Here is a round-up of a few recent publications of mine. My review of Ridley Scott’s Napoleon has come out in The New York Review of Books. It’s always hard for me to watch films on my area of expertise, and not grimace at the inaccuracies. Obviously, creative artists should be free to take liberties with the historical record, but they should have good reasons for doing so. I didn’t see any good reason to portray Napoleon Bonaparte as a petulant, whiny, lovesick boor with a perpetually confused expression on his face. And Scott tries to have things both ways, On the one hand, he claims the right to alter the history (“When I have issues with historians, I ask: ‘Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up then.”) On the other, he insists he is offering an actual historical judgment. The actual life of Napoleon Bonaparte would have made for far more gripping drama than Scott’s work, and I conclude the review by offering a comparison to a much earlier film that took the man’s life much more seriously: Abel Gance’s 1927
Hope you’re well. On a completely different topic: I’d love your take on the new Apple series on Chanel and Dior and the larger subject of collaborationism in WWII (and suggestions recommendations re historiography on this). Many thanks.
David
Hi
Hope you’re well. On a completely different topic: I’d love your take on the new Apple series on Chanel and Dior and the larger subject of collaborationism in WWII (and suggestions recommendations re historiography on this). Many thanks.
David
Good update and the stuff on rights of military victor is important.