Well, then — visually beautiful, but ordinary in conception, which is to say dreadful. For me, turning Napoleon’s life into a panoramic survey is a thoroughly schoolroom approach. And the film can indeed serve as just that: an overview of the life and deeds of this great historical figure, from his youth, through Josephine, the Directory, the coronation, Austerlitz, Russia and Waterloo, all the way to Saint Helena. A film about everything — rather in the archaic manner of those old screen versions of the “life of Jesus”.

It does not bother me that Scott changes facts, compresses events or invents his own versions of historical scenes. Film is art, not a scholarly study. Simply reproducing history would kill the art and leave us with the craft of reconstruction. The problem with Napoleon lies elsewhere: in the choice of storylines and the weight given to each.

The greatest flaw in these moving textbooks is the urge to cram in almost everything without giving enough weight to one idea that might become the film’s backbone. So we never really know which Napoleon Scott wants to show us: an outstanding commander, a cunning politician, a sensitive lover, a despot hungry for power and recognition, an aspiring parvenu, or all of them at once. Yet none of these aspects has enough force to drive the whole story. And if the intention was to show everything at once, that is precisely where the fundamental mistake lies.

The film starts to ooze out of shape like black sludge squeezed in a fist and seeping between the fingers. Events appear, make an impression and vanish before they have a chance to give the whole thing any direction.

Dear students, if you cannot be bothered to read the chapter on Napoleon, at least watch the film.

Scott is also inconsistent in his attempt to give greater importance to Napoleon’s relationship with Josephine, and even to Josephine’s own life. There are plenty of these scenes, and they take up a substantial part of the film, but not enough for their relationship to become the actual backbone of the narrative. There would be nothing wrong with a film about Napoleon and Josephine, with the great affairs of European politics unfolding in the background. It could even be a very interesting idea. Except that, in the end, Scott does not make that film.

In my experience, the best historical films often emerge when the leading role does not go to the greatest figure of the age. The protagonist can be fictional, or a minor figure almost forgotten by history, with the great events unfolding around them. History then becomes a setting for a story, rather than its own synopsis. The Deluge, Man of Marble, Man of Iron, Barry Lyndon — each, in its own way, shows how brilliantly this can work.

A pity, because visually Napoleon is very good, and individual scenes can be superb. Napoleon’s encounters with Josephine have psychological force, while my favourite — that wholly cinematic vision of the overthrow of the Directory — is almost a stroke of genius. The acting is first-rate. Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon can be mesmerising, often without saying very much. Those elements alone make the film worth watching.

In conception, though, this is not, for me, a film worthy of the third decade of the twenty-first century. And that is where I would have the most objections — in that aspect, rather than in the historical accuracy of uniforms, battles or dates.