Faults with the film

Rating: 7/10 (25 September 2006)

It seems odd that a lot of the users who posted about this movie and took issue with historical accuracy went on to list "flaws" that were actually some of the only historically accurate details in the film. Reviewers also have come across as ignorant; Louis XVI is panned for his unwillingness to consummate his marriage, eliciting statements about how "ludicrous" the film is for such a move, when in fact he was unable to do just that owing to a medical issue that Marie's brother eventually convinced him to have repaired. Though often cited as a loving husband, Loius' mettle as a king is in much doubt, perhaps not so much through incompetence as through unwillingness. He was generally known to be a non-confrontational and occasionally unconfident person, avoiding bloodshed even during the family's flight from Paris, when it would have saved them all at Varennes. It's more likely that this particular trait is misrepresented in the film as bumbling rather than disinterest, a fault of the director rather than the historical researcher. Madame du Barry is fairly well portrayed in spite of the outcry at how "vulgar" her character seems. When one looks at her parentage, upbringing, lifestyle and general behavior at court and towards Marie Antionette in general, one gets a pretty striking image of just the sort of cold, opportunistic and sometimes uncultured individual she could be. Certainly the fact that she delighted in making Marie Antionette's life utter hell has never been a secret, no matter how sympathetic (or unsympathetic) the researcher has been to the queen. Once again, it's not historical inaccuracy that damns the film here, but the fact that as viewers we are once again given "half the story"; due to the film's odd choice of timeline omissions, we're never allowed to see du Barry redeem herself by offering aid to the king and queen (as she in fact did after the storming of Versailles). Thus, we see her as the overblown caricature of a mistress rather than the real, flawed human being that she was. All in all the individual characters are portrayed characteristically in a decent fashion, but seem to lack any depth to what was a promising skeleton of their personalities. Marie Antionette's character especially holds promise, but we never see much of the humbling and maturity that took place with the real queen; thus, it's hard to appreciate the changes in Dunst's portrayal. This seems due to the fact that the director falls short of developing the woman on a more accurate and speedy timeline, choosing to end the film before we are afforded the chance to see some of Marie's most selfless and dignified moments. Paring down a bit of the glittery self-indulgence in order to get us closer to a satisfying maturity of the story would have been a welcome move. On a similar note, choosing not to show the final act of Marie's life, in my opinion, does a great disservice to us as viewers, but more importantly to the woman herself. Yes, it's sad and bloody and it really rains on the pink and champagne-filled parade that Coppola was going for, but it reminds why, in the end, the queen is such a celebrated and tragic figure. It wasn't just her initially unhappy marriage, or the gossip, the often misplaced public hostility, or the indignities she endured during imprisonment...it was all of those elements, taken from onset to conclusion, and this film simply fails to deliver on that score. The movie is certainly worth at least one trip to the theater; the actors do an admirable job with what they are given, which isn't too shabby taken all in all. Go in with reasonable expectations and a heads-up on the films limitations, and you'll likely find the film an enjoyable (if somewhat narrow) experience.