Marie-Antoinette: a fragile frigate balancing dangerously on a bejewelled powdered hairdo

Rating: 8/10 (1 December 2006)

Sofia Coppola's Marie-Antoinette is a colorful, yet sensitive portrayal of France's best known queen. It is not a complex historical account and those wishing to indulge in all the intrigues of court, political engagements and the celebrated Affair of the Necklace will be disappointed.
In evoking the extravagance of the French monarchy, the film's mise-en-scene is rightly excessive. Its gilded Versailles set, its parades of shiny satin gowns, pink ribbons, feather boas, lace embroidered corsets, diamond necklaces, chiffon and all manner of silk or ermine mules, its generous fixation on a festival of patisseries - from ice-blue cream cakes, petits-fours, strawberry and Chantilly choux-pastry to silver coated almond dragees that dance around layers of frothy icing - all contribute to the opulent effect. The film comes nothing short of evoking a multi-layered pastel cream gateau.
The main theme is excess and that excess can not buy happiness. The young clique, consisting of Marie-Antoinette (Kirsten Dunst), Duchess De Polignac (a very Adjani-looking Rose Byrne), Princess Lamballe (Mary Nighy) is shown scene after scene, indulging in heavy gambling, frigate shows, clandestine masquerade balls, picnics, cream cakes, the latest fashions and competing for the tallest powdered hairdos. The consumerism and sensory overload portrayed in the film parallels our own generation's vain search for comfort and happiness through reckless spending and indulgent living. The modern rock score may even allow young audiences to relate to the youthful insouciance of the teenage royals. But it's not all about partying hard and trying on pretty mules. There are relevant themes of peer pressure, dealing with authority,conformity,rebellion, gossip, sexual education (or discomfort) and loneliness. It is unlikely that a teenager today would relate to Marie-Antoinette's life, but if anything, the film makes her character more accessible.
The film begins when the 14 year old Antonia, youngest daughter of Austria's Marie-Therese is escorted to France. At the Rhine border she is publicly stripped of her clothes, family, friends and every other Austrian possessions. We can already emphasise with the painful psychological ordeal that Antonia is forced to endure when she robbed of her identity and newly called "Antoinette" by the French. But if stripping naked before strangers can bring any teenager to tears, the hurdles that ensue are none the less daunting. The Dauphine must adapt to the highly invasive court etiquette which sees her tedious morning toilette orchestrated by the decorous Comtesse De Noailles (a hilarious Judy Davis), together with just about any ladies of the court. Overall, the film succeeds in painting the essence of Marie-Antoinette's frivolous yet bored existence in Versailles and her increasingly strained relations with the court.
The limited political coverage is well chosen for its relevance today. In one scene, Louis XVI is advised by his ministers to send help to the American revolutionaries simply because France does not want the English to win the war. These few lines are very thought provoking. Here we have France as a super power, riddled with heavy debt, yet playing chess at the world battlefield. I couldn't help but be reminded of one particular super power today behaving in exactly the same way... A further thought provoking notion is that much is remembered of America's role in delivering France during World War II, yet France's enormous contribution towards Americans during the war of independence from Britain is simply forgotten. In particular, I am referring to the countless jokes made at France's expense, exposing the French as weak when they refused to partake in the 2003 Iraq invasion. But putting aside the allegories and ironies evoked, the scene also works in favor of Marie Antoinette's reputation. It works because it reveals a truth about the French Revolution: Marie-Antoinette was a scapegoat. Firstly, the debts faced by the French monarchy were legacies of Louis XIV (who, after all, built the grand palace of Versailles in the first place) and Louis XV. Further, while Marie Antoinette soon curbed her spending and spent generously on charity in her later years, France was still faced with the more pressing financial burden of her contribution to the American war of Independence. In the end, Marie-Antoinette was used as point of reference for those wishing to infuriate the mob. And it worked. Because few things are more detestable than a beautiful, rich and foreign woman.
Dunst was highly suited to her role as Marie-Antoinette, not only physically, but she imbued her interpretation with the combined dosage of frivolity, playfulness, secretiveness and strength that one would need to endure (or escape?) the cruel palace gossip, the boredom, and the 7 year long public tirades about her inability to produce an heir. Jason Schwartzmann is convincing as her husband, the weak yet eager to please Louis XVI, a shy, awkward young man who grapples 7 years with impotence.
Apart from Kirsten Dunst, I thought the cast was well chosen if underutilised. Louis XV's experienced worldly lover, Madame Du Barry, is the voluptuous and piquante Asia Argento. In her interpretation, she is not far from her role as Charlotte in Queen Margot but with an added dose of worldly vulgarity and maturity. Du Barry's richly dark colored dresses and heavy jewels offer a striking contrast with the light pastel and ribbon attire of the younger court. In one scene, while Dunst struggles with the impotent Schwartzman in a pure white, over-sized dressing gown, Asia is seen purring in saucy red garters to incite King Louis. Du Barry's well thought out wardrobe imbues her character with a sinful, sensual air that make her perceived threat to the young Dauphine all the more believable.
I found the dialogue devoid of depth. It may have been intentionally empty, perhaps to make the point that all play and no wit make life in Versailles awfully artificial and boring. I concede that the focus was on the set and main character's life but nevertheless the lack of an engaging script would be the film's weak point.