Why isn't this on the top 250??

I saw Abel Gance's 'Napoleon' when I was at university and was bowled over by it. To think that it was made almost 80 years ago, it still amazes me with the scale and detail and scope that many film-makers today fail to acheive.

It is the only silent film in my peersonal Top 20 (number 13).

I have been looking for it on DVD but no joy as yet.

Alan F

Happiness isn't happiness without a violin-playing goat

and probably not enough viewers

... I for one never had the chance to see it

I think its an exceptional movie. Underrated too.

It is impossible to experience one's own death objectively and still carry a tune

I was able to see the Coppola version in the 80's, and it is without a doubt the best film ever made, particularly in view of when it was made. Gance used techniques that had never been used before, many that are still used, and some that have never been used as effectively. I thought Carmine Coppola's score was excellent, and the entire experience the best I've ever had. I HIGHLY recommend that anyone with any curiosity about this film at all find a copy, ANY copy, and view it. Don't let the controversy keep you from at least getting an idea of the scope and importance of this film. I salute Coppola for bringing it to the attention of U.S. moviegoers.
That said, short of the neglect of the early silents by the major studios, I can't think of a more reprehensible behavior than that demonstrated by Coppola regarding other versions. ANYONE who values film as art has to recognize that this film is much bigger and more important than his or anyone else's petty claims.
More to the legal point, I have to wonder why Coppola or the studio who bought rights to his version feel that they have the right to suppress the development of the original film in its fullest iteration? If I have been selling the first three chapters of Gone With the Wind in book form, what right do I have to suppress a full version being sold? It is nothing less than a crime against film as Art, and a betrayal of all those who went to see his version in the 80's, not to mention the generations who haven't seen it in any form. I suspect that the only way out of this quagmire is for there to be a downward revision of copyright periods to something that is more reasonable than the 98 years after the artist's death that currently exists. Personally, I would like to see all material enter the public domain no later than 50 years after it is first made public. Surely that provides enough time for the artist to profit by it, and it would encourage the dissemination of huge volumes of material that could only serve to nurture further artistic endeavors and cement the place of the artist in history. Isn't that worth more than a few dollars?

Age often has nothing to do with it. It's just that some idiots decide to vote "1" for loads of films just to prevent them from being in the Top 250 and to allow other favourites of theirs to be in the list. When it comes to judging films, I wouldn't rely on the Top 250 at all....