Marie Antoinette was just 14 when she arrived at Versailles and married Louis XVI. She reached infamy for bankrupting France and became the most famous victim of the French Revolution, beheaded at the age of 37. Marie Antoinette led a most notorious and lavish life, forever in the spotlight; criticized for her spending on extravagant dresses and hair-pieces, not consummating her marriage to Louis for seven years and consequently not producing a male heir until the age of 24. Versailles was always ablaze with rumors ranging from talk about Antoinette's male conquests to the idea that she was an Austrian spy and then there were the malicious tall-tales produced by the revolutionaries outside of Versailles, 'let them eat cake'. Marie Antoinette is one of the most fabulously interesting historic characters to have ever walked on this earth so it is no wonder that her story transcends time and should be told by one of America's newest young writing and directing talents, Sofia Coppola.
First and foremost it should be understood that Coppola has not made an historically accurate film. She never had any intention of doing so. The accents are haphazard Kirsten Dunst's American accent for Marie, Judy Davis's faux French for Comtesse de Noailles, Steve Coogan's Manchester twang as Ambassador Mercy.... furthermore certain parts of Marie's life are omitted, such as the affair of the necklace or the death of her two youngest children not long before the revolution forced her out of Versailles. And there are many more discrepancies both major and minor that critics and historians were up in arms about when this film was released in 2006. Sofia Coppola did not make a biopic of Marie Antoinette, she merely tried to relate a modern audience to a French queen living a lavish and fantastic though fleeting life in the 17th century, and surprisingly, Coppola achieves this.
Marie Antoinette lived a life that today is incomprehensible. It was a life of debauchery and duty, of ritual and mindlessness, tradition and revolution. Sofia Coppola's 'Marie Antoinette' does not relish telling the story of the French revolution; there is a scene in which Louis (Jason Schwartzman) agrees to send funds to America upon the advice of his ministers, and Marie makes a comment to her friends about the nonsense the papers are printing, in particular reference to a comment she supposedly made of 'let them eat cake'. At the end of the film we do see the angry mob that marched on Versailles and forced Marie and Louis to leave for Paris, but otherwise the politics are left out.
The film is about Marie the complete overhaul of her life from Austria to France, her trying to fit into a foreign court and having to become accustomed to the standing customs and protocols of Versailles. A scene in which Marie has to get dressed by the ladies of her court according to which woman has the most prestigious title is fantastic, as is the monotony of dining with the king and so forth. It is this mundaneness that Sofia captures so well translating for a modern audience what this 17th century queen's life would have been like, not the grandiose aspects, but rather the day-to-day routines. And then there is the interesting story of the pressure put upon Marie by her mother and the French people to consummate her marriage and produce an heir a queen's duty translated to a modern audience in very simple terms, that Marie is not living up to her duties as a wife.
By far the best thing about Coppola's movie is the costumes and set. Special permission was given to film at Versailles (even in the hall of mirrors which is under construction until late 2007!) and Milena Canonero won the Oscar for best costume design. The dresses are a visual delight, and the shoes designed by Manolo Blahnik are to die for! If for no other reason, watch Marie Antoinette to take in the visual splendor of it all. The 80's-inspired soundtrack is also surprisingly charming, it flows throughout the film and is oddly befitting of the lavish lifestyle portrayed.
Perhaps the weak link of the film is Kirsten Dunst. She had to play Marie from her arrival in Versailles at the age of 14 until her departure from Versailles at the age of 34. It was a hard task, which Dunst does not really succeed in representing on film. Though I am only choosing Dunst as the weak-link at a stretch, for the sake of criticism.
To be honest I loved everything about this film and I really cant understand why the critics hated it so much. I love the off-beat style in which Coppola decided to tell this period drama, with bright costumes, an 80's soundtrack and a focus on the mundane and routine in Marie-Antoinette's life. From the reviews that I read, most critics wanted more of a political context about one of the French Revolution's most fascinating players, but I like the route Coppola took in communicating a story about a teenager who become a queen at the worst possible time of upheaval. Brilliant.
First and foremost it should be understood that Coppola has not made an historically accurate film. She never had any intention of doing so. The accents are haphazard Kirsten Dunst's American accent for Marie, Judy Davis's faux French for Comtesse de Noailles, Steve Coogan's Manchester twang as Ambassador Mercy.... furthermore certain parts of Marie's life are omitted, such as the affair of the necklace or the death of her two youngest children not long before the revolution forced her out of Versailles. And there are many more discrepancies both major and minor that critics and historians were up in arms about when this film was released in 2006. Sofia Coppola did not make a biopic of Marie Antoinette, she merely tried to relate a modern audience to a French queen living a lavish and fantastic though fleeting life in the 17th century, and surprisingly, Coppola achieves this.
Marie Antoinette lived a life that today is incomprehensible. It was a life of debauchery and duty, of ritual and mindlessness, tradition and revolution. Sofia Coppola's 'Marie Antoinette' does not relish telling the story of the French revolution; there is a scene in which Louis (Jason Schwartzman) agrees to send funds to America upon the advice of his ministers, and Marie makes a comment to her friends about the nonsense the papers are printing, in particular reference to a comment she supposedly made of 'let them eat cake'. At the end of the film we do see the angry mob that marched on Versailles and forced Marie and Louis to leave for Paris, but otherwise the politics are left out.
The film is about Marie the complete overhaul of her life from Austria to France, her trying to fit into a foreign court and having to become accustomed to the standing customs and protocols of Versailles. A scene in which Marie has to get dressed by the ladies of her court according to which woman has the most prestigious title is fantastic, as is the monotony of dining with the king and so forth. It is this mundaneness that Sofia captures so well translating for a modern audience what this 17th century queen's life would have been like, not the grandiose aspects, but rather the day-to-day routines. And then there is the interesting story of the pressure put upon Marie by her mother and the French people to consummate her marriage and produce an heir a queen's duty translated to a modern audience in very simple terms, that Marie is not living up to her duties as a wife.
By far the best thing about Coppola's movie is the costumes and set. Special permission was given to film at Versailles (even in the hall of mirrors which is under construction until late 2007!) and Milena Canonero won the Oscar for best costume design. The dresses are a visual delight, and the shoes designed by Manolo Blahnik are to die for! If for no other reason, watch Marie Antoinette to take in the visual splendor of it all. The 80's-inspired soundtrack is also surprisingly charming, it flows throughout the film and is oddly befitting of the lavish lifestyle portrayed.
Perhaps the weak link of the film is Kirsten Dunst. She had to play Marie from her arrival in Versailles at the age of 14 until her departure from Versailles at the age of 34. It was a hard task, which Dunst does not really succeed in representing on film. Though I am only choosing Dunst as the weak-link at a stretch, for the sake of criticism.
To be honest I loved everything about this film and I really cant understand why the critics hated it so much. I love the off-beat style in which Coppola decided to tell this period drama, with bright costumes, an 80's soundtrack and a focus on the mundane and routine in Marie-Antoinette's life. From the reviews that I read, most critics wanted more of a political context about one of the French Revolution's most fascinating players, but I like the route Coppola took in communicating a story about a teenager who become a queen at the worst possible time of upheaval. Brilliant.