« The lunatics took over the asylum long ago | Main | Revenge of the billboard haters »

November 07, 2006

Comments

eevilmidget

Ahhh. The marmite effect.

I never expected nor wanted it to be a biopic. As a film piece, it is artful. If plot, in-depth exploration, and historical authenticity is required, no film can fully satisfy what only a book can deliver.

This film is indeed Copollas's adaptation about Marie Antoinette as the teenager, and the 80s decadence matched thematically.

Just because some films do have more narratorial substance, surely this does not make others seemingly more frivolous a bad one? Then again I like Kill Bill and Team America...

torn

C'est bizarre, I was just adding a link to your wonderful review and when I checked back here was your comment.

Good points! I can't argue with you. She took a slice of Marie-Antoinette's life -- unfortunately (as far as I was concerned) it wasn't an interesting angle. Although I can understand that it seemed as though I was asking for a conventional biopic, I wasn't really. Just something a bit deeper, more challenging, more 18th century. I dont think that's too much to ask.

It also probably seemed that I hated it, but I didn't. I was just disappointed (and a bit bored).

For a really terrific film of the period, check out Anton Wadja's "Danton" starring Gerard Depardieu in one of his greatest roles.

Madame Chiang

I forgot to mention the accents....that was one part I found intensely irritating, it grated on my nerves throughout the whole movie.

Having read Fraser's book, I tend to agree with you on how much of the book Coppola use as her 'trigger'...however I think you were more generous with your assumption than I was...I thought maybe Coppola just saw the title and thought Marie-Antoinette would make a good subject for a movie!

eevilmidget

Haha. There it is again. I dismissed it from the beginning about being about the period. So didn't mind the accents either, because what I saw was more of an archetype/stereotype of the poor little rich girl/privileged. I was thinking Princess Diana and her dresses. Imelda and her shoes. The WAGs with their celebrity status, or more locally, that badly written Kitty Go books. The constant gossiping. Lindsay Lohans and Nicole Richies. The decadent party attitude of the moneyed youth.

Historically though, I concluded that 'the people' tend to blame one scapegoat, rather than the government/institution and others who helped install such figure heads and promote the lifestyle. No one man or one woman can lead a country to ruin. There are always the more devious in the shadows. You behead the monster, but it only grows another head because the body lives.

torn

I had to look up WAG and then found the Winnipeg Art Gallery. Fortunately Posh and Co have a Wikipedia entry ... I've been away too long.

I think you are appreciating the film the way it was supposed to be watched, so I can't argue with that. I tried that, but it just didn't click with me.

Also agree with the scapegoat point -- I think that would be the line of Marx too. There was another scapegoat in the news this morning, but I ain't gonna shed a tear for Donald Rumsfeld. In fact I hope they stick him on a plane and drop him off in Tikrit. See if he's as smug then.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad