"Ferrari" and "Napoleon"

Time to take stock of some recent biopics. 

I wasn't originally planning to write reviews for either of these films.  They're both pretty standard biopics, and deeply flawed in many ways.  However, Michael Mann hasn't directed a movie since 2015's "Blackhat," and "Ferrari" was better than I was expecting.  Ridley Scott continues to make the kind of epics that nobody makes anymore, and "Napoleon" is not one of the better ones.  However, it's ambitious enough to be interesting.  

First, "Ferrari."  Adam Driver plays Enzo Ferrari, the famous Italian race car manufacturer and enthusiast.  His Italian accent has not improved since "House of Gucci," and he's a couple of decades too young for the part, but eventually I got used to it.  Penelope Cruz as his wife Laura, however, is fabulous.  The film takes place in 1957, a year after the Ferraris' son has died, and while Enzo is developing a Formula One car and preparing for a race, the Mille Miglia, that he hopes will help change the Ferrari company's fortunes.  He also has to find a way to admit the uncomfortable truth to Laura that he has a longtime mistress, Lina (Shailene Woodley), and a young son with her, Piero (Giuseppe Festinese).  

Half of "Ferrari" is exactly what you'd expect it to be about - the race, the cars, the drivers, and all the sturm and drang of a landmark moment in sports history.  Mann does a great job of getting across how dangerous and how terrifying these races were, with cars that had no safety features to speak of, experimental vehicles, and all kinds of unforeseen hazards.  There are two major crash sequences in the film, both impressively intense and absolutely horrific.  The drivers, including Alfonso de Portago (Gabriel Leone), Peter Collins (Jack O'Connell), and Piero Taruffi (Patrick Dempsey), have big personalities and plenty of competitive spirit.  As a racing film, "Ferrari" is perfectly satisfactory - exciting, suspenseful, and not too shabby with the historical detail.

However, I like "Ferrari" primarily for the domestic drama simultaneously playing out between Enzo and Laura.  Penelope Cruz's Laura drives so much of the action because she's not afraid to wield what power she has, and to ensure she gets what she's owed.  She doesn't actually appear much in the film, but when she does, everything else is of secondary importance.  Enzo may rail and struggle and despair over his legacy, but Laura is the one who sets out the terms of their relationship and what their path forward will be.  It's fantastic stuff, and only possible because Cruz's performance is so good.  Having very Italian characters being played by Americans with silly, exaggerated accents almost never works, but "Ferrari" gets away with it by having Cruz in the mix as the crucial lynchpin.        

Now on to "Napoleon," which has been roundly scolded by everyone who knows anything about Napoleon Bonaparte about all of the historical inaccuracies.  I know almost nothing about Napoleon Bonaparte, and moderately enjoyed the movie.  We follow the life of Napoleon (Joaquin Phoenix) from the start of his career during the French Revolution, through his famous conquests and reign as Emperor, and finally to Waterloo, exile, and death.  His political and military career is shown in counterpoint with his tumultuous relationship with Josephine  de Beauharnais (Vanessa Kirby), his eventual wife and Empress.

Unlike "Ferrari," I enjoyed "Napoleon" mostly for its epic battle scenes and recreations of historical events.  The film really got across how good Napoleon was at conquering things, and how his power was tied to his facility in waging wars against anybody who dared to oppose him.  The scenes of battle as depicted by Ridley Scott are designed to look good, and I was very impressed with the scale of his ambitions.  I couldn't keep track of most of the secondary characters, though Rupert Everett shows up in the last act as the Duke of Wellington, but the whole point of the movie is that Napoleon was always the most important man in the room, and the only one worth paying attention to.  

So, I was a little perplexed that the depiction of Napoleon's private life was so chaotic.  Vanessa Kirby does fine with the material she's given, but doesn't seem to be playing the same character from scene to scene.  Josephine's attitude toward Napoleon swings wildly from seductive to fearful, from affectionate and happy in the marriage to depressed and desolate.  Napoleon remains obsessively in love with her throughout his life, but is unable to express this except in the most brutish terms.  Neither of them are faithful, ultimately.  Phoenix still seems to be in recovery from "Beau is Afraid" at times, and his Napoleon is often an awkward, loutish bully, desperately playacting at nobility.  Nothing else in the film suggests he's supposed to be a Trump stand-in, but I can't help but wonder.

So, this "Napoleon" is far from a great film, but I respect that Ridley Scott is trying things that a less confident director wouldn't.  I do feel like I've learned a lot about Napoleon Bonaparte - but unfortunately not much that's actually true.    

---