He'll reappear in the increasingly dark second act, to discuss Rousseau and La Rochefoucauld with the imprisoned — and increasingly unhinged — Marie. The real turning point comes at the end of act one, and it's so stunning a stage picture, I wouldn't want to give it away. Abetted by a smart director and crack design team -- including Riccardo Hernandez, whose set design is an exercise in impactful minimalism -- Adjmi has crafted a confection that's all sugar on the surface, with harder-to-ingest messages concealed within.
Author Sandy MacDonald. There is some nice tension as the pressure builds for a baby. The movie fades away after that as France falls into revolution. Dunst is better as the young teen more than the older queen. The movie has the costumes but the drama isn't always there. One of films seductive more for details, rooms, clothes, location than for story itself.
What made me most curious about this film here probably is that it was written and directed by Sofia Coppola and was the first full feature film she made after "Lost in Translation", a contender for my number one favorite film of all time. But we shall talk about that one on another occasion, so now let's look at these slightly over two hours we have here, fairly long for a period piece. You can read the name of the main character in the title here and she is played by Kirsten Dunst, who was really a big thing back then, not so much anymore today, but yeah I think she is an okay actress and also fairly attractive taking into account that I usually don't like blondes that much, but overall I can see why she was cast here, even if Scarlett Johansson could have been interesting too.
The rest of the cast includes more than just a few big names. But everybody played their parts pretty well, even if some of them really don't have a lot of screen time at all.
Huston for example only has one scene. The film starts with the main character moving from Austria to France in order to marry the heir to the throne. There is no charming love story that brought them together, but it was an imperial decision made by others. Still they seem fairly fond of each other.
This is never a movie about unrequited or unhappy love by any means. Even when Marie Antoinette has an affair with a Swedish count on one occasion, it is never really causing any problems as some may know about it, but it does not result in a scandal.
Still I was curious if her second child, actually the new heir to the throne, was fathered by the Swede. But keeping up the royal status was not exactly a relevant subject anyway with what was happening towards the end when everybody had to leave the castle and eventually also King and Queen. Oh I forgot to mention Schwartzman, how could I as he probably plays the male key character in the film, perhaps because his character is really the most stoic presence in the film and not really one that required great acting, just composition.
By the way, Schwartzman is Coppola's cousin. For Canonero, it was the third of so far four Oscars. I am rather surprised this one here did not manage any other nominations as it seems like an obvious choice for set decorations, maybe soundtrack too. And a nomination for Dunst was also not highly unlikely I assume because she really was in every scene of the film and had also great baity material like when she really struggles with the prince's lack of interest in her or let's say that he is too scared to show his interest as it is obviously there as we find out quickly.
Then there is the cheating, then there is the struggle with the people and of course also that she originates from a place that is completely different compared to where she ends up in France. Her crying for her pug says it all. There are more scenes like that. She is more like a girl really. On one occasion, there is talk about a political conflict and all she wonders about is her dress.
At least they make sure she never really made that cake comment. There are many films about Marie Antoinette, but probably this is the most known one. And there is certainly no other as packed with pink, sweet and pompous dresses as this one we have here. Coppola also made some really interesting musical choices. Period pieces are normally films where you just have a soundtrack of classical music involving no singing and certainly not as much really loud pop music as she used here.
I think it fit and that was quite an achievement. By the way, I was literally feeling my kilograms increase while only watching all the sweets and delicacies shown in here.
Okay, let me think what else can I say about the film. The last scene inside the carriage was good as well with his question about the lemon trees and her answer that she is bidding farewell. Great moment to have the credits roll in. We find out a lot about life at the court and honestly, like with some other Coppola daughter Coppola films, you can certainly say that there is not really that much happening here admittedly.
At least not constant action and scheming or so like in many other old period pieces focusing on female characters at the very center of it. It is not a film designed to make audiences laugh on too many occasions, even if there is a moment here and there. It is also not much of a drama I would say, even if obviously there are many dramatic moments.
This absence of genres can be explained through the lack of a constantly developing plot. Most of the time, it is more about depicting the state of things, except the ending of course that goes strongly against everything before that.
It is a historical costume movie, maybe the best way to describe it. It wasn't a great or outstanding watch and I'd put it nowhere near my favorites from , but still an okay little movie.
Probably girls will generally enjoy this one more than boys. No hesitation for me in giving this one a thumbs-up. Go watch it and if you like both the genre and Kirsten Dunst, then it is close to a must-see I suppose.
Prismark10 5 September I think Sofia Coppola aimed to make a brash fun historical drama such as Amadeus. She lacks the skills of writer Peter Shaffer who wrote Amadeus first as a stage play. Marie Antoinette Kirsten Dunst is a young woman from the powerful Austrian Hapsburg dynasty who through marriage formed alliances with its European neighbours. Marie is first inexperienced with the ways of the world and the marriage is not consummated for a long time.
The reasons because her husband does not engage in having sex with her. Marie is under pressure to produce a heir. Over time, her husband becomes King of France, she does have children and becomes known for grand parties and lavish spending on clothes.
When revolutionary fever hits France, the royal family are at risk. The film is gorgeously photographed, has wonderful costumes and exquisite art direction. You can see the money spent on the screen. It has a modern take, such as contemporary music and it does feel like those high school rom coms transplanted to historical France. It is self indulgent with a thin frothy story that goes on for too long because Coppola wants to film sunrises and parties.
Dunst is fine but she is not well served by the script but as Marie matures she dolls up her hair, wears lavish clothes and has a collection of shoes. She even takes in a lover. Coppola follows in her father's footsteps with a little bit of nepotism in the casting. Jason Schwartzman is her cousin and he is weak here, maybe because the script has given him little to do.
All I know about Marie Antoinette is that she was queen during the French Revolution, and that she was beheaded for treason, and I all knew about this film was the leading actress and director Sofia Coppola Lost in Translation, The Bling Ring , I was hoping for something fairly good.
In , Marie Antoinette is the only of her sister left unmarried; she is sent by her mother to marry the Dauphin of France, the future Louis XVI, to seal an alliance between the Austria and France.
The two arrive at the Palace of Versailles, they are married at once and are encouraged to produce an heir to the throne as soon as possible, but the next day the king that "nothing happened" on the wedding night. As time passes, Marie Antoinette finds life at the court of Versailles suffocating.
Her husband's courtiers despise her being a foreigner and blame her for not producing an heir, although the fault really lies with her husband, and they do not consummate the marriage for a long time. The French court is rife with gossip, and Marie Antoinette consistently causes upset and offense by defying its formal rituals.
Over the years, Maria-Theresa continues to write to her daughter, giving advice on how to impress and seduce her husband. Marie's attempts to consummate with her husband fail and the marriage remains childless. Marie spends most of her time buying extravagant clothes and gambling. As the child grows up, Marie Antoinette spends much of her time at the small chateau Petit Trianon, in the park of Versailles.
Sometime later, she begins an affair with Axel von Fersen Jamie Dornan. As France's financial crisis worsens, food shortages and riots increase, her public image has completely deteriorated by this point, her continued luxurious lifestyle and seeming indifference to the struggles of the French people earned her the title "Madame Deficit".
As the queen matures, she focuses much more on family than her social life and makes what she feels are significant financial adjustments. Her mother dies on November 29, She also gives birth to another son, Louis-Charles on March 27, , and another daughter, Princess Sophie on July 9, , who dies on June 19, , a month before her first birthday.
As the French Revolution erupts with the storming of the Bastille, the royal family resolves to stay in France, unlike most of the court. The Paris riots force the family to leave Versailles. The film ends with the royal family's transfer to the Tuileries. The last image is a shot of Marie Antoinette's bedroom at Versailles, destroyed by angry rioters. Dunst gives a good performance as the coquettish queen who does not stick to tradition, and utters her famous phrase "Let them eat cake", and there is some good support from Coogan, Davis and others, while Schwartzman is just blank.
This is both the film's strength and weakness, the look of the film is good, and it does make for a fun watch, but it would have been good to have more authenticity, and I definitely wanted the ending to be Marie Antoinette executed by guillotine, beheaded for high treason, all in all, not a bad historical drama.
Worth watching! The film has a fine cast and there are some original touches. The American actors speak unaccented English, without as much as a nod to any alien phones, for instance, despite the late 18th-century French setting. And there may be snatches of rococo music but most of the score is electronically amplified rock with, at one point, a singer belting out the old Frank Sinatra standard, "Fools Rush In. And minute examination of clothing, wigs, fabrics, jewelry, and period shoes -- especially shoes.
The hairdresser who dolls up Kirsten Dunst as Marie Antoinette is a fairy and is played for laughs. Miniature dogs. Lots of miniature dogs slurping up charlotte russes or other desserts. Okay -- decadence in abundance.
It might have taken ten minutes. Instead, that's what the entire film seems to be about. You have to applaud the director's intent to do something different, something original. The problem is that it doesn't work. Rip Torn's speech doesn't sound too much out of place but most of the rest of the women sound like Valley Girls. And, boy, they gossip! In extended scenes, they gossip! They talk behind one another's back about hair styles and personalities -- "She's so political.
It wouldn't take much in the way of rewriting to turn this story of self-indulgent aristos at Versailles into a handful of high school kids in El Cerrito. And it didn't need to be directed by Sophia Coppola. Martha Stewart could have phoned it in while under house arrest.
I don't know which audience this was aimed at, but I can recommend it for selected groups anyway. Those youngsters who, in a recent poll, identified Toronto as a city in Italy, for example. Or the fourteen percent of us who believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. Or that majority of high school seniors unable to place the American Civil War in its correct half century.
It is impossible to avoid thoughts of Diana, Princess of Wales. Every criticism I have read of this film would alter is fragile magic and reduce its romantic and tragic poignancy to the level of an instructional film. It is not necessary to know anything about Marie Antoinette to enjoy this film.
Some of what we think we know is mistaken. According to the Coppola version, she never said, "Let them eat cake. What she says is, "Let them eat custard. Before she was a queen, before she was a pawn, Marie was a year-old girl taken from her home, stripped bare, and examined like so much horseflesh.
It is astonishing with what indifference for her feelings the court aristocracy uses her for its pleasure, and in killing her disposes of its guilt. Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from until his death in In , he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.
Rated PG for sexual content, partial nudity and innuendo. Kirsten Dunst as Marie-Antoinette. Judy Davis as Contesse de Noailles. Rip Torn as Louis XV. Rose Byrne as Duchesse de Polignac. Asia Argento as Madame du Barry. Molly Shannon as Aunt Victoire. Shirley Henderson as Aunt Sophie. Reviews Pretty in Pink.
0コメント