Blog Hill

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Marie Antoinette



Sugar coated, pink ruffled, kudos to Sofia Coppolla, Marie Antoinette rocks.

To those who didn’t like it because it lacked a plot “bob loblaw, whatever”. That’s not the point. It’s one of those movies like Girl With A Pearl Earring where you are to become entranced by the sight and movements of the film itself, and you need not be engaged by a thick plot.

But it’s not all pink and ruffles. Coppolla is a voice of this generation. Marie Antoinette is an anachronism; she parties hard, loves fashion and puppies and cute boys and is absorbed in the world that extends no further than the Court. (Or perhaps the royals really were like that.)

However, you are struck that Marie Antoinette is a girl of these times. After her lavish birthday party, she and her friends run outside with bottles in hand to watch the sunrise, as any young person might do today on New Years. The camera never leaves the glowing faces of the group, though, it focuses exclusively on their experience of the sunrise, not the sunrise itself, because this generation values experience in and of itself far above the content of that experience.

Note also that you never see the grimy, poverty stricken streets of Paris, which are the necessary consequences of the royals’ luxurious lifestyle. When you finally see the peasants revolting outside the Bastille, it feels like a Sim City game; when you’ve been too busy building blocks and blocks of houses and have neglected the pollution problem and suddenly there’s a Japanese monster stomping across your city. Because the farce of a royal family have been myopically living it up in the parlour they only do something about the condition of their nation when it comes banging on their chamber doors.

Kirstin Dunst does a good job of a girl who wakes up one morning as the Queen of France. The momentous moments such as being handed over to France, marriage, the death of a king and the coronation of Louis XVI, are experienced without the appropriate accompanying emotion, and simply roll over Marie Antoinette. It reminds me of not feeling like you’ve graduated, even though you’ve been to the ceremony. The numbness is accentuated by Louis XVI’s unwillingness to consummate; the monochromatic marriage feels like no marriage at all. It is only the celebrations without occasion and the forbidden love which elicit excitement and happiness in Marie Antoinette.

I also thoroughly enjoyed this movie on an aesthetic level. It makes me want to have a Marie Antoinette party with pink cakes and biscuits and sugar flowers and colourful ribboned shoes and pretty frocks. No guys would come. Except maybe Angus. ;)

(I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, but in one of the "shoe shopping" scenes, I'm pretty sure there's a pair of converses. Can anyone confirm this? It appears for only a split second of course.)

12 Comments:

  • I probably would come to that party. If only to look like a playa with all the girls around ;)

    That's an interesting interpretation of the film. I haven't seen it yet, but the reviews were mixed. I like the comparison between Marie Antoinette and the current generation. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

    By Blogger Angus, At 7:47 PM  

  • The camera never leaves the glowing faces of the group, though, it focuses exclusively on their experience of the sunrise, not the sunrise itself, because this generation values experience in and of itself far above the content of that experience.

    This is very insightful. I can't believe I didn't notice it!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 9:47 PM  

  • Shyborg are you Margaret or David;-)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 10:04 PM  

  • I liked it too.


    Benny

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 8:55 AM  

  • While Marie was an interesting experience, it was unfortunately missing the key element to it being a Good Film - a good script.

    While the portrayal of Versailles was fascinating, it wasn't fascinating enough to carry a script that was fundamentally flawed. It was filled with almost entirely passive characters and near zero drama. It was more of an extended montage or film clip than an actual feature film.

    This doesn't mean some won't enjoy the film, I certainly enjoyed elements, particularly seeing a more day to day portrayal of life as royalty. Locking the perspective to your key characters (I can't use the word protagonist in relation to this film, it didn't have one) in the context of a massive event is almost always a cool choice (see Signs or Speilberg's War of the Worlds for excellent examples).

    The problem is, that without drama, without the characters actually striving for anything, only a small audience will enjoy the film thanks to periphery accomplishments (the look, the costumes, the music, or my favourite, the Rose Byrne). And given how much a film like this costs, I don't think it can be justified.

    By Blogger Swil, At 4:29 PM  

  • And given how much a film like this costs, I don't think it can be justified

    Even for the Rose Byrne? What price do you put on a crap film being justified if it has Rose Byrne in it. I submit that it would be a high price.

    By Blogger Angus, At 7:14 PM  

  • It's a fair point. When Rose turned up on screen, my heart smiled.

    By Blogger Swil, At 11:45 PM  

  • does she deliberately try to do films without plots?

    By Blogger Bron, At 9:02 AM  

  • She as in Sofia Coppola? Seems so. It's like her dad throws her a budget and says "Now you go have fun! No, you don't need to worry about script development, script editors are nasty people."

    I liked Lost in Translation, but I'm pretty sure that was really just thanks to Bill Murray always managing to be entertaining regardless of his context and, well, Scarlett Johansson. I don't recall it really engaging me.

    By Blogger Swil, At 11:00 AM  

  • Maybe some people are more engaged by plot more than others?

    I found LiT perfectly engaging, I was enthralled by the setting and the characters.

    By Blogger The Borg, At 11:53 AM  

  • You use this word "plot" a lot Shiloh. I think you misunderstand what Marie was missing. Plot is a bit of an irrelevant word - the key word is drama.

    Don't mistake drama for melodrama - drama doesn't equate to people being angry with each other, drama just means there is some form of conflict. A real story requires dramatic characters. You don't need a "plot" per se, just characters that are actually fighting for something. When these characters clash - you have drama, something that will engage an audience irrespective of the kind of surface elements we've talked about. It's a basic building block of story. Some of the best drama I've seen has simply been two actors with conflicting motivations stuck in a room together improvising. No "plot", just pure drama.

    Drama works. Real drama will engage anyone. What you put on top of it - such as your setting, genre, music, whatever - can add or subtract how many people you will engage. You can add all sorts of things that will make a dramaless film interesting to a niche audience.

    Now I don't think there's really a problem with this, as long as the economics are sensible (we don't live in a world with unlimited resources - I find it hypocritical to "oversupport" niche art while being an environmentalist). There are filmmakers who know exactly the size of their niche market and will only ever spend the amount on production they know they will get back from their target market. These are (relatively) very small amounts we're talking about.

    If you're going to not bother with drama, you'd better be willing to make some budget sacrifices. Marie didn't - and that's why I can't describe it as a Good Film. It's frustrating, because with a better script it could have been.

    By Blogger Swil, At 12:44 PM  

  • The converse shoes are definitely there! I had to rewind to make sure I wasn't getting loopy.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 1:19 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



<< Home