Afternoon:
8°c
Derek Malcolm's rating
A Lady Di from the 18th century
By
Derek Malcolm
19 Oct 2006
Marie Antoinette was only 14 years old when she got out of her gilded coach at the court of Versailles, having come all the way from Austria.
She brought her little dog along with her. But, because it wasn't French, it was taken away from her. Then she met the 15-year-old Dauphin, whom she was to marry. It was not a match made in heaven but rather by the political imperatives of the day.
So starts Sofia Coppola's movie, based partly upon Antonia Fraser's biography but mostly on her own imagination. So we have Kirsten Dunst as Marie, who hasn't been 14 for some time, Bow Wow Wow and the Gang of Four on the soundtrack, a flurry of pink and pistachio colour schemes, towers of powdered hair and clothes and shoes to die for.
It's all rather like the halting progress of an empty-headed but largely innocent Valley Girl wandering into a Las Vegas approximation of Versailles, where a rigid protocol forbids any genuine amusement.
Added to which, the Dauphin (Jason Schwartzman) can't do his duty by the girl, and she, not being French, is blamed for it. Life at the top clearly has its gaudy compensations. But they are more than matched by a special kind of stifling ennui.
For the first half of Marie Antoinette, written as well as directed by Coppola, we watch fascinated, at least by the visual delights. And even the contemporary aperçus don't seem to matter all that much. But then, despite the acting of Rip Torn as King Louis XV, Asia Argento as Madame Du Barry, his paramour, and Judy Davis and Steve Coogan as droll courtiers, doubts kick in.
With a definite heave, the Dauphin manages it at last and Marie bears him an heir. Then she gets bored, plays with a bit of fashionista rusticity, takes a handsome lover and finally becomes dimly aware that her rich little world is not the same as that outside.
There the mobs are baying for blood and some lying tabloid has told them that she said to the breadless: "Let them eat cake." All this Dunst accomplishes with considerable skill and grace, even though Coppola's dialogue hardly allows her leeway. But do we see what happens when the Revolution really starts to rumble? No, we don't. And, just when things are getting really interesting, the film fades to black.
What a strange process it is! At best, we might opine that this is the study of an innocent at court which frequently looks gorgeous, even when Coppola's editing style gives one the judders. At worst, we might well say that Marie's apparent shallowness mirrors Coppola's own. Especially if the director is trying to offer us an 18th-century Lady Di.
But whatever we feel at the end, we know we've seen something different - and unexpected. It looks, however, like half a movie to me. One which flatters only to deceive by giving us a splendid background with nothing much in the middle. Not an abject failure, but an irritatingly centreless experience.
Details are correct at the time of publication - please check with venue before booking.
Reader views (7)
Yes, well, weren't they all pretty much married off at that age? In those days if you died at 14, you died of old age. I know not the point according to Sofia. Well, what is the point? Is there one? Ok, so they conveniently said after Cannes that although it was filmed at Versailles and gowns laboriously made to authenticate the period, and besides the fact that the title is Marie Antoinette, it's not supposed to be about history.
I'm all for Masterpiece Theater if not that then I'm all for hip adaptations, but this was a tragic bore that was neither here nor there. How about quality? Quality! Acting that goes beyond caricature, depth, subtle nuances, fun and frivolity, anything. Whether it be light or more profound, some plot and character development.
During the laborious viewing of this film (I'm loathe to call it that), I was ravenous like a starved wild animal for that Norman Shearer version everyone keeps mentioning.
It was really boring and bad.
- Elizabeth, UK, 31/10/2006 04:24
Report abuse
If you want to see an excellent version of this film watch the original with Norma Shearer, Tyrone Power, John Barrymore, and Robert Morley
- Bing, New Hope.,PA USA, 26/10/2006 06:20
Report abuse
Although the costumes, scenery and actors were great, this is a story that didn't need to be told. I felt like I was watching the slow episode of I, Claudius. The moment that the story threatened to get interesting with the French Revolution, the movie ended.
Coppola should have follwoed Madame DuBarry or Madame DePompadour's climb to the top of this stultified society. Instead we got a near deification of a nitwit rather than a story about a woman who took on this system and won. Sure it was tough being a child bride in a foreign court, but somehow Catherine the Great managed to do it at the same time as Marie Antionette plus she deposeded her husband, converted to the Orthodox church, conquered 1/4 of central Asia, ruled for over 30 years and was popular.
- Erron, UK, 24/10/2006 04:30
Report abuse
I couldn't agree more with the above reviewers. This film is all style and no substance or depth. You have to wait so long for anything new to happen. No indication is given as to why a mob should show up at the gates demanding her head. Perhaps setting the court of Versailles in some kind of vacuum is what Coppola was trying to achieve to show how detached the monarchy were from the people. Unfortunately, it doesn't make for an interesting film. Although pretty to look at it really is very, very boring.
- Jonathan, London, 23/10/2006 11:50
Report abuse
Very, very disappointing. Some of the camerawork is wonderful and the locations are spectacular. However the script is weak and much of the acting is unconvincing. This( ie a very mediocre movie) often seems to occur where the director and the scriptwriter are the same person. Marie Antionette is two hours long. You could use that time much more profitably: wash the car, get a bad haircut - the choices are limitless!
- Paul, London, 22/10/2006 00:19
Report abuse
Exquisitely beautiful but pointless film. Self indulgent drivel. It might as well have been a photo shoot.
- Tash, London, 21/10/2006 09:02
Report abuse
I liked the old movie made in 1936 with Norma Shearer. Now there's a good movie! It was also Nominated for 4 Oscars. I don't think the new movie made in 2006 can hold a candle to this. Don't waste your time seeing the 2006 movie. Rent the one made in 1936.
- Don, USA, 20/10/2006 04:29
Report abuse
