Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Updates:

Related people

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

sam said...

this is a great movie what are you talking about. Posted on Oct 23 2006 00:25

Report as inappropriate
Jan Bohusch said...

This is the worst movie I have ever seen...period. And that's saying a lot. A complete waste of time and money. It would have been better watching uncle Harry's vacation films for two hours. Posted on Oct 21 2006 02:33

Report as inappropriate
Leigh said...

i agree that sofia coppola cannot write. in her other two films, this did not matter, but in a film this length, with this level of production value, a story would have helped alot. coppola, like m. night s., is a talented director in need of a good screenwriter. she could have made a beautiful, powerful, engaging film instead of a beautiful, redundant one. Posted on Oct 20 2006 04:00

Report as inappropriate
leeanna said...

well from my point of veiw it was RUTHLESS!!!!!!!!!!! Posted on Jun 12 2006 07:59

Report as inappropriate
andzelika said...

i think the movie was griet i love marie antoinette for as long as i can remember yhe costumes are griet in the movie but i dont think that the real antoinette had lovers like it shows in the movie Posted on Jun 11 2006 11:49

Report as inappropriate
snowray said...

this is a gorgeous film visually. my disappointment is that it is necessary to have learned something about the reality of the historical context from the film. it is possible to acheive this as well as show the beautiful surface. Posted on Jun 05 2006 21:59

Report as inappropriate
Daniel said...

Yes, this film did have many scenes of fancy clothes, wild parties and a life of luxury. But isn't that what the previews promised???? Why were you expecting anymore?? Posted on Jun 03 2006 01:55

Report as inappropriate
davo said...

that s taylor dude....OMG...
im pretty sure he hasnt seen the extremley beautiful Virgin Suicides. any way, i dont know what this forum is for, i just noticed that guys comment and i was like OMG....blahhhhh Posted on Jun 02 2006 07:47

Report as inappropriate
e-van said...

Perhaps (I'll have to see the film to confirm) she meant the film to feel much like the life of M-A felt. Frivolous,pretty, empty, etc. I personally like the concept of a director making a film FEEL like its subject matter- a prime, surreal example being Adaptation, in which the final act of the film turns action-packed and over-the-top, exactly what the character kaufmann wanted to avoid. Posted on Jun 01 2006 07:00

Report as inappropriate
M said...

I have been disappointed by most films on historical figures or literature that I am deeply familiar with (with the exception of a few - Elizabeth was close and Cate Blanchett was spot-on, A&E's Pride and Prejudice was perfect)... I don't expect to like this one other than in a visual sense, but I am curious to see it. Posted on Jun 01 2006 01:01

Report as inappropriate
damat said...

Stop confusing writing and cinema. There is no need in knowing 'how to write' to make a good movie.
Besides, this review is completely missing the point of the movie : where did you find that Coppola has done a film about History, or even about the real M-A ?? It's obviously not what she's talking about. This film is about teenagers based on a fantasy image of M-A in the eyes of a little romantic U.S. girl. The time of it is clearly TODAY. Posted on May 31 2006 03:08

Report as inappropriate
Brian Neill said...

The only words I could come up with in reporting the film to a friend were "pretty" and "shallow". I'll now send her your review as it expands so perceptively on my inadequate description. Posted on May 29 2006 15:39

Report as inappropriate
Emmy said...

film was called M-A and not history of... Enough is said about F revolution; this film shows that the subject had no power at all over anything, not even breast feeding her kids. Let alone about state finances! She arrived as a kid to marry a dumboat a very complex and decadent society where she had to adapt and was ill advised. I liked the book as the film; it shows a different aspect to her for which the world clearly is not ready Posted on May 29 2006 13:14

Report as inappropriate
Athlynne said...

Well said, Dave! If Sofia Coppola is only interested in pretty dresses and sparkly things, she should get into the fashion industry and keep her empty head out of history! Posted on May 26 2006 08:09

Report as inappropriate
celia said...

The film takes place in the 1770's, and Louis XIV died in 1715, the so I doubt Rip Torn would play him. Perhaps you were thinking of Louis XV?
Interesting mistake from someone who claims that "Coppola celebrates it (the grotesquery of Versailles) without showing any care for characters, relationships or the wider context of French history." Posted on May 25 2006 20:07

Report as inappropriate