IMDb-BEWERTUNG
6,2/10
1020
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuAnother of Napoleon's adventures in this epic reconstruction of the battle of Austerlitz, where he had the greatest victory of his career, over the Russians.Another of Napoleon's adventures in this epic reconstruction of the battle of Austerlitz, where he had the greatest victory of his career, over the Russians.Another of Napoleon's adventures in this epic reconstruction of the battle of Austerlitz, where he had the greatest victory of his career, over the Russians.
- Auszeichnungen
- 1 Nominierung insgesamt
Handlung
WUSSTEST DU SCHON:
- WissenswertesIn the 1920s Abel Gance had written a six-part movie biography of Napoleon. He shot the first part (Napoleon (1927)), which turned out to be a financial disaster. He sold the sixth part to Lupu Pick, who shot Der gefangene Kaiser (1929). Wanting to make a comeback at the end of the 1950s, Gance rewrote the third part to make it "Austerlitz".
- PatzerIn the scene in William Pitt's office in London which is set in the early 1800's, you can see in the background through the window the Houses of Parliament and Big Ben, 60 years before they were built.
- Alternative VersionenThe original French version runs longer than the English dubbed international one. It contains extra scenes including ones with Napoleon visiting his mistress and of Ségur (Jean-Louis Trintignant) imagining the coronation of the emperor for the palace staff.
- VerbindungenEdited into Geschichte(n) des Kinos: Seul le cinéma (1994)
Ausgewählte Rezension
This movie exemplifies the debt that French cinema owes to theater. And, it shows how it can crumble under it.
One cannot say that this movie is badly made, lazy or uninspired. Yet, I did not feel the grandeur of this historic episode as I think it was intended. The movie is not boring or flat. However, for a film that covers the most brilliant victory of a legendary general, it feels a bit toothless.
The film spends the first half carefully laying out the situation and issues that led Napoleon to crown himself emperor. I would say that it is rather static, and feels like a play. It is dialog-heavy. I am not sure why Mondy was chosen as Napoleon. He looks convincing in most of it, yet he does a lot of yelling, which does not give off a statesman-like quality. It does not really capture the heft of it. The film is also heavy on intrigue and personal drama, it can feel tedious if you're not into French history. Some important events happen off-screen; it is harder to keep being engaged with what is happening.
My favorite scene happens as an act-break of sorts, roughly at the middle, it is Napoleons coronation. It is off-screen as well, but it is represented in form of house staff following the ceremony in parallel; at the palace not the church, with the help of rehearsal miniatures. That is where Gances talent shines. It is the best stuff in the movie and it is very clever and inventive. I suspect that it was done this way because filming the actual re-enactment of the ceremony would have been too expensive/difficult. Yet, it totally works. It treats an event that is big, extravagant, symbolic in something more intimate. The scene encapsulates something more classical. Because it focuses not on Napoleon, the pope or the dignitaries, but on the house staff reactions, you get something sweetly human. It is the reaction of the common folk, the little people. One of his aides provides a voice-over that turns the scene into something very poetic, almost Communion-like. It makes it very solemn and dignified. The immobile lifeless miniatures tie the scene in a very iconic, clean, divine bow.
Generally, you get that this film serves as an update to Gances own Napoleon. In that sense, it would serve as an example that less is more. The previous film was regarded, and still is, as one of the most inventive and important of the silent era. Here, you can feel that with the use of sound, dialog, color and the ability to film battles and impressive set-pieces; you are losing the essence of Napoleon: the persona. The strength of the film Napoleon was the visuals and the sense of distant majestic dignity it conveyed. In Austerlitz, despite sound and color, you lose the striking visual poetry. You are left with more precise plot points, but less evocative characters.
One cannot say that this movie is badly made, lazy or uninspired. Yet, I did not feel the grandeur of this historic episode as I think it was intended. The movie is not boring or flat. However, for a film that covers the most brilliant victory of a legendary general, it feels a bit toothless.
The film spends the first half carefully laying out the situation and issues that led Napoleon to crown himself emperor. I would say that it is rather static, and feels like a play. It is dialog-heavy. I am not sure why Mondy was chosen as Napoleon. He looks convincing in most of it, yet he does a lot of yelling, which does not give off a statesman-like quality. It does not really capture the heft of it. The film is also heavy on intrigue and personal drama, it can feel tedious if you're not into French history. Some important events happen off-screen; it is harder to keep being engaged with what is happening.
My favorite scene happens as an act-break of sorts, roughly at the middle, it is Napoleons coronation. It is off-screen as well, but it is represented in form of house staff following the ceremony in parallel; at the palace not the church, with the help of rehearsal miniatures. That is where Gances talent shines. It is the best stuff in the movie and it is very clever and inventive. I suspect that it was done this way because filming the actual re-enactment of the ceremony would have been too expensive/difficult. Yet, it totally works. It treats an event that is big, extravagant, symbolic in something more intimate. The scene encapsulates something more classical. Because it focuses not on Napoleon, the pope or the dignitaries, but on the house staff reactions, you get something sweetly human. It is the reaction of the common folk, the little people. One of his aides provides a voice-over that turns the scene into something very poetic, almost Communion-like. It makes it very solemn and dignified. The immobile lifeless miniatures tie the scene in a very iconic, clean, divine bow.
Generally, you get that this film serves as an update to Gances own Napoleon. In that sense, it would serve as an example that less is more. The previous film was regarded, and still is, as one of the most inventive and important of the silent era. Here, you can feel that with the use of sound, dialog, color and the ability to film battles and impressive set-pieces; you are losing the essence of Napoleon: the persona. The strength of the film Napoleon was the visuals and the sense of distant majestic dignity it conveyed. In Austerlitz, despite sound and color, you lose the striking visual poetry. You are left with more precise plot points, but less evocative characters.
- Criticalstaff
- 30. Aug. 2021
- Permalink
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is The Battle of Austerlitz?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsländer
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- The Battle of Austerlitz
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 4.000.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Laufzeit2 Stunden 46 Minuten
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.35 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
What is the English language plot outline for Austerlitz - Glanz einer Kaiserkrone (1960)?
Antwort