After seeing this movie I have to reneg on a statement I made back in that first post. Art direction apparently cannot sustain me for a whole movie. If there was ever a film that relied on art direction to get it through, it's this one. Sure, the costumes are amazing. Sure, it's shot entirely in and around the undeniably spectacular Versailles. However, without decent character development, a decent plot or theme development and consistent art direction, all that is going to fail to entertain me. I realise that this was never meant to be a informative account of history, rather a portrait of the times. But.
This movie for me was basically watching young, rich and beautifully costumed people for a portion of their substantially dull lives. The traditions of the French court are only interesting the first time you learn about them. After that there needs to be some development of tension, something that makes the history part seem like a story instead of a pesky sideline to the prettiness of it all. Surely the history needs to at least be acknowledged to understand the way the court operated?
I also had major issues with the inconsistency of this film. For example, the first part was largely preoccupied with the struggle of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI (I think?) to consummate their marriage and produce an heir. This was drawn out for far too long, and it was almost like the makers lost interest in that story line before it was even resolved because although it was eventually sorted out, that part of the story had petered out well beforehand. The rest of the film is a bit a mixture between the political doings of Louis and whatever Marie Antoinette was doing at the time. So basically, some poorly explained and developed history with no tension, and pretty young things bullshitting their time away. Not the stuff of great films I'm afraid.
There has been much ado about the music in this film as well. Firstly, a lot of the soundtrack (classical and modern) is downright intrusive in my opinion. The mix of music is strange - i got that there was a transition to more 'modern' music when the young royals were at parties and having fun doing young people things in contrast to the classical music in the earlier part of the film which is preoccupied with tradition. But when the film goes back down the 'serious' road it's like they couldn't decide what to do with the music so just decided on an annoying mish mash instead. The modern stuff had the potential to work, and so did the classical - but the way it was used was a mistake.
Just talked to David about this and was reminded about how much I was irked by the inconsistency of the accents. I can handle that no one spoke French - but there was no uniformity with the accents either. I probably could have even handled that except for the fact that Judy Davis had a French accent....but only some of the time! wtf? Attention to detail people, it needs to extend past the costuming.
So in summary, this movie looked gorgeous. But not gorgeous enough to make me think it was any good.
Only a 5 for me I'm afraid. Sofia Coppola - what were you thinking?!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I was really ready to hate this film - film anachronisms kill me - but I loved it. The costumes, art direction generally and the music were all so beautiful and lush. So was the cinematography, and some of the pop montages of those delightful little pastries were hilarious.
So, on the one hand you have the world of Marie Antoinette - carriages, dresses, opera, the Palace of Versailles – and on the other hand you have 2006, where pop montages and American accents exist, and where Kirsten Dunst is a movie star. I thought that dichotomy was what made the movie interesting. I was never being asked to believe that I was watching Marie Antoinette. I thought the plot and character development served a purpose: the point of the movie being unbalanced and episodic and occasionally flat was to highlight that this was how aristocracy frittered their time away, on parties, trinkets and sublime nothingness.
My problem with the movie was that it was over-cast. Too many big names in bit-player roles. Why was Judy Davis even there? Or Shirley Henderson, or Molly Shannon? I felt that I had to invest in them, even though they only appeared briefly – my movie-watching theory being that if a recognisable actor was in the role, then some development would probably occur. I would also like to see Sofia “I think all young women exist only inasmuch as their cages will allow” Coppola looking into buying some new metonymy. 9.
Yeah, I definitely take your point. But none of that is the stuff of a great movie in my opinion. I think Kiryn, there is a teeny possibility that you read even more into it than was intended ;)
I tend to think it wasn't even flat in an interesting way - it was just, as David said someone said 'Sofia Coppola playing with dolls'. I go to the cinema to be entertained, or absorbed by a vibe or atmosphere, even an atmosphere of dullness. This just didn't create the mood for me. Under directed and over produced?
But reading what you wrote again, i can see that you're saying that the Marie Antoinette 'story' was just a vehicle to highlight parallels....interesting. Almost makes me like it more.
But the accents - slackness!!
Post a Comment