It takes a certain kind of genius to ruin a film about Napoleon Bonaparte. For crying out loud‚ this is the Corsican artillery commander who became the de facto emperor of continental Europe‚ the man who carried the French Revolution into Spain‚ Italy‚ Austria‚ and Germany‚ sparking the political movements that would culminate in the First World War. This man doomed the Spanish empire‚ freeing Latin America from its rule and enabling the U.S. to double in size in the Louisiana Purchase. He did all this and found time to craft a law code on par with the Roman Emperor Justinian. This man coopted an atheistic revolution‚ convinced the pope to come to Paris to crown him‚ and then‚ in a fit of pique‚ decided to crown himself instead. Depending on your perspective‚ Napoleon smothered Europe with divisive passions or brought enlightenment to a backward continent. He either represents the apotheosis of the French Revolution or its ultimate betrayal. So many moments in Napoleon’s life would make excellent standout films. The subject is an artist’s dream. Yet somehow‚ director Ridley Scott managed to make this quintessentially enigmatic historical figure drop-dead boring. He produced a film about Napoleon that more closely resembles Joaquin Phoenix’s petulant and contemptible Emperor Commodus from Scott’s “Gladiator” (2000) than the actual French emperor. Having loved “Gladiator‚” I mistakenly grasped onto the vain hope that my friends’ dire warnings that “Napoleon” had gone amiss. After all‚ how bad can it be? This is a movie about Napoleon‚ and I was doomed to watch it‚ no matter what anyone said. Yet‚ a few minutes into the movie‚ I found myself hoping it would end. The film has a strong—albeit gruesome—start with the execution by guillotine of Marie Antionette‚ the notorious wife of King Louis XVI. I hoped the movie aimed to make a point about the French Revolution‚ but I waited for such a point to no avail. The film’s only excellent scene follows shortly thereafter. Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix) leads his men in a midnight charge on the French fortress at Toulon‚ demonstrating his undaunted heroism by recapturing the fort above a vital port temporarily occupied by the British. For this one battle‚ the audience has a reason to care about the fighting‚ and Phoenix lives out the fortitude of the French hero‚ giving the audience a glimmer of the military prowess and devotion to his own troops that catapulted Napoleon to monumental greatness. Tragically‚ the film climaxes in this early battle‚ and the rest of the movie proves an execrable morass. Had I $200 million to spend to make a film about Napoleon‚ I would choose one aspect of his story and give it time to breathe. I might focus on his rise to power‚ and feature a Toulon scene much like this one. I might focus on his pivotal victory at the Battle of Austerlitz (1805)‚ showing his strategic vision and introducing audiences to a few commanders and soldiers to really give the audience stakes in the battles. I might portray Napoleon as a tragic figure‚ leading the Russia campaigns and culminating in his ultimate defeat at the Battle of Waterloo (1815). I would choose one aspect of his life and use it to craft a moral and political message about the dangers of hubris‚ the impact of the French Revolution‚ the ways in which Napoleon rode the tide of history or molded it himself. I would try to make a point about Napoleon’s life that would resonate with audiences—because that’s what a good filmmaker does. Tragically‚ Scott seemed utterly disinterested in Napoleon‚ in giving a moral or political message‚ or even in giving audiences a reason to care about the multimillion-dollar spectacle before them. He decided not so much merely to bite off more than he could chew‚ but to gobble down a skyscraper. “Napoleon” features Toulon‚ Austerlitz‚ Russia‚ and Waterloo‚ and somehow manages to make none of them mean anything. Unlike “Gladiator”—which focuses on revenge‚ justice‚ and freedom‚ bringing ancient Rome to life—”Napoleon” merely tells most of Bonaparte’s life’s story without any clear theme or moral point. That makes moments that should resonate with audiences fall utterly flat. When Napoleon returns from exile on the island of Elba‚ he approaches a group of soldiers who have been ordered to aim their rifles at him. Phoenix gives what should have been a rousing speech‚ and the soldiers soften‚ even pledging loyalty to him. While the scene captured the heart of Napoleon’s appeal to his troops and the dramatic poignancy of his return from exile‚ the movie never earns the moment‚ and the speech itself is disappointing and vanilla. Napoleon has spent almost zero time with the troops on screen‚ and he spends all the time in the battles ordering his troops from behind. The audience never develops a connection with any of the French troops doing the fighting‚ so the battle sequences and the return of Napoleon ring utterly hollow. The closest this film comes to a point happens after the entire movie when the screen simply lists the number of deaths in the Napoleonic Wars. This list suggests the film is some grand message about the evils of human conflict. Worse‚ it suggests there would have been no wars without Napoleon—an exceedingly moronic take‚ considering how controversial the French Revolution was in the courts of Europe. Had Napoleon never existed‚ the Napoleonic Wars would certainly have happened in some fashion. The French Revolution was never going to end with just France‚ and even when the coalitions against Napoleon ultimately prevailed‚ mini French Revolutions took place across Europe in and before 1848. Yet the Napoleon movie is not some grand contemplation on the evils of Bonaparte. This list of deaths is merely an embarrassing attempt to salvage some meaning from the film’s flotsam and jetsam. The real heart of the story is Napoleon’s non-romance with Josephine de Beauharnais (Vanessa Kirby)‚ an aristocrat who barely survived the Reign of Terror with her head. Rather than giving audiences the historical-political war movie we expected‚ Scott decided to give us a romantic tragedy without the romance. The plus-side of a magnet has more chemistry with another plus-side than Phoenix’s Napoleon has with Kirby’s Josephine. In fact‚ Josephine immediately cheats on Napoleon on screen‚ and Napoleon has numerous affairs off screen‚ despite his loud declarations of love for Josephine. The film squanders its time with unromantic sex scenes to illustrate that the marriage was not loveless‚ and repeatedly brings up Josephine’s inability to conceive a son‚ for which Napoleon ultimately divorces her. Even this plot line‚ which swallows nearly a third of the runtime‚ perhaps might be salvageable if the movie used it to make a point about the unfairness of royal customs or the love that perseveres through such obstacles. Yet the movie acts more like a documentary‚ attempting to portray a gritty version of what likely happened‚ rather than a pointed critique or celebration of something. It suggests that Josephine and Napoleon deeply care for one another‚ but between the lack of chemistry and the painfully awkward portrayals of their “romance‚” the entire story falls flat. Worse‚ the film strains to reinterpret key moments in Napoleon’s life as attempts to return to Josephine‚ as if his rise to power and his return from exile were moments in a love story rather than ambitious moves to influence France and Europe. Yet‚ the film lacks the discipline to make even this odd modern suggestion its central theme. The non-romance instead acts like an alien parasite‚ sucking the life out of the film. Ultimately‚ the film feels like a disengaged fifth grader’s petulant history project. It takes pains to note when and where each event takes place‚ as if to say‚ “Hey‚ audience‚ see this? It actually happened‚ please care about it‚” without allowing the events to breathe. This slavish obsession with accuracy seems an extreme overcorrection from “Gladiator‚” where Scott butchered the historical record but captured the heart of Roman virtue. Here‚ Scott has preserved the history only by carefully excising the drama and passion that audiences expect from a blockbuster film. As if an afterthought‚ the movie serves up two spectacles of battle: Austerlitz and Waterloo‚ but manages to remove any real drama from those famous conflagrations. In each case‚ the audience has no sense of why the battles are important‚ what Napoleon and his opponents are trying to achieve‚ and why they should care about the men dying before their eyes. By contrast‚ “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” provides a masterclass in battle storytelling. The Battle of Helm’s Deep delivers an awesome spectacle of fascinating siege tactics‚ setting and fulfilling audience expectations‚ and making audiences care by placing the main characters at the heart of the action. Viewers have a stake in the twists and turns of the battle because they have gotten to know and care about Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen)‚ Legolas (Orlando Bloom)‚ and Gimli (John Rhys Davies)‚ who are intimately involved in the fighting. By contrast‚ audiences in “Napoleon” see nameless‚ faceless soldiers fighting in ranks they don’t understand‚ with Napoleon in the distance commanding things. The film has spent no time explaining why the battle matters‚ what the ramifications are for France if Napoleon loses‚ and why viewers should care about those doing the fighting. All we know is that this is a massive battle‚ and Napoleon is in control‚ so we should just watch and eat our popcorn. The problem with this approach is that it tosses all the drama out the window. I love watching battle sequences‚ but I grew to hate these because they’re so pointless. Scott seems not to know or care why the battles are important‚ and the film’s lack of direction makes even the most exhilarating moments bland. I got the sense that if someone could just sit down with Scott and tell him‚ “Hey‚ here’s why Napoleon’s important‚ and why he’s actually interesting‚” perhaps we would have got something a little more like “Gladiator” and a little less like “Real Housewives of Revolutionary Paris.” But if $200 million isn’t enough to wake Scott up to a historical character as interesting as Napoleon Bonaparte‚ I fear nothing will. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Ridley Scott Did Something I Thought Was Impossible: He Made Napoleon Bonaparte Boring appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It’s quite surprising how much dishonesty and disinformation you can pack into a 27-minute “documentary” film. (Twenty-five minutes‚ if you don’t count the two minutes of credits at the end.) But the dishonesty and disinformation in “The ABCs of Book Banning”—streaming now on Paramount+—is at least as much an act of omission as one of commission. The MTV Documentary Films production opens with a scrolling introduction claiming that “[o]ver 2‚000 books have been removed from school districts in the United States. These books have been labeled RESTRICTED‚ CHALLENGED‚ [or] BANNED and are generally not available to millions of students in up to 37 states.” It then introduces us to Grace Linn‚ an angry centenarian who is shown scolding the Martin County‚ Florida‚ School Board about “book banning” on March 21. (Linn shouldn’t be confused with award-winning children’s book author-illustrator Grace Lin.) You know you’ve lost the argument when you have to resort to likening the other side to Nazis. But that’s exactly what Linn does‚ explaining that her husband was killed in action in World War II fighting for freedom‚ the Constitution‚ and the First Amendment. “One of the freedoms that the Nazis crushed was the freedom to read the books they banned‚” she says‚ a quote that’s repeated near the end of the film—the second time over archival footage of WWII-era Nazi book-burning bonfires. “Banned books and burning books are the same. Both are done for the same reason—fear of knowledge‚” Linn adds‚ for demagogic effect. What’s not clear from the film is how much knowledge Linn actually has about the explicit nature of the content of the most controversial of the books at the center of the ongoing national debate over what should and should not be on school library shelves and in classroom curriculums. That’s just the first of many examples of how “ABCs” is guilty of bias by omission The narrator-free film proceeds to show a series of images of dozens of books that the documentary claims have been “challenged‚ restricted‚ or banned.” Short excerpts of text from each book scroll across the screen as the books are introduced‚ and that’s where the dishonesty really revs up. Documentaries typically feature commentary from “talking heads” who presumably know what they’re talking about. “The ABCs of Book Banning‚” however‚ takes its name from the fact that most of the talking heads here are precocious prepubescents‚ who clearly don’t. “The voices of those who support book banning have been heard‚” the film explains. “This film features the voices of those who have not been heard … the children.” The filmmakers effectively exploit these kids—most of them 10 years old or younger—for sympathetic effect. They almost certainly were coached to say what producer-director Sheila Nevins‚ the former president of HBO Documentary Films‚ wanted them to say. That pretty much can be boiled down to something akin to “How could you do this to us?” “They’ve pulled all the award-winning books‚” laments Ruth Anne‚ 10‚ a fourth grader in Jacksonville‚ Florida. “Why take away all these excellent books? It’s like you’re trying to slow down children’s reading. Why do that?” That brings us back to the short excerpts of text cited from each of the “challenged‚ restricted‚ or banned” books in question. Viewers who are unfamiliar with the most-contested books cited would be forgiven for not understanding what the controversy is about‚ because the excerpts are almost all innocuous and definitely not the most salacious or pornographic sections. That is surely by design. Although the documentary doesn’t try (because the title is a giveaway) to conceal the nature of‚ for example‚ “The Hips on the Drag Queen Goes Swish‚ Swish‚ Swish” by an author identified as Little Miss Hot Mess‚ viewers unfamiliar with “All Boys Aren’t Blue” by George Johnson and “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison aren’t told that the contents include extremely graphic descriptions of homosexual sex acts. Nor are viewers informed about the explicit nature of “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe‚ billed as the “most banned book in America‚” although the title is certainly a red flag. (We won’t get into the specific content of these LGBTQ books here‚ but they easily may be found online if one is of a sufficiently prurient persuasion.) LGBTQ novels aren’t the only books the film complains about being subject to reasonable restrictions on access by minors in schools‚ also without explaining what’s objectionable. One such tome is the anti-American “The 1619 Project” by black racist Nikole Hannah-Jones of The New York Times‚ which despite winning a Pulitzer Prize has been widely criticized by renowned historians and the National Association of Scholars as historical revisionism at its worst. And yet‚ “the Times launched an extensive educational partnership with the Pulitzer Center as soon as the project was published‚ which has helped enshrine ‘1619’ falsehoods in countless K-12 schools‚” wrote the association’s David Acevedo. That would suggest the book’s widespread availability despite any attempts to suppress it.  “ABCs” further seeks to lend objectionable books an undeserved halo effect by juxtaposing them with restrictions on classics such as “The Hobbit‚” “The Kite Runner‚” “Slaughterhouse-Five” and “Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl.” But as with all the other examples‚ it doesn’t cite any of the “who‚ what‚ when‚ where‚ or why” details of said restrictions. Finally‚ to the extent that these books are—in Ruth Anne’s words—being “pulled” and “taken away” from classrooms and school libraries‚ it’s dishonest for this documentary (or Linn‚ or anyone else) to characterize such actions as a “ban.” All of the books cited remain available for purchase at bookstores and online. Parents are free to buy them for their minor children—even if they’re not age-appropriate and even if many of us would regard that as child abuse. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Documentary ‘ABCs of Book Banning’ Gets ‘D’ for Dishonesty appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In addition to the Yamaha Champions Riding School’s on-bike‚ in-person training classes‚ which include ChampSchool‚ ChampStreet‚ and ChampGrad‚ the riding school also offers digital curriculums for riders. Online courses include “Champ U: Core Curriculum‚” “Champ U: New Rider‚” and “ChampBody.” Recently‚ Yamaha Champions Riding School announced their fourth online course: “Champ U: Traffic Survival‚” which includes over 40 videos‚ quizzes‚ and drills for street riding. For more information‚ read the press release below. Yamaha Champions Riding School Chief Instructor/CEO Nick Ienatsch gives guidance of safe street riding techniques. Yamaha Champions Riding School‚ the premier motorcycle riding school in North America‚ is proud to announce a new Champions University digital curriculum: Traffic Survival. This is the fourth curriculum and arguably the most important Champ U online course to date. Related: A Cruiser Guy Goes to Yamaha ChampSchool Riding on the street is often considered dangerous and unpredictable. Distracted drivers‚ traffic‚ dilapidated roads‚ and insufficient training have become the norm. In fact‚ motorcyclists are 28 times more likely to lose their lives in a fatal accident than other drivers. The best way to stay safe on the street is to master motorcycle vehicle dynamics‚ understand the unique dangers of the road‚ and learn how the best riders in the world avoid them. As our skills and safety increase‚ so does the fun – and at the end of the day‚ that’s why we all love this sport! Traffic Survival is designed to give any rider‚ on any bike‚ the skills and strategies needed to enjoy every street ride and have more fun on two wheels for many years to come. Derived from multi-time World Champion Freddie Spencer’s curriculum‚ ChampSchool has been in business since 2014 and has trained some of the best riders in the world with multi-day curriculums for street riders‚ racers‚ police officers‚ motorcycle manufactures‚ and the US Marine Corps. Yamaha Champions Riding School is at the forefront of motorcycle vehicle dynamics training. We gathered subject matter experts with diverse backgrounds that include police motor officers‚ veteran street riders‚ international motojournalists‚ and national road racing champions with one goal: create a complete curriculum on how to thrive and survive on the street. Traffic Survival combines over 40 videos‚ quizzes‚ and drills to form the definitive guide for street riding techniques and strategies‚ derived from data driven best practices‚ not internet-based theory. Unlike our $2500-plus exclusive multi-day training events‚ Champ U: Traffic Survival is available to any rider with an internet connection and at a price any motorcyclist can afford. New riders and veteran street riders will learn the best techniques and approaches to handle a wide variety of situations‚ especially those that account for the majority of street crashes. Yamaha Champions Riding School Chief Instructor/CEO Nick Ienatsch and Jen Dunstan Traffic Survival will retail for $99.95 but is available until the end of the year for a very special introductory price of $79.95. The weather may be getting colder‚ and your motorcycle might be going into storage for a while. Don’t miss this opportunity to improve your skills on your preferred device. When warmer days arrive‚ you will be ready! Learn more about Champ U: Traffic Survival and our other online and in-person courses at the Champ U courses page. Related: Nick Ienatsch | Ep. 59 Rider Magazine Insider Podcast About Yamaha Champions Riding School Yamaha Champions Riding School (ChampSchool) is the nation’s premier motorcycle training program. ChampSchool is the evolution of the Freddie Spencer High-Performance Riding School and is led by racer‚ author‚ and former right-hand man of Spencer‚ Nick Ienatsch. ChampSchool uses “Champions Habits” to teach all riders the skills and techniques used by the top riders in the world to go faster safer‚ while concentrating on the way in which modern motorcycles are designed to be ridden. ChampSchool is dedicated to making all motorcycle riders safer and more in control of their riding‚ no matter what type of riding they do. For more information visit the ChampSchool website. The post Yamaha Champions Riding School Announces New ‘Champ U: Traffic Survival’ appeared first on Rider Magazine.

One man‚ through kindness‚ care and love‚ was able to win over Bear‚ a frightened‚ neglected and abandoned Doberman mix‚ and when the animal heard one particular phrase‚ the canine's reaction was so heartwarming. Animals‚ all of them‚ are deserving of kindness and love. Yes‚ for some of them‚ it's best to deliver that kindness‚ care and respect from a safe distance and behind a barrier. But for others‚ such as dogs and cats‚ a sweet pat on the head or a rub on the tummy could endear that animal to you for a long time. RELATED: Not Only Does He Fight Crime But This Vermont Police Dog Shovels Snow‚ Too In a clip posted on YouTube‚ one man‚ Rocky Kanaka‚ visited with Bear. Bear‚ as the video shows‚ was severely underweight. The sweet but neglected canine's ribs are seen through his coat. In fact‚ a female voice mentions that Bear was found near a Chick-fil-A restaurant‚ likely searching for something to eat. Rocky is thoroughly and utterly shocked at Bear's emaciated state. "Sometimes‚ if a dog is hungry‚ it's because the family can't afford the food‚ or there's a lack of education‚" he says. "But this is really bad. He is‚ honestly‚ I don't know how he's still here." RELATED: Pup Dumped in Parking Lot Shocks Animal Rescue Who Discovers She’s a Dog with 6 Legs The man in the video slowly enters the cage with the frightened animal. At first‚ the dog did not even want to look at Rocky‚ choosing instead to turn its head in the opposite direction. But after several minutes‚ the sweet dog begins to open up to his visitor. The man slowly hands the dog one treat after another. The dog then starts sniffing and smelling his visitor and momentarily even makes eye contact with Rocky. Dog Has Sweetest Reaction To Hearing ‘Good Boy” Next‚ amazingly‚ the dog allows Rocky to pet and rub his head. Eventually‚ the animal sits up next to the man. Bear then hears something that he likely has not heard or experienced much of in his life: positive affirmations. Rocky‚ while petting Bear‚ informs the emaciated animal that he is a "good boy." Bear seems to understand those kind words because his reaction is so sweet and touching. The canine turns and looks at Rocky several times while noticeably wagging his tail repeatedly. YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Bystander Hits Record On Dog ‘Singing’ Karaoke‚ And The Internet Falls In Love Words do matter. Kind words and statements of encouragement can mean a lot to someone struggling. As the video shows‚ that is even true for an animal who has experienced a rough patch or been abused. "An upright man has thought for the life of his beast‚ but the hearts of evildoers are cruel." – Proverbs 12:10 WATCH: Dog Has Sweetest Reaction To Hearing “Good Boy” LISTEN: Shelter Dog Escapes His Kennel And Cameras Reveal What A Wild Night He Had h/t: RockyKanaka.com &; YouTube.com/Rocky Kanaka Featured Image Credit: YouTube.com/Rocky Kanaka The post Rescuer Works to Earn the Trust of an Emaciated Shelter Dog and the Transformation Is Amazing appeared first on GodUpdates.