weezeralfalfa I've seen this film a number times over the years. Now, it's available at YouTube. Previously, I assumed Desiree was a purely fictitious character. Boy, was I wrong! There's a lengthy article on her on the web. Jean-Baptiste Bernadette also was a real person, who did marry Desiree. In the middle of the Napoleonic wars, he did switch from being a marshal under Napoleon to the heir apparent for the Swedish crown! Most of the things Desiree is pictured doing are reasonably historically accurate, aside from accepting Napoleon's sword as a symbol of his surrender to the allies. Actually, the real Desiree initially was engaged to Napoleon's brother, Joseph, who then switched to marrying her sister, opening the door for Napoleon to become engaged to Desiree. He rather soon broke this engagement when he found Josephine, who provided him with several advantages, but could not produce an heir, despite having 2 children from her guillotined husband. Interestingly, Josephine's granddaughter later married Desiree's son, who was king of Sweden!..... One problem with this screenplay is that Desiree is not really a very interesting person, aside from her beauty and connection with Napoleon and Jean Bernadotte. A number of reviewers complained that Jean Simmons, as Desiree, was too often whiny, or infantile. Well, it happens that this was the way the real Desiree was. So, I don't think we can fault Jean......Several reviewers criticize Marlon Brando's portrayal of Napoleon. Marlon rather looked like Napoleon. We was 5'9" compared to Napoleon's 5'7". But Napoleon actually was a bit taller than the average Frenchman at that time, at 5'5". But , some of his guards were considerably taller, making him look short. Whether Napoleon was deliberate, as Brando portrayed him, or quick and flashy, I don't know......Merle Oberon makes a beautiful Josephine, who doesn't have a lot of screen time.. Michael Rennie makes a tall Jean Bernadette, who was considerably older than Desiree. There seemed to be little passion between them.....The screenplay is mostly an indoor affair, with no direct contact with soldiers in battle. In one scene, Napoleon is ready to begin the Russian campaign. In the next scene, he's back home, defeated. The film lacks any real action or passion. But, I do commend it on it's relatively strong historical accuracy , being based on the novel "Desiree".

edwagreen 1954 biography of Napoleon leaves a lot to be desired.History is rushed in the film. At least, they could have shown what Napoleon and his French army had to endure during the bitter cold Russian winter that the invaders encountered.The story is of Desiree who meets Napoleon during a walk in the park. He is assertive, demanding and is so much into himself. He immediately arranges the marriage of his brother to Desiree's sister and promises Desiree marriage only to be swept away by Josephine in Paris.Another fateful encounter brings Michael Rennie into the film and they are wed.As Josephine, Merle Oberon is totally wasted in the role. She appears briefly and of course was dumped for her inability to produce an heir to the throne.How Rennie was chosen to be the future king of Sweden was not fully explained, but we soon see that Desiree was unable to adopt to Swedish culture and returns home as Napoleon prepares for world domination in the name of bringing forth a united Europe.

gpachovsky Desiree is, first and foremost, historical romance, not history and, as such, deserves to be cut some slack. Directed by the ever reliable Henry Koster, who one year earlier had helmed the movies' first Cinemascope production, "The Robe", it boasts a widescreen panoply of exquisite costumes, sumptuous sets, and gorgeous scenery guaranteed to give its customers an eyeful.The screenplay, written by Oscar winner Daniel Taradash (From Here to Eternity), which follows the title character's infatuation with a young Napoleon Bonaparte from the tail end of the French Revolution to her complete rejection of him after his Moscow defeat, is presented as a series of sporadic vignettes, which move slowly, sometimes tediously, toward its final conclusion. And yet, if you are able to accept the lack of action scenes and concentrate on the characters, the film can be highly enjoyable.Despite what the star billing implies, Marlon Brando's Napoleon is not the main player here (the story is seen almost exclusively from Desiree's point of view) but he is far and away the most interesting. Eschewing the great French military leader's putative habit of tucking his hand in his vest, he is nevertheless able to capture the essence of the man with true conviction. With low-key, well-articulated diction, he presents his Napoleon as a driven individual with a penetrating brain, tremendous powers of concentration, unflagging energy, and the ability to impose his will whenever it suits his needs. Less specifically, he suggests a man with high standards, noble ideals, a love of France, and a sense of honour. Assuredly a remarkable performance, as far from Stanley Kowalski ("A Streetcar Named Desire") as you can get.Desiree, as played by Jean Simmons, has more screen time than Napoleon, and that may be the picture's weakness. Her story, that of a young woman, first introduced as a maid working in the family textile shop, who becomes captivated by a young Napoleon (he initially wants to marry her for her dowry to finance his own military ambitions), is discarded by him, and, on the rebound, marries one of his generals to become queen of Sweden, is not particularly remarkable. Only when her path crosses Bonaparte's does the picture come to life. Yet Simmons, as always, fills her role beautifully with simplicity and charm. She was one of those young actresses of the '50s who could always be relied upon to bring her best to every part she played. Her long list of impressive credits (which includes Hamlet, The Robe, Guys and Dolls, Elmer Gantry and Spartacus) is enough to put today's one-hit-wonder Oscar winners to shame.The cast is rounded out by Michael Rennie as General Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte and Merle Oberon as the Empress Josephine. Both add dignity in their small, but decidedly secondary, roles.Despite the slow pacing, patient viewers will be rewarded with a terrific payoff in the film's final eight minutes. It is the touching, bittersweet scene during which Desiree and Napoleon meet for the last time and, while not historically accurate, it makes for great and moving drama. Napoleon has just recently escaped from Elba and is attempting to mobilize troops for one final effort to regain power in France. By now he is a humbled man, the confidence and swagger he so readily exhibited during his initial rise to prominence eroded. Yet, in retrospect, he is able to justify all his actions (In real life, he was a great administrator as well as a great military leader.), rightly or wrongly, and laments the betrayal of those he considered his closest friends. Though beaten, he still expects strict adherence to military protocol, as when he surrenders his sword ("Please don't hold it like an umbrella."). Desiree, though no longer enraptured by his charms, cannot help but feel a rekindling of admiration for him and a pang of regret.Marlon Brando reportedly once said that he took on the role of Napoleon for laughs. I very much doubt it. He is just too good. I think he was trying to get back at critics who refused to picture him as anyone other than Stanley Kowalski.

theowinthrop I have commented before on the paucity of American films dealing with the history of Canada and Mexico (our next door neighbors). We are easily receptive to films made here or in the British Commonwealth about the history of England, and then we have a tendency to enjoy films about the history of France. But then it is spotty. Films about Germany deal with it's military history or the Nazis (how many Americans would sit through a film about Goethe or Schiller - a few years back a film about Beethoven appeared, and was not a box office favorite). It gets weaker too when we edge to Scandanavia. Ask how many historic films deal with Sweden (which once was the dominant power in Eastern Europe) I can only recall two historical films made in America: "Queen Christina" and "Desiree". The former showed Greta Garbo (finally playing a Swedish person of importance) as the 17th Century ruler who abdicated in 1655. The latter dealt with French people surrounding one of the world's most fascinating men: Napoleon Bonaparte. But Napoleon was Marlon Brando, and the film followed the career of one of the women in Napoleon's life who ended up not in bed with him but with one of his rivals. Desiree Clary (Jean Simmons) had dated Napoleon when he was a young officer, but his career and ambitions took him away from her. However, she met a rival of Bonaparte, Jean Bernadotte. Bernadotte (who would eventually rise to be one of the Emperor's Marshalls, and a persistent critic, was sent into ambassadorial exile in 1809 to Sweden, taking his wife and son with him. As French Ambassador to Stockholm, he ingratiated himself into the affections of the childless King of Sweden, as well as the people. In 1811, shortly before his death, the King of Sweden made Bernadotte his heir - and the Swedish public acclaimed the decision. It turned out to be very wise: Bernadotte had grown disgusted by Napoleon's continuous warfare, and once he became King of Sweden he joined with the Russians and Austrians and Prussians in working for the end of Napoleons wars. As a result, in 1815, the Congress of Vienna accepted Bernadotte's title as King, and even granted him territory (all of Norway) taken from Napoleon's faithful ally, Denmark. This forced union lasted until 1905 (it was peacefully settled). But the family of the Bernadottes still are the reigning family of Sweden.The film is lopsided. Simmons plays her role well enough, but it is not really developed as an independent character. Her husband is played by Michael Rennie, and he does what he can to show his growing disenchantment with his rival. Brando is superb as Bonaparte - witness the scene where to satisfy his sisters who resent having to hold the train of their sister-in-law Josephine (Merle Oberon, in a touching and sad performance), gives them silly titles that they are so happy to get as awards for holding the train. But such scenes are rare. The film is not as static and dull as Sacha Guitry's 1955 film "Napoleon", but it has an improbable script. While I will note that Napoleon did more than anyone to spread the ideals of the French Revolution around Europe and the world, he never mouthed a statement that he sought to create a United States of Europe (as Brando, at the end of the film, tells Simmons). More likely he wanted a United States of Napoleon, though one where there was more opportunity for everyone to move upwardly than in the 18th Century courts that existed. It is a colorful film, and the performances are not bad (especially Brando and Oberon), but it ain't French history. But I'll give it a 6 for a brief window into Swedish history.