I went into Sofia Coppola's latest having heard nothing but bad things. Famously, it was supposedly booed by some Frenchies during it's premiere at Cannes, and I hadn't really heard any positive voices caring to come to the film's defense. Regardless, I've liked everything Coppola has done up to this point, so I went in cautious but slightly optimistic. When the lights came up at the end of the showing I found myself both thinking it was a middle of the road effort and surrounded by people who thought they had just sat through the most boring thing they'd ever seen.
The first impression the film makes is that it's going to be beautiful to look at. Like 2003's Lost in Translation was, in part, a love letter to Tokyo, Marie Antoinette similarly paints an idealistic, fairy tale view of Versailles; and it can be great fun to look at. The palace sets and the intricate design work of the costuming add to this and gives the whole movie the feel of a teenage girl's imagination come to life. As a matter of fact, the film can be pretty accurately described as a 14 year old girl's sketchbook beefed up and made real by a Hollywood film crew.
The editing and pacing of the film is standard Coppola fare, and if you liked the way she put together her other films you'll probably like this one as well. If you find her other films to be too stylish for their own good or coma inducingly dull I'd advise you to stay far, far away from the theatres. Realistically, a strong criticism can be made of this film that it is a classic case of style over substance and that it has little else to offer. In order to enjoy Marie Antoinette you have to first accept that because of the very nature of the character nothing very deep is going to happen for most of the film, and also that you are going to be seeing the proceedings in the context of a weird world where classic opera and modern new wave music stand side by side and the French language sometimes exists and sometimes doesn't.
Much ado has been made about the soundtrack of the film, and I don't think a review can be written about it without addressing the music. Going in, this was one of my main concerns, as I thought that the music choices were either going to elevate the film or make me feel like I was watching a sequel to A Knight's Tale. Surprisingly I had a much more fence sitting reaction than I was expecting. There were a couple times that I thought a song choice was jarring and unacceptable, but there were also a couple times that I thought the music raised good scenes to being sublime. Overall, I wouldn't condemn the choice Coppola made to include modern music, because at the very least it made this film a more interesting exercise in stylistic filmmaking than most period snoozefests, and several times she knocked the ball out of the park with great marriages of film and score.
Seeing as this is a biopic of a person who was famously isolated and aloof, most of the weight of the acting comes down on Kirsten Dunst's shoulders. She appears in most every scene, and she is given by far the most to do. I've never really had a problem with Dunst, I think she usually does a capable enough job, but I haven't been impressed with her since her mostly braless performance in Crazy/Beautiful, and I haven't been impressed with her acting since Interview with a Vampire. That was a very long time ago. Once again, my middle of the roadness remains steadfast. She wasn't bad, but given such a starring role, she didn't do anything particularly impressive either. What Dunst does have is a natural sort of friendliness and approachability that allows you to drum up some sympathy for her mostly vapid and useless character at all the right moments.
The only other people who are given enough screentime to shine are Jason Schwartzman and Rip Torn as father and son Louiseses. Schwartzman is brilliant in his role, as he looks hilariously uncomfortable every single second he is on screen. It's his solid performance that allows you to accept his cartoonishly repressed character. He was my favorite part of the movie, and he made scenes involving eating a true art form. Torn, while not given as much time to chew scenery, does a great job as the lecherous Louis Sr.
I think the problem that most people have with this film lies with the plot. In a sense, there isn't much of one. The narrative is truly shown from the viewpoint of the titular (HA!) character, as we are given only brief glimpses of the political and social turmoil happening outside of the palace walls, and we are mostly given the subjects of clothes, boys, and parties to concern ourselves with. To be fair, the film is entertaining in the beginning, as watching Marie acclimate herself to her strange new French environment was engaging enough, and it ends strong as I was surprised at how effective it was at building tension as revolutionaries were beating down Marie's doors; but there is a good long stretch in the middle where it feels like we're spinning our wheels and it can get dreadfully boring at parts. Really, this is a film about silly looking, uselessly decadent people; and more specifically a woman whose only job her entire life was to look good and get a prince to fornicate with her. It works as an analogue to modern times, but like our current cultureless world, it's not always all that interesting.
Marie is most famous for her rather callous response to the news that the French public was starving. "Let them eat cake". With this one it seems that the same criticism can be made of Sofia Coppola. While this film is sugary sweet and beautifully decorated, there isn't much meat and potatoes for the viewers to sink their teeth into. Perhaps this film works best as a warning to our modern worthless, rich skanks like Paris Hilton. Keep this shit up, and someday we'll break down your doors and cut off your fucking heads.
