(no subject)
Here it is Amy ^_^
Ok, so here are my thoughts on Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette:
First of all, I think everyone has agreed that it is good eye candy because of the costumes (which I loved looking at), the food (specifically yummy desserts) and the fact that they actually got permission to shoot the film at Versailles! That was one of my favorite parts of being in France this summer and it makes me happy.
But these three aspects are not soley what makes a good movie. However, I truly dissagree with critics (and there are many of them) that say that this is all that the movie is comprised of. One critic whose review I was just reading a few minutes ago said
"I know nothing more about Marie Antoinette than I did going into Sofia Coppola's lush $40 million production. Granted, it's not the film's job to educate me on the intricacies of the life of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI, but it would have made the movie so much easier to endure if Coppola presented any reason at all to care about the film's central characters. Just one reason, that's all it would have taken to make Marie Antoinette something more than good-looking, insignificant fluff."
I wonder if this person actually went to see the movie at all based on their oppinions on it. First let me point out that the movie is based on a biography of Marie Antoinette (which I am currently in the middle of reading). Just the mere fact that the movie is based on a biography should mean that it is meant to inform the audience about the main character's life. I confess I haven't finished the biography yet but the large chunk that I have read so far does in fact coincide with the contents of the movie. From what I have read so far, very little was changed to make things more....glamorous? And I think Coppola was right in sticking to the facts. Except for the bits about Count Ferson. There was no proof of that affair and it was a bit too glorified in the movie. Aside from that I think it paints her fairly accurately. She was a girl who was thrust into a position she was not properly prepared for. Her education was lacking, she was being manipulated by her mother and only looked on as a pawn of the alliance, and there was a lot of pressure put on her to provide an heir for the throne even though her husband decided to be frigid for 7 years despite her best efforts.
Something that has really pissed me off about the criticisms I have read are the complaints that the movie doesn't show enough of the politics of the time or the action of the Revolution. If the movie centered on these things then it wouldn't be based on the biography it was based on. Perhaps reading this book first should be a prerequisite to watching the movie. The book, and the movie, are not about the French Revolution; they are about Marie Antoinette. And while the politics of the court and the Revolution were major issues of the time, her life did not center around them. They are a very important part, but not necessarily the defining moments of this woman's existance. I think the point of the movie was to show her more as a person and less as a Queen. Marie Antoinette had no control over the politics of the French court. Her husband Louis would not allow it due to the large distrust in the court of Marie since she was an Austrian and until their marriage Austria and France were not on the best of terms.
Also, much as some historians have loved to blame Marie and her spending as the cause of the Revolution, it was the wars during Louis XIV and Louis XVs' reigns that put the country into debt and Louis XVI's decision to help the American Colonies with their Revolution that threw France over the edge. Marie had no decisions in this and had nothing to do with this other than the fact that she was the victim of a lot of speculation and ridicule. Granted, she did spend a lot. However, looking at other French monarchs she actually spent no more than others before her and in fact was known to be very generous by donating to charities and as she grew older giving up a lot of the vices that she was known for. This woman was married off at the age of 14 and at the age of 19 was named the queen of France. Someone that young who was thrust into that kind of position is not going to be the perfect monarch.
Based on these facts I don't understand why people are complaining about the content of this movie and saying that it doesn't teach you anything about her. Maybe they should read up on their history a little first. Of course I think a solution to this would be for Coppola to have put some of these more detailed aspects into the plot of the movie; but then again that would probably make the movie twice as long and unless you're a geek like me, no one wants to watch a 6 hour movie.
Also, if Louis wasn't portrayed as a very fascinating guy in the movie, its because he wasn't. He was a nerd who had more interest in his locksmithing hobby than in his wife, his kingdom or his duties as heir to the throne. He spent much of his time hunting.
Changing these character's personalities to make the movie more interesting would not be true to the book it was based off of. It kills me that critics are bitching about this.
Some complaints however are justified. I don't agree with Coppola's choice of a soundtrack and I don't agree with the decision to leave Kirsten Dunst with an American accent. I wouldn't have done it that way but I do understand the motives. Both things were done in an attempt to make the audience identify more with the characters on a personal level. Instead of Marie being this far off distant queen from the past Coppola wanted to paint her as a regular teenage girl just like anyone else. The point is that Marie and the people around her were real and had thoughts and feelings just like us. I don't agree with the method Coppola used to show this but I completely understand her reasoning for it.
So, to conclude:
No, this movie was not a be all to end all masterpiece. It was also not this horrible bit of fluff that everyone says it is. If you only look at the visual aspects and ignore the rest of the movie you're not really watching the movie at all. I'm dissapointed that so many people would rather have glitzy Hollywood plots. Maybe Coppola overdid it on the artsy visual aspects but from what I understand thats her directing style anyway.
So, anyway those at least are my preliminary thoughts on the movie that I've hashed out. I'm open to questions about the post and I'd be happy to ellaborate on my thoughts on the movie or about Marie Antoinette herself based on what I've learned so far.
Ok, so here are my thoughts on Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette:
First of all, I think everyone has agreed that it is good eye candy because of the costumes (which I loved looking at), the food (specifically yummy desserts) and the fact that they actually got permission to shoot the film at Versailles! That was one of my favorite parts of being in France this summer and it makes me happy.
But these three aspects are not soley what makes a good movie. However, I truly dissagree with critics (and there are many of them) that say that this is all that the movie is comprised of. One critic whose review I was just reading a few minutes ago said
"I know nothing more about Marie Antoinette than I did going into Sofia Coppola's lush $40 million production. Granted, it's not the film's job to educate me on the intricacies of the life of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI, but it would have made the movie so much easier to endure if Coppola presented any reason at all to care about the film's central characters. Just one reason, that's all it would have taken to make Marie Antoinette something more than good-looking, insignificant fluff."
I wonder if this person actually went to see the movie at all based on their oppinions on it. First let me point out that the movie is based on a biography of Marie Antoinette (which I am currently in the middle of reading). Just the mere fact that the movie is based on a biography should mean that it is meant to inform the audience about the main character's life. I confess I haven't finished the biography yet but the large chunk that I have read so far does in fact coincide with the contents of the movie. From what I have read so far, very little was changed to make things more....glamorous? And I think Coppola was right in sticking to the facts. Except for the bits about Count Ferson. There was no proof of that affair and it was a bit too glorified in the movie. Aside from that I think it paints her fairly accurately. She was a girl who was thrust into a position she was not properly prepared for. Her education was lacking, she was being manipulated by her mother and only looked on as a pawn of the alliance, and there was a lot of pressure put on her to provide an heir for the throne even though her husband decided to be frigid for 7 years despite her best efforts.
Something that has really pissed me off about the criticisms I have read are the complaints that the movie doesn't show enough of the politics of the time or the action of the Revolution. If the movie centered on these things then it wouldn't be based on the biography it was based on. Perhaps reading this book first should be a prerequisite to watching the movie. The book, and the movie, are not about the French Revolution; they are about Marie Antoinette. And while the politics of the court and the Revolution were major issues of the time, her life did not center around them. They are a very important part, but not necessarily the defining moments of this woman's existance. I think the point of the movie was to show her more as a person and less as a Queen. Marie Antoinette had no control over the politics of the French court. Her husband Louis would not allow it due to the large distrust in the court of Marie since she was an Austrian and until their marriage Austria and France were not on the best of terms.
Also, much as some historians have loved to blame Marie and her spending as the cause of the Revolution, it was the wars during Louis XIV and Louis XVs' reigns that put the country into debt and Louis XVI's decision to help the American Colonies with their Revolution that threw France over the edge. Marie had no decisions in this and had nothing to do with this other than the fact that she was the victim of a lot of speculation and ridicule. Granted, she did spend a lot. However, looking at other French monarchs she actually spent no more than others before her and in fact was known to be very generous by donating to charities and as she grew older giving up a lot of the vices that she was known for. This woman was married off at the age of 14 and at the age of 19 was named the queen of France. Someone that young who was thrust into that kind of position is not going to be the perfect monarch.
Based on these facts I don't understand why people are complaining about the content of this movie and saying that it doesn't teach you anything about her. Maybe they should read up on their history a little first. Of course I think a solution to this would be for Coppola to have put some of these more detailed aspects into the plot of the movie; but then again that would probably make the movie twice as long and unless you're a geek like me, no one wants to watch a 6 hour movie.
Also, if Louis wasn't portrayed as a very fascinating guy in the movie, its because he wasn't. He was a nerd who had more interest in his locksmithing hobby than in his wife, his kingdom or his duties as heir to the throne. He spent much of his time hunting.
Changing these character's personalities to make the movie more interesting would not be true to the book it was based off of. It kills me that critics are bitching about this.
Some complaints however are justified. I don't agree with Coppola's choice of a soundtrack and I don't agree with the decision to leave Kirsten Dunst with an American accent. I wouldn't have done it that way but I do understand the motives. Both things were done in an attempt to make the audience identify more with the characters on a personal level. Instead of Marie being this far off distant queen from the past Coppola wanted to paint her as a regular teenage girl just like anyone else. The point is that Marie and the people around her were real and had thoughts and feelings just like us. I don't agree with the method Coppola used to show this but I completely understand her reasoning for it.
So, to conclude:
No, this movie was not a be all to end all masterpiece. It was also not this horrible bit of fluff that everyone says it is. If you only look at the visual aspects and ignore the rest of the movie you're not really watching the movie at all. I'm dissapointed that so many people would rather have glitzy Hollywood plots. Maybe Coppola overdid it on the artsy visual aspects but from what I understand thats her directing style anyway.
So, anyway those at least are my preliminary thoughts on the movie that I've hashed out. I'm open to questions about the post and I'd be happy to ellaborate on my thoughts on the movie or about Marie Antoinette herself based on what I've learned so far.