Sofia Coppola's MARIE ANTOINETTE

[mouton]

MARIE ANTOINETTE
Written and Directed by Sofia Coppola


It is very quiet. Austrian Archduchess, Marie Antoinette (Kirsten Dunst), aged 15, has just been betrothed to Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman), the future king on France. Throughout the long trip from Austria to France, there is an odd expression on everyone’s face. It’s as if the air itself is uncomfortable. As the French court awaits Marie Antoinette’s arrival, they putter around amidst the leaves and talk amongst themselves about nothing at all. They all seem to be thinking something to themselves. Judging from the same puzzled expressions on the moviegoers’ faces at the screening of Sofia Coppola’s MARIE ANTOINETTE I attended, I think they might be thinking how strange the entire scenario seems. Everything feels a little bit slow, a little too quiet and mostly out of place. It is too early to give up on the film at this point. After all, this is Coppola’s follow-up to the haunting, offbeat LOST IN TRANSLATION. We are in good hands. This uneasiness must be in step with what Marie Antoinette is going through. Once she finds her footing, I’m sure she will break out of her shell and show these French folk how to live freely and the film will follow. Well, Marie Antoinette, the person, gets the hang of it but sadly, MARIE ANTOINETTE, the movie, never does. It remains hollow and aimless, leaving me wondering how Coppola could have been happy with it.

Coppola took a decidedly different and brave approach to chronicling the woman who became the queen of France at
age 19. She cast American actors in French roles and did not have them speak French or even with an accent. She boosts the soundtrack with 80’s new wave music instead of music of the period. The choices are meant to highlight the lonely plight of Marie Antoinette, to show that her emotional journey is timeless. Only Dunst shows hardly any emotion in the title role so there is nothing to take away. She can handle isolated and she can party with the best of them but she doesn’t show any turmoil or inner-conflict. It doesn’t help that Coppola’s script features naturalistic dialogue either. People rattle on about nonsense and gossip but rarely ever say anything of note to each other. Perhaps this is what Coppola had intended to show but meaningless conversation needs to give insight into a character’s mind at the very least. Here, all the minds are empty.

If it weren’t for the fashion and the food (and the fortune that must have been spent on making everything look so lavish), there would be nothing at all to focus on. For such famous historical figures, very little actually seems to happen to them. For what seems like half the movie, the entire plot focuses on how Louis won’t have sex with Marie Antoinette. It is certainly a pressing matter as an heir has to be produced in order to validate their marriage. If it is not consummated, it may even be annulled. When the “great work” was finally done, Marie Antoinette is elated but there is no explanation as to why it was so difficult to begin with nor does it seem like it became any more frequent afterwards. Her brother had a chat with the future king and that supposedly did the trick. There is no mention as to what that chat was about so your guess is as good as mine as to what finally turned him on. Historically, Marie Antoinette became the scapegoat for France’s increasing deficit. Whereas the majority of France’s money had been sunk into the 7 Years’ War and aiding the Americans in their struggle for independence from England, the masses pointed their fingers at Marie Antoinette’s frivolous spending. She went from an adored queen to being chased from her palace. The build that led to that change must have been tumultuous but Coppola leaves history at the door while very little happens inside. By the time the mob shows up to drive her and the king out, it feels more like a device than a moment in time.

I can see why the French booed at Cannes. MARIE ANTOINETTE is a calculated project that was troubled since its conception (Coppola abandoned it during the script writing process to create LOST IN TRANSLATION because she wasn’t sure how to make it work). The deliberate disregard for historical accuracy may have been valiant to start but finished feeling labored. Coppola’s previous works relied on emotion more so than dialogue to get under the skin of the viewer. Their success announced great promise for MARIE ANTOINETTE but Coppola lost her edge somewhere amongst the hundreds of pairs of Minolo Blahniks custom made for the film. A lesser director would not have taken such an ambitious approach to this story. A lesser director would have made a film far worse than this one. May MARIE ANTOINETTE be but a misstep along the path of a brilliant career.

[Johann]

This is gonna sound weird coming from me, but I loved Marie Antoinette.

I've been unforgiving to Sofia Coppola in the past, and I could easily keep up my criticism of her, especially with all the negative responses she's gotten for M.A.

But I listen to my feelings when it comes to film, and this movie was a real treat for me.

As a die-hard worshipper of Kubrick's Barry Lyndon I simply cannot deny my affection for what Sofia filmed.

She used Kubrick's costume designer.
She used slow zooms.
She references Leonard- Kubrick's hair guy.

Candles, coaches, sex, power plays & decadence- all hallmarks of Barry Lyndon. I loved Marrianne Faithfull too- she's perfect as Marie's Mum.

To say I hate this movie would be to deny my affection for the time period it takes place in.

Versailles!

Kirsten Dunst is a babe.
Seriously, she's hot to trot.
That shot of her with nothing but some stockings, a feather and a fan?
Curious stirrings in my dungarees...
Not to mention that masked ball- I wanted to marry that girl right then and there. (E-mail me Kirsten... :)

The soundtrack was awesome.
I know people are up in arms about using those songs in a "period" movie, but it compliments the scenes so well.
Especially I Want Candy & Fools Rush In- I loved that version of that song.

It shouldn't be taken as history.
There is a lot of creative license.
It should be taken as a sumptuous (slightly odd) FEMALE movie that is very easy on the eyes.

This is the first Sofia Coppola film that I love.
I also just found out that Sofia has the same birthday as me- she's just 4 years older.

Hmmm

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by mouton
I can see why the French booed at Cannes.

This is how it was reported (AP I think) six months ago. Ever since, many who were present have corrected and qualified the statement. There were boos as well as applause after the Cannes premiere. Some report that the applause was more prominent, although the fact that there were indeed "boos" is what makes news. I would be SURPRISED if there were NO boos. After all, it's an unconventional take on a French historical figure made in English by an American (the latter would be enough reason for some French individuals to bitch just like some American individuals dismiss von Trier's two installments in his American trilogy).

[mouton]

I had read about the misconception regarding the boos. I had also read an interview with Kirsten Dunst saying why getting booes didn't shock her and it made perfect sense to me about the French being ticked about the non-traditional approach. For me, I felt that perhaps the French, or the select few French, who did boo maybe did so purely because it was such a disappointment.

[oscar jubis]

Access French critical response to the film here:
http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm_gen_cfilm=57887.html

4 out of 4 Stars:
Positif, Le Parisien, Telerama, Studio and Rolling Stone magazine
3 out of 4 Stars
Le Monde, Le Figaro, Les Inrockuptibles, Elle, Cahiers du Cinema.

[oscar jubis]

Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette is the story of a girl extricated from her country and estranged from her family, subjected to "ridiculous" ritual, and trapped by duty. A girl subjected to constant scrutiny and supervision. An often lonely, bored and frustrated girl who escapes into acquisitiveness and hedonism. The French Revolution is kept away from her by custom and lifestyle thus the film, which adopts the protagonist's point of view, is not intended as a lesson on a most significant historical event. This intimist approach is only betrayed briefly, late in the film, when meetings between American revolutionaries and the French monarchy are dramatized to provide a bit of geopolitical perspective. Otherwise, Marie Antoinette is about the girl inside the Queen. It's bedroom scenes connect Marie Antoinette to Lost in Translation's Charlotte, alone in a hotel room in a foreign land and, even more dramatically, to the Lisbon girls of The Virgin Suicides, confined to their bedroom in suburbia. Miss Coppola has, in the span of three features and a short (Lick the Star, about a 7th grade "queen" being outcasted by her peers), developed a unified body of work linked by common themes. Whether transpiring in the early 70s or the late XVIII century, whether set in Detroit or Versailles, Sofia Coppola's films bear the mark of a true auteur.

Marie Antoinette is a sensory experience, an audiovisual feast. Cinematographer Lance Acord (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation) covers the scenes with a varied repertoire of shots while the lighting is uniformly diffuse, somewhat somber at times. The occassional use of handheld cameras is quite effective, as when Marie Antoinette walks towards the castle as people stand on both sides to welcome her. Also highly deserving of credit are the costume design by Milena Canonero (Barry Lyndon, Titus), the set decoration by Veronique Melery (A Very Long Engagement), Anne Seibel's art direction, and the original music composed by Jean-Benoit Dunckel and Nicolas Godin.

Given the attention received, the film's music deserves further consideration. The opening credits are scored to the Gang of Four's hard-rocking "Natural's Not in It", a thematically-appropriate song about the commodification of love and being trapped by the social order, with the recurring refrain "this heaven gives me migraine". So much talk of "80s pop" when, in reality, the first half of the film is dominated by the music of Jean-Phillipe Rameau (1683-1764) and the period-congruent original score. Then comes a celebration of materialist excess to "I Want Candy" and a few judiciously selected snippets of 80s tunes. These accentuate what is, for the most part, an impressionistic portrait of the young queen.

Given the narrow focus, Marie Antoinette's greatest asset is Miss Kirsten Dunst, who's perfectly cast in the lead role. She's a charming actress who can credibly play a character over a twenty year span beginning in mid-adolescence and convey a whole range of emotions with ease.

It seems obvious to me, that the four years that passed from her narrow escape from Versailles until her beheading are most interesting and poignant. I think it's lamentable that the film leaves out a major, most tragic, and challenging final chapter in her life. As a result, the film ends on a shallow note, in that it doesn't concern itself with Marie Antoinette once she's surrendered her pampered, luxurious lifestyle. Given the abrupt ending, the lack of end titles providing a brief summation of her final days is perplexing.

[Chris Knipp]

IT's not only "a sensory experience, an audiovisual feast," but also another portrait of a poor little rich girl living isolation; writers have related it closely to Sofia's previous films. I feel quite accepting toward it, despite what it "leaves out"; I think there's a lot there, and though I disliked the use of English and the mix of English and American actors at first, I thought of Frears' Dangerous Liaisons and thought, "okay." I reviewed this earlier in the NYFF where it was the opener. It's opener stuff--grand, colorful, impressive, perhaps a bit shallow.

Chris Knipp review (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=15919#post15919) from last month:


Such sad bonbons

Audacious, delicious, exaggerated and preposterous, Sofie Coppola’s third film, Marie Antoinette, plunges into the life of the Austrian princess who became queen of France and was beheaded in the Revolution, following Antonia Fraser’s recent biography in describing her as a frustrated, lonely, brave teenager who never ceased to be a child and achieved maturity just in time to die. The film is a grandiose, sometimes touching, sometimes indigestible mixture. Starting with Kirsten Dunst, a splendid actress, very touching in her openness (but does she know what it’s like to become a queen?) and the sleek, stolid Jason Schwartzman, a slacker-seeker now turned teenage king. Shot largely at Versailles, it’s lavish and authentic visually (or authentic-feeling; furniture and clothing had to be invented), but the film’s French characters speak in English and American accents and the musical background is full of Eighties pop. Fruit of a girlish fantasy, it’s a symphony of eye candy and real candy, bonbons and pinks and bright colors, a glorious superficial panorama that seeks to be a deep personal portrait of a tormented life.

Ms. Coppola would have none of the sepia tones of historical “Masterpiece Theater” productions; but this isn’t such a boldly original step as the film’s promoters imply and the director herself acknowledges a debt to Kubrick's Barry Lynden (and used the latter’s costume designer). Frears’s brilliant 1988 Dangerous Liaisons comes to mind, similarly light and bright. It’s also true that Marie’s somewhat crude dialogue suffers by comparison with Christopher Hampton’s sharp adaptation of Choderlos de Laclos. The talk in Marie is factual, or telegraphs information. The new film doesn’t evoke the wit and sophistication of the eighteenth century. The story, so detailed at first, seems rushed more and more as it goes on. But still it leaves you with something. And that something may be Louis and Marie going to bed – and nothing happening, night after night. They didn’t produce a child and maybe didn’t even have real completed sex for the first seven years. One comes to feel sorry for Louis too: there’s something helpless and sweet about Schwartzman that makes the seemingly odd casting eventually pay off.

Coppola negotiates a narrow line between spectacle and intimate story. Some of the moments are bombastic, as when the father Louis XV (Rip Torn) or some chief of protocol stamps a staff on the floor, reams of Manohlo Blahnik shoes or pretty pastries flow by our eyes, we get a vast panorama of Versailles or a huge elephant in our face, or a blast of organ music knocks us out of our seats. There are many royal eating scenes, the couple facing forward with vast symmetrical arrangements of food in front of them with the courses loudly announced, as in Rossellini’s La Prise du Pouvoir par Louis XIV. Unlike Rossellini, Coppola doesn’t strive for an alienation effect but wants us to identify with the fourteen-year-old Austrian girl from the moment she has everything taken away from her, even her dog, and is dressed in French clothes to meet the Dauphin.

We’re not very aware of the passage of time – Coppola’s movie tries too hard to avoid historical-film convention for that – but our heroine goes through some heavy changes. She drinks and takes drugs (what’s in that pipe the women pass we don’t know), she stays up all night, sneaks to Paris in disguise for a masked ball, squanders millions on landscaping (which merely embellished Le Nôtre's designs) and on clothes and gambles and wolfs down so many sweets you wonder how he could get into those tight bodices. She gets heavily into the Pastoral shepherdess scene and then has an affair with a sexy Swedish count, Axel von Ferson, played by Jamie Dornan, a former Calvin Klein model with long limbs and dreamy eyes, right out of a soap opera, or the cover of a pulp romance. The way the movie shows it, this indiscretion was soon over; weren’t there plenty more? Somehow there isn’t time to show, with all the costumes and bonbons. This is where the movie most falls short: on a sense of events unfolding outside, or even inside; it’s high on the emotions and the visuals, which never cease to be fun. Even when king and queen are driving away to be beheaded, Marie is looking out the window to admire the gardens. We get some court intrigue, notably conflict with Louis XV (Rip Torn)’s mistress Madame du Barry, played by Asia Argento as a vampire of a vamp. Ever present as a mean schoolmistress is the chief of etiquette, Comtesse de Noailles (Judy Davis), forever frowning and stretching her long thin neck. And Marie’s female play pals are lovely and cool.

Ultimately if all this elaborate stuff stands or falls with Kirsten Dunst, then it’s at least okay, because Ms. Dunst has innocence and freshness and aloneness about her, and she’s got the Teutonic looks Marie’s Austrian background requires, and young as she is, she’s got the energy and presence of an experienced actress. This isn’t a great movie but it’s a fabulous one. I dare costume-historical queens to stay away.

Sept. 22, 2006

Marie Antoinnette seemed to be doing better in London with critics too. In my Recommendations I began with it: "In the more accessible range were choices like Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette; perhaps expendable but lovely." Others in that category were "more clearly not to be missed," namely The Queen, Little Children, Volver, The Host and 49 Up.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
IT's not only "a sensory experience, an audiovisual feast," but also another portrait of a poor little rich girl living isolation; writers have related it closely to Sofia's previous films.

I agree. I established precisely that in my first patagraph.

[Chris Knipp]

Indeed you did. But what's a patagraph?

[Johann]

T is right next to R on the keyboard

[Chris Knipp]

I thought maybe you were a pataphysician.