Thanks for Dr. Lorris Chevalier for joining us to discuss how the sausage was made. I'm really hoping that our True Size series can eventually help inform more historically accurate depictions of military history

If you ever feel unappreciated, remember that this film had a historic advisor.

-"Napoleon was 27 in Toulon, and Josephine was 6 years older than him" -"Got ya, 47 and his wife was like half his age. Couldn't it without you man."

was moved when Lorris said "I'm involved in Egyptology, and Napoleon created Egyptology. To shoot the Pyramids was painful".

This is eerily similar to the historical advisor for Mel Gibson's The Patriot. At one point, Jason Isaacs even asked why they bothered to bring the advisor there, and the guy said that he thought so that Mel Gibson could say that they have a historical advisor for his movie.

Damn. The film ignored this poor dude more than my wife ignores me when her boyfriend comes over

The film is widely ridiculed here in France as wildly anti-historical and Anglo-centric.

So, in other words, Ridley Scott hired a bunch of people who wouldn't disagree with him (no offense, Dr. Chevalier-- it's part of the job), who didn't specialize in the field (though I'm sure Dr. Chevalier did an exceptional job with his research), got him to focus on the relationship rather than the character or events, and said "don't tell me when I'm doing something inaccurate." Yep, I think we can see why the film ended up the way it did.

Hearing Lorris Chevalier's perspective both impressed me and made me sad, because he's obviously very knowledgeable and enthusiastic about Napoleonic history [even though it wasn't his subject originally], but he's also, at least in my opinion a GIANT yesman. The way he talks about his personal relationship with Ridley Scott and the importance of "working your elbows" [rubbing elbows], the way he mostly refuses to criticize a film that was OBVIOUSLY, in hindsight, a disaster in terms of historicity and deflects, whenever criticism is offered, towards [shoddy] narrative framing, the way he pumps up the film and the little moments where individual actors and production designers demonstrated interest in the history despite the fact that none of that is reflected in the film itself... he acts like he's still in denial about how this film turned out. Like... the film overall was a disaster, but the color of Josephine's dog was right, and he's just so happy about that! He reminds us, at the beginning, that Ridley Scott fired tons of historical advisors before settling Chevalier, who he has stuck with ever since and... it's not hard to see why. He's a YESMAN. He was so proud to talk about how Ridley Scott wanted to give him a Christmas gift, like any of that matters, and it makes me sad because it demonstrates the kind of historian that Hollywood wants. I'm not blaming Chevalier. He's clearly a very competent historian, but he was steamrolled by Hollywood, and transformed into something a prop himself, it would seem.

I don’t envy the position this guy was put in.

I am working on a relatively serious board game about Napoleonics. i.e. I am obsessed with Napoleon and read surely 3000 pages of research to make the boardgame what I envisioned (on top of whatever else I read on Napoleonics in the first 50 years of my life). I was SURE I would go see this movie. Since its release and discovering the crazy interpretation and inaccuracies, I have refused to see it and have told my father and brother to avoid it as well. When I saw Napoleon leading a cavalry charge, skewering Allied soldiers, and heard someone yelling "Over the top!" in the Waterloo scene, I was DONE even considering whether I should see the movie. Seems to me that the 1981 Time Bandits movie representation of Napoleon was entirely more rewarding than this Ridley Scott version would be. XD

The fact that they hired someone focusing on Medieval history instead of Napoleon points to how much they cared about historical accuracy.

What happened is people insanely believed that the guy who made Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven was even slightly interested in telling historical biopics. He makes movies that he thinks are going to be blockbusters and he's not even right about what works half the time. This is the movie where I lost the last bit of respect I had for him as a filmmaker. Guy think's he's so smart and all of his historical changes suit his blockbuster-first mentality and this time it finally blew up in his face. And THANK GOD it did. Surely this will prevent him from telling a WW2 documentary that spends 2/3 of the runtime on Eva Braun.

I loved his comment about if a painter wants to stick a space snip in the middle of his painting he will. I think that summarizes everything perfectly.

My takes: + They chose an advisor only for the relationship with Josephine. + The script was fully created in advance without the advisor's input, who influenced only details during shooting and actors' prep. (You can find online an interview with the writer scarpa where he "details" how much he "documented" himself.) + The historical topics in which Scott has knowledge show that his perspective is British ethnocentrism; and as any kind of ethnocentrism, it's compatible only with immature, shallow and preconceived interpretations of history.

I think what happened is they hired the historical advisor, locked him in a cleaning closet for those 2 years, and then let him out after they wrapped filming

The "Battle for Austerlitz" part makes me wonder if the director is a "Total War" player, because IRL battles in the age with no Electrical communications, you can't command a whole army in a battlefield from a distance with just shouting.

This movie was S H I T E, and about as factually accurate as Braveheart

"If history is deprived of the truth you are left with nothing but a lie" Ridley Scott has now made millions of people remember the battle of Austrrelitz as a lie

Ridley Scott happened. There, saved you 2 hours😂

Dr. Chevalier, thank you for being so upright and honest to present yourself in this forum. It’s especially courageous of you because the movie is so historical as it is. How totally and utterly unnecessary this is seems to me best represented by your anecdote of the sniper and the sniperscope at the Waterloo sequence. Director Scott seems to have insisted on this for just sensational reasons. Same goes for the bombardment of the pyramids. If you wanted to represent Napoleon’s skill as an artillerist, do so with the Siege of Toulon! 🤔

He essentially says ‘the first thing I had into do was sell out, and once I did that for Mr Ridley, everything went fine’.

12:54 "Don't bother me with shit." The ego of that man...

I think the part that bothers me most is that the history was more interesting than what was fictionalized in the movie. If Scott was going to exercise artistic license, at least make the story more interesting than the real one. Which leads me to believe the movie was about painting Napoleon as an archetype for toxic masculinity, serving as a straw man rather than saying something meaningful about the character. Anyone watching this film without historical knowledge will walk away thinking, "wow, that's all Napoleon was? What was the big deal about this loser?" And that's a tragedy given he was one of the most important figures of the millennium.

Ive never seen such a well prepared and structured Interview on YT! Well done.

France is angry and disappointed but I can tell you Italy didn't like this film either. All the wars, politics, and history Napoleon went through in the Italian territories were entirely cut and summed up in a sentence that went like "...and then Italy surrendered" (as if the unified country of Italy existed at the time). It's a pity because Napoleon's relationship with his Italian roots would have been interesting to explore, and the Italian campaigns are when he really went from being an unknown general to an established figure and where his myth really started.

This is why it’s so hard for Hollywood to get historical advisors, most experts in a particular field wouldn’t even entertain an offer from a guy like Scott. They know better than to get pulled into that world of cultivating relationships over telling the truth in the first place. For historians, the only way to win Hollywood’s game, is to not play.

Ridley Scott is known for going off the historical rails with his own opinions and 'artistic vision', Kingdom of heaven had similar problems.

What the advisor's job was on the set: "well I was the only historian that wasn't fired, so I shuttled a celebrity around Paris, I did some spell checking, and the rest of the time I was just sitting there being ignored". yeah, no wonder the film turned out the way it did

The only accurate period pieces Scott ever made were Blake Hawk Down bc the Army wouldn't supply the props and training without it respecting the actual events, and to some degree the Deulists simply bc a few props and dates are hard to ruin. It isn't 2000 anymore, people have access to information like never before and "Gladiator" won't fly anymore.

Yeah.....what the fuck happened, I almost walked out at the Waterloo scene

I am quite struck that the advisor thinks he was depicted as the Great Man. Most people saw it as a hit piece and this being Tolstoys Napoleon.

I am not surprised Scott fires historical advisors when they point out issues. His movies are less historically accurate then game of thrones. Scott is someone I consider a true enemy of public history.

Like Kubrick once said, "There's never been a great movie about Napoleon" - sadly 50 years later, we are stuck with this Ridley's version of the film

This is what happens when The Joker becomes Emperor of France

I can't imagine having to explain to someone that I was the historical advisor on Napoleon. Ouch. That being said, excellent video!

There needs to be a post end credit scene where Joachim Phoenix plays a patient in a mental hospital who awakens, revealing that everything the audience just witnessed was his fevered but lucid dream of himself imagining he was Napoleon. At least it would explain the historical inaccuracies, weird time jumps, and other anomalies.

Merci Julien et l'equipe d'Invicta pour ce superbe format. Peu importe notre opinion sur le film, c'est toujours fascinant de découvrir ce qu'il s'est passé dans la tête des gens qui font ces films. J'espère qu'un jour ils feront appel à vous pour une production historique!

Your restraint shown here, Mr Invicta, is beyond impressive. The movie is pure travesty. But it looks nice.

Thank you Julien and Dr. Chevalier for doing this concise and substantive overview of the movie and its historicity!

That you for doing this I was really interested in hearing this

Thank you for the great interview, it explained a lot.

Really well prepared presentation. Kudos.

Damn, I know he doesn’t have any effect on the movie made he can just advise but could you imagine how embarrassing it would be to admit that you worked on Napoleon lol

When Chevalier says he would not have put Napoleon barraging the pyramids he's trying to have his cake and eat it. His name is on movie, this is the only Napoleon movie he's worked on. By not threatening to resign or literally throwing himself in front of the camera, Chevalier approved of putting it in the movie.

I've been waiting for an interview like this on the film. What did he think of the sword fight at the end between Boney and Welly? Ridley Scott at his finest!

excellent interview, well done

Great interview!

Seems to me that the 1981 Time Bandits movie representation of Napoleon was entirely more rewarding than this Ridley Scott version would be. XD

Final quote of the Dr.Chevalier was "The more you know about Napoleon the less you love the movie" (c) - Great Job mr. Spilberg!

guy is clearly smart as hell but he is a massive yes man so no wonder the movie came out the way it did

Know how this is going to go before I even watch. Soo I told them all this stuff and they then ignored me and done there own thing instead 🤦🏻‍♂️

What software are you using to lay up that outline?

Great interview, these two hours felt two short.

How much would you have to be paid to watch the longer version?

As another guy who has worked as a historical advisor for a (domestic) major production, it's quite funny to hear about the exact same things from a more global production. I spent 4 years working in the project and I can't even imagine trying to squeeze all that experience and all the stories in 2 hours of interview. "Painting a space ship" story does sound VERY familiar as an experience.... :)

Amazing interview

This guy seems quintessentially french.

Imagine the despair of armor historical advisor when he saw the half helmets in The Duel.

Being a historical advisor on any Hollywood production must be mildly frustrating a lot of the time. The rest of the time it must be really frustrating.

This guy is actually French, and this is the Napoleon we got? Incredibly hard to believe.

I'll stand up for Lorris on one point. Having a PhD in history means you know how to resesrch history- not just the topic you did your thesis on. So it was good to hear him explain. Ridley gave him one year to research the relationship. Not anything else! Ridley didn't care about anything else. Lorris was just following the brief.

Seriously Napoleons own brother in law, Murat, didn't even get screen time.

I haven't seen this movie. So I don't know what happened. But, I happened to watch the 1970 Waterloo film before the Scotts version was released. Does anyone have input on how both films differ? I can't imagine the movie was that bad. Also , I think people from the 70s were alot more patient and involved than people these days.

While I think this guy was a decent enough pick for historical advisor, I however think Ridley didn't switch to a more period advisor, because he already knew this guy wouldn't push back to hard about inaccuracies! I think using the obviously wrong equipment, places, characters and other inaccuracies simply for easy of filming or to push an idea is a little bit of a cop out, I have seen many productions that try to keep as much accuracy as possible and we're good films, historical pieces should have real history in them!

This is amazing that you've been able to get an interview with the historical advisor of a mainstream big-budget historical blockbuster, i know we're all frustrated with this film but you've really set yourself apart from almost all other videos on the subject by being able to ask people involved with the film itself. Of course we know that someone like Ridley Scott will never interview anyone who isn't smitten by him and brown-nosing him like most online interviews are nowadays with these robotic studio-puppet interviewers ahead of a film's promotional run.

I know the feeling I was one of the historical advisors on the Mel Gibson film set in Vietnam. The production team basically ignored everything we submitted

Waterloo was the better movie.

The Napoleon movie aside, should really be mentioned that Chevalier's expertise really shines through on The Last Duel. The best part of that movie is that the characters' morals and beliefs feel truly rooted in a medieval mindset, which is much more important for historical representation than sets, costumes, and specific events.

A movie originally called Napoleon and Josephine, with a plot centered around Napoleon and Josephine's failed marriage, in which historically Josephine being significantly older was a massive factor - and no one really cares that they cast not just one but two actresses who both look almost half the age of Joaquin Phoenix? That should have been the first thing in the list of things the movie got egregiously wrong. And yeah, we don't need all the Marshals. But not having Lannes and Murat in a story about Napoleon is unforgivable. Along with his divorce from Josephine, Lannes' death was another factor that coincided with, and possibly contributed to the dramatic change in Napoleon's career .

24:47 “You think you’re better because you have boats!” was actually exactly what Napoleon said back then.

I do feel like your choice of video title contradicts the constraints you introduce in the beginning of the video.

in short Ridley doesnt care, other than get his vision on the screen.. Well, we all knew this after his previous movies, but this time it was so obvious shortcuts and just for the picture moments.. that it became ridicilous.

13:15 I love lindybeige’s vidoes to death but this story seems very believable, he is what’s you would call a very unique character

1:51:20 This was far from the norm for battles of the era. Most encounters where one unit tried to close with another would result in one side withdrawing before they got to bayonet range... a mosh-pit of soldiers is nearly impossible to command, as well. A formation disintegrating into a chaotic melee is a disaster for a commander.

I love History!

This is hearsay, so maybe it wasn't related exactly as it happened, but it was telling when Scott said he wanted to depict "the first sniper in history" in that scene. I don't have an issue with the scene as an homage to Waterloo or as a way of showing that the coalition was at war not with France but with an individual. And maybe I'm reading too much into it, but if Scott's motivation was also to depict "the first sniper in history," it shows the completely different conception of history that a powerful director with an unrestrained vision has compared to a historian or lover of history. For many of us, "the first sniper in history" would be a specific historical figure, whether we actually know who he is or not. History is the actual record of human events, and this is part of it. We might be interested in finding out who that was, and when and where, and what technological developments made it possible, etc. And if we said, "you know, I would like to make a film, or even a little scene in a film about the first sniper in history," we would probably mean that in the sense of depicting, honoring, making note of that person in his context and with those interesting historical contingencies that surrounded it. Or we might compromise as Chevalier wanted to with the Plunkett, who was arguably a first sniper in history, say. And we would be interested in the details of that--the recumbant stance, the skill involved, whatever. But for Ridley Scott, "the first sniper in history" is the guy he inserts into his "historical" film to be the first sniper in history. "History" means people wearing costumes; Scott's not particularly interested in what actually happened before he was born. What the sniper looks like and uses and does reflects Scott's steampunk fantasy of what that ought to look like, and the purpose is "because I want to because that would be cool and funny." And even though to us getting it right would be cool, and actual historical coincidences can be funny, for him what makes it cool is that he did it and what makes it funny is that he thought "wouldn't it be funny if..." So the sense in which he can depict "the first sniper in history" is ultimately hollow, because tomorrow Steven Spielberg can make a movie about Alexander and staple a rifle scope to a Tyrian archer's bow and depict the new "first sniper in history" at the siege of Tyre. When Ridley Scott makes a "historical" film, his self-recognized accomplishments as a relator of history are the same as when a dictator creates a new medal to award himself for service to the revolution. He can have the first sniper and be the first to show Napoleon bombarding the pyramids and be the first to show how Napoleon was an incel, to tell the true story, and he can sit in his chair with his chest covered in medals and people can clap for him as long as they're forced to until they aren't anymore and then we can laugh at him like we laugh at some tinpot dictator's ridiculous uniform studded with bottle caps and plastic stars.

haven't seen Napoleon but remembering too late that in Robin Hood, Ridley Scott "artistically" envisioned the French invasion as some kind of WWII landing operation I probably could've saved 2hrs of this interview :-/

Really anticipating the 4 hour cut, perhaps that version will make everyone happier.

The movie was painful to watch but in any case, this historical advisor has a family name "Chevalier" (Knight) and has a phD in medieval history, it is an incredible conjunction. I wonder if he was influenced by this when he chose his major.

“Go along to get along”

Okay i just can't. Good lord, nothing against this guy personally but, as a Phd in history myself, how in the WORLD did he get hired on this movie? From his own description he is a MEDIEVAL historian who spent 7 years writing in what sounds like the now largely defunct field of psych-history from the 1990's. So he focused his whole doctoral program trying to understand the mind and worldview of 12th century knights. And then gets hired to advise on a 200 million dollar movie about 18th and 19th century france. I specialize in late nineteenth and early twentieth century america, i now cannot wait to be hired as an advisor on Hannibal movie coming out in a few years. Lord almighty, they must have just grabbed the nearest french historian at random for the sole reason of having "historical advisor" in the credits to give the impression they cared at all about history. And if this dude advised on the "mentality" of napoleonic soldiers and the man himself, then he did it wrong. Ladies and gentlemen, there are thousands of experts in the exact field of revolutionary and napoleonic france, they didn't bother to find one for this movie. What do you think they thought about the importance of history in a historical movie by that fact alone.

I'm suprised the vikings didn't turn up in the film led by Henry the Eigth

Before I watched the movie, I had friends, who consider themselves to be history buffs, tell me after they watched it that the movie should have been called "Josephine" rather than Napoleon. After watching it, I kind of agree. Napoleon didn't feel like the main character.

So basically the music was accurate/good and nothing else.

Sorry but saying some scene are burlesque and absurd is plain dishonest. The majority of people which have or will see this film will believe what they saw as true and even if some might know it's not genuine this will nonetheless impact their vision of history way more than any (great) history book that are quoted in this interview that frankly no one will read. The student from La Sorbonne was right. Gizeh Pyramid destruction for local people would fell like 9-11. Voluntary destruction of culture is an element of genocide and lying - and lets be clear it's a voluntary plain lie not some creative liberty - is inflammatory and intellectually criminal. No disrespect to M. Chevalier, it's not is movie. But I would be utterly ashamed to have my name associated with this movie, especially as historical advisor. If this kind of portray had been done to Washington or Lincoln he would face so much troubles.

They had a historical advisor, I am shocked I just thought they made it up as they went along.

1:54:33 - Invicta going to Hollywood being foreshadowed. Thumbs up, this is the most important part of the 2 hour video.

As a Napoleon buff and student of history I tried removing the bias I had towards unhistorical events but some things weren’t acceptable. 1. Napoleon divorces Josephine before Tilsit in 1807 and not after like historically. 2. The underrepresentation of the marshals 3. Borodino scène is Napoleon charging in a Republican uniform against Austrians?!?! [possibly scenes made for Marengo] 4. Napoleon dying 5. As a Belgian I was astonished they used “La muette de Portici” which was the song that mythologically inspired the Belgian revolution of 1830. The best scene of the movie imo was Toulon when you forget that napoleons horse wasn’t blown up. Vive l’Empereur!

Nice

Thank you for the inside, and for the content. But it was an horrible job of bringing such historic character to life. Cheers

Strikes me like very intelligent person.

Anyone who saw Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven could have no hopes that this film would have next to zero historical merit.

I think a more historically accurate trilogy about Napoleon could have been pretty great.

12:37 the directors mentality summarized into one encounter.

*What happened was that people forgot what **_Kingdom of Heaven_** and **_Gladiator_** were: sub-par historical epics directed by a guy who has no business making historical epics.*

People have said it in multiple ways in many comments but what I get out of this interview is that Ridley Scott doesn't want a Historical Advisor, and that Chevalier isn't really a historical advisor. He's a "historical yesman" who just gives Scott what he wants to hear and then gives pointers to people working on stuff that Ridley doesn't care about/notice. When a production wants real in-depth advise, they hire experts specific to the topic/time period and have them working with the writers ewven before they start writing the script. I hope that Scott stays far away from historical movies and that the doctor ends up working for a project whose leads actually value his expertise and willingness to work hard.

The movie taught me that half of the french generals and nobility were actually dark black. Who would have thought, aside from the google AI.

speaking of story over history, I see parallels between this poor man and alec guinnes' character in bridge on the river kwai.

Please no spoilers I've just started reading a book about the Napoleonic wars and I don't want to know what happens 👍