Director Sofia Coppola turns voyeur in her version of the infamous

Rating: 7/10 (4 November 2006)

Director Sofia Coppola turns voyeur in her version of the infamous Marie Antoinette. It reads straight out of a Wikipedia entry on the subject (the script is actually based on Antonia Fraser's book) but doesn't aim to educate; rather, it affords a glimpse of the young queen's human side, showing how she lived, which seemed to explain how she couldn't possibly have maliciously intended to ruin France.
Kirsten Dunst was a good choice to play the teen queen; she was able to credibly transcend from a 15-year old to a more mature woman. She earnestly played her character, and endured the punishing, intimate shots of intense close-ups and disturbingly quiet scenes. Jason Schwartzman was also adequate in playing the role of Marie Antoinette's similarly young and inept king.
The visuals are stunningly rich, with establishing shots straight out of Victorian paintings. The lush clothes, furniture, landscapes and light all delightfully intertwine into what is believably accurate and painfully shallow. For this, Coppola was able to successfully replicate the period better than other grayer, more formal period films. She patiently shot inordinately long scenes that allowed the audience to empathize with the awkward quiet and idleness of the time.
Coppola's storytelling is disconcertingly quieter; reliant on the atmosphere, not on conversations. The creative choice of juxtaposing moody new wave music from the 1980s (supplied by Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Cure, etc.) surprisingly fit the illustrative sequences. Even the acting took a back seat to fit the tableau, effectively showing that Marie Antoinette is not the central character after all, but a mere cog of French society. For this, Marie Antoinette, according to Coppola's candy flick, cannot be faulted, having only desperately and dutifully played her part.