MARIE ANTOINETTE (Sofia Coppola; 2006)

[criterionmaster]

captainofbeef said:

criterionmaster said:

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)

She couldn't take acting fake anymore, and she was so bored with her life, it makes perfect sense to me that she would start to loosen up.

Both of their humor is understated greatly, and both can sometimes have more in your face comedy as well. They both use small things as jokes, and pay great attention to details of scenes.

No, so Rush Hour was personal to Ratner? No. I am talking more about them putting themselves into the film much more, most directors make films they want to make, but not all are personal like this one. That is where we disagree I guess, cause I think it turned out great.

[criterionmaster]

captainofbeef said:

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.

I only say it when you are totally off with your critiquing of a film, like for Elephant your flaws were things done in the film on purpose, for here, your flaws are things that you wish the film would have been like, and expecting it to be something it wasn't made to be. Hardly anyone even likes this film, which is what pisses me off the most.

Like I just said, the film wasn't made to tell you anything about Marie, it was made to tell a completely different story, only using her as a character. And those repetitive scenes and "wooden" acting are all used to show how repetitive her life is, and how she is acting fake in order to try and meet this family’s standards. So saying those are flaws of the films is crazy. Also, having a modern soundtrack is awesome.

[captainofbeef]

criterionmaster said:

captainofbeef said:

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.

I only say it when you are totally off with your critiquing of a film, like for Elephant your flaws were things done in the film on purpose, for here, your flaws are things that you wish the film would have been like, and expecting it to be something it wasn't made to be. Hardly anyone even likes this film, which is what pisses me off the most.

Like I just said, the film wasn't made to tell you anything about Marie, it was made to tell a completely different story, only using her as a character. And those repetitive scenes and "wooden" acting are all used to show how repetitive her life is, and how she is acting fake in order to try and meet this family’s standards. So saying those are flaws of the films is crazy. Also, having a modern soundtrack is awesome.

As I reflect back,my problem with Elephant was on a more personal level. I simply felt it was in bad taste to make such a film, depicting a school shooting so soon after Columbine without developing the characters at all. There were some "technical" flaws as well, but my opinion of Elephant is based on my personal opinion that the film was distasteful.

The soundtrack sounded awful mixed with the film. And taking things that are technically bad about the film and saying that they are positive qualities is amusing in a way. I have a hard time in believing that they were shown to display how monotonous Marie's life was, especially since in the 8 or 9 shots where she was with her children and friends in the garden, she had a large smile on her face.