Marie Antoinette – Fall 2006
Review originally published in SBU's The Statesman
(This review has been updated with better grammar from the originally published version. Significant changes are noted with strikethroughs and/or asterisks. Updated and additional notes are further below.)
"I love and dislike this film. It was a visual masterpiece but historically questionable. Sofia Coppola wanted to make a film that was uncommon, contemporary, and fun. She wanted the viewer to question what they had learned in history class; Marie Antoinette was not the spoiled oblivious monarch but a misunderstood teenager thrust into one of Europe's most unforgiving environments. In these respects she succeeded but also failed in many important ways. While it provides a different perspective to the infamous Dauphine, I can't help but think of it as too childish and something to further the glorification of today's selfish and reckless rich teenagers. (*Two feature films/five-years later she'd take that same theme to direct The Bling Ring (2013).)
The story begins as Marie Antoinette (Kirsten Dunst) wakes on the morning she is to leave home for the long journey to and permanent stay at Versailles. At the border of France and Austria she says good-bye to her friends, puppy, and clothes to be given new. When Marie arrives to meet her fiance, a 16-year old Louis XVI, she is dressed in French fashion with all the hope and anxiousness a 14-year old should have. The attraction between them is almost non-existent and this is how it will remain for the rest of their lives together and apart. After many attempts to seduce Louis XVI and under great pressure by her mother, Versailles, and all of France, immediately birthing a male heir goes unaccomplished for more than seven years into their marriage. Overhearing and ignoring the unadulterated gossip while still keeping up appearances during this time and afterwards provides the conflict for much of the film. The psychological effects of enforced high expectations forces her to act even more childish by wasting money on expensive shopping sprees and extensive gambling. Later she takes on a handsome Swedish soldier (*Jamie Dornan!) to feel better and finally experience pleasure. But as she ages and understands her responsibilities she accepts them with more maturity.
The opening music had me tapping my feet and moving in my chair while the opening credits were in hot pink font. This was to be no ordinary historical presentation. And then in the blink of an eye Marie is getting a pedicure and surrounded by cakes. This first shot sets the atmosphere for the rest of the film. Every scene featuring Marie never fails to show her world through colored frosting and mouthwatering pastries. The efforts of mise-en-scene have gone above and beyond. The chosen color palate was a mixture of those used for ballet costumes and feminine 80s wear. When the story focuses on Marie's time at her private chateau or while following Louis XVI on his hunts the colors are perfectly natural. "The idea was to capture in the design the way in which I imagined the essence of Marie Antoinette's spirit...So the film's candy colors, its atmosphere and the teenaged music all reflect and are meant to evoke how I saw that world. She was in a total silk and cake world, " explains Sofia Coppola (*in press materials available at the time.) The soundtrack is a compilation of unimpressive pop with lyrics and well-fitting arranged instrumental scores.
What is this film's best success is how captivating each shot is. The setup, the angles, the colors, the light, the clothing and accessories, the hair and makeup are all perfectly executed. They rapture the senses. It would be impossible to single out a favorite caption because the whole movie is like an animated photo album. The camera spent just enough time following its subject. There is no doubt the director's vision was understood by her crew and how well they must have worked together. They deserve as much praise for their visual product.
Kirsten Dunst has had a long successful career and her talent has been proven time and again. She is no stranger to period pieces (Interview with a Vampire, Little Women, The Cat's Meow, *probably three-quarters of her work takes place in a different time than her own), but never before had she played a role with this much historical influence. She must have been nervous for not only what film critics would writer about her performance but the reactions from historians who can be more brutal. Fortunately she did wonderfully. Kirsten was the teenager and young woman in constant search for fulfillment. She showed the right balance of excitement and sadness. Jason Schwartzman is known for his comedic nerdy characters and so it has helped in portraying the quiet and insecure King Louis XVI. With not nearly as many lines as his 'wife' his physical presence speaks for itself. Simply eating his meals, crawling into bed, or standing around is supposed to be played out as very uncomfortable when not preoccupied with his own interests. When exercising his power he is soft spoken and fearful of making a decision. Jason was chosen for this role because Coppola believed he resembled a Bourbon. With such a large supporting cast, hiring the right people must have been a time consuming task but Molly Shannon's inclusion was wrong. Although the final decisions makes for an eclectic group their ill united accents are a large setback.
Despite the film's beautiful appearance I disapprove of how extreme the young royal court's attitudes were. While it's encouraging to bring life to history's key figures instead of stiff portraits for the books, I couldn't help but feel I was watching a very long costume ball. Today's teenagers are given such enormous unnecessary privileges because their parents protect them from the world and allow them not to care about consequences. Marie Antoinette romanticizes today's opportune teenage freedom and its mistakes. Not until recently were children treated as such. The real Marie Antoinette has such a bad reputation because she was one of the few teenagers that never grew out of childhood or understood the expectations required to be fulfilled. Whether or not she said, "Let them eat cake, " is true it is a reflection of how she was perceived as Queen. She must have been a certain way or done certain things to earn her reputation. All of the playtime made me angry and side even more with the French peasants. True they were merely teenagers when married and spending your husband's money for some temporary happiness is one thing, but it is totally different when you are spending the country's money.
Historical narratives can humanize or not their subjects and I agree with Sofia Coppola that people have always acted as we do today but there is a difference between today's teenagers and those from the past centuries. Children were brought up to be adults and now they are given all the time they want to mature. I understand that the real Marie could have taken her time to adjust to life in Versailles and the people she had to interact with may have been conniving gossips with strong judgments. But throughout the film she was given too much sympathy for her problems.
Sofia Coppola did an exceptional job and has definitely earned a place as one of the most creative and unique directors. Her visual adaptation of Marie Antoinette: The Journey by Antonia Fraser is a colorful spin that yearns to put the monarch in a better light but perhaps pushes her theme too far. She gave her heroine the chance at a second life for historians and students to reconsider but there is no guarantee if Marie even deserves it. The humor is noticed and respected but putting a pair of pastel high tops among the group of shoes was a joke that insulted her ideal. It is not the first period film to include popular music, props, language, or attitudes within its story (*A la A Knights Tale (2001)) but she is leaning too much away from realism towards fantasy. To truly enjoy this film and all that it offers it would be best not to envy the rich and careless youth, be open to a new interpretation, and forgive what it regrettably lacks.
UPDATES from 2021:
I shared this movie review with my history professor, Herman Lebovics who I had for that semester teaching the incredibly interesting, like Wow-This-Is-College! level interesting philosophy-ish course "Ways of Cultural History". He wrote back, "Amanda, you've done an impressive review. It is rich in insights." I don't include anecdote here this because I'm showing off, but rather because I wanted to impress my teacher and got his respect. I mean, this course's syllabus started off Day 1 with Stanley Fish's essay, Is there a text in this class?, continued with Walter Benjamin's The Work of Art in an Age of Mechanical Reproduction, and screened The Matrix (1999) with interpretations according to Jean Baudrillard's Simulations. Talk about mind-blowing learning!
(By the way, I do plan to include some essays on this blog that I got less than an A on.)
I truly enjoyed the experience of watching Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette. It was as beautiful in color as was the black & white 1938 Marie Antoinette starring Norma Shearer, John Barrymore, and Tyrone Power. I just got hung up on its historical representation of the privileged - especially because I felt so under-privileged at the time. Back in the 2000s before the Great Recession of 2008, there was a constant stress of materialism that even today's Gen Z couldn't comprehend, all making those who feel extremely less fortunate because Gucci sunglasses and Louis Vuitton bags were completely out of reach.
I have seen Marie Antoinette multiple times since first reviewing it. And I've appreciated it more over time. Still not from a historical perspective, as that's always going to be a point of contention. But from watching the cast play their roles, in a world so deliciously fantastic! Sofia's vision for her characters just happened to be based upon real people, not that her characters had to be based upon real people. They were a catalyst to express something she couldn't otherwise produce in a vacuum. She remains one of my favorite directors because her work is always exquisite; letting emotion and vibe lead the way.
With The Virgin Suicides (1999), Lost In Translation (2003), Marie Antoinette (2006), Somewhere (2010), and The Beguiled (2017) the female leads are actively expanding their worlds and seek to be understood during their time of maturity. Failing to achieve this goal is not their fault but rather that of the box's rules containing them. For the Lisbon sisters, especially for Lux, they rebel against their over-protective parents and 1970s cul-de-sac hive-minded neighborhood. For Charlotte, leaning on the older Bob Harris for some comradery to explore Tokyo was a lifeline out of loneliness while her husband was too busy. For Cleo, as an eleven year-old, she's not only experiencing that pre-teen in-between moment but going back-and-forth between her mom and dad until just dropped-off indefinitely at his place, forced into finally trying to build a sustained connection with him for their time together. Plenty of scenes have her trying to keep her father's attention whether ice skating or ready for the red carpet. Sofia put all of her heroines in the same house for The Beguiled - Nicole Kidman, Elle Fanning, Kirsten Dunst - representing three different eras of womanhood. (Granted Nicole's Martha was not old/senile but in the 1860s she wasn't young either). Colin Farrell's injured Yankee soldier is simultaneously ideal for their repressed pleasure and their repressed punishment.
In these films, her scenes and its characters exude the feminine core, a woman's potential, and how it all ends up when respected or mistreated. The costumes are of especial enjoyment towards this thesis. Marie Antoinette's life of clothing from leaving Austria to leaving Versailles could not be more on point. Did you know that Marie Antoinette shares the same costume designer as Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon (1975)? Milena Canonero won two of her four Oscar Awards for these films! She is a master when it comes to making a movie be the epitome of a moving painterly picture.
Two of the more recent titles that must be significantly influenced by Marie Antoinette are Netflix's Bridgerton and Hulu's The Great - the latter which so happens to star one of Sofia's muses Elle Fanning. Both shows are among the historical-fiction genre and despite the more lyrical language of their respective times, the leads' attitudes very much strive to break free of their contemporary era's norms and values. Bridgerton tied together 200 years worth of teen-romance with England's 1810's and covers of 2010's music (with significant help from The Vitamin String Quartet) made for an immersive relatable experience for audiences showing how Daphne needed to navigate the ever-watching and judging aristocracy, as if she were a social media celebrity. Taking liberties with not only history's attitudes but also with timelines and family-trees, Catherine The Great's and her compatriots' actual story is buried so far beneath Tony McNamara's writing in comparison that Marie Antoinette practically belongs in history books. Catherine's leaving Germany for Russia to staging her coup against Peter is not only accomplished in the first season but is shown taking place within a few years (at best) rather than the nearly two decades they were actually married for before she took power from him. Nonetheless, its greatness is in the comedic absurdity between the royals and their lavish yet barbaric St. Petersburg court.
If watching Marie Antoinette and its kin has given me anything it's been watching a good picture, not good history.
No comments:
Post a Comment