Rick's filmBlog

So I went and saw this over the weekend.  I was disappointed.  

I really like Lost in Translation and the beautiful, melancholy way that Sophia Coppola communicates loneliness and isolation.  Marie Antoinette on the other hand is, while beautiful to look at, is almost ponderous in its plotting.  Kirsten Dunst is nearly silent for essentially the first half of the film, and even once she begins to speak more says very little of importance.  It's clear that Coppola was going for the communication of that lonliness and isolation that she captured so well in LIT, but the thing is that it just doesnt work in the context of a period piece.  In this story you have larger than life historical characters, empires clashing, wars being waged...but all that is given is silent shots of Marie Antoinette's face and cheeky montages of shoes and cakes.  The entire world that Sophia constructs is like a Faberge Egg--finely crafted, very beautiful to look at, fun to watch...but when it comes down to it very, very small.
Focusing intently on a single historical character wrapped up in massive historical events can be very interesting--I would nominate Patton and Elizabeth as interesting historical biographies.  It just doesn't work in this film though, because in the end I don't think we know Marie Antoinette any more beyond the shallow, the fake, the decadent.  I think these are things that we all know and have known about the idea of the character of Marie Antoinette.  Coppola does not enlighten us further.  I get it--she ate lots of cake.  She said "let them eat cake."  What else is there?  To default to lonliness and isolation feels like a cop out.
Now even though I clearly wasn't a fan of the script or the story there were some things that I liked.  Sophia has a way of capturing a giddy sort of champagne buzz somehow present when wandering around at parties, running through fields at dawn, endless funny conversations late at night.  I had thought she had captured that beautifully during the karaoke and club outing in Tokyo during Lost in Translation that ended with a muted My Bloody Valentine song playing, as if dull inside your head after a long, exhilarating night out.  Marie Antoinette has several moments like this, and I think they translated surprisingly well to the historical setting.  The costuming and art direction are pretty stunning as well.  And as per usual for Sophia Coppola's films, Marie Antoinette has a great soundtrack--this time of New Wave songs that work shockingly well--much, much better than the self consciousness of A Knight's Tale's adoption of modern rock and roll.  
One final thought, which was the main thought that I had immediately after seeing this film.  For all its costumes, feathers, shoes, cakes, decadence, and overall shallowness, I felt like Marie Antoinette actually came from a very personal place for Sophia Coppola.  I don't really have anything to put my finger on specifically from the film, but reflecting on what I've read about Francis Ford Coppola's (Sophia's father's) career's ups and downs, I found myself wondering if Sophia identified with Marie in some small way with the decadence, downfall, and being caught up in forces beyond her control.
With that said, I'll just say for the record that I'm more than a tad wary of speculating on public figures that everybody thinks they "know" so much about.  Sophia could just have easily have really wanted to make a movie in France, at Versailles, with Kirsten Dunst, any number of things.  It's just a thought I had.
To wrap it up, this is clearly a mixed review.  I gave my rating as being neutral.  Marie Antoinette probably isn't a theater movie, probably more like a wait for DVD movie.