Reviewed by Torie Wright
Note: Torie Wright, Icon intern, is enrolled in a film class at Lima-OSU. Here's a movie review she wrote for the class.
Marie Antoinette is a movie I have wanted to see since its release in 2006, but never got around to watching. Finally, eight years later, I find myself in a rut of unfulfilled expectations.
Marie Antoinette is an important historical figure, and this movie does her memory little justice. The director, Sofia Coppola, attempts to make Antoinette and her story more relatable to modern viewers, but she does not do so effectively.
I found myself in a state of disbelief before Antoinette’s drama could begin to unfold on the screen. During the opening credits, a modern song plays, creating an immediate disconnect for a viewer anticipating a movie set in the eighteenth century.
Some scenes involve music fitting for the era, but most of the soundtrack creates a jarring juxtaposition in relation to the tale being told within the film. Moreover, the language and accents of the characters are startling when a viewer is supposed to be under the impression that the movie is set in France.
Most of the characters speak English and have obviously non-French accents. Some of them sound British while others sound American, and Marie Therese speaks in French while her mother responds to her in English.
The only time I can recall French flowing from Antoinette’s mouth is during her opera performance. This is strange since she is the queen of the country. I could not help but scoff aloud at the bit when King Louis XVI orders speaking in a plainly American accent that funds be sent to America.
Undoubtedly, having the movie performed in English helps avoid confusion and keeps the focus on the scenes instead of subtitles. As much of a shame as it would be to miss out on such spectacular visuals, the use of the country’s native language would make the film more authentic.
Questions of plausibility aside, Coppola does an excellent job of exploiting the beauties of France. The lighting is beyond proficient, the setting of every scene is stunning, and all of the characters, major and minor, have been attended to carefully to ensure they appear genuine.
I cannot imagine the number of hours that were spent on costume, hair, and makeup, and the artists’ hard work shines through blindingly. (Really, I felt compelled to look away when Kirsten Dunst had a literal tower of hair adorned with fake, glittering birds.) I appreciate the work that was put in, but at the same time feel the artists’ talents were somewhat wasted.
Marie Antoinette’s real-life story does not end where the movie does. She suffered a brutal death; France’s final queen was ultimately beheaded. This is common knowledge, and yet Coppola does not address it. Instead, she has created a film that runs two hours and is the same thing over and over again.
She focuses on Antoinette’s childishness and petty spending of money for nearly the entire film. Why does she not follow Antoinette all the way to her execution? In my mind, this is carelessness. I do not need Coppola to spend two hours drilling Antoinette’s money problems into my mind. If she thinks a viewer needs that long to grasp the point, she is vastly underestimating our intelligence.
The title of the movie alone got me to thinking that I would see a guillotine in the end and Dunst’s head rolling around on the ground. Instead, I watched Antoinette shopping with her friends for dresses and shoes they certainly did not need, attending parties from dusk to dawn, asking for oak trees, gambling, and engaging in an extramarital affair, while very little time was given to the larger problem at hand (a revolt against the monarchy).
Coppola beautifully captures the essence of eighteenth century France visually, but falls short in the storytelling. A lot of talent is present in the movie, but beyond the visual aspect is only a redundant mush of letdown.
