Ridley Scott answers critics of his "Napoleon" who accuse him of falsifying history

I listened to Ridley Scott's interview on French radio, and when the talk turned to the barrage of criticism from historians who had abused his new film, the director said, curtly: "How would you know? You weren't there."

In essence, he resorted to a rather comical excuse for his inaccurate historical picture and for a certain slackness on the part of his team of screenwriters. I agree that small inaccuracies and shifts of emphasis are the usual costs of film production, all the more so when it concerns such politically significant matters as the events of Napoleon's life.

But the artless "you weren't there" cancels out all historical research and, on the whole, hands filmmakers an indulgence for invention. Frankly, it is not the best of excuses; it is like saying "What germs? Have you seen them?" We haven't, but it is called science, Mr Scott.