MARIE ANTOINETTE (Sofia Coppola; 2006)

[PTAhole]

View the trailer here:
imdb.com/title/tt0422720/trailers-screenplay-E26091-10-2

Soundtrack listing:
"Natural's Not In It"
by Gang of Four
"Opus 17"
written by Dustin O'Halloran"
"The Melody of a Fallen Tree"
by Windsor for the Derby
"I Don't Like it Like This"
by The Radio Dept.
"Jynweythek Ylow"
by Aphex Twin
"1ER Menuet Pour Les Guirries et les Amazones, 2EME Menuet"
written by Jean-Philippe Rameau
"Pulling Our Weight"
by The Radio Dept.
"Il Secondo Giorno Instrumental"
by Air
"Keen on Boys"
by The Radio Dept.
"Aux Languets D'Appollon" (Tire De L'Opera "Platee")
written by Jean-Philippe Rameau
"Opus 23"
written by Dustin O'Halloran
"I Want Candy"
by Bow Wow Wow
remixed by Kevin Shields
"Hong Kong Garden"
by Siouxsie and the Banshees
"Aphrodisiac"
by Bow Wow Wow
"Fools Rush In"
by Bow Wow Wow
remixed by Kevin Shields
"Plainsong"
by The Cure
"Ceremony"
by New Order
"Tommib Help Buss"
by Squarepusher
"Ou Boivent Les Loups"
by Phoenix
"Kings of the Wild Frontier"
by Adam and the Ants
"Avril 14th"
by Aphex Twin
"What Ever Happened?"
by The Strokes
"Tristes Apprets, Pales Flambeaux" (Tire De L'Opera "Castor Et Pollux")
written by Jean-Philippe Rameau
"Opus 36"
written by Dustin O'Halloran
"All Cat's Are Grey"
The Cure

[criterionmaster]

That soundtrack is amazing!

[PTAhole]

And in a period piece, too. Wow.

[agentknight]

I don't know what to think of this movie. I do love Lost in Translation, but I find it hard to imagine that anyone could make such a clunky idea work.

[ie]

They were showing a short bit of behind-the-scenes work on this movie on the Sundance channel, and I must be honest, I wasn't too interested.

It's not really a traditional period piece. It's more about the people involved, re-enacting events and cutting loose. It sounds like they might be working the movie to appeal to a wider audience than a traditional movie of its type might, so I'm sure it'll be an interesting one for those interested.

[criterionmaster]

I will probably go see this over the weekend since it's PG-13, then I will sneak into The Departed or something. Looks like the film will either be totally awesome, or totally pretentious.

[criterionmaster]

I have just been informed they show Dunst's butt in the film! Makes me want to see this even more.

[agentknight]

OMG! That's the best. Dunst needs to show her body more, I didn't even get a nipple in Eternal Sunshine

[ie]

I wasn't able to find a photo of our current topic, but I found this instead. A few chuckles ensued.

[criterionmaster]

I just got back from this film and let me tell you it is easily the best film of the year, since I have only seen like 4 films. But still it was amazing. Kirsten Dunst has never looked better; seriously she is mind-blowing in this film. I even was compelled to try to take a picture of one of her multiple ass shots and here are the results:



As you can['t] see it was stunning. Seriously! I will come back with my thoughts on the film soon.

[blackmoses]

Love that picture! And this film was fantastic! Much Better then I thought it was going to be.

[criterionmaster]

”Let Them Eat Cake”

I went in with a mixed feeling, after only having seen Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation and been indifferent to it at first, but then falling in love with it, I was wondering if the same feeling I had towards that film I would have towards this film. Her style was often rather pretentious in LiT, but at other times brilliant, so it was like hit-or-miss for me. Sofia takes a much different approach at making films then her father, (Frances Ford Coppola) with her own career she tends to make more charming little films.

The story follows Marie Antoinette, an ill-fated French Queen, who married Louis XVI at the age of 15 and became queen at the age of 19. The film is less blotted than one would expect, it doesn’t focus on names like most period pieces, and in fact its main focus is cinematography, which is stunning. The film could be put on mute, and you could just look at the locations, costumes, everything. Instead of Marie Antoinette being presented like she is usually shown, as a brat, she is shown as a young, naïve girl just looking to have a good time. Sofia plays with us in that one moment characters are speaking correctly for the period and at other times it is much more modern, this style surprisingly works well and definitely makes the film more accessible and “fun”.

The performances are great; with Kirsten Dunst (The Virgin Suicides) as Marie Antoinette. She really brought life to this character. She just wants to enjoy life, and the playfulness she adds to the role helps convey this. She is perfectly beautiful for the role as well. Her beauty certainly makes her a believable queen. Jason Schwartzman (Rushmore) as Louis XVI is just hilarious. His performance of the quiet king is one of the best parts of the film. In a scene that I just loved, where Marie and Louis are first married and they are sitting down for a meal (in front of hundreds of people mind you), Louis stares straight ahead, not even looking at his new wife. Marie asks him “so I hear your hobby is making keys” and he responds “yes” and just continues eating, she then goes “so you like making keys?” and he says “obviously”, then Sofia cuts the scene, it was just a hilarious little moment that really stands out at me.



Sofia went with the ballsy choice of having modern rock songs in the film, featuring such bands as The Cure and Aphex Twin. It really does work well, especially in the ballroom scene. Just a beautiful shot scene, which is probably my favorite part of the entire film.

The film does have its faults, it is a little overlong, although it doesn’t come to the point of boredom, it does almost get there though. Also Sofia skips over some important parts in Marie’s life, which is actually a good idea, because it relies more on the little things, you still needed to get this information across though. So Sofia decided to show that one of Marie’s sons had died by showing a painting with the child, then removing the painting from the wall and hanging a new without him, in what could have been an amusing bit, the way it is presented is not very.

After the film ended, in a moment that mirrored the film exactly, I applauded. When I see a film that strikes a cord with me I like to show my gratitude towards the people who worked on the film. Well just like Marie in the film who applauded at the end of a play, when that is not the thing people did and being the only one clapping, feeling ridiculous. The same thing happened to me, I was the only one applauded, so maybe the film doesn’t hit everyone like it did me, or maybe this audience was just a bunch of snobs, either way this is an acquired taste, not everyone will “get” it, but those that do should be in for a visual treat.

This was just a beautiful and very well-made film. It feels very personal, and that can be felt in each and every scene as Sofia put her heart into this. It may be my favorite film this year (despite the fact I have only seen maybe 4 films). This demands a re-watch from me just to catch all the visuals. Captivating.



FINAL GRADE: (strong) 8.5/10


-------------------------------------------

I am going to put that in my school's newspaper, tell me what you think.

[criterionmaster]

www.sonypictures.com/movies/marieantoinette/clips/

Check out those clips, clip 4 is from probably my favorite part of the whole film.

[criterionmaster]

[criterionmaster]

Some more images of Kirsten from the film :

i68.photobucket.com/albums/i18/criterionmaster/jmoronic716-DunstKirsten03.jpg

i68.photobucket.com/albums/i18/criterionmaster/jmoronic716-DunstKirsten02.jpg

i68.photobucket.com/albums/i18/criterionmaster/jmoronic716-DunstKirsten00.jpg

[criterionmaster]

captainofbeef said:

Marie Antoinette

3/10
I cannot manage to see the genius in the younger Coppola's work. Her previous films have been somewhat interesting, but overall they left me with nothing, ultimately being films that I deemed decent but nowhere near masterful. But in this film, Coppola has convinced me that she has a great eye for beauty, but she cannot direct a film that is deeper than whats on the outside.

Now on to the film. It is no doubt extremely beautiful, shot at Versailles itself with lavish costumes and beautiful cinematography. But past that outside attractiveness, this film is dull, vapid, and empty. Coppola eschews historical fact and instead develops her own vision of Versailles. There is no doubt she is somewhat accurate in her portrayal of the royal family. But the lack of accents, the modern soundtrack, and the stiff as a board acting take any semblance of historical merit out of the film. The main problem here is Dunst, pretty as she may be, acts the part of Antoinette as a ditzy blonde bombshell rather than the courageous woman that she was. I mean, sure she threw a bit many parties, but do we have to be a witness to every one of them? Not to mention that the supporting performances are equally as dull, with Rip Torn providing the best performance in his bit role.

Ok, the main problem I have with this film cannot be stated for it would ruin the film for those who haven't seen it. So it gets the spoiler treatment

SPOILER: Click to show

Now comes my main problem with this film, did Coppola love Dunst so much that she couldn't kill her? The single most important and most remembered moment in Antoinette's life is her capture and execution. But she is too pretty for that huh Sofia. Instead we get a pleasant scene of the couple leaving Versailles with their children. Why not show the capture and beheading? It is the most important part of the story. I'm sure that Coppola's main goal was to show how Marie lived but for God sakes the unfortunate end for the couple wasn't even hinted at. We get a brief shot of the mob outside Versailles and thats it. Utterly rediculous and deplorable on Coppola's part.

To sum it up, I hated this film. I despised it with every bone in my body. I could barely sit through it in fact. My father, who watched it with me, couldn't stand it any longer and stopped watching it an hour in. He maintains that it is among the top 20 worst films he has ever seen. While I don't feel it is quite THAT bad, I do feel it is one of the worst films of the year, though it did deserve its Oscar for the beautiful costumes. If only something was happening below those costumes...

Wow, thank you. Yet again you have looked at something in a film that doesn't matter AT ALL. Historical content? Are you a dweeb? Can't you tell it was not suppose to be accurate at all, all the facts are known, what Sofia wanted to do was show the character of Marie as a fun loving teenage girl, and she succeeded amazingly. Kirsten played that part perfect. Stiff as a board? That is the style of comedy used in the film. And that Rushmore kid was funny as fuck.

It is not suppose to be a deep historically boring as fuck telling of an uninteresting story that I would have probably fallen asleep during since I know all about that stupid shit, it is suppose to be a fun film, shot beautifully, not every film do you need to look deep for something, especially this film.

The reason she didn't kill her was the film was a comedy, we all know what happens, what is the point in showing it? So we see a character we love hung? Nice. Maybe in a completely different film, but it is stupid of a person to even expect her to show that. Oh God am I pissed off, you talk about how historical inaccurate the film is, why the fuck would they begin to be with the ending?! It wasn't the intent of the fucking film, and to call that a flaw is the ridiculous thing.

Worst films you have ever seen??!?!?! You and your dad’s balls should be strung up in the highest tree possible haha. But seriously, the film was fucking beautiful and you two missed the point of it totally. You are a moron to go in expecting this to be a TV documentary history lesson. You knew the soundtrack, you knew the film wasn't suppose to be about the history at all, it was its own story, yet you act so surprised. Just stupid to me, the film gets so unfairly beaten on it pisses me off so much. God, I need to stop and listen to some Dylan, I am so fucking pissed off when people miss the point of something this much, also because this film is fantastic, and so many people seem to hate it. I don't see why at all.

[captainofbeef]

If you are going to make a historical epic film, please don't screw with the facts. I like history and I enjoy large epics which relay historical fact along with entertaining me. Marie Antoinette failed on both these fronts. I just don't understand why Coppola would want to make a film about Antoinette throwing parties and her early inability to produce an heir. These things should have been looked at but they shouldn't constitute over three fourths of the film.

Dunst is awful. You let your personal perception of her beauty cloud your judgment on her actual acting. I didn't laugh once during the whole film, nor did I find any moment of it funny. If this film is supposed to be a comedy, it fails on that front as well.

I find it funny that you are telling me that I shouldn't look deep behind a film. In this film, I saw beautiful images but other than that, the film was a bore. Repetitive scene after repetitive scene took their tole on me. How many garden scenes must we see, how many scenes of frolicking in the garden, how many times do we need to see them eat? It became dull about a half hour in.

Well you obviously don't know the facts if you think Marie Antoinette was hung. She had her head chopped off. Did you not notice how much Marie was spending during the film? She was wasting the money of France on parties, clothes, and banquets while her people were starving in the streets, pillaged by rough taxes.

It may not have been the purpose of the film, but Marie's unpleasant death wasn't even hinted at. We got a shot of Versailles trashed but Coppola made it look like the royal family got away. That the rest of their life was pleasant when it was really horrible.

A historical film doesn't have to be a history lesson in order to be successful. All it has to do is to hint at the facts. It can focus on other things. But the problem with Antoinette is that it lacks focus, it lacks direction. It is a mere string of pretty scenes that blend together in the mind.

If Coppola wanted to go the completely modern route, why not modernize the clothing and other things in the film such as in Romeo + Juliet. But that film didn't work out, so why not keep the accents, the old music, and the older dialogue. That part of the film is not necessarily bad and I knew that it was coming. It is more of an artistic disagreement that I have with Sofia.

The film felt like a little teenage girls fantasy to me. Lets get everyone all dressed up, make them very beautiful, have lots of parties, and make up a happy ending. Just utter garbage in my opinion.

[criterionmaster]

captainofbeef said:

If you are going to make a historical epic film, please don't fuck with the facts. I like history and I enjoy large epics which relay historical fact along with entertaining me. Marie Antoinette failed on both these fronts. I just don't understand why Coppola would want to make a film about Antoinette throwing parties and her early inability to produce an heir. These things should have been looked at but they shouldn't constitute over three fourths of the film.

Dunst is awful. You let your personal perception of her beauty cloud your judgment on her actual acting. I didn't laugh once during the whole film, nor did I find any moment of it funny. If this film is supposed to be a comedy, it fails on that front as well.

I find it funny that you are telling me that I shouldn't look deep behind a film. In this film, I saw beautiful images but other than that, the film was a bore. Repetitive scene after repetitive scene took their tole on me. How many garden scenes must we see, how many scenes of frolicking in the garden, how many times do we need to see them eat? It became dull about a half hour in.

Well you obviously don't know the facts if you think Marie Antoinette was hung. She had her head chopped off. Did you not notice how much Marie was spending during the film? She was wasting the money of France on parties, clothes, and banquets while her people were starving in the streets, pillaged by rough taxes.

It may not have been the purpose of the film, but Marie's unpleasant death wasn't even hinted at. We got a shot of Versailles trashed but Coppola made it look like the royal family got away. That the rest of their life was pleasant when it was really horrible.

A historical film doesn't have to be a history lesson in order to be successful. All it has to do is to hint at the facts. It can focus on other things. But the problem with Antoinette is that it lacks focus, it lacks direction. It is a mere string of pretty scenes that blend together in the mind.

If Coppola wanted to go the completely modern route, why not modernize the clothing and other things in the film such as in Romeo + Juliet. But that film didn't work out, so why not keep the accents, the old music, and the older dialogue. That part of the film is not necessarily bad and I knew that it was coming. It is more of an artistic disagreement that I have with Sofia.

The film felt like a little teenage girls fantasy to me. Lets get everyone all dressed up, make them very beautiful, have lots of parties, and make up a happy ending. Just utter garbage in my opinion.

So because someone tries to do something different with film you don't like it? She made a film and forgot the facts, like I said before, it isn't even about any of that, if anything that is just in the background of the film she really wanted to make. Like I said, she wanted to make a film about a girl who wants to have fun, but has many problems, fish out of water, whatever you want to call it. I don't see why you can't look passed the film not being what you wanted it to be. It is Sofia's vision, and the film just happens to be LOOSELY based on Marie. Just because it has to kinda do with history is why you didn’t like it.

How was Dunst not good as a teenage girl? What was wrong with her acting at all?

There are films you should look deep behind, and there are fun films, this is a stunningly beautiful, fun film. There was some repetitiveness, but it never became overwhelming. As I said in my review, it is not a perfect film, but it is a damn good film. There are flaws. How was that dinner scene not funny? Not suppose to be a laugh-out-loud funny, not many Sofia things are, it is like a Wes Anderson funny.

I don't know why I said hanged; I knew she lost her head, before I even saw. I was just writing too fast I guess lol.

I loved that they didn't show it, and that they left it open, cause you know what was coming anyways, so leaving the film when she did was genius. Her life wasn't pleasant at all, she was miserable with her redundant, boring life (as shown in the film).

If it did that it would have been like all kinds of other films, but it actually tried to be different, and do something ORIGINAL. Probably why the retards of today hated it.

And I loved it for that, Sofia knows a girls life and their reactions and little things they do, like she showed with Virgin Suicides, she even further goes into with this film.

[captainofbeef]

I don't like the concept that she tries to execute. And I don't think that she executes it well. Why use the actual place (Versailles) but not use the actual facts? Why include some historical information, such as the Revolution and the support of America in the revolution, but leave out others such as the poverty of France? It just doesn't add up in my opinion.

Dunst is wooden in the beginning, more mature if you will, and then as the film progresses she get bubblier, more ditzy. But wouldn't she get more mature as she aged? Doesn't make sense in the context of the film.

Its is nowhere near perfect and if you find this type of redundant dullness fun, I can't see where you are coming from. The film attempts at a certain sort of dry humor but that doesn't really work either.

She sure acted pleasant, if I lived in that large palace, I would find it pretty hard to find fault with my life. There is a difference between originality and actual good ideas. Being original is not always a good quality. She may know a girls life, (obviously she is a girl) But does she really have to project these childish qualities into a film?

[criterionmaster]

captainofbeef said:

I don't like the concept that she tries to execute. And I don't think that she executes it well. Why use the actual place (Versailles) but not use the actual facts? Why include some historical information, such as the Revolution and the support of America in the revolution, but leave out others such as the poverty of France? It just doesn't add up in my opinion.

Dunst is wooden in the beginning, more mature if you will, and then as the film progresses she get bubblier, more ditzy. But wouldn't she get more mature as she aged? Doesn't make sense in the context of the film.

Its is nowhere near perfect and if you find this type of redundant dullness fun, I can't see where you are coming from. The film attempts at a certain sort of dry humor but that doesn't really work either.

She sure acted pleasant, if I lived in that large palace, I would find it pretty hard to find fault with my life. There is a difference between originality and actual good ideas. Being original is not always a good quality. She may know a girls life, (obviously she is a girl) But does she really have to project these childish qualities into a film?

She used the place because it is beautiful, which is what she wanted her film to be. She included too much information if you ask me, but she included as much as she cared to/was able to with the story she wanted to tell.

She is wooden in the beginning because she feels that is the way she is supposed to act, she is told to act all nice so she can marry the prince and all that shit. But then when she does, or when she can't take acting all prim and proper, she tries to have some fun in her life. She was never really mature, at first it was just an act she put on.

It is very similar humor to Wes Anderson, like I said. That sort of dry, boring or very slow kind of humor, and I love it. Sofia, like Wes, also pays attention to details and adds little character things, or things in the backgrounds, which is another element to love about her.

You know the story; just because you have stuff doesn't mean you are happy. Also, she didn't really even want that, if I remember right, didn't her family make her do it? Not all girls know about girls the way she does, and does the things she does. Yes, she does need to. The same reason people film other things. Does everything need to be put on film? No, but it should be. And a film of such great beauty, and one that is so personal to the director definitely does.

[sacrilegend]

I'm on captainofbeef's side.

[criterionmaster]

sacrilegend said:

I'm on captainofbeef's side.

What does that mean? Have you seen the film? Why do you agree with him?

[sacrilegend]

Actually, I haven't, so I can't really participate, but based on your arguments, I agree with him. Very much so.

EDIT: Why? Because what he's saying is true.

[criterionmaster]

Hmm, true maybe to someone who hasn't seen the film. He actually missed the point of the film, and what he is saying may sound true, but only because he is saying stuff that doesn't actually have to do with the film. He wanted it to be something that it wasn't, so really, if you want it to be a history lesson, or if you look and see the modern soundtrack above, and don't think it would work or don't want to try something different, new, or original, then you shouldn't watch it in the first place. Beed, knew what he was getting himself into when he saw the soundtrack, heard that it wasn't factually accurate, and so on. You though, sacrilegend, will love the film, I almost know that as fact. Just based on your taste, you will fucking LOVE everything about Sofia Coppola, and Virgin Suicides will be one of your most favorite films, as will this, and probably Lost in Translation.

[sacrilegend]

...








...I'd have liked it if she died in any case.

[sacrilegend]

I've seen Lost In Translation = masterpiece. But I don't like you analyzing me and telling me what I'd like! It makes me feel all boring.

[criterionmaster]

Well I will tell you what elements I was basing me thinking you would like them on (if that would make you feel better, which I think it would, since the reasons were good):

- Her uses of music in film is just something amazing that I think you would truly appreciate, since you like good visuals and music.
- Also, she tries to do something original, and different, which I know is something you said you liked before.
- She is a woman, as you are as well. So I think woman can relate even more.
- Her films are beautiful, which is something you usually say you like in films.
- And they are funny, and who doesn't like to laugh sometimes??

So just my educated guess, plus paired with the fact that there are very few people I wouldn't recommend these films to, and I always say to people "I think you would like this, and stuff."

Glad you loved Lost in Translation, the only one I wasn't sure about you totally digging, which makes seeing Virgin Suicides and Marie Antoinette even more of a most for you. Please track them down, they shouldn't be too hard to find. Then come back with thoughts.

[sacrilegend]

I'm not so sure... I sure hope I'm not that easy to sum up! I gues you're right. I'll look for them, and let you know. Someone once told me that I looked like one of the sisters in The Virgin Suicides. Hmm.

[captainofbeef]

criterionmaster said:

captainofbeef said:

I don't like the concept that she tries to execute. And I don't think that she executes it well. Why use the actual place (Versailles) but not use the actual facts? Why include some historical information, such as the Revolution and the support of America in the revolution, but leave out others such as the poverty of France? It just doesn't add up in my opinion.

Dunst is wooden in the beginning, more mature if you will, and then as the film progresses she get bubblier, more ditzy. But wouldn't she get more mature as she aged? Doesn't make sense in the context of the film.

Its is nowhere near perfect and if you find this type of redundant dullness fun, I can't see where you are coming from. The film attempts at a certain sort of dry humor but that doesn't really work either.

She sure acted pleasant, if I lived in that large palace, I would find it pretty hard to find fault with my life. There is a difference between originality and actual good ideas. Being original is not always a good quality. She may know a girls life, (obviously she is a girl) But does she really have to project these childish qualities into a film?

She used the place because it is beautiful, which is what she wanted her film to be. She included too much information if you ask me, but she included as much as she cared to/was able to with the story she wanted to tell.

She is wooden in the beginning because she feels that is the way she is supposed to act, she is told to act all nice so she can marry the prince and all that shit. But then when she does, or when she can't take acting all prim and proper, she tries to have some fun in her life. She was never really mature, at first it was just an act she put on.

It is very similar humor to Wes Anderson, like I said. That sort of dry, boring or very slow kind of humor, and I love it. Sofia, like Wes, also pays attention to details and adds little character things, or things in the backgrounds, which is another element to love about her.

You know the story; just because you have stuff doesn't mean you are happy. Also, she didn't really even want that, if I remember right, didn't her family make her do it? Not all girls know about girls the way she does, and does the things she does. Yes, she does need to. The same reason people film other things. Does everything need to be put on film? No, but it should be. And a film of such great beauty, and one that is so personal to the director definitely does.

I am personally appalled that she would use the most historically accurate place to hold a historically inaccurate film. It does an injustice to Versailles itself and to the story of these people.

I understand that about the film. But even after she married the prince in the beginning, she still acted stilted. Only after she aged did she loosen up. That doesn't make sense once again.

I really don't think Coppola's humor is like Anderson's. I find his humor to be contained in small mannerisms, but in all three Coppola films, her humor is understated to the point where I don't know if it is even humor anymore.

Every film a good director makes is personal to them. How can it not be? They spend days one end perfecting it to their standards. They don't always turn out well, usually because of a poor idea and a massive budget, and Antoinette is an example of this

(I'm a little late, had to study Bio for a few hours)

[captainofbeef]

criterionmaster said:

Hmm, true maybe to someone who hasn't seen the film. He actually missed the point of the film, and what he is saying may sound true, but only because he is saying stuff that doesn't actually have to do with the film. He wanted it to be something that it wasn't, so really, if you want it to be a history lesson, or if you look and see the modern soundtrack above, and don't think it would work or don't want to try something different, new, or original, then you shouldn't watch it in the first place. Beed, knew what he was getting himself into when he saw the soundtrack, heard that it wasn't factually accurate, and so on. You though, sacrilegend, will love the film, I almost know that as fact. Just based on your taste, you will fucking LOVE everything about Sofia Coppola, and Virgin Suicides will be one of your most favorite films, as will this, and probably Lost in Translation.

I hate this argument and you have made it for the last two films for which I have strongly disagreed with you on. I "missed the point" of the film is just another way of saying that because you and others liked it, you got the film, and anyone who doesn't like it is wrong, and missed the point.

And how does lack of historical information, modern dialogue, wooden acting, modern soundtrack, and repetitive scenes not have to do with the film? It sounds like some of the components of the film to me.