During the journey from Austria to France, Marie Antoinette rides in her carriage, playing cards with her female companions and repeatedly looking at the only picture she has of her future husband, Louis Auguste, a painter’s sketch given to her in locket form. At one point the princess leans upon the glass and blows against it, and in a familiar gesture, traces with her finger through the fog, looking very much the lost little girl. Sofia Coppola has assuredly eradicated any notion of Marie Antoinette as untouchable historical figure; the Queen nurses a hangover, loves her dog, gets guilt trips from Mom, and finds stress release through shopping. A lot of shopping. Coppola, whose niche has become the trials of female youth, clearly conveys that Antoinette really was “just a girl” but accomplishes and explains little else in this disappointing film.
Adapting Lady Antonia Fraser’s biography Marie Antoinette: The Journey could not have been an easy task; Fraser’s bio is daunting in its detail and excruciatingly researched historical facts, but also takes great care to strip away the stereotypes that have plagued Marie Antoinette for centuries, from the young princess being an Austrian spy to uttering that infamous phrase concerning cake. The approach inspired Coppola, who has been quoted in interviews claiming she did not want to make a “dry, historical epic,” and “wanted to make an impressionistic portrayal of these characters.”
Marie Antoinette takes this notion and meanders with it. Undoubtedly, an impressionist portrait is one of the most fascinating approaches to a figure whom we will never know. All we have of Antoinette are preserved pieces of history, such as letters that may have been censored by the Queen herself, aware of the scrutiny she was under, and her fashion “look books,” featuring pinpricks made by Antoinette to indicate to servants the attire she wished to wear that day. The film hinges on these personal details, almost entirely avoiding the reality that occurred outside Versailles, until the French Revolution was literally beating down the door. The Palace of Versailles is sumptuous: aside from filming on the actual grounds and inside the Baroque palace, Antoinette’s wardrobe is incredibly well designed, from the Manolo Blahnik shoes to the plush silk gowns, bringing the court of the 18th century very much to life in eye-popping detail.
Coppola makes it very clear that Antoinette was not only passed into marriage as a pawn, but as a painfully naïve, uneducated and immature teenage girl. Antoinette moves through Versailles as the new girl in high school, with whispers following her every step and gossip building surrounding her Austrian background and unconsummated marriage (Louis, just as naïve as Antoinette, is confused in the bedroom). However, with her coronation as Queen, Antoinette quickly becomes the “It” girl, and fills her days and nights with shopping, all night ragers, and a devoted entourage. Coppola’s decision to constitute this lifestyle as the crux of her film, as well as provide a soundtrack of modern music, ranging from Gang of Four to Aphex Twin, has been touted as rebellious, a radical approach to the historical biopic. However, the music doesn’t feel out of place so much as gratuitous at times. Moments, such as the masked ball at the Paris Opera House, scored to Siouxsie and the Banshees, work in the film’s favor; it looks and sounds sexy, and successfully conveys the idea of Antoinette as a party girl, albeit a disguised celebrity. Even the use of The Cure’s “Plainsong,” in abbreviated form, compliments the coronation ceremony, segueing into New Order for the new Queen’s 18th birthday celebration. The music works stylistically (far more than the touted appearance of the Converse sneaker) but fails to go beyond the film’s elaborately constructed façade.
The notion of the film or Antoinette herself being rebellious through anachronism alone seems quite illogical. Filmmakers have failed to use proper accents before, and Derek Jarman even brought a typewriter into the 17th century world of Caravaggio. As far as Antoinette herself, her radical actions seem to have been limited to the world of fashion. Marie Antoinette isn’t trying to answer questions about its Queen and isn’t obligated to do so, but it doesn’t provide a clear argument of its sympathy toward the girl either. Yes, the film is about teenagers in Versailles, but they are ridiculously privileged ones who remain degrees apart from the wealthy socialite brats of today. An individual such as Antoinette was in fact in charge of a country, and one that was starving and infuriatingly angry with its government. It isn’t necessary to delve into the French Revolution, and the lack of the guillotine didn’t bother me in the least. But if this is indeed a focused observation on the simultaneous innocence and folly of the young Queen, the third act involving the marching on Versailles might have been eliminated altogether, along with Coppola’s attempts to pity Antoinette, whether using close-ups to capture her weeping behind closed doors, or her adolescent frustration when her lover, a Swedish soldier, leaves her for the battlefield.
Following the screening, Gus Van Sant’s Last Days occurred to me as a possible comparison or even companion piece to this film. Unlike the figure of Marie Antoinette — with whom I am very familiar — I actually have very little knowledge of Kurt Cobain, and barely know Nirvana’s music. Yet Last Days left me haunted, and connected to the film in a way that didn’t leave any gaping need for questions or answers. Marie Antoinette left me empty, with far less sympathy for the Queen than I had reading Fraser’s bio. For all the pomp and circumstance, Coppola’s interpretation is so simple it threatens to fall apart at any moment, and never congeals into anything beyond a beautiful, hollow sketch.
Jenny Jediny / © 2006 notcoming.com
Search
Advanced Search
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 Ñ buoyed by enthusiastic advance reviews in Paris, along with the sentimental possibility of history’s first father-daughter Palme d’Or winners Ñ 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 Ñ perhaps the kind of dense, multicharacter historical epic Coppola père might have made Ñ 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.
What a marvelous effort you’ve made cutting and pasting.
She was a very young girl married off to an impotant spinelless man at the age of 14. The liberals of the era encouraged the poor to uprise against the injustices of the day. They did. History tends to repeat itself-no?
Thenthe revolution came food shortages, inflation and rebellions against the revolution. Good old napoleon stepped in-member him? Then came the hardcore liberals-the Jacobins. Oh Dear-civil war, more economic distress-threats of civil and foreign war. Lop off more heads. Lions and tigers and Bears OH MY! Isn’t it wonderful that after all this turmoil France turned out so well?
Directed by
Sofia Coppola
Source
Columbia Pictures 35MM Theatrical Print
Features: The 44th New York Film Festival
Posted on
25 September 2006
Read
2334 times
Comments
4
richard crawford
3 October 2006
3:17 PM