Movies Reviews
Movie Review: Marie Antoinette
By Frank H. Woodward Oct 17, 2006, 9:33 GMT
Based on Antonia Fraser\'s book about the ill-fated Archduchess of Austria and later Queen of France, \'Marie Antoinette\' tells the story of the most misunderstood and abused woman in history, from her birth in Imperial Austria to her later life in France. ...more
Have you ever wondered what Paris Hilton would be like as the Queen of France? ‘Marie Antoinette’ dares to bore us with this question.
Sofia Coppola’s third film was booed at Cannes and, for the second time regarding Marie Antoinette, the French were right.
‘Marie Antoinette’ starts out with the promise of skewering life in the royal court. In 1758, Austria and France formed a treaty by marrying the teenaged Marie Antoinette to the equally young and inexperienced Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman).
The fact that the integrity of this treaty rests on Marie getting pregnant is ludicrous because it’s true. Coppola has good fun at the expense of all the pomp, circumstance and nonsensical tradition.
Consider the opening moments where a dressing tent is pitched on the borders of the two countries. Young Marie enters from the Austrian side, is made to shed all of her possessions and replace them with their French made equivalents. Only then is she fit to come out the other side, truly a Frenchwoman now.
Even eating with her boy-husband or being dressed in the morning by her royal sisters in order of their rank & privilege is well played for all its ridiculousness.
Then something annoying happens. ‘Marie Antoinette’ loses all sense of story and commentary and devolves into a teenage girl’s diary… “My Summer At Versailles”.
It’s one gossip tale after another. Marie’s all night slumber parties. Her shopping sprees. Hot boys. Hey, isn’t Marie married to the King of France? Don’t get your hopes up. The tantalizing tidbits of Marie’s affair, like most gossip, go absolutely nowhere.
Somewhere close to the 2 hour mark, Coppola remembers there’s some history to address. The peasants are revolting. The shallow queen develops a sense of duty out of nowhere and decides to stand by her king.
Why? Who cares? Towards the end of ‘Marie Antoinette’, you’ll be praying for the guillotine.
Now someone from the ‘Marie Antoinette’ camp will probably counter my critique by saying, “But that’s the point, Frank. Marie Antoinette is supposed to seem selfish and shallow. That’s why she sparked the French Revolution.”
This defense would work if Coppola didn’t seem so tickled by Marie’s flights of excess.
Kirsten Dunst’s performance is equally enamored with itself. Dunst only manages one look of coyness throughout her starring vehicle. Her “I’m so totally fabulous” smirk, like the constant nothingness happening in the script, gets old very quickly.
As for the supporting players, the hodge podge of casting is more fascinating than any one performance. Where else can you see Rip Torn, Judy Davis, Molly Shannon, Asia Argento and Steve Coogan all in the same film?
Much has been made of the use of modern music in ‘Marie Antoinette’. Coppola wants to paint Marie as a free spirit in a gilded cage. The rock tunes are the sounds of her rebellion. It’s a simple yet uninspired conceit that could have gone someplace interesting. Don’t expect it to (unless you think Bow Wow Wow’s “I Like Candy” is some kind of anthem).
‘Marie Antoinette’ could be a significant misstep for Coppola, especially if it means the vapid socialite of her youth has returned.
You see, there are two Sofia Coppolas. There’s the poor little debutante clad in Prada giggling with girlfriends at Nobu. There’s also the Sofia who continued the family legacy of fine filmmaking with ‘Lost In Translation’ and ‘The Virgin Suicides.’
The former Sofia is the one who co-wrote ‘Life Without Zoe.’ That was the dull middle section of her dad’s ‘New York Stories.’
You know, the one with a precocious 12 year old rich girl attending posh kid’s parties in Manhattan?
It’s okay if you don’t remember. ‘Marie Antoinette’ will probably fade from memory just as easily.
Opens wide USA and UK October 20. MPAA: Rated PG-13 for brief strong language.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Movies
- 1. Polisse – Movie Review
- 2. Moonrise Kingdom – Movie Review 2
- 3. Moonrise Kingdom – Movie Review
- 4. Ashley’s Ashes arrives on VOD (Exclusive Clip Added)
- 5. Chinese Zodiac Cannes Photocall Pictures
Older Talkback
page: 1
I loved the movie. The story was told through visual imagery. There was very little dialouge,which was intentional and sheer genious. The movie is like a beautiful abstract painting,therefore very few will understand or appreciate this beautiful masterpiece. Nothing is obvious in the movie forcing the viewer to read between the lines. Sophia tells the story through ones senses,relying on sight,sound,taste and imagination. Contrary to the many who felt this movie was shallow, I left feeling quite the opposite. It is a much deeper thought process to covey a story in an unconventional manner. I loved the way events were potrayed in an unspoken way-the death of her child,the ending-forcing the viewer to think.For those who love art,music and beauty,the movie is a must. For those who have difficulty appreciating abstract art,this movie will appear shallow. You will either love it or hate it.
I would think you should at least get some basic facts or reading done before writing such an enormously flawed review. First of all I would like to point out that in 1758 Marie Antoinette was three and while her mother had been thinking of this marriage bit for quite some time history reveals nothing was certain until a very short while before Antonia left for Versailles.
As to the tent incident, I will refrain from commenting.
The books about Marie Antoinette are packed with controversies, variations and downright opposing stories. The problem is they are all based on basically the same facts; letters, diaries, newspaper and journal notices from Marie Antoinette's contemporary world. The thing is marie Antoinette never got to write her biography after the revolution as she stated she would, because she ended her days in the guilliotine. We will never know the truth or the most accurate interpretation, thus Sofia Coppola leaves alot open by entering music and much room for our own interpretations.
She gives life to the teenage girl (! because whether or not you noticed MA was a young teenager when she married a complete stranger). As such, and further as a 18th century rokoko princess whos education compassed not what todays high schoolers are taught and who's girlish upbringing at that trapped her further, yes there would be intrigues, parties, hot boys, and all else. Because truth be told she must have been scared, and confused, and desperate to be well liked and make new friends, and found a thrill in boys giving her attention as her own husband appears form historical records including his own diary not to have, and from parties giving her laughs and clothes answering to her girly princess upbringing.
THere is no real blame to be shifted. This was the life of a princess of Vienna to be dauphine of France and then queen of France. She would have been asked to tend to political questions, but face it. The girl was fourteen fifteen etc. and all she heard and saw people wanting her was to get laid by her husband the king. Dutifully she wished to produce an air, but honestly, who could have lived such a life to these expectations without some emotional issues. I know I would have reacted towards it, rebelled in any way possible while attempting to uphold my loyalties.
Let us not forget she was charitable, she tried to help the people of france to the extent she knew and understood how, she did influence alot of her husbands political decisions, and she did defiantly stay at his and her families side.
Yes the mob is noice and then a group of screaming people. In Versailles, for MA, I bet they were alot of noice too. They were terrifying. THey wanted to kill her and her family. And yet she walked out alone onto a balcony and bowed to them. This is historical, this is fact, this is real.
And Sofia Coppola captured it. One version of the many ways to tell the story. But to me an amazing one.
Plus, let us think about the contemporary time. If someone went out to the streets of france where people did not get bread and said 'hey it's the queens fault. we chop her head off/mars to versailles and scream/etc. and we get bread/all will be/would be better' then I bet alot had a very easy time agreeing. newspapers etc. did not put forward all or truthful at all times information of for example the queen and royal families charity work or reasons for their actions.
Today it is very very veyr frighteningly similar. Someone goes out there and says hey let's blame that guy for everything that goes wrong, if he weren't around all would be better. It is very easy for a lot of people to think 'sure, that makes sense. Let's hate him.' Take bush for example, hate object number one in a lot of places today.
Then one can always think... The French revolution was a bloody, catastrophal and inhumane reaction built on popular opinion being accepted and believed, and masses believing in something just because it was easier than facing up to real issues. Because it made sense.
But mostly, let's remember a fourteen year girl. Just like any fourteen year girl, leaving her home behind to find a new husband, and as exciting as it may have and probably was, knowing that she would probably never see Vienna and many of her family again... Well, I personally am admiring her courage, and all that she did and did not do.
page: 1
sp4Oct 17th, 2006 - 20:16:48
...Paris Hilton ISN'T the queen of France...???
Report this comment