysis - 68
