Film
What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases
Bookmark this page
Cannes diary part ten: 'Marie Antoinette' review
Dave Calhoun takes a look at Sofia Coppola's third feature.
May 24 2006
Things have taken a distinct turn for the worse in Cannes over the past two days. First, there was Bruno Dumont's vague, empty 'Flandres' and then came Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's disappointing 'Babel' (see Geoff Andrew's earlier reviews).
Ennui continued to set in last night with Lucas Belvaux's 'The Right of the Weakest', a distinctly average and clumsy tale of unemployment and crime in Belgium's Liege. Then, early this morning, Sofia Coppola offered us 'Marie Antoinette', her much-anticipated, pretty but quite empty take on the last, bloated days of the French monarchy with Kirsten Dunst in the title role as Louis XVI's Viennese wife.
Coppola's film may give fashion fans and music video heads cause to celebrate, but it will leave anyone looking for a strong perspective on the life of Marie Antoinette severely disappointed. What Coppola does is throw snippets of the well-known facts - her husband's sexual immaturity, her infidelity, her acting, her love of clothes - into a celebration of costume, production design and music that's played by a cast of unlikelies, some more successfully than others.
Jason Schwartzman is fittingly fey as the sexually ineffective king; Marianne Faithfull is an oddity as Marie Antoinette's mother; Rip Torn is nicely brash as Louis XIV. Dunst puts in a breezy and sometimes seductive, if a little unchallenging, performance as Marie Antoinette herself. Coppola's decision not to worry too much about certain aspects of historical detail - accents, some behaviour - is a bold one and thankfully not awkward as she doesn't attempt to push the anachronisms too far. A modern soundtrack is Coppola's bravest move.
The film is a hermetic affair that, like its heroine, barely strays beyond the gates of Versailles or acknowledges the coming French Revolution until its final minutes. Coppola's interest in the visual side of Versailles rules the day; her camera never stops surveying the fabric of Marie Antoinette's world. She delivers a startling line-up of shoes, frocks and hipster tunes from the '70s and '80s. As a study in surface, it's quite impeccable. Soon, though, this flippancy begins to grate and it becomes more and more apparent that Coppola has failed really to grapple on any meaningful level with her subject. Dialogue trickles sparingly and unilluminatingly beneath the overwhelming spectacle. Conversation is sparse. The script is bare.
Rather than indulge the grotesquery of Versailles with an engaged eye, Coppola celebrates it without showing any care for characters, relationships or the wider context of French history. Her Versailles is an array of caricatures; her Marie Antoinette is a sweet, well-meaning aristocrat, a breath of fresh air for Coppola among some of the stuffier palace shirts.
The real problem is that Coppola clearly loves Marie Antoinette and her world of parties and beautiful people. She's not interested in looking beyond the walls of the palace, in considering this queen in any critical depth. Ultimately, considering Coppola's attempt to shoe-horn the French revolution into the film's last ten minutes, her disengagement is more than lazy; it's a little offensive. It may be hip, but it ain't history.
User comments on this story
-
- Sarah said...
- this movie is about marie antoinette, not the french revolution. and marie antoinette's life was about frivolity and decadence. she was in a pretty little cage her whole life, and sadly ignorant to the going-ons of the outside world- so why, when this movie focuses on the emotions of a teenager in a scarily picturesque and vacuous world, would coppola show anything but frivolity and pretty fluff? for once someone has brought historical figures back to life and portrayed them in an easy to relate to way, and i can’t believe how many people criticize this movie because its not a deadpan historical documentry. it doesn’t matter if its not all historically accurate- thats not the point anyway. Posted on Nov 13 2007 23:02
- Report as inappropriate
-
- lily said...
- i was really disapointed in this film it seams to me that Sofia wanted to turn every single bad gossip of Marie Antoinettes into reality. Maie Antoinette never drank alcohol like it is shown in the movie and there was more to her life than just shopping like there is shown. Marie Antoinette was maybe not so much into charity work but she was known to be involved in some cases. And whats with the soundtrak rock music in 18th century it really did not put me in a historical mode. Altualy the whole movie was to modernised, There was the use of modern slang in the movie, and the whole affair with Fersen was just od gossip i really do not beleve Marie Antoinette was involved with him any other way than just friendship they were good friends and Marie Antoinette may have had a crush on him at start but i do not on any acount beleve that they were ever lovers again not pruven facts really disapionting the whole film bearly had any plot and was badly writen and even though i think that Kristen Dunst is a rather good actress i just dont see her as Marie Antoinette, even after all this time the 1938 version of Marie Antoinette film with Norma Shearer is just so much better really makes you cry. This movie just should not have been about Marie Antoinette because it just does not potrait her Posted on Nov 06 2007 19:40
- Report as inappropriate
-
- susieq said...
- great review, captured my feelings while watching this music video exactly. Posted on May 06 2007 23:28
- Report as inappropriate
-
- jazz said...
- i actually really liked the movie alot. it was a brilliant feast for the eyes, and i went to watch the movie knowing it wasnt supposed to be some serious documentary type film anyway, so it's all good. Posted on May 02 2007 12:29
- Report as inappropriate
-
- smell said...
- i have read only one book about the french rev and as i recall, the king and queen did not stay all brave in the palace but fled, disguised in a coach trying to leave the country and were captured and held in the palace before being jailed then beheaded. correct me if i'm wrong but if i'm right why wouldn't ms. copalla recount this fact? hmmmm...a bit of class bias perhaps? (monarchism is so feudal!!) Posted on Apr 19 2007 00:41
- Report as inappropriate
-
- viewer said...
- This movie was hands down one of the most BORING movies I've EVER seen!! Absolutely dead dialogue (when there is any at all), and after 40 minutes of looking at pretty shoes and dresses, I got sick of looking at them and really just wanted some kind of plot... ANYTHING! But no... just pretty things, and not even a beheading to satisfy me at the end. I'm almost always lenient on these kinds of films, but this movie was an absolute waste of 2 hours. Posted on Mar 19 2007 22:39
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Roger Rocha said...
- Wanna learn something about French History and the French Revolution? Read a book!!! Posted on Feb 09 2007 15:49
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Sara Mallett said...
- I am astonished at all the negativity about this stunningly beautiful movie! Why can't it just be taken as it was meant to be seen... through M-A's rose tinted glasses, a TEENAGER's glasses. & it really achieved something no other period piece has done for me... made me see the characters as actually human, with emotions & actions just like mine! Because that's what they were... human. I adore this movie! Posted on Jan 10 2007 20:46
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Feli said...
- I guess it's all a matter of interpretation. I thought that the constant focus on the clothes and such was a way to bring out Marie's way of protecting herself after being thrown into such a strange little world after losing everything she had in her old life. Not to be offensive or anything, but I think your view of the film is a little shallow. Posted on Dec 19 2006 10:51
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Claire said...
- Great costumes, great scenery, great soundtrack, great idea but terrible acting! The result is the equivelent of a historical chick flick Posted on Dec 17 2006 08:28
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Roberto said...
- I loved this film. Who said it was supposed to be a history lesson? Sofia has her vision and she managed to stay truth to herself even in this period drama. The film was pretty much about now and I felt I could relate to the characters because of that! Kirsten Dunst was perfectly casted for the role and Asia Argento was great!!! Posted on Dec 02 2006 11:44
- Report as inappropriate
-
- andrea said...
-
Luxury, emptiness and decadence of Versailles; all transposed and revised with
the flavour of the current, modern age. I could breathe and taste the 1980's new romantics and yuppies atmosphere (with excesses, luxury and emptiness as well). I think it is a great movie! Posted on Nov 05 2006 08:40 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Sebastian said...
- Sorry, but this was one of the most boring films I've ever seen. I could feel the emptiness Coppola may have wanted to make the central point of the movie, but 2 hours+ of emptiness is just too much for me. Posted on Nov 01 2006 22:59
- Report as inappropriate
-
- thinking_viewer said...
-
regarding the "style over substance" comments, i think that was the point. her life was entirely vacuous and filled with ridiculous rituals, money, frivolity...while france was in despair.
the movie is basically about her world and your glimpse of it. seeing it that way, it makes it obvious to understand why she was completely clueless regarding all things outside the walls of versailles. these people rarely went beyond their life of priviledge (physically or mentally), therefore as a viewer, you were unable to do so either.
most of the reviews are burning coppola for essentially not creating a documentary...it being "all fluff" etc. if they got why this was done and thought of the perspective in terms of a spoiled, cloistered 18th century mentality, they might get the movie. Posted on Oct 23 2006 22:07 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Glenn Brown said...
- As an authority on the French Revolution and Marie Antoinette, I was prepared to accept Ms. Coppola's vision of an 18th century queen adapted to 21st century tastes. Leaving expectations of historical accuracy at the door, I was nonetheless bitterly disappointed by the poorly written script, the lack of story, point-of-view, structure, pacing and ultimately by the uninspired performances. At no time does one feel that Coppola's MA is the queen of Europe's most powerful nation, nor does SC make clear why MA became so reviled by the French court and nation as a whole. The film is a miserable failure on all fronts, including the lack of period detail and extras... Dunst and company cavorting through Versailles appeared as nothing more than actors inserted into a museum, which is exactly what Versailles is today. Just crap. Shame on you Sofia Coppola. Posted on Oct 23 2006 01:24
- Report as inappropriate
Most popular on this site
Top Stories
James Marsh on ‘Man on Wire’
James Marsh tells David Jenkins the amazing story of ‘Man on Wire’ and how he saw the Twin Towers go up – and come down
Gurinder Chada on ‘Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging’
Gurinder Chada, the director of Brit hit, 'Bend it Like Beckham' discusses her new film, ‘Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging’ with Wally Hammond
A holiday guide to movie dystopias
‘Going anywhere nice this summer, sir?’ To celebrate the release of Pixar’s sublime post-apocalyptic robo-romance ‘Wall-E’, Time Out offers a tour guide of the best future worlds in film
Eddie Murphy's Crimes Against Cinema
We all remember the comic highs of 'Beverly Hills Cop' and 'Bowfinger', but Eddie Murphy has been in a fair few stinkers as well. Time Out to presents a handy rundown of his ten darkest cinematic hours...
What do you think?
Post your comment now