Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueAnother 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.
- Prix
- 1 nomination au total
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesIn the 1920s Abel Gance had written a six-part movie biography of Napoleon. He shot the first part (Napoléon (1927)), which turned out to be a financial disaster. He sold the sixth part to Lupu Pick, who shot Napoleon auf St. Helena (1929). Wanting to make a comeback at the end of the 1950s, Gance rewrote the third part to make it "Austerlitz".
- GaffesIn 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.
- Autres versionsThe 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.
- ConnexionsEdited into Histoire(s) du cinéma: Seul le cinéma (1994)
Commentaire en vedette
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 août 2021
- Lien permanent
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is The Battle of Austerlitz?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- The Battle of Austerlitz
- Lieux de tournage
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 4 000 000 $ US (estimation)
- Durée2 heures 46 minutes
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant