Bad French accents and ballistic battle scenes

So I watched Ridley Scott’s new movie Napoleon on the weekend before Christmas (really enjoyable movie - especially if you love watching history come to life like me) and it got me thinking about the perils, and the positives, of trying to portray historical events in the form of a narrative.

In other words - how hard is it to tell a story about something that happened in history, when the history doesn't fit neatly into the familiar structure of a story?

Now Napoleon is a good example of where this can work well and also where it doesn’t.

But before I start, let me explain who Napoleon is - and why he was worthy of a two hundred million dollar movie being made about him, over two centuries after his death?

Okay... extremely short version.

Napoleon ruled France in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. He was extremely good at war, right until he wasn't. By the time he was finally defeated and exiled, he had made enemies of most of Europe.

Slightly longer version (feel free to skip this paragraph if you're not interested).

Napoleon was a talented military officer who rose to power in post-revolutionary France (this is right around the end of the 18th Century). He started as an artillery officer who famously and decisively won at battle against the British at Toulon. Promoted to general after his success, Napoleon became a popular and important figure in French society.

When the post-revolutionary Government collapsed in the late 1790’s, Napoleon was able to use his military prestige and fame to have himself appointed Consul (sort of like President). By leading France to a series of spectacular military victories, Napoleon amassed more and more power until he eventually seized the throne, having himself appointed Emperor.

The first few years of his reign were a continuation of military success, winning battle after battle against the Emperor of Austro-Hungary and the Tsar of Russia.

The British would prove to be a thorn in his side, defeating the French navy at sea, but in terms of military success on land – Napoleon’s list of victories was unparalleled.

In 1812 he overplayed his hand, trying to invade Russia at the head of a giant coalition army. The Russian winter was merciless that year and Napoleon was humbled – returning home with only 40,000 of the 600,000 troops he had marched into Russia with.

By 1814 his power was slipping and, facing imminent invasion from a coalition of European powers, Napoleon was forced to abdicate and go into exile on the island of Elba.

He didn’t stay there long, instead returning to France, deposing the new French King, and leading the French army into a second and what he hoped would be a decisive victory against the English and Prussians near a small town in Belgium called Waterloo.

Napoleon was defeated.

Forced to abdicate again and this time imprisoned by the British and sent into exile on a small windswept mid Atlantic Island called St Helena.

Napoleon would never leave St Helena – dying there in 1821.

That's it. Napoleon in a nut shell. Arguably the most famous person in the 19th Century (with apologies to any American readers who are protesting that Abraham Lincoln was more famous. He wasn't.)

That’s the life story of Napoleon and that’s the story that the Ridley Scott movie tries to tell.

And here’s the problem.

I’ve just summarised for you roughly 25 years of French history – including some of the pivotal events of the 18th and 19th Centuries.

Trying to fit all that into the narrative of a two-and-a-half-hour movie is… pretty much impossible.

Especially because the story ends with his defeat, exile and death - not exactly a crowd pleaser.

Now Ridley Scott does several things right. He smartly uses Napoleon’s relationship with Josephine – his wife, the emotional centre of the narrative. By doing so it means we (the audience) are following one single narrative – their love affair, eventual marriage, divorce, and final separation.

From a story-telling point of view that is a solid idea. Much like how James Cameron did with Titanic - the love story provides the emotional heft and connection while world changing events are happening to, and around, the characters.

Because a series of events with no link between them isn’t a story. At least not one that people would want to read or watch.

This narrative problem – trying to tell a story of someone’s whole life, is common to this sort of retelling of history. A good narrative has what we called a character arc. The main character (protagonist) will be a different person by the end of the story than they were at the start. The changes they underwent are because of what happened in the story. This is the arc.

In Napoleon – we start the film with him being an arrogant but talented and ambitious military officer. By the time we get to the end of the film, Napoleon is still essentially the same person. He is still arrogant, still talented and his ambition has been thwarted by his imprisonment – but there’s no measurable difference in the character.

This character arc is what Napoleon is missing in this film. And while it is certainly an entertaining and enjoyable film (the battle scenes are absolutely worth the price of the ticket), it is ultimately a little empty.

Napoleon remains as much a mystery to us at the end of the story as he was at the start. And it may well be that this reflects the real Napoleon. Maybe he really didn’t let anyone know his real self. Maybe he was such a private person that no one could really know him.

Either way, Ridley Scott’s ambitious movie doesn’t offer any answers.

By comparison, the Netflix series The Crown has just ended after six seasons and sixty years of storytelling. Like Napoleon it was an ambitious attempt to tell the story of a major historical figure (the late Queen Elizabeth the Second) throughout her years in power. But where The Crown succeeds better than Napoleon as that we see the Queen change and respond to events over the course of the story.

She has a character arc. A significant one.

In season one she is a determined but naïve young lady, thrust suddenly into a role she was ill prepared for and with little idea what she is doing. By season six she is the seasoned matriarch of a large family, completely sure of her role and focused on how the institution she has headed will survive after she is gone.

It’s a transformative arc, as it should be.

This is good storytelling.

But what also helps in The Crown is what Ridley Scott attempts to do in Napoleon. Using a relationship as the core storyline.

Or in the case of The Crown - three relationships.

The Crown maintains an unwavering focus on the Queen and her relationship with three people.

Her husband Prince Phillip – their marriage is the primary emotional focus of season one and two and a subplot of every subsequent season.

Her sister Princess Margaret – whose close relationship with the Queen remains a tight focus throughout the entire series and whose thwarted romantic, and dynastic ambitions give a depth of tragedy to the whole story.

Her son Prince Charles – whose difficult relationship with his parents becomes a primary focus in season 3 and 4 and whose unhappy marriage to Princess Diana is a focus in season 4, 5 and the first part of season 6.

By focusing on these three relationships, the narrative is kept tight throughout the sprawling almost fifty hours of television and decades of history it retells. I think it is a smart choice, because otherwise what you would end up with is a series of recreations of historical events – with no reason for us as an audience to follow from one episode to the next.

This is where The Crown succeeds but Napoleon ultimately fails.

As an author who writes stories set in real historical time periods and involving actual people – I try to keep those lessons in mind.

In Partners in Time, I chose to keep the narrative focused tightly on Harry and Jett and I give the reader only a taste of the history they are experiencing as it specifically pertains to them. What I hope is that the reader gets a sense of the time period and the people involved (especially the young Princess Margaret) without me having to go into exacting detail about every single thing that happened.

In the second book, due out in 2024, the main characters are going to spend much of the narrative in a specific time and place (which I won’t spoil here) but in which some massive historical events were unfolding. Hopefully I can keep the balance right and maybe inspire my readers to do a little digging themselves, to find out a bit about the world outside of the story that I have told.

I am very much aware of the responsibility of retelling or including historical events because in a lot of cases, what people know about historical events is because of what they read in a book or saw in a movie. For instance most people think the great Scottish freedom fighter William Wallace wore a kilt and painted his face blue while fighting the English (he actually did neither) because of Mel Gibson’s popular and acclaimed 1995 movie Braveheart.

And that’s the tricky part – the balance.

Respecting history by trying to get it right but also telling a compelling story that engages your reader.

You’ll have to let me know how I do.