Kirsten Dunst, Jason Schwartzman, Judy Davis
2/5Let's be honest, I was never going to like this film.
I wanted to...I loved Antonia Fraser's biography (on which the movie is loosely based) and I've always been fascinated with the subject matter.
But with Kirsten Dunst in the title role my chances of an unbiased review were never very good.
Suffice to say, I didn't like it.
That being said, this retelling of Marie-Antoinette’s early life does have some redeeming qualities. The fact that much of the filming was done at Versailles is an undeniable treat. The costumes and production design are equally magnificent, and the pastries by Ladurée deserve special mention.
In addition, the film does an excellent job a portraying the monotony of Court life, and the strict etiquette and tradition which would have isolated any outsider (including, and perhaps especially, the young Dauphine).
BUT...
The film suffers from terrible pacing and a non-existent narrative structure which makes it very nearly unwatchable. Don't get me wrong, it's gorgeous and I'll probably have it playing in the background on many occasions...but never with the sound on (the dialogue is painfully insipid).
I'm just not sure what the film is trying to say...
It attempts humanize Marie-Antoinette, and play her in a sympathetic light, yet fails to show us anything but the Queen's ignorance and frivolity...even though both are somewhat justified by the realities of the French Court.
The film does Marie-Antoinette a great injustice by actively omitting periods of trials and tribulations which would have allowed for some sympathy, or at least showed a depth of character and understanding (with the notable exception of the storming of Versailles...but that is to little too late).
Any mention of The Affair of the Necklace has been inexcusable removed, despite the fact that it's a seminal event in the Queen's life (as it marks a real and dangerous shift in her unpopularity) and falls neatly within the timeline of the film.
Essentially the film devotes itself to 19 years of hedonistic partying, and just when one thinks "Finally, the Revolution...things are about to get interesting..." the credits start rolling!
Terrible.
Overall the casting was uninspired (with the exception of Judy Davis as the Comtesse de Noailles), and I wasn't fond of the schizophrenic soundtrack...
In the end the film was two hours of fluff...lovely fluff, but fluff just the same. For a more enjoyable narrative and story watch the 1938 version with Norma Shearer. It's very dated and historically there are problems, but overall it paints a much truer picture of Marie-Antoinette's tragic life.
DVD Worthy? Some people love, some hate it…either way, it’s a gorgeous film to watch.
Extras: A 'Making of...' Featurette, Deleted Scenes, and 'Cribs With Louis XVI'
Costumes: Gorgeous Gorgeous Gorgeous...No one can deny that this is a beautifully designed film. It's a very stylized look at the 18th century, especially in regards to the palette, hair and shoes (most notably these ones...)
But the overall silhouette is spot-on and the basic cut of the costumes (if not the trim and accessories) is very period.
The scale of the production is marvelous, and so there is a real range in terms of design...from Madame du Barry's garish dresses to the simpler styles of LePetit Trianon.
***
Costumes In Detail
*Additional Screen-Captures & Production Photos*
Costumes In Detail
*Additional Screen-Captures & Production Photos*
Marie Antoinette's Blue Austrian Dress
Marie Antoinette's Blue Tricorn Gown
Marie Antoinette's Wedding Gown
Marie Antoinette's Peach Polonaise
Marie Antoinette's Strawberry-Print Gown
Marie Antoinette's Pink Striped Gown
Marie Antoinette's Bright Pink Gown
Marie Antoinette's Pale Blue Gown
Marie Antoinette's Beige Floral Gown
Marie Antoinette's Pink and Yellow Dress
Marie Antoinette's Coronation Gown
Marie Antoinette's Yellow Gown
Marie Antoinette's White Striped Gown
Marie Antoinette's Blue/Grey Robe à l'Anglaise
Marie Antoinette's Other Gowns
The Princesse de Lamballe's Gowns
Other Gowns and Dresses
34 comments:
The film is definitely a feast for the eyes, but not for the mind. I'll probably buy the dvd, but I'll never watch it with the sound. Like you, I'll use it as a lovely background. I cannot believe it ended where it did.... before any of the more interesting events in her life happened.
I know!
Even if it the film didn't end with her death (and there's no excuse why it shouldn't, since it's pretty much the reason why Marie Antoinette has remained such an iconic figure) with better editing there would have been plenty of time to cover at least SOME non-partying issues.
(i.e the Necklace scandal, outbrake of French revolution, even the affair with Ferson could have been covered in a bit more depth).
Right now it's really just a mess...but yes, a very pretty one.
The part with the tennis shoes just made me sad...
The entire film was like watching a bunch of valley girls going shopping. Lot of pretty things I'll never be able to afford but really little very little substance...or plot.
As far as the costuming; pretty, yes; accurate...ummm..sometimes? I really was expecting more and then the tennis shoes...
I think as stylization goes, the costumes by Milena Canonero were very well done. Yes the palette was off (Hot pink anyone?) and the detailing was severely reduced for the modern aesthetic, but I would argue that the actual cut of the dresses was very good.
With a starting off point that was solidly rooted in the fashion of the period the modern surface elements worked far better than they otherwise might have.
But yah...Converse shoes? That's going a little too far.
This is a reason why I didn't like the movie. It's the same reason I didn't like the soundtrack (half period half contemporary)...ditto with the dialogue and accents. If the film just *committed* to one style I could have forgiven a lot more...it's the wishy-washiness I can't stand.
I LOVED the costumes in this film. I wonder if you could do a bit on the Duchess of Polignac's costumes? They were just as lovely as Lambelle's :) (Polignac was played by Rose Byrne. I thought that along with Judy Davis, she was the only actor who stood out as interesting in their role)
Marie Antoinette is a movie that one either loves or hates, but its purpose was never biographic. If one wanted to learn about the Affair of the Necklace or the geopolitics of Louis XV/XVI, a history book like Fraiser's should be conferred, not a fictional movie. Sophia Coppola wanted to portray a girl (MA was 14 when she was shipped off to be the breed the next Dauphin) in the middle of decaying institution of which she had little control over. She was the quintessential high school queen bee with too much money, her crazy shoe collection (including the converse), and too little expectations except to produce a son. Just because her trials in her life are inconsequential compared with the big politics or plight of the overtaxed peasants, but they were still overwhelming for a teenage girl and one woman in the face of an entire institution.
As for cutting out the end, the balcony scene was enough to convey which everyone knows is going to happen.
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but I love this movie and I think if you view it as what it is intended to be and not what it was never made for, MA is a great movie not just for it eye candy pastries and costumes.
I guess this might be a hard film to understand for a lot of people, I'll give you that, but for those who do understand it's amazing and yes, incredibly moving. I've seen so many bad reviews of it saying it's just a bunch of fluff, it's a two-hour music video, "what was she thinking?" and so on. It's so, so easy to tell these reviewers were prejudiced when they came in to the theater and came out without a single new thought because they didn't ever really try to understand. This film isn't about France, it isn't about politics, it's about a girl. As simple as that. And that's what makes it so wonderful. I think it's something every teenage girl can really relate to. Yes, of course, on a much smaller scale obviously, but the feelings Marie-Antoinette experiences are instantly recognizable and so thrillingly familiar to anyone who is young or remembers what it was like to be young. And don't you see that this is the reason for the more modern music and the Converses? The point is Marie-Antoinette is just like any other girl in any other time. Imagine the film with stiff classical music the whole way through, dull colors, a lot of talking and unrealisticly full explanations of everything that is happening in every other scene. Oh, come on, haven't we seen this before? See it that way, and suddenly the characters seem to know they live in the past. The music, color, and sparseness make it so much more accessible and real. Sure, Marie-Antoinette never would have heard anything like that music but she did feel it.
I think it's really ridiculous to be waiting around for the movie to say something about the affair of necklace or the bloody revolution or Marie-Antoinette's beheading (not to mention morbid) and so on. We all know all too well that these things happened, so why do we need to be told again? We're an audience, not children in school. We shouldn't expect to be told the same things over and over every we time we enter a new grade . . . or a new theater. Isn't the point of making a new movie to say something new? If you want to be told something you already know and never reach outside of that, never think a new thought, just watch something you've already seen before. Leaving things out that everyone already knows gives the audience a chance to learn something new. Isn't that wonderful? The chance to learn something new about something so old? It really makes you think about all the layers of things, how you can never know everything about anything but you can certainly try and be continuously making new discoveries in the process. This movie is like rubbing your eyes and opening them only to see things in a whole new way. It's a clear view. It is both fresh and familiar.
You have to understand that for all her partying and buying Marie-Antoinette wasn't happy. In fact that was the reason for it all. Note that the "I Want Candy" scene (the scene that starts all that spending) comes directly after the scene in which she cries in her room after finding a new royal baby boy has been born - a baby boy that threatens her position completely because he could easily become the heir to the throne if she's not careful and Louis doesn't step up. She wasn't spending for the sake of spending. She was rebelling the only way she knew how. And the way that she shopped, there weren't exactly price tags on things and she certainly wasn't informed of the price her people were paying. She had a strong sense of duty and it is very clear she would have done anything for the people of France . . . if only she'd known there was something she needed to do (or not do for that matter).
The fourth and final section of the movie moves me so deeply every time. It's all the things that might have been said or done, the subtle changes in words and actions that could have had the largest impact on history. It's all the possibilites it gives me to turn over in my mind, all the different points of view, the feelings of everyone involved both as groups and as individuals. Did you know that when they sent DuBarry to the guillotine she pleaded with the crowd to let her go and they actually grew so sympathetic they almost thought they really would let her go until she was stopped? But Marie-Antoinette, noble as ever, only said thank you as she was lead to the guillotine and that was that. It makes me wonder, what could have happened if more of the royals had put their duty and dignity aside and asked for a little mercy? Of course, none of that was in the movie but there are such similar what-ifs in the last portion, oh, it really makes me wonder.
I adore this film. I'm not ashamed to say it in the least. I mean it with all my heart and I can defend it all day long. I can watch it over and over and it gives me chills every time. Especially that one image of the bedroom all smashed and torn apart near the end. That makes me want to cry. And I think it's so inspiring in terms of clothing and decoration, &c as welI. Every time I see it I want to go make something!
I must be honest, I am a history buff/geek, but what I know about Marie - Antoinette I could write on a postage stamp ( Tudors and Stuarts is more my era ). But after seeing your review and screencaps ( one of tne best on your site actually, especially the production shots ) it has compelled me to want to see the film and even read Antonia Fraser's bio. Were the gowns of this period, at the French court, really as colourful and flamboyant as portrayed in the film? The only thing that irks me is Kirsten Dunst in the title role, as you yourself pointed out. She just does'nt seem to pass as a coquettish Frenchwoman.
sorry about the Kirsten Dunst thing, I could be wrong, after all I hav'nt seen the film yet.
I totally agree with what Anon said about this film being really just about a young girl, and was not ever made to be a completely historically accurate depiction of Marie Antoinette's life.If that's your real interest, there are plenty of books you can find about MA's real life. Fraiser's book was a bit on the boring side in my opinion, however I did like the book titled Queen of Fashion!
I believe that Sophia's actual goal with this movie was to get an almost private feel of what Marie was going through...kind of like her own inner dialog, which if you're willing to give Kirsten Dunst a little credit here...was a fairly difficult task to perform at best. Perhaps some crucial details in the movie could have been made differently to appease the history buffs out there, but I think that the most shining moments of the movie, were the times where Kirsten was filmed alone.I felt like she did a wonderful job with these subtle plays of emotion on her face and in her eyes.
The way that these scenes were filmed really had me thinking about what the real MA was feeling at all of these agonizing moments in her life. All these matters aside, the visual aspects of this movie are absolutely breathtaking! I love all of the beautiful costumes so much, regardless if hot pink and a pair of converse is "historical" or not is beside the point. This movie was made to make us see Marie's life a little differently. I actually liked the meshing of historical and modern themes together... I think it gives the story a freshness,or a heightened vitality and certainly does it's part to add an artful touch to all things considered.
I'm obviously out-numbered on this one...which is fine. I have nothing against people in enjoying 'Marie Antoinette.'
I can see the appeal, and I get what Sofia Coppola is trying to do...but for me there just isn't enough here to make a film out of.
Someone (there are a lot of Anons) said that one should leave things out that the audeince already knows about, which is a fair comment...there are certainly instances were that makes for a better film.
But I would argue that this is not one of them because the your average audience doesn't *actually* know all that much Marie Antoinette. They know (or think they know) "Let them eat cake" and her reputation for indulgence and frivolity...and they know she was beheaded. That's about it.
So if you're going to leave out the later wouldn't you want to make a film that expanded on the former?
Yes, this is a story about a girl who is thrown into the cold and ritualized world of the French Court and not surprisingly finds solace in hollow pleasures (with predicable results). That much is obvious to even the casual viewer...I don't need to be beaten over the head with ironic shoes and pastries for 2 hours.
No pictures of Du Barry's dresses? Some of those were quite something to see!
Wow! What a response, I confess that all the controversy caused by this review has urged me to want to buy this dvd . A fiery debate defending or persecuting a film is sure to sell it, even if it's just for curiosity (in fact I'm sure it's for curiosity). I understand that some films need to have a more modern slant in order to reach the modern audience (even with the use of converses) and I can cope with the modern music score, BUT please bear in mind that I am one of the few (or perhaps many) that knows very little about Marie Antoinette, and from my point of view, I would be very disappointed if it did'nt show most of the crucial events in her life. One of the anons said that we, the audience, should be credited with some intelligence and not tell us stuff that we already know, but it's not a question of covering old ground because some of us have'nt covered any of the ground. It should not be assumed that all of us know about MA'S life and I'm sorry to say - sometimes we like to be treated like children and get spoonfed our history.
9
I would really recommend owning this film...it is gorgeous gorgeous gorgeous!
I honestly can't say whether you'll enjoy it more or less from not knowing much about Marie Antoiette...I can easily see it going both ways.
But in terms of out-fashion gratuitous spectacle this film can't be beat. Visually it is awesome!
But there are deinitly some pretty polarized opinions about this film (as you can see). If you do buy it I'd be really curious to hear your take on it...to see it works (if only on an entertainment level) for someone who's unfamiliar with the character/history.
I'm very genuinely curious.
Hi Jenn,
Well, I will try and satisfy your curiosity. I bought the dvd and watched the film. What can I say? To be honest I am stuck for words and I'm not sure if that should be taken in a positive or negative light. From a visual point of view it was gorgeous, with the costumes and the royal court scenes, internal and external, everything was beautiful. BUT my praise ends there I'm afraid. As for the rest-OMG!
I have already confessed to knowing very little about Marie Antoinette. I love history and read a great deal, but this is a subject with which I am ignorant, and unfortunately, after watching the film, I remain in ignorance. I confess that I was a bit lazy with self educating myself about MA and chose the easy option of watching the film before reading the book but I will still be reaching for Antonia Frasers bio. Don't get me wrong, I have learnt a few things ie: MA loved spending, she was actually Austrian NOT French, and she did have feelings- some of Kirsten Dunst's scenes of self pity were wonderfully done, it's a pity they were'nt backed up by some relevance for these feelings such as hmm...the French Revolution in detail and her meeting with the guillotine. I'm sorry if that sounds morbid, but what I am basically trying to say is that there just was'nt enough (accurate) historical content to satisfy my curiosity. The music-OMG! It was painful as was the dialogue with an horrendous mixture of different accents. Needless to say, I was disappointed so I will be doing a lot of reading in the near future. This review has been a very debatable one, and I am sure my comments will be lampooned by many, but I can only speak as I find. I hope this has satisfied YOUR curiosity.
Thanks Anon, that really does!
(but I also feel bad for recommending it...I hope the visuals make up for the terrible story and you didn't pay too much for it.)
In general --and I could be wrong on this-- but it seems like the people who love this film already know a fair bit about the period and Marie Antoinette and enjoy it as a study of the girl/woman rather than the Queen.
It's really helpful to hear how it comes across to someone who's coming to the subject with fresh eyes...
Obviously I agree with pretty much all of you points.
On the one hand I can completey see how someone who already had a working knowledge of the historical events and characters would enjoy the film (it can be nice to see history from a different perspective), but as a self-contained story it doesn't work for me at all.
(what can I say, I'm a history geek but I'm a film geek first...it's what I get paid for).
But I would recommend the Fraser bio, it's a good starting point and a very interesting read (she gives you a lot of historical context). The audio book version is also pretty good.
So the movie may improve a little with the proper background information...
Thanks again, Anon, for posting...I really appreciate your thoughts!
Hmmm...In a nutshell, this is a love it or hate it film. And don't worry, I bought it in a sale, and it cost very little. To be honest, I doubt I will watch it again unless I am very bored and feel like watching something visually stunning and easy on the eye.
You are so right! Of course the costumes and places and jewelry and oh everything that could be seen was wonderful, but in what concerns Marie-Antoinette's story... I never found someone that agreed with me on that matter, but finally there's someone who thinks that too! If we want to "befriend" that queen or at least understand her and find a more courageous trait in her personality, we can't just look at the golden days in Versailles! All the beautiful parts of her character appear when she is in difficult times, in the Tuileries, the Temple, the failed escape to Varennes, the Conciergerie! And not including the Affair of the Necklace... oh well.
And I'd like it if they included some scenes in which they'd show the misery of the people. One of the bad things about some movies about the Revolution and poor aristocrats that have their head chopped off is that they never show the other side, the dark side of the country, with peasants and poor people diyng of hunger, or vice-versa. So people either hate the cruel aristocrats or hate the cruel people when he massacrates the rich. The problem is no one was right and no one was wrong.
thank you for the review, this is exactly what I thought. i was so excited to see this and then when I saw it I was almost bored, it was a long ramble. It is very pretty but it is definetly a background movie.
Let me just say I love Kirsten Dunst and I love historical fiction. This film did not cater to either of these loves. It was the second time I've been very disappointed by one of her movies. Maybe I was biased having already seen the 1938 MA and expecting something similar but in color. But alas this was not so. I cried at the end of the older version, when MA was trapped in exile awaiting her turn at execution holding on to her children and kissing her husband goodbye, this movie totally missed the emotional aspects of her life. I think it sort of trivialised her into a young spoiled girl who spends money for attention, as opposed to a queen trying to find a place in court. Maybe this is what they were going for but I feel like they could have done that by making a movie of Paris Hilton's life instead of eschewing history in order to favor a younger generation.
I have always been a sucker for the spoilt little rich girl story who blindly makes all the wrong decisions for the right reasons, and although you feel you should hate her, when she finally meets her tragic end and becomes a martyr you can't help but love her. Mary Queen of Scots always gets me like this and I was convinced that Marie Antoinette would be the same - in fact, according to history, she SHOULD! - but. alas, this film completely blew any ideas of this kind out of the water. I could not warm to this character at all, even though I knew I should, and for me it was just Barbie The French Revolution Musical. I eagerly await someone to make the decision to retell the story of MA properly and leave the audience reaching for their tissues.
Actually I need to correct what I thought the title should be - it should have been just Barbie the Musical - after all, the French Revolution barely featured in it at all.
One of the things that made me mad was that the end of the film would make the average idiot think that Marie Antoinette and her family escaped.
Meh... I've watched this twice and the second time didn't please me much more than the first. I absolutely loved the costumes (even though some of them were a bit off) and the colour, the frills and all that lovely girly stuff, but the rest of the film left alot to be desired. It's sort of a 'brainless' movie-- something you can watch and feel neuteral about in the end-- very few redeeming, engaging, or thought-provoking qualities. The soundtrack (even though it came as a surprise to me, and I wouldn't have done it that way) was, in a sense, refreshing in that it's not the stereotypical period film music sort of thing, and aided into making Marie Antoinette easier to sympathize with to a modern audience so far removed from the sort of society she lived in. However, the film overall was kinda... boring... I kept waiting for something to happen! Plus, the dialouge just bugged me. Half the fun of watching period films is hearing people talk like they actually used to-- intelligently!
I love this movie (its my favorite)! When ever my friends ask me to lend them my copy, I warn them that there is not much plot to follow. It's one of those films that you watch to enjoy and indulge. I do wish the film would have gone into the infamous Affair of the Diamond Necklace (or at least mentioned it) and into her trials in hiding with her family. I read the Antonia Fraser biography last year and I could see what Sophia Coppola was trying to convey, but she lacked a solid plot line. However, this film is a feast for the eyes that shouldn't be rejected. I love this movie so much, I wrote my film analysis on it and even did my banquet hall-extravagant (and expensive-over $10,000) quinces on it. :)
I would just like to add a very random note: I've been in love with 18th century fashhion for a very long time and researched it for just as long, and I didn't quite agree with all the dress colours used in this movie. Until I read this:
http://www.amazon.de/Gazette-atours-Marie-Antoinette-Garde-robe-lann%C3%A9e/dp/2711851109
It's a facsimile of Marie Antoinette's fabric sample book. And... she DID have hot pink clothing. (!) It's not even discoloration through aging (like the lavender/pink Colonial Williamsburg polonaise dress), because no light would have reached these samples, safely stored away in a book...
Apart from that: I didn't enjoy this movie as a historical/costume movie, but I like the moods it creates with lighting and music a lot. The modern music disturbed me when I saw the trailer for the first time, but in the (admittedly weak) narrative it evokes emotion in the audience that helps relate to the distand past.
But then, I also liked "Lost in Translation" and "The Virgin Suicides" for the atmosphere in them.
I have to say, many (although not all) of the extremely passionate defenders of this movie sound VERY pompous, as if they had researched MA's life a lot, when in their comments it becomes quite obvious that their only knowledge on the topic comes from the movie. Many of the very obsessive fans I encountered on the internet were between 14 and 16 when this movie came out and it started their love for history and costumes. Some of them even filter all the literature they read afterwards through their MA movie fan eyes. ("You don't understand, Marie Antoinette was just a girl! I just know so! Can't you feel it?") I like the movie a lot, as a bit of entertainment. But when people start basing their historical perception on it, they are approaching things from the wrong end. For some strange reason they seem to expand their starry-eyed view onto the Romanovs and Elisabeth of Austria soon after. *shrug* It's almost like a trope.
This movie was visually appealing and I find it entertaining, but as a history nerd, the inaccuracies drove me insane.
I find I can watch the movie without having an aneurysm if I separate it from history and enjoy it as a movie. I understand it's a pop culture interpretation of Marie Antoinette's life.This knowledge allows me to enjoy the movie (especially the fantastic New Wave soundtrack). I just feel sorry for the idiots that accept this movie as historical fact.
Could it be that maybe this movie was created not for those who already know about MA's life but for those who dont know much at all? I think this movie can be seen as a way to tease the unknowing audience into the pretty, luxurious life of a girl who was undoubtedly unhappy and for some reason, her people didnt like her. They stormed her house and she was forced to leave. Then the movie ends. Leaving people curious about what happend after and yearning to learn more about her life and why this happend. So to do that, someone would actually have to pick up a book! Oh the thought! Not everything should be thrown at us in a movie or there would never be a reason to learn any other way. At least in the eyes on a teenager.
I really liked this movie when i saw it and i figured that the lack of dialogue wasnt a bad thing, but was necessary in order to get an understanding of the period and her melancholy life that was forced on her by her mother, then the french court.
I've been a lover of the 18th century ever since I saw Amadeus as a child, but didn't know much about MA untill after I saw this movie, became interested in her and the 18th century in general. Then I looked her up along with others in her circle and the period on Wikipedia, became a fan of certain blogs I've come across, read Frasier's book and now I can't get enough of anything 18th century. The empire's, the revolutions, the politics, the mannerisms, and my favorite, the fashions!
Im even interested in other parts of history that they had neglected to really get me interested in high school when pressure was put on me to figure out what I want to do for the rest of my life.
Now I cant get enough. Ive been to the MET, the Smithsonian, and some other museums. My parents never took me to good museums like these growing up. Someday I hope to go to Europe and see these places for myself.
I hope I'm not boring anyone with my rambling but my point to all of this is there has got to be something out there to get young people interested in history, something that they can relate to, something that doesnt try to explain it all and only show enough to spark interest in the mind. For me, this movie was the turning point. I may have had a hidden love after seeing Amadeus when I was little, and its stillbone of my favorite movies, but this movie started something for me.
I also always loved Crule Intentions and after learning it was based on a novel set in my favorite time period, I had to read the original book, Les liaisons dangereuses! And its fantastic too!
I liked the movie alright and the costuming was spot on but I absolutely despise the musical score. Especially "Fools Rush In" by that God-awful woman who's singing it. Her voice completely annoyed me to no end. I can tolerate most of the music in the film but that number made me want to pierce my eardrums with knitting needles or freshly sharpened pencils. Kirsten Dunst did well in her role and we see a somewhat different side of Marie in that she was not so much greedy and materialistic or that she simply didn't care about the people of France, but that she was naive and a victim of her own upbringing and her ignorance of the peoples plights and sufferings. She didn't have the first clue about life outside her kingdom either in Austria or France. She had no concept of her subjects living hand to mouth and she spent money as if there were an enchanted grove of money trees on the grounds of Versailles ripe with gold and precious jewels for the taking and to replenish the Royal purse. To this day, I do not believe that Marie was careless and greedy so much as she was far removed from the poverty that plagued so many in France in those times. She remains in my opinion a very misunderstood woman.
I've always viewed this movie not as a biography or commentary on history or politics, but as a perspective piece. Essentially, I think Coppola was trying to portray what life was like for a 14 year old girl in a situation far beyond her understanding or control. I believe that's why the modern music and the infamous shot of the Converse were included: to show that even though Marie Antoinette was the Dauphine and later Queen, she was still, at the heart of it, a teenager for most of the movie. To make a modern audience view her as that airheaded teenager, I feel Coppola included these things to make the connection in our minds. We are an educated crowd on history. I'd say it'd be harder for most people viewing the movie to make the same connection without the modern references. Sort of like using "We Will Rock You" in "A Knight's Tale" to show a medieval audience watching a joust as not that different from modern football fans.
Marie Antoinette acted as many teenagers with that much money would. She partied, she bought fine clothes, she acted irresponsibly. However, and I've always found this the real tragedy of Marie's life, as soon as she got her act together and wanted to act as a serious Queen, it was too late. Her fate was sealed and she was truly reviled by the people. I don't think the movie needs to show the ending of Marie's life; it's a forgone conclusion. We all know her life ended with a gruesome beheading. Why show it and ruin the light tone of a movie that probably never even intended to be taken seriously as a biography?
Admittedly, the history is not great. At all. But I think to concentrate so much on the history is to ignore the larger goal of the film: to portray Marie Antoinette as a person, not just another name in the history books. And as a person, she had many flaws and does come off, in this portrayal, as a little selfish and very materialistic. If you want a better, more historical interpretation of her life, I suppose this is not the film for you. But personally I enjoyed this film very much and, as everyone else, absolutely adored the costumes and scenery.
I just have to say in response to the lack of dialogue and use of music comments- it's a Coppola film. Have you never seen a Coppola film? That's the style used very frequently in the family's works. This wasn't made to be a heavy biography. Sofia Coppola made a light, fun movie about teenagers. That was her aim- and she even states it in the behind the scenes features. Sometimes movies are made for *gasp* entertainment!
pI just love anonymous comments. Especially when they're people who are trying to sound intelligent. Yes, ANONYMOUS, I've seen a Coppola film and regardless, I'm not impressed by the musical score. Marie Antoinette's life was not a light, fun time for a teenager. It was far removed from anything "gasp" light and fun. So anonymous, grow some balls next time and use your own name at least and do a little digging and tell me how light and fun Marie's real life was. Sofia Coppola is an idiot, period, over and out, at least when it comes to this movie. Besides dumbass, I was only talking not liking the music. That was my only complaint. Now I must complain about the dumbass, balless wonders who comment anonymously. Grow a backbone and do some research. Have a cookie, take a nap and don't miss anymore of your meds.
Also "anonymous" coward, check Sofia's stats against her fathers. She's a wanna be and all of her movies are shit. She does the same thing with every one of them and it's old hat. Now, go on back to licking her shoes and those little windows in the short bus.
As simple as that. And that's what makes it so wonderful. I think it's something every teenage girl can really relate to. Yes, of course, on a much smaller scale obviously, but the feelings Marie-Antoinette experiences are instantly recognizable and so thrillingly familiar to anyone who is young or remembers what it was like to be young. And don't you see that this is the reason for the more modern music and the Converses? The point is Marie-Antoinette is just like any other girl in any other time. Imagine the film with stiff classical music the whole way through, dull colors, a lot of talking and unrealisticly full explanations of everything that is happening in every other scene. Oh, come on, haven't we seen this before? See it that way, and suddenly the characters seem to know they live in the past.
Post a Comment