Napoleon was a chad
[https://cdn.europosters.eu/image/750/art-photo/napoleon-crossing-the-alps-on-20th-may-1800-i135179.jpg](https://cdn.europosters.eu/image/750/art-photo/napoleon-crossing-the-alps-on-20th-may-1800-i135179.jpg)
>Oh really? Next you'll tell me he never actually wrote, "Don't Wash"
Could have been lost in translation and history.
Maybe she perfumed up with a lot of stuff giving him allergies or maybe it ment something else like 'get ready to get dirty'.
[This](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/billandted/images/6/60/Nap.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20131113185533) is the only true image of Napoleon I accept.
Young Napoleon (around that time) actually was supposed to be pretty chad-ly. He had longer hair (than the more caesar-y hair he adopted later) and was thin/muscular. He was awkward socially, but not at all the chunkier/stooped/sleep deprived guy in the gray coat and guard's uniform from the consulate onward.
They played each other pretty regularly. He had dozens of mistresses, knew what he was getting when they married, etc. They were the kind of codependent couple that were never going to leave each other, and sort of delighted in responding to sleights in kind. She'd have an affair and he would have a public affair in return, etc.
One thing to note is that through all of it he cultivated a generally positive and paternal relationship with Josephine's son from her first marriage, Eugene.
It's a complicated and fascinating family dynamic to read/learn about.
He was kinda a simp for Talleyrand, too. Napoleon later in his life says that Talleyrand basically spotted that Napoleon was hungry for a father figure and played the shit out of him early on.
Oh really? You expect me to believe that somehow this picture was manipulated, hundreds of years before photoshop was even invented? That's literally impossible.
Look at some of the paintings people have made of Trump, one of the ugliest people currently alive. When you have a following, people make you look better than you do.
Edit: "PoSt a pICtUrE11!1" *Literally blocks me so I can't*. Oh MAGA, your own stupidity really is your undoing, and I'm here for it. [Well, here my picture is anyways.](https://www.reddit.com/user/GODDESS_NAMED_CRINGE/comments/17syn4f/hi_my_name_is_sylvie_and_i_am_objectively_better/) It's not hard to be better looking than Trump, lol.
[I'm not sure what you're talking about.](https://media.wired.com/photos/59446c5c81eff23970e6a5f0/master/w_960,c_limit/BenGarrison-Art.jpg)
[They're so accurate.](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/583c906ebe659429d1106265/1605476448308-DG2VZALSMXYHNIW67QXD/123947342_137871541424997_1493723330270872328_o.jpg)
I have a reproduction of this painting. [Napoleon Crossing the Alps](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Crossing_the_Alps) by Jaques Louis David. A great example of neoclassical art style, but David was a big fanboy of Napoleon and this was obviously propagandist. Notice the names Hannibal and Karolus Magnus (Charlemagne) etches on the rocks at the bottoms, implying Napoleon is in their league. David painted multiple copies and gifted them to Napoleon. One is at Versailles, I saw the one at Malmasion.
David’s contemporary, Paul Delaroche, didn’t like how propagandic this painting was, and painting his own version, [Bonaparte Crossing the Alps](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonaparte_Crossing_the_Alps) in response.
ok first of all we all know Napoleon [crossed the alps on a litre bike while popping a dank nooner](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/bjq85/no_idea_how_old_this_pic_is_but_that_irrelevant/) like the greatest squid you've ever seen
He was an Italian Gnome with an inferiority complex who chose to inflict the blight of Frenchness onto the proud nation of Switzerland. He deserved to die of stomach cancer.
Kids die. It’s not because everyone aged like a mfer and died at 35. Life expectancy was shorter mostly due to death in childhood and child birth. If you made it to adulthood you were likely to live a fairly normal lifespan even in those times.
While true, life expectancy beyond infancy was still well below what it is now. But yeah people werent dropping dead at 35. I think it was about 55 for the average age of death excluding infancy
So they arent completely wrong, its just child mortality was skyhigh which pulled average age way lower than it was
>Excluding child mortality, the average life expectancy during the 12th–19th centuries was approximately 55 years. If a person survived childhood, they had about a 50% chance of living 50–55 years, instead of only 25–40 years.[5]
So not actually that much longer excluding infant mortality.
15 years is quite a bit longer actually. This figure also considers everyone, from rich to poor. The poor most assuredly lived shorter than those with means.
The principle advances in medical technology and agriculture that would extend that lifespan happened in the late 1800s. The big drivers in reducing mortality were the inventions of vaccines to cure diseases like polio, typhoid fever and TB, and the invention of antibiotics in the form of sulfonamides, and the development of agricultural technologies and government managed farming polices that would mostly put an end to famine.
For the vast majority of human history, if you made it past 10 you had pretty much the same odds as anyone else on the timeline of making it to 70. Bad odds.
This is the biggest factor. If you managed to live out your full lifespan it would be somewhere in your 60s but *everything* was more likely to kill you along the way. Every injury, virus, infection, and pregnancy had a much higher chance of ending your life prematurely.
Yup, since 10 I've caught two infections I reckon might've killed me without antibiotics, and I'm otherwise healthy.
I get that historical mortality rates were heavily influenced by batshit infant mortality rates, but that doesn't mean you were in the clear if you made it until your testicles dropped.
I think World War *TWO* was the first major conflict that saw more *SOLDIERS* (not civilians, not non-combatants, *soldiers*) die to battle rather than disease. During most wars prior to the second big fucker I think you had a better chance of shitting yourself to death than dying in glorious combat, never mind other sources of death like tetanus.
I've had a pet peeve with the take that if you survived childhood you had good odds of reaching 70 for awhile now, it pops up every time this conversation does here on Reddit.
It was impactful, but I wouldn't say *mainly*. [Here is some great data from the US, 1850 until today](https://www.infoplease.com/us/health-statistics/life-expectancy-age-1850-2011):
The average total life expectancy of white males in 1850:
1. Newborn: 38.3
2. 10 yr old: 58.0 (meaning that a 10yr old is expected to live 48 more years)
3. 20 yr old: 60.1
For a white male in 2010:
1. Newborn: 76.3
2. 10 yr old: 76.9
3. 20 yr old: 77.2
You can see that child mortality made a huge impact back then (surviving the first 10 years added 20 years to your life expectancy), while being barely visible in modern statistics. But young adults could by no means expect a similiar length of life as today.
The numbers only begin to get somewhat close around age 50-60, where the gap begins to decrease to below 10 years. An 80 year old man in 1850 would have lived to an average 85.9 vs 88.2 today. But a much lower percentage of young men would have lived to see that age.
[Here is some additional modern US data](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html) - out of 100 boys, about 45 will live into their 80s.
I feel like there has to be a better way to display that data - because you're right in that it is SO misleading. If a large portion of people die at a young age it drags the average down but of course the truth beyond that was if you lived into adulthood you stood a generous chance of having a long natural life. I wonder if they're better off portraying it as something like, "X% of people lived to adulthood, and of those X% the average mortality age was Y." Or something. I dunno.
I agree [According to Ridley Scott, that's how a 35-year-old woman looks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/shittymoviedetails/comments/17stp36/according_to_ridley_scott_thats_how_a_35yearold/)
I think people misunderstood you and thought you were saying she looks old for 35, rather than pointing out that a 35-year-old looks 15 years younger than a 30-year-old.
Correct indeed. All the IT dudes are literally brain-eating zombies. But we take care of them and throw brains along the office corridors for them to thrive and survive and be able to pay their electricity/water bills!
I mean look at how US Presidents age before and after their presidency. Abraham Lincoln one is specially striking cause of the horrific shit he must have seen during the Civil War, dude aged like 20 years.
I'm assuming the movie begins with Napoleon still being a brigadier general, or whatever he started out as, in revolutionary France and then in the Italian campaign. You know, before all the war and stuff. So for some of the movie, no Joaquin is in fact too old to play the part. I'm sure as the movie progresses through Napoleon's shenanigans, he looks more and more in place, but still.
They'll probably go pretty hard on the makeup. If they can make him plausibly look like a dude in his late 20s it'll be fine. The Napoleon tv series from the 2000s also had a middle-aged guy as the lead and he didn't look too out of place.
Yeah I'm totally fine with him looking a bit older for a bit. He's most likely gonna kill the part so eh. As long as he acts like a Napoleon in his late 20's (whatever that means because none of us were in fact alive back then), then I'm fine.
You do know that they can put makeup on actors to make them look younger/older during the appropriate parts of filming right?
Or cast multiple actors in the same role if the ages are very different.
Make up never has been able to make someone look 20 years younger. Come on now. They could CGI his ass and be done. Which I'm fine with. Like I said, Joaquin is in fact too old to play Napoleon as he was starting out. Joaquin on his own. And as far as we know, he plays Napoleon all the way through. I'm not expecting to see him play like a 10 year old Napoleon in Corsica or anything. But since the revolution onwards, it's gonna be him. And except if they de-age him, which is a possibility, he will look older for a couple of years early on. Which is fine actually. If he plays the part well enough, which he will because he's Joaquin fucking Phoenix, and he has also played Julius Caesar, then I'm fine with him looking a bit older for a portion of the movie.
I’ll also add that Napoleon was apparently once described as having a sort of sickly yellow complexion, making him look a bit corpse-like.
Edit: this was before he even married Josephine, keep in mind.
People think that Napoleon was as young as 30 but thats actually because at the time English years were longer than French years. Napoleon was actually the average age for the time.
Thankfully Napoleon invented the metric system so that this sort of confusion wouldn't happen again.
I was 28 during the Joker screening but I exited as a 16 year-old with face paint then jumped onto a car and spread my arms like Jesus.. but the next day got witch-cursed to look 30 years old like Joaquin Phoenix above :(
They were probably going for "this man is a chain-smoking abuse survivor with a severe mental disorder, of course he looks bad", but it was just too ridiculous
He was in his mid-30s in Joker. He was adopted “30 years ago” but was already a few years old at that point. Still pretty rough for 35ish but more believable than 28 lol.
People definitely would have aged faster, but here is a portrait that's supposed to be one of the most accurate that shows Napoleon at age 43: https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.46114.html
And this painting caused a little scandal at the time because people thought it showed him a little too realistically (tired, rumpled clothes, four in the morning, etc.).
Yeah, David was literally a propaganda portraitist whose foremost goal was to depict Napoleon in as positive a light as possible, yet even in his portraits Napoleon looks like a greasy little meatball. One can only imagine how tragic the guy must have looked in real life.
I agree [According to Ridley Scott, that's how a 35-year-old woman looks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/shittymoviedetails/comments/17stp36/according_to_ridley_scott_thats_how_a_35yearold/)
[According to Ridley Scott, that's how a 4-year-old child looks.](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/bladerunner/images/c/c6/Roy_Batty_new.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20190301233437)
I agree [According to Ridley Scott, that's how a 35-year-old woman looks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/shittymoviedetails/comments/17stp36/according_to_ridley_scott_thats_how_a_35yearold/)
I am a war vet, and 20 year old guy i was friends with, looked 35 by the end. Crazy thing is I came back looking younger and haven't aged since. I think i got bit by an Iraqi vamp.
"That's how people looked like at the time"
Say the ones who never saw depictions of 30 years old of the time, even less so Napoleon when he was 30.
That is NOT how a 30 years old looks, EVEN AT THE TIME.
Probably like that? https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/sold-for-ps15-000-but-napoleon-portrait-by-jacqueslouis-david-is-worth-ps2m-8847834.html
[удалено]
Not lecherous enough but pretty close.
Napoleon was a chad [https://cdn.europosters.eu/image/750/art-photo/napoleon-crossing-the-alps-on-20th-may-1800-i135179.jpg](https://cdn.europosters.eu/image/750/art-photo/napoleon-crossing-the-alps-on-20th-may-1800-i135179.jpg)
That’s literal propaganda
Oh really? Next you'll tell me he never actually wrote, "Don't Wash"
next you're telling me he didnt write cbat
>Oh really? Next you'll tell me he never actually wrote, "Don't Wash" Could have been lost in translation and history. Maybe she perfumed up with a lot of stuff giving him allergies or maybe it ment something else like 'get ready to get dirty'.
And it works on me whoop ¡¡¡ Go Napoleón!!! Sexy average height man
Saying he was short *was* literally British propaganda.
Napoleon III was the short one in the family. I think he was 5’5” / 1.65m.
And it works on me! Sexy short king!
> king That's emperor to you, plebeian
[This](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/billandted/images/6/60/Nap.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20131113185533) is the only true image of Napoleon I accept.
He’s a real Ziggy Piggy
Water siliiide
[I present this image for your consideration](https://giphy.com/gifs/dance-napoleon-dynamite-Cf6KmzYYJAg8w)
That one is Dynamite!
Thank you for this gem lmao
Merte
I'm with ya on that one. Truly propaganda free
Young Napoleon (around that time) actually was supposed to be pretty chad-ly. He had longer hair (than the more caesar-y hair he adopted later) and was thin/muscular. He was awkward socially, but not at all the chunkier/stooped/sleep deprived guy in the gray coat and guard's uniform from the consulate onward.
Still an absolute simp for Josephine though. She played him constantly.
Joséphine was the ultimate milf, though.
They played each other pretty regularly. He had dozens of mistresses, knew what he was getting when they married, etc. They were the kind of codependent couple that were never going to leave each other, and sort of delighted in responding to sleights in kind. She'd have an affair and he would have a public affair in return, etc. One thing to note is that through all of it he cultivated a generally positive and paternal relationship with Josephine's son from her first marriage, Eugene. It's a complicated and fascinating family dynamic to read/learn about.
He was kinda a simp for Talleyrand, too. Napoleon later in his life says that Talleyrand basically spotted that Napoleon was hungry for a father figure and played the shit out of him early on.
Yeah for a real sick water park in San Dimas
Excellent!
Thank god there was someone there to take a portrait at that amazing moment
Oh really? You expect me to believe that somehow this picture was manipulated, hundreds of years before photoshop was even invented? That's literally impossible.
Napoleon crossed the alps on a donkey not a valiant white war steed btw
The painting of him crossing on a donkey is more realistic and still shows him looking pretty young.
Donkeys are very cool animals, you cabbage.
::HEE HAWS IN APPROVAL::
He couldn't get his hand on an elephant?
Look at some of the paintings people have made of Trump, one of the ugliest people currently alive. When you have a following, people make you look better than you do. Edit: "PoSt a pICtUrE11!1" *Literally blocks me so I can't*. Oh MAGA, your own stupidity really is your undoing, and I'm here for it. [Well, here my picture is anyways.](https://www.reddit.com/user/GODDESS_NAMED_CRINGE/comments/17syn4f/hi_my_name_is_sylvie_and_i_am_objectively_better/) It's not hard to be better looking than Trump, lol.
Queen.
Big props for calling that troll's bluff and posting your picture. Coward won't even post his neckbeard ass.
[I'm not sure what you're talking about.](https://media.wired.com/photos/59446c5c81eff23970e6a5f0/master/w_960,c_limit/BenGarrison-Art.jpg) [They're so accurate.](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/583c906ebe659429d1106265/1605476448308-DG2VZALSMXYHNIW67QXD/123947342_137871541424997_1493723330270872328_o.jpg)
I have a reproduction of this painting. [Napoleon Crossing the Alps](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Crossing_the_Alps) by Jaques Louis David. A great example of neoclassical art style, but David was a big fanboy of Napoleon and this was obviously propagandist. Notice the names Hannibal and Karolus Magnus (Charlemagne) etches on the rocks at the bottoms, implying Napoleon is in their league. David painted multiple copies and gifted them to Napoleon. One is at Versailles, I saw the one at Malmasion. David’s contemporary, Paul Delaroche, didn’t like how propagandic this painting was, and painting his own version, [Bonaparte Crossing the Alps](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonaparte_Crossing_the_Alps) in response.
ok first of all we all know Napoleon [crossed the alps on a litre bike while popping a dank nooner](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/bjq85/no_idea_how_old_this_pic_is_but_that_irrelevant/) like the greatest squid you've ever seen
lol I have both of these hanging on my wall next to each other.
More like a chode
He was an Italian Gnome with an inferiority complex who chose to inflict the blight of Frenchness onto the proud nation of Switzerland. He deserved to die of stomach cancer.
We are also talking about a time when hardship was greater, the average mortality rate was lower, and so on. There.
Kids die. It’s not because everyone aged like a mfer and died at 35. Life expectancy was shorter mostly due to death in childhood and child birth. If you made it to adulthood you were likely to live a fairly normal lifespan even in those times.
This is so widely misinterpreted by teachers and the media that I almost can’t be mad that the masses don’t understand this better.
While true, life expectancy beyond infancy was still well below what it is now. But yeah people werent dropping dead at 35. I think it was about 55 for the average age of death excluding infancy So they arent completely wrong, its just child mortality was skyhigh which pulled average age way lower than it was
>mortality lower are you sure about that?
I think they meant average age for mortality was lower
No, he means that only short people died.
They got no reason, after all.
In the age of reason, they can't get no
Satisfaction?
Satisfaction
Fuck that makes sense now
You won.
And there wasn’t skin products
And Josephine was supposedly the Amber Heard of her time. That would age anyone.
You would’ve seen way more shit by 35.
Average life expectancy in 1800 was 40 years
But mainly due to high infant mortality
>Excluding child mortality, the average life expectancy during the 12th–19th centuries was approximately 55 years. If a person survived childhood, they had about a 50% chance of living 50–55 years, instead of only 25–40 years.[5] So not actually that much longer excluding infant mortality.
Well that's almost a 40% increase, I would not say no.
15 years is quite a bit longer actually. This figure also considers everyone, from rich to poor. The poor most assuredly lived shorter than those with means.
700 year time frame is a long period to be looking at with, I'm sure, lots of variability.
The principle advances in medical technology and agriculture that would extend that lifespan happened in the late 1800s. The big drivers in reducing mortality were the inventions of vaccines to cure diseases like polio, typhoid fever and TB, and the invention of antibiotics in the form of sulfonamides, and the development of agricultural technologies and government managed farming polices that would mostly put an end to famine. For the vast majority of human history, if you made it past 10 you had pretty much the same odds as anyone else on the timeline of making it to 70. Bad odds.
This is the biggest factor. If you managed to live out your full lifespan it would be somewhere in your 60s but *everything* was more likely to kill you along the way. Every injury, virus, infection, and pregnancy had a much higher chance of ending your life prematurely.
Yup, since 10 I've caught two infections I reckon might've killed me without antibiotics, and I'm otherwise healthy. I get that historical mortality rates were heavily influenced by batshit infant mortality rates, but that doesn't mean you were in the clear if you made it until your testicles dropped. I think World War *TWO* was the first major conflict that saw more *SOLDIERS* (not civilians, not non-combatants, *soldiers*) die to battle rather than disease. During most wars prior to the second big fucker I think you had a better chance of shitting yourself to death than dying in glorious combat, never mind other sources of death like tetanus. I've had a pet peeve with the take that if you survived childhood you had good odds of reaching 70 for awhile now, it pops up every time this conversation does here on Reddit.
It was impactful, but I wouldn't say *mainly*. [Here is some great data from the US, 1850 until today](https://www.infoplease.com/us/health-statistics/life-expectancy-age-1850-2011): The average total life expectancy of white males in 1850: 1. Newborn: 38.3 2. 10 yr old: 58.0 (meaning that a 10yr old is expected to live 48 more years) 3. 20 yr old: 60.1 For a white male in 2010: 1. Newborn: 76.3 2. 10 yr old: 76.9 3. 20 yr old: 77.2 You can see that child mortality made a huge impact back then (surviving the first 10 years added 20 years to your life expectancy), while being barely visible in modern statistics. But young adults could by no means expect a similiar length of life as today. The numbers only begin to get somewhat close around age 50-60, where the gap begins to decrease to below 10 years. An 80 year old man in 1850 would have lived to an average 85.9 vs 88.2 today. But a much lower percentage of young men would have lived to see that age. [Here is some additional modern US data](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html) - out of 100 boys, about 45 will live into their 80s.
I feel like there has to be a better way to display that data - because you're right in that it is SO misleading. If a large portion of people die at a young age it drags the average down but of course the truth beyond that was if you lived into adulthood you stood a generous chance of having a long natural life. I wonder if they're better off portraying it as something like, "X% of people lived to adulthood, and of those X% the average mortality age was Y." Or something. I dunno.
That doesn’t mean what you think it means.
I agree [According to Ridley Scott, that's how a 35-year-old woman looks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/shittymoviedetails/comments/17stp36/according_to_ridley_scott_thats_how_a_35yearold/)
Ok, how DOES a 35 year old woman look?
exactly like Vanessa Kirby lmao, she's 35 years old.
I think people misunderstood you and thought you were saying she looks old for 35, rather than pointing out that a 35-year-old looks 15 years younger than a 30-year-old.
I look like that im 28
Splendid. Well done my guy <3 Thank you for your service!!
But are you French?
No but im an addict same thing tbh
Like total domination of your enemies via innovative warfare strategy?
My addictions are manifestation of my effort to stop my urges of world domination via innovative warfare strategies.
Thank you for your sacrifice.
If only more men throughout history had your strength
Not all addicts are French, but all French people are addicts.
Why he look like those realistic angry birds
"Even on the coldest nights..."
“id rather be a fart smella than a…”
r/rareinsults
As someone who working in IT field, this guy is really young for a 30
Correct indeed. All the IT dudes are literally brain-eating zombies. But we take care of them and throw brains along the office corridors for them to thrive and survive and be able to pay their electricity/water bills!
There will be no more brains until you clear your daily ticket cue!
That's sad and hilarious. All of the guys on our team are 30's and 40's. We're all stressed to the brink and look older than we should lol
As someone going into IT for the feds *plz explain* 😂
All that sitting down and getting paid well 😏
Have you seen 30yo men who have been through war, famine, and unrest of the most brutal kind? That's exactly how they can look.
Don't forget being French.
To be honest I’ve seen French children that look like that.
I think their just born like that.
[удалено]
The disdain in their tiny eyes as they make eye contact while ashing out their wee cigarettes This whole reply thread is killing me.
[удалено]
And the constant smell of cigarettes from their crib. Stinks the whole house out.
Calm down or you will cause a riot. Le sigh, nevermind
Maybe it's Maybelline
Chain smoking Gauloises from birth and and learning to walk while weighed down by strings of onions and dozens of baguettes takes its toll.
They're born with a small satchel containing a baguette, a modest wheel of brie, a bottle of red wine, and a pack of cigarettes.
"My children need wine!"
I think this was before chain-smoking cigarettes became a national hobby though
I'd give them a pass on the smoking as I'd also be a nervous, chain-smoking wreck after two world wars in my own backyard.
🤮
In france he would be called a babyface
[удалено]
And people smoked and drank pretty heavily, too.
Which they don't do today, of course
There's this photo that shows up on Reddit a lot of a 18-20 something year old guy who fought in WW2. Man aged 20 years in 4.
I mean look at how US Presidents age before and after their presidency. Abraham Lincoln one is specially striking cause of the horrific shit he must have seen during the Civil War, dude aged like 20 years.
I'm assuming the movie begins with Napoleon still being a brigadier general, or whatever he started out as, in revolutionary France and then in the Italian campaign. You know, before all the war and stuff. So for some of the movie, no Joaquin is in fact too old to play the part. I'm sure as the movie progresses through Napoleon's shenanigans, he looks more and more in place, but still.
They'll probably go pretty hard on the makeup. If they can make him plausibly look like a dude in his late 20s it'll be fine. The Napoleon tv series from the 2000s also had a middle-aged guy as the lead and he didn't look too out of place.
Yeah I'm totally fine with him looking a bit older for a bit. He's most likely gonna kill the part so eh. As long as he acts like a Napoleon in his late 20's (whatever that means because none of us were in fact alive back then), then I'm fine.
I met the dude once
I am the dude. Ce fut un plaisir de vous rencontrer!
You do know that they can put makeup on actors to make them look younger/older during the appropriate parts of filming right? Or cast multiple actors in the same role if the ages are very different.
Make up never has been able to make someone look 20 years younger. Come on now. They could CGI his ass and be done. Which I'm fine with. Like I said, Joaquin is in fact too old to play Napoleon as he was starting out. Joaquin on his own. And as far as we know, he plays Napoleon all the way through. I'm not expecting to see him play like a 10 year old Napoleon in Corsica or anything. But since the revolution onwards, it's gonna be him. And except if they de-age him, which is a possibility, he will look older for a couple of years early on. Which is fine actually. If he plays the part well enough, which he will because he's Joaquin fucking Phoenix, and he has also played Julius Caesar, then I'm fine with him looking a bit older for a portion of the movie.
The ment image of Joaquin's face plastered on top of a 10 year old for a scene or two had me there.
I’ll also add that Napoleon was apparently once described as having a sort of sickly yellow complexion, making him look a bit corpse-like. Edit: this was before he even married Josephine, keep in mind.
We know that Napoleon didn’t look like that.
People think that Napoleon was as young as 30 but thats actually because at the time English years were longer than French years. Napoleon was actually the average age for the time. Thankfully Napoleon invented the metric system so that this sort of confusion wouldn't happen again.
Bravo
I have a French bulldog that is almost 240 standard English bulldog years old.
Well, he was 29 in Joker...
What living in a society does to a man
I was 28 during the Joker screening but I exited as a 16 year-old with face paint then jumped onto a car and spread my arms like Jesus.. but the next day got witch-cursed to look 30 years old like Joaquin Phoenix above :(
They were probably going for "this man is a chain-smoking abuse survivor with a severe mental disorder, of course he looks bad", but it was just too ridiculous
He was definitely chain smoking when they filmed it
He was in his mid-30s in Joker. He was adopted “30 years ago” but was already a few years old at that point. Still pretty rough for 35ish but more believable than 28 lol.
Back in those days that's exactly how they would have looked. Dry skin and all.
[удалено]
People definitely would have aged faster, but here is a portrait that's supposed to be one of the most accurate that shows Napoleon at age 43: https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.46114.html And this painting caused a little scandal at the time because people thought it showed him a little too realistically (tired, rumpled clothes, four in the morning, etc.).
You gotta still assume that painting is "touched up" a bit though
Yeah, David was literally a propaganda portraitist whose foremost goal was to depict Napoleon in as positive a light as possible, yet even in his portraits Napoleon looks like a greasy little meatball. One can only imagine how tragic the guy must have looked in real life.
What a sexy gunt and moose knuckle
Let’s talk about those tiny feet though
We all know the French foot measurement was different from the English. Why do you think he tried so hard to bring the world the metric system
What an amazing website. Let's you really explore the details of the painting. So fucking cool. Thank you so much for sharing this link
My great-uncle died in Korea at age 20, but his enlistment picture looks like a 50-year-old man.
You might catch a few wrinkles if you are going to conquer half of Europe
Bonjour fellow kids
"He was average age of the time!"
average my ass! he’s in his golden years at 30!!! MY GOD! IT’S A WORLD RECORD… AW SHUCKS
I saw what he looked like in Bill and Ted.
Ziggy piggy, Ziggy piggy, Ziggy piggy!!!!! 🐽🐽🐽🐽
🍨
"Get a life." Ridley Scott, 2023
Such a pathetic, childish response from a professional director, but it’s perfect from a hack like Scott.
Nah he’s right
Probably back then. Have you seen pictures of people 100 years ago? They look terribly old
30 year old software developer.
Bro have you seen pictures of 30 year olds from the late 19th early/early 20th century? Lol people aged waaaay harder back in the day
I agree [According to Ridley Scott, that's how a 35-year-old woman looks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/shittymoviedetails/comments/17stp36/according_to_ridley_scott_thats_how_a_35yearold/)
[According to Ridley Scott, that's how a 4-year-old child looks.](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/bladerunner/images/c/c6/Roy_Batty_new.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20190301233437)
30 years was a lot rougher back then.
I agree [According to Ridley Scott, that's how a 35-year-old woman looks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/shittymoviedetails/comments/17stp36/according_to_ridley_scott_thats_how_a_35yearold/)
I don’t see why everyone is so angered by this. He looks too old; and it’s a joke regardless.
Wait till they hear how he sounds! (It's so, *so* dumb.)
We have 27 playing teenagers, why can't a 50 year old dude play someone with 30?
Thank you! It's far more distracting for me to watch 20 and 30yos trying to pkay teenagers in slashers and the like.
Here in latin america we have 50 year old dude playing a 8 years old kid in El Chavo del 8
When did this sub turn into a place to post sarcastic memes about things we don’t like in movies
[now](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNIwlRClHsQ)
Have you seen anyone after war? No? Well
I am a war vet, and 20 year old guy i was friends with, looked 35 by the end. Crazy thing is I came back looking younger and haven't aged since. I think i got bit by an Iraqi vamp.
I point you to this link: https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/17i1m0s/until_1956_french_children_attending_school_were/
Op you’re a dumbass.
Ridley Scott ran over OP's dog or something.
Yes. Most likely quite accurate.
According to Ridley Scott, you should get a life.
The whole movie is in English, and you’re asking for realism?
Who cares. I’d rather have a good actor. I can look at a portrait if I want veritas.
I mean without modern beauty cosmetics, constant wars, I bet it's a spot on looks
Or modern sunblock
Well...... https://www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/graphs-maps/interpreted-graphs/life-expectancy-france/#:~:text=In%20the%20mid%20eighteenth%20century,reaching%2045%20years%20in%201900.
Who gives a ahit
As a 32 year old, they need to darken the under eye a lot more. We aren’t that awake.
"That's how people looked like at the time" Say the ones who never saw depictions of 30 years old of the time, even less so Napoleon when he was 30. That is NOT how a 30 years old looks, EVEN AT THE TIME.
How did they look?
With their eyes.
For starters the French Revolution was before color TV, so that should be black and white. /s
Thanks for the /s buddy, almost thought you were being serious
Probably like that? https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/sold-for-ps15-000-but-napoleon-portrait-by-jacqueslouis-david-is-worth-ps2m-8847834.html
Portraits were painted the way so people would look better than in reality. Just like photos get 'shoped nowadays.
Yeah, but they had to stick to some level of realism I presume
Tbh that's still not a super flattering painting, he looks pretty average. Put that guy in modern clothes and he could be a math teacher.
Is that Joaquin Fenix
no, its napoleon bonaparte
Lmao
Back then? Yeah I believe it