I’ll begin this discussion of Sofia Coppola’s much anticipated Marie Antoinette with the following vow: I will try, to the best of my ability, to scrupulously avoid any wordplay that references “cake-eating” in describing the relative merits of the film. But please don’t hold me to it. The temptation is far too great.
This follow-up to the widely acclaimed Lost in Translation stars Kirsten Dunst in a role she was born to play as the Austrian princess whisked off to Versailles at the tender age of 14 to marry Louis XVI, played with off-kilter charm by the always interesting Jason Schwartzman. The film had quite a polarizing effect on critics after its premiere in France, eliciting a mixture of boos and wild applause, and will likely produce a similar result when it opens in the States on Oct. 13.
Armed with a $40 million budget and full access to the palace and gardens of Versailles, Coppola spares no expense in crafting a gorgeous film that lavishly details the opulence of the French court. She injects a modern, slightly anachronistic tone into the proceedings by adding a hip soundtrack filled with obscure but catchy pop/rock songs. She’s assembled a cast of fine actors, despite their disconcerting variety of accents, who are uniformly superb, especially Dunst as the beleaguered and misunderstood Marie.
But somewhere along the way, Sofia forgot to write a screenplay. Based loosely on Antonia Fraser’s biography, Marie Antoinette: The Journey, the script contains precious little dialogue, conflict, or political intrigue to help place the proceedings in any historical context. Soon after her arrival at Versailles, the young Queen is (quite literally) stripped of all things Austrian and introduced to the peculiar customs of the court by the imperious Comtesse de Noailles, played by Judy Davis. One such ritual requires her to be dressed each morning by the lady of the highest rank in attendance that day, with the expected comic results. Such scenes, however impressive in period detail and costuming they may be, should serve merely as exposition to supplement the action. Instead, with no discernible narrative in sight, they comprise the bulk of the film’s 123 minute running time and grow increasingly monotonous as the film grinds on.
The only scenes resembling some form of dramatic conflict involve the growing pressure on the young couple to produce an heir, for which Marie shouldered most of the blame. Coppola suggests, with a bumbling, aloof, and sexually ambiguous Schwartzman, that it was the Dauphin who caused a delay of almost seven years before the arrival of their first child. But again, we learn little about his motivations or anyone’s for that matter, as substantive dialogue scenes are eschewed in favor of brief voice-overs, letter readings, and momentary snippets of conversation between characters who actually share screen time together. Since little attention is paid to the increasingly volatile political situation outside the walls of Versailles, we’re forced in a way to occupy the same posh prison as Marie, blissfully unaware of the storm that is to come. Maybe this was intentional on the filmmaker’s part, but the endless procession of extravagant set-pieces becomes mind-numbingly routine at some point and we welcome the arrival of the angry French mobs when they finally do show their grubby faces.
I don’t mean to suggest that Marie Antoinette is entirely without merit. Coppola still has a knack for arresting visuals, and with the ample budget and a setting as photogenic as Versailles, she’s able to stage some knockout sequences. In a nod to The Virgin Suicides, which also starred Dunst, the revelers party like rock stars at Marie’s country hideaway, Le Petit Trianon, then gather to watch the sun rise in a scene of staggering beauty. Also notable is the haunting image of the Queen placing her hands on the railing overlooking the enraged Parisian mob crying for her head, and then slowly bending over, offering it to them in a gesture of humble compliance. These moments shine on their own, but the end result is still regrettably a triumph of style over substance.
The actors, with what little they’re given, do a fine job of bringing humor and vitality to their roles as 18th-century French aristocrats. Rip Torn, though at times sounding like he’s still cracking heads behind the scenes of “The Larry Sanders Show”, is suitably gruff and authoritative as Louis XVI’s grandfather king. Steve Coogan as Ambassador Mercy, the Queen’s chief advisor, and Danny Huston as Joseph II, her shrewd older brother, still register strongly even with the brief screen time they’re given. Schwartzman’s goofiness paints a portrait of a child King woefully unprepared for both his royal and familial duties. But it’s Dunst, occupying nearly every frame of the picture, who carries the film and makes the tedium somewhat tolerable. She radiates an air of innocence and fragile beauty that paints a far more sympathetic portrait of the Queen than most history books would allow. Increasingly frustrated by the confines of her situation and blissfully unaware of what’s transpiring in the rest of France, Dunst’s Marie becomes a victim of her own ignorance, a clueless party girl with only the best of intentions who never asked to be dumped into this mess.
The “fish-out-of-water” theme has been central to each of Coppola’s three films thus far. Her characters are forced to deal with an almost paralyzing feeling of isolation and social alienation, whether it’s in a contemporary high school setting, as a lonely traveler in a Tokyo hotel, or as the newest member of the French monarchy. That motif worked well in both previous features because, though never teeming with dialogue and plot, they contained scenes of sufficient dramatic weight to engage the audience on an emotional level. Marie Antoinette, despite its sumptuous costumes, production design, and appealing cast, seems frivolous and lightweight in comparison. It’s almost like comparing meat and potatoes to … I’ll let you fill in the blank.
Note: This website is not meant for use by minors. The views expressed in the comments section below are not our own. This section is intended for discussion of the topic in the post above. Disagreement is encouraged, however comments which attack, insult, or threaten the author in a personal manner won't be published. Similarly, comments that we deem to be poorly worded, or wildly off topic will also not be approved and may be mocked. For free, uncensored, unfettered, and possibly dangerous discussion visit our forum.
I have to say - just watch M-A on dvd and was entertained but also found the dialouge hard to hear at times and had a hard time with some of the inacurracies of the the facts. I just chalked it up to Sophia's version of rich girl's fantasy life in the 1700's - I would have liked to see more depth-
I understand that Sophia Coppola's film making style is quite subtle but this movie was just too dull. Visually stunning to watch and an excellent portrayal of how vapid life must have been for royalty back then, but lacking any substance. I too strained to piece a story together from the snippets of dialogue and became bored when i realized nothing was happening.
Excellent use of music, excellent set design, and excellent acting - it's just too bad there was no script to hold it all together.
I was so looking forward to this movie, but I really did not enjoy it as much as I hoped. I was constantly straining to hear the dialogue and I got bored waiting for something to happen. I did love the scene with all the candies and the punk 80s music. I am not a big fan of Sofia Coppola’s I think I am the only person who didn't enjoy Lost in Translation. I was bored through most of MA. Shame as the trailers looked promising.
courtesy: Warner Bros., ThinkFilm, New Line Cinema, Sony Pictures and Kino International.
AWARDS WATCH: IFP Unveils Gotham Nominees: "The Departed," "Half Nelson," "Little Children," "Marie Antoinette," "Old Joy"
by Eugene Hernandez (October 23, 2006)
The Independent Feature Project (IFP) announced the nominees for its 16th Annual Gotham Awards fundraiser, unveiling a selection of films that may stun some observers. The nominating committee for the Gotham Award for best picture chose a list that includes an incredibly wide spectrum of films. Ranging from big budget studio movies to low budget indies, the nominees for best feature are: Martin Scorsese's "The Departed," Ryan Fleck's "Half Nelson," Todd Field's "Little Children," Sofia Coppola's "Marie Antoinette," and Kelly Reichardt's "Old Joy." A total of 148 films were submitted to the Gotham Awards Nominating Committee for consideration in all categories, with the best picture nominees selected by critics and journalists John Anderson, Karen Durbin, Stephen Garrett, and Lisa Schwarzbaum. The event will be held on November 29, 2006 in New York City.
Film Let Them Eat Film
Tales of wars and misguided youth dominate Cannes 2006
By SCOTT FOUNDAS
Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 6:00 pm
Marie Antoinette At the Cannes Film Festival, where fortunes can change more quickly than at the court of Versailles, Sophia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette arrived the odds-on favorite — buoyed by enthusiastic advance reviews in Paris, along with the sentimental possibility of history’s first father-daughter Palme d’Or winners — only to go home empty-handed. In between, there were those who wanted off with the head of Coppola and her rock-and-rococo biopic of France’s most notorious queen. While it’s impossible to know how many French nationals were among the small but vocal minority that booed Marie Antoinette’s first official press screening, it’s a fair bet that some Gallic viewers bristled at the film’s depiction of a time when Franco-American relations ran so strong that French troops and financial support were funneled into the American Revolution, even as France’s own economy teetered on the brink of collapse. But as Cannes wound on, there were critics of many nationalities who expressed disappointment with Coppola’s third feature film, bringing to mind one trusted colleague’s tried-and-true observation that sometimes people see a movie, but they don’t really see the movie.
In the case of Marie Antoinette, I suspect that many came to the film expecting one thing — perhaps the kind of dense, multicharacter historical epic Coppola père might have made — and didn’t know quite what to make of what they found instead. Don’t get me wrong: Marie Antoinette is a feast for the senses, shot on the grounds of Versailles, with hundreds of extras parading through the frame in candy-colored costumes by Oscar winner Milena Canonero. But the movie is less notable for its opulence than for its intimacy, as Coppola cuts through the rigid pomp and circumstance of so many period movies to create an irreverent snapshot of an impetuous young monarch (played with bubbly insouciance by Kirsten Dunst) more interested in haute couture and gossip among girlfriends than in the troubles of the nation that lies at her Manolo Blahnik–shod feet. Those who accused the film of failing as a study of 18th-century French politics missed Coppola’s point, for this Marie is a resolutely apolitical figure, not so much insensitive to the woes of pre-revolutionary France as ignorant to them, safely ensconced in a bubble of superficiality and decadence far from the madding crowd.
Daubed with anachronistic touches (including a soundtrack loaded with New Order, Bow Wow Wow and Gang of Four) that invigorate but never overwhelm, Marie Antoinette was, following the unqualified disaster of Richard Kelly’s Southland Tales, the one movie in this year’s Cannes competition that felt authentically hip and young and the product of a dazzling pop sensibility. It may also be Coppola’s most personal film to date, not because she is herself the scion of a royal Hollywood family, but rather because she came of age during her father’s lean years, when the palace of Zoetrope was set upon by angry creditors and King Francis was forced into working as a director-for-hire just to pay the bills. This is a movie made by someone who knows firsthand what it means to watch a once-glorious empire crumble.
i like a lot of junk. Snakes was not even a good, bad movie.
VS was a wonderful debut movie. LIT is a masterpiece. MA is a funny, seditious tea-party, a one note, visual masterpiece about repetition: boredom/pleasure. Sofia Coppola is the most interesting sensibility working in movies today. I met and knew Jean Renoir....this geiser knows how much he and Madame Renoir would have loved the movies of SC.
Dave Chapell's Block party and Duck Season are my favorite movies so far this year. I also have a regard for Miami Vice....Mike Mann's junk-yard L'Aventura.
Two distinct genres, Richard, and two different reviewers if you'd pay attention to the bylines. Coppola's film, however flawed, is still far more intriguing than that marketing campaign disguised as a movie but it also bears the weight of higher expectations because of her previous two efforts. Snakes on a Plane, with more modest goals in mind, has been deemed a moderate success by most of the critical community and in turn by our reviewer. I haven't seen it so I can't comment beyond that. Try expressing a cogent argument for why you disagree with a review as opposed to profane outbursts and vague pseudo-poetic comments about the shortcomings of the Western mind.
I can't wait for this movie is love the life of Marie Antoinette and i have been studying it since i was 11. I have written many reports on her and i am so happy someone has decided to make a newer vision of the movie. I do wish that they would have pick a different person to play marie like Reese Witherspoon would have been geat but i still cant wait to see the movie.
Most critics who dislike, are luke-warm to, or do not get MARIE ANTOINETTE, don't SEE THE MOVIE. Their heads are so busy thinking....that they THINK they are using their heads and loving THAT process. However, out of nothing comes nothing. Western minds want denisty and complexity. They believe that equates excellence. Sometimes one note is a symphony. The instinctual is primative and romantic. Repetition. All of life is repetition.
I love romances and historical epics so I'll probably still watch this. Hope it doesn't suck though. I wish someone would make a movie about Napoleon, especially if it focused on his sometimes stormy relationship with Josephine. THAT'S something I'd really love to see.
This site is operated by Cinema Blend LLC. For advertising inquiries, contact Gorilla Nation. CinemaBlend.com is a private, independently owned website which is intended only as entertainment. The views expressed on this website may or may not reflect those of its owner. Don't take us too seriously.
November 24, 2007 at 18:57
July 8, 2007 at 11:40
February 24, 2007 at 15:48
February 16, 2007 at 17:35
November 21, 2006 at 11:08
October 24, 2006 at 18:08
September 15, 2006 at 16:07
September 6, 2006 at 10:53
August 25, 2006 at 01:21
August 22, 2006 at 16:29
August 22, 2006 at 16:27
August 2, 2006 at 22:24
July 16, 2006 at 22:40
July 10, 2006 at 19:15
July 10, 2006 at 19:15
July 10, 2006 at 06:38