'Marie Antoinette' historically creative

by Vondee Langehennig, staff writer

 

When thinking of the famous Marie Antoinette, it is inevitable that lines like “let them eat cake” and beheading come to mind.

            But what about her personality? Her thoughts? This is something that Sofia Coppola has allowed to shine through in her film about the famous Austrian Queen of France.  The film is undeniable (maybe overly) artistic and shows the many dimensions of the life of Marie Antoinette had.  But sometimes more isn’t more.

            I had heard on the radio and from friends that “’Marie Antoinette’ is more of a portrait of a woman’s life” rather than a historical encounter.

            The film begins by showing Kirsten Dunst as a 14-year-old Marie, and it was amazing to see the 20-something actress pitch perfect as a child, easily making the transition between a young mature Marie.

            She is then led off to France to meet her husband, Louis XVI, played by Jason Schwartzman, a very excessively shy and reserved young man who seems to have very little desire for “creating little Louis,” as shown through the bulk the movie.

            But then it hits me.  There are about four or five accents going on.  All of the smaller roles in the film are fitted with an ever-Euro accent.  The basic European is what I am going to call it.  This works for me.  But when Rip Torn (Louis XV) fell out of his carriage to greet the young Austrian princess with an overly aggressive kind of cowboy-type tone, I felt that a drunken Kentucky pedophile was speaking.

            That is not all. Dunst successfully destroys the idea of Marie Antoinette by replacing realistic speech with that of an Orange County, California girl on a shopping spree.  I can understand doing something for art’s sake, but stripping the main character to be so nonchalant and informal takes away from the place and time of the story.

            I don’t want to be bored when I go see a period piece that is overrun by misunderstood political junk that takes away from a good story. But in the case, a lack of information left me a little confused.  I am not an expert of the life of Marie Antoinette, so I want to know why certain things are happening.  There are little blips and flashes of hints to lead to the idea of what’s happening, but personally, I think that is the important part of Marie’s life, not her overindulgence and distain for French customs.

It seems Coppola was confused when trying to create a feel for this film.  She was probably watching “A Knight’s Tale” and Clair Danes “Romeo and Juliet” (my favorite movie) when this mumbled idea came to life.  I didn’t know if it was supposed to be a hip or traditional, or a combo, but it just didn’t flow together, especially the music.

            One moment there is very cool, semi-traditional, somewhat Frenchish music, and then I think I am in a music video.  Don’t get me wrong, the music was rockin’. But did it belong in THIS film? No.  This film was in limbo and didn’t know what it was supposed to be.  Had it been full flung into a category completely left or right, it would have been perfect.

            But my anticipation was running high as the film neared the end and the decapitation of Marie Antoinette was approaching.  But then the credits started.  Is that it?   Apparently so.  There are intense scenes of Marie in her bedroom in fear of the people of France and walking out to her balcony to face them, and then the screen goes black.  It was beautiful and then it was over.

            One thing Coppola did right was the look of the film. No matter how much I hated the accents and was distracted at time, I didn’t want to stop watching.  The hair was huge, the colors looked like candy, and everything was so over the top.  Even the food, cakes, and other sweets shown frequently throughout the film were enticing. 

            The film itself was a B-, a good try.  I might even watch it again because it was uber interesting and artful.  But it could have been much more.