written and directed by Sofia Coppola
[filmography: Somewhere (2010), Lost in Translation (2003), The Virgin Suicides (1999)]
ENJOYMENT: *** (out of 5)
"Liked it"
I had to think all day about whether or not I liked this movie. I have very complicated feelings toward it. There were some things about the film that I loved, though I mostly detested the whole thing--but I still ended up liking it. Let me explain.
My first criticism is that Kirsten Dunst was a terrible choice for the title character (though she was remarkably beautiful). She's a lousy actor, her voice his annoying, and hello, she is an American playing a French queen in the 18th century. That leads to my next problem. The American English was incredibly inappropriate and disrespectful to the French, and only perpetuates the stigma that Americans are arrogant and ethnocentric. The Sound of Music got away with it because it's kinda a family movie (and it's wonderful), but Marie Antoinette kinda sucked, so the American English made it suck all that much more. It was irksome when an Austrian entered a room speaking American English to a Frenchman who also spoke American English. At least have it be British English, the English these nations might have actually spoken! After seeing movies like Lord of the Rings, I Am Love, and Apocalypto, where entire languages were learned by actors for their important roles, I believe it can only be laziness and/or arrogance of the filmmakers that leads a movie to omit key cultural characteristics like language. The movie was authentic enough to be filmed in the real friggin' Versaille palace, but left out the languages, the music, and key historical facts of the era that made this story fascinating to begin with.
And this leads to my last problem: the music was ridiculous. It was like we were listening to Sofia Coppola's iPod as the soundtrack. Songs like "I Want Candy" and "What Ever Happened" by The Stokes played as narrations for Marie Antoinette's escapades. The movie was superficial and didn't even touch on key points in her life. (It didn't even show her correct number of children!) After the film was over, I was able to garner enough interest to read about what really happened in Marie Antoinette's life, only to then of course realize the movie gypped us. It was like the movie Australia by Baz Luhrmann that really wasn't all about Australia. It was a merely a sliver of the story that a pretentious director thought was important, and, having enough influence on the studio to not be questioned, proceeded to make fools out of themselves and rob us from an actual good movie about that subject. I say, as 2008's incredible The Incredible Hulk pretended 2003's lousy Hulk didn't even exist, someone should remake Marie Antoinette: The Real Story (thanks for the name idea, Corey).
Anyway, I rated this movie a "Like it" for pretty much only one gay reason: the costumes and hair were absolutely INCREDIBLE. I want to say right here that I have never seen a movie with such amazing costumes, and for that reason, it is worth seeing. This part of the film was successful in blinding me to all the things I loathed about it, like a Sex and the City film somehow does, and actually turn out recommending the movie to people--though only to girls and gays. The movie was also pretty beautiful on a whole, especially when Kirsten Dunst wasn't talking. And thanks to Coppola's silent-film-like style, where there is little dialogue in most parts of her films, Dunst didn't speak a whole lot.
No comments:
Post a Comment