Saturday, October 21, 2006
Movie Review: Marie Antoinette
Is it an allegory for the effects of fame and fortune on the lives of individuals, perhaps even national entities? You decide. Me, I'm off to find some flaky, cream-filled pastries.
Marie Antoinette
Biopic of the beautiful Queen of France who became a symbol for the wanton extravagance of the 18th century monarchy, and was stripped of her riches and finery, imprisoned and beheaded by her own subjects during the French Revolution that began in 1789.
Source: Cinema Source
This Friday afternoon I was torn between new releases Little Children and Marie Antoinette, and - by virtue of the fact that I caught Kirsten Dunst on The Daily Show Thursday night, and decided this must be a sign from God - I chose the latter. After settling in at AMC Northpark and putting tongue to pen, I began to second-guess that decision when scores of Bishop Lynch students in plaid skirts ambled into the auditorium on a (presumably school-sanctioned) field trip. Perfect.
Let me say this about the Bishop Lynch kids: they are the best-behaved, lowest-profile teenagers I've ever encountered in public. Pitiful, really.
I'll leave it up to individual viewers to decide whether Marie Antoinette qualifies as a chick flick, but here's a telling bit of evidence: after the titular character settles into her new and exalted role as Queen of France, she and her ladies in waiting go on a shoe shopping spree the likes of which we haven't seen since Imelda Marcos decamped for Hawaii.
You can tell Sofia Coppola and crew had a jolly good time filming amid the recreated opulence of regal France. We get the impression that the aristocracy knew their days were numbered and strove to squeeze every sous of value from the national coffers before things imploded on them, in the form of hungry peasants out for their decadent wastrel (but impeccably-coifed) heads. Pesky peasants. The screen is filled to overflowing with sumptuous, misty scenics crammed with insanely manicured landscapes and ornate carriages populated by creatures transformed through artifice into beings of alien-like beauty - at least, to their own standards. Personally, I prefer grunge.
Scenes of royal romping amid the gardens of Versailles and pigging out on pastries in the drawing room are accompanied by a soundtrack heavy on 80's-style pop (think "I Want Candy" by Bow Wow Wow). Remember the 80's? (And here I refer to the NINETEEN eighties...) Reagan was King (I mean, President), self-indulgence was in, and all was right with the world. Particularly if you were of the privileged class (i.e., rich Republicans).
Much early emphasis is placed on Marie's outsider status (she was Austrian by birth), her discomfort with the heavy obligations placed upon her as a functionary of international politics (she was expected to get down to business with a mostly-disinterested Louis XVI and produce an heir to the throne) and her ennui. Rumor mongering among palace hangers-on was practically an art form (see the exceptionally smart 1996 film Ridicule); whenever Marie is seen navigating the public rooms of the palace in her regal finery we hear the accompanying background buzz of catty conversation, intentionally pitched just loud enough for the object of the conversation (Marie) to hear it.
One of the most striking aspects of the film is its depiction of how bloody BORING such a life of luxury ends up being. I mean, how many shoes can one buy before they all begin to look alike? How many éclairs can one wash down with champagne before that exercise becomes pedantic? Sure, it might be fun to try and find out, but after you'd reached that threshold you'd probably want to extend your boundaries a bit. Back to Burger King to rub elbows with the unwashed cholesterol-clogged masses. But few options existed for French royalty, it seems, beyond the occasional clandestine appearance in costume at a masked ball, or perhaps a brief and dangerous extramarital rendezvous. Of course, the unfortunate thing about demonstrating this velvet-hammer tedium to filmgoers is that it makes the film itself pretty boring, which long stretches of this film indeed are.
And if I comment that Kirsten Dunst's delivery of her lines is exceedingly wooden, then consider that the role of Queen in 18th century France was a pretty wooden gig; in Louis XV's royal palace, ceremony is layered on so heavily that it takes some serious digging to find the humanity beneath all that pomp and circumstance. Even the act of dressing in the morning becomes a complicated ritual whose dictates must be adhered to.
What will keep filmgoers from snoozing are outstanding performances by talented actors. Rip Torn (astonishingly) makes a quite convincing Louis XV, an aging monarch full of worldly wisdom who's in essence just a likeable old chap - as long as you respect his mistress. As his mistress, Madame du Barry, the saucy Asia Argento (daughter of Italian Giallo-meister Dario Argento) acts as though she owns the court, appearing in scandalous attire, kissing up to the King at dinner and sweeping through palace hallways trailing her Nubian manservant and pet monkey.
Also notable is Jason Schwartzman, whose portrayal of Marie's husband, Louis XVI, treads dangerously on ground mired in caricature (vapid inbred dilettante) and finds itself eventually on the solid footing of subtle characterization; by the film's conclusion we actually admire this guy, who truly loves his wife and children and takes his role as leader of the nation quite seriously.
Marie's life, from childhood, has been all about obligation and role-playing. She strides into France not as an individual entity, but the betrothed of the dauphin, heir to the throne; she accepts her role as recipient of public focus (and scorn); she accepts her role as baby maker to the royal bloodline. She is, in final analysis, more of a functionary than a person. At the end of things, she transitions into another role - that of scapegoat to the enraged rabble. It must have been disconcerting to Marie, out on that balcony above the assembled revolutionary masses - it was probably more people than she had ever seen before en masse, and they were all so much dirtier (and no doubt smellier) than the sort of folks she was used to. It speaks to her poise that she presented herself so courteously to the abashed pitchfork-wielding peasantry, ready as ever to accept this new and final role that fate demanded of her.
When I left the theater yesterday, I had pretty much decided that this was a mediocre film; on consideration, I'm upgrading my analysis: it's a pretty impressive cinematic accomplishment. Even with all that wealth splashed across the screen, Ms. Coppola's Marie Antoinette is not so much about what it has to show us as about what it has to say. Is it an allegory for the effects of fame and fortune on the lives of individuals, perhaps even national entities? You decide. Me, I'm off to find some flaky, cream-filled pastries.
HEARD AND REMEMBERED:
Comtesse de Noailles (Judy Davis) to Marie, after sending her little lapdog, Muffy, back to Austria: "You can have as many French dogs as you like."
Marie to Comtesse de Noailles, after standing naked in the cold bedroom waiting for the highest-ranking lady in attendance to dress her in her shift: "This is ridiculous!"
Comtesse de Noailles' reply to the above: "This, Madame, is Versailles!"
YOU SNOOZE, YOU LOSE: Watch closely during the shoe shopping orgy for a glimpse of a pair of decidedly non-period sneakers.
This story was submitted by a member of the TexasGigs community.

Chad Jones, says:
Never been too big a fan of Dunst. Maybe her wooden acting was the reason she cast in a wooden role.
Verified
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Todd Maternowski, says:
If you want a movie exposing the bloodless, mind-numbing dullness of the aristocracy [without getting bored to tears], check out Kubrick's 'Barry Lyndon"... this movie was more like a Vogue photoshoot than actual cinema.
The real problem I had with the movie was how the entire French Revolution was pish-poshed as the result of France helping out the American Revolution! I seem to recall from 7th grade history that England was also spending money on that war, and also had a mad king...yet, strangely, King George was able to maintain his noggin. I can see why French audiences despise this movie. I'm anxiously awaiting Coppola's follow-up, where she portrays Benedict Arnold's painful, loveless childhood leading up to his eventual betrayal by the evil masons Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.
Staff
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Elizabeth Eshelman, says:
hm ... i'm still not discouraged - i want to see this movie! i'll report back with my two cents later this week.
Verified
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
John Meyer, says:
Todd, thanks for sharing your comments. I'll admit to not having an emotional investment in the history behind the story - I was trying to get a feel for what the director was telling me about Marie's situation. In that, I think she (Sophia) succeeded. To my satisfaction, at least.
I agree that Barry Lyndon is a great film - but I don't think Ms. Coppola was trying to make a film like Barry Lyndon. (If so, she failed miserably.)
Chad - I'm with you: Ms. Dunst was correctly cast. :>)
Staff
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
pugeez, says:
Funny, one should bring up Kubrick because I thought of Kubrick when I saw this movie. Coppolla tells a story through emotion of visuals. Yes, it ain't as good Barry London but it is a lot better than any movie of late that teens will see. Innovation and risk does not have to be great, it can be good which I think this movie is.
Anonymous
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Elizabeth Eshelman, says:
Ok, I'm fresh back from this movie, and I like it - maybe even alot (sometimes they need to "marinate" before I can fully form my opinion) I like Pugeez' statement "Coppola tells a story through emotion of visuals." That's exactly what this was - I was not disappointed with Dunst's acting, in fact I thought she offered a fair portrayal of a girl in an overwhelming station in life - very human - the story was not only told by her, but by the images Coppola chose to show us - snapshots in the life of a young, naive queen. I liked/ disliked the jarring, sometimes rough transitions from one scene to another, with seemingly no connections, but I think Coppola used that technique to give us a feel for the turbulent life of Marie Antoinette. I did become attached to Marie and the "storming the castle" scenes are very distressing - they did an excellent job with that. The one thing I'd question about the movie was Coppola's decision to use some modern music as well as the shot of the baby blue chucks thrown into a frenzy of royal slippers - I thought this would make the movie more "hip," a la Bax luhrman's Romeo and Juliet (I loved that remake, at the time, anyway) but the music didn't seem to connect with the pictures at all. A lovesick scene late in the movie is set to opera, and the whole thing seemed to fit together - I realized at that point she should have used period music throughout the whole film, or at least stuck with the classical genre.
Oh well - 3 out of 4 ain't bad, right?
Verified
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Elizabeth Eshelman, says:
oh, also after re-reading the original review, I'd like to point out that this is not a chick flick - yes the girls go shopping to excess in one scene, but the intention of that scene is to demonstrate how Marie Antoinette deals with the pressures of her daily life - and how she ended up being known as "Marie Antoinette, Queen of Debt." This movie is a limited biography - I'm sure it's not aimed towards one sex or another.
Verified
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
John Meyer, says:
Madame, I bow to your wisdom re. chick flick status.
Let me just state for the record that I'm betting this film drew more of the female audience last weekend than, say, Flags of our Fathers.
au revoir.
Staff
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Todd Maternowski, says:
Wait... a movie that glorifies shoe shopping and girlie parties and illicit rendevous with handsome Swedish military officers is NOT a chick flick? I'll admit this doesn't have the usual chick flick formula of girl-with-kooky-job meets guy-with-kooky-job, they hate each other at first, but through kooky adventures and shared kooky friends they eventually overcome a late-movie misunderstanding to come together in an incredibally improbable way. Marie Antoinettee definately didn't have any of that going for it.
Perhaps we need a rigidly-defined set of standards as to what constitutes a "chick flick" and what is simply a regular movie.
Staff
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Elizabeth Eshelman, says:
Ok, so given that logic, a movie about George Washington which would likely include some elements of war and perhaps an encounter or two with an attractive female slave would constitute a 'guy' movie? Sure, since the lead character is a female, she enjoys feminine pleasures, but I would hardly call them glorified, just elements of the story (and her life.) i give guys enough credit to think they might be interested enough in a female historical person despite the fact she may have enjoyed pretty things.
Verified
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Chad Jones, says:
I would totally see that Benedict Arnold movie, Todd.
Verified
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Todd Maternowski, says:
I don't think the subject matter has anything to do with the classification as a chick flick or not: it really depends on how the material is treated. I don't think A Tale of Two Cities is a chick flick, despite also being more or less about Marie Antonette. And a movie about Genghis Khan that ignored the mountains of skulls and instead concentrated on his whimsical charm and go-nowhere relationships [until he finally met Borta at a Yurt & Noble] would qualify as a chick flick.
Staff
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Elizabeth Eshelman, says:
well - then i don't see how you think this is: have you seen the movie? yes, those elements are present (shoe shopping and a cute soldier) but they are not glorified, rather presented as a fact or her life (which they were)
Verified
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Todd Maternowski, says:
I did see it, and thought that those elements were glorified [not just in the commercials]. The shoe scene were the first to be accompanied by New Wave music, if my memory is correct, making that scene stand out. And the Swedish military officer was protrayed on a white steed in her dream, and had more facetime on the screen than all of her kids combined.
One thing I did like was adding the 80s music to the soundtrack. I was worried it would make it to be like A Knight's Tale, but it was not nearly as intrusive and Coppola made it work well inthe background, while also cementing that idea that Marie was the first real "rock star", complete with material excesses, romantic liasons, drug parties, trashed hotel rooms and the inevitable descent. Even the movie title's font reminded me of High Fidelity.
Staff
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Blair Lovern, says:
Dunst has said about this movie: "It's kind of like a history of feelings rather than a history of facts." And also - "it's a very relatable story and I think it will make history more attainable for them and hopefully make them more interested in finding out about people - moreso than memorizing dates and facts for school."
There's no reason to screw around with what actually happened or make history boring because it's not boring. Horrible teachers can easily make it so.
But what's the point of calling this movie "Marie Antoinette"?
Staff
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Elizabeth Eshelman, says:
Well Todd, you and I are obviously not like-minded when it comes to movies. Ah well, *C'est la vie!*
Verified
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Todd Maternowski, says:
It's not just you, trust me, I had the exact same word-for-word discussion with my fiancee and her girlfriends, who all shared your opinion, even down to it "not being a real girlie movie".
I'm a history fanatic, so of course the movie miffed me. But then so did Last of the Mohicans and The Patriot.
Staff
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
John Meyer, says:
Todd - I see a Broadway hit in your future if you just follow through on this story line:
"...a movie about Genghis Khan that ignored the mountains of skulls and instead concentrated on his whimsical charm and go-nowhere relationships [until he finally met Borta at a Yurt & Noble]..."
I'm thinking we call it, "Springtime for Genghis."
Staff
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Chad Jones, says:
All right, I've got a camera.
Let's film the Benedict movie first, then the Genghis. In regards to working titles I'm thinking maybe something like "Khan Genghis Catch a Break?" John can be help with the cinematic vision, and Elizabeth can help make it marketable to chicks. Or not.
Verified
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Elizabeth Eshelman, says:
Chad!
;)
Well, hey, I guess I'll take what I can get.
Verified
3 years, 1 month agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal