This post is a nitpicker post. Anyone can nitpick. Nitpicking is easy. Especially about films, where the harsh constraints of budget & time can easily derail the best of intentions. But I'm a history buff and this post is a venting of the frustration I feel at needless laziness in historical films. So buckle up for some Grade-A whining about military inaccuracies.

"Napoleon" was shot in 62 days, which is pretty fast for a film of this scope and scale (3 months at least would be more usual). This isn't to say it was rushed - good prep, which Ridley Scott is justifiably famous for, will do a lot towards making a film shoot smooth and efficient.

But still...there are times in "Napoleon" when it seems a mistake or error is not an issue of time or money but of a strange disconnection from basic, simple accuracy. Yes, it's a narrative film and not a documentary. Yes, it's (intended as) a "blockbuster". Yes, it's Ridley Scott and nobody makes films like his.

But still...

Amongst the many, many moments where Scott ditched accuracy like an unwanted donkey for...what, exactly?... is this shot here:

Toulon, France's primary port on the Mediterranean, has fallen to the British and French Royalists. Napoleon is 'in cognito', observing some British infantry and naval forces.

Except those are not British infantry. Red coats? Check. White cross belts? Check. Extra-wide brimmed bicorne hats? Chec-nope.

Closer view (with exposure, brightness and contrast added, because Ridley Scott):

These long haired (all of them), mustachioed (middle guy) and bearded (guy on far right) fellas are not British infantry of the period. Not Line, not Marines, not Light infantry, not Militia, nada. Their daft looking hats are Revolutionary-era "bicornes". That is, French. Heck, these are so wide they might even be Spanish There actually was a Spanish contingent with the British in Toulon, (it was technically an Allied army) but these happy lads are sporting the Union Jack, so no defense there.

Also, if there's one thing British uniform designers loved, it was a nice plumey cockade:

It was a rare British headpiece that didn't have a miniature feather-boa slapped on top.

The bicorne hat was (almost) only worn by British officers, and forwards/backwards over the head, rather than the French version of left/right across the head.

The only example I have of a British infantry unit with a lateral, bicorne hat (that's even in the same era), was the Scottish Brigade:

And they were nowhere near Toulon.

So who the heck are these ragamuffins supposed to be? Royalists in British uniforms? Never happened. And even if so, would they be carrying the British flag and not a French Royalist flag?

We see this silly head dress in other shots:

I think those are even American Revolution-era tricorne hats in the background, but I believe some British Army infantry units still had them (I'm not sure). So, mayyybe.

I'm really not sure what Scott was trying to do here. We see regular British infantry shakos at the Waterloo sequence (shudder) later on so he certainly had access to more accurate headgear, at least in the UK. It's possible these are all that was available in Malta, where the Toulon sequence was shot. But even the damn tricorne hats would be more accurate. At least then they would immediately read as British Infantry (by way of "The Patriot") but still - British. These guys look like French locals who've raided a British supply store and are making off to get drunk on the King's shilling. Finally, considering the gazillions spent on the film, would shipping out 25 correct headpieces really have broken the budget?

This was the first shot in the film where I started to think "Eh? What?" and then "Why!?". That reaction rapidly became the theme for the next two hours of...whatever the hell this film is trying to be.

End of nitpicking.

(For now...)