Courage of an artist

Rating: Null/10 (18 January 2007)

Marie Antoinette is a piece of art work, and I say this with full awareness that I am throwing in a term that is maddeningly elusive when it comes to finding a definition. I may offer, as a complete layman, an equally maddeningly simplistic perception of it as something that is done beautifully (not only from a visual sense). In any event, it takes a lot of courage for Sofia Coppola to take this movie to the Cannes Festival and run the gauntlet of treading the thin line between art (motion picture is a form of art) and purported distortion of history. She got what she asked for  jeers from the French audience. That's courage.
Not everyone in the world is familiar with French history, but most people who have taken a high school course in European history would remember the date 1789. They would also remember one simple piece of information (even if they failed the course), that the French Revolution was the result of an "evil" monarch Louis XVI, and his equally "evil" queen Marie Antoinette who, when told that her subjects are starving to death, said "Let them eat cake". I remember that the image I conjure up in my mind for this French queen was something not unlike The Wicked Witch of the West. Then Ms Coppola brought in Kirsten Dunst.
Obviously this movie succeeds and fails on it title role. Why Dunst? Two hottest box office draws who are perfectly capable of portraying M.A.'s life from 14 to 30 are Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightley. Budget considerations aside, I think these two have too much personality for the role. (I recognize that a good actor is supposed to be able to portray ANYTHING but not everybody is an Edward Norton). Dunst's somewhat lacking in personality makes her perfect for this role (as for Spiderman's girlfriend).
While BASED on history, this movie is an artist's intimate view of a woman's relatively short life starting, not unlike Camelot, with a marriage for political convenience. But whereas Guenevere has the spirit of a fighting cock (as least insofar as Vanessa Redgrave has shown us), M.A. has little character. Always with a childlike smile, this Austrian princess accepts every absurdity of the Versailles court. Only once did we see her chiding mildly (and with the same childlike smile) "This is ridiculous". The focus of her existence, as the movie moves on ever so slowly, is to produce an heir for France and enjoy a life of physical and sensual pleasure for herself. She does take a lover later on but that theme has not been harped on. At the end of the day, M.A. (and even together with Louis XVI) is presented as an innocent young person who simply does not know any better that people coming before her. She even has some sense of responsibility, suggesting that no more diamonds be brought into the palace in view of the financial difficult the country is facing, and she stays firmly by her husband's side at the crisis. And no, she never said "Let them eat cake". I can understand why part of the Cannes audience was offended.
As a piece of artwork, this movies oozes femininity at every frame, femininity at its most beautiful. Its visual beauty is obvious to see, but also consider the abundant thoughtful arrangements. The best example is the scene on M.A.'s 18th birthday when, after a night's partying, the merrymakers sit by the waters to watch the sunrise (her husband has left, for more important matters). The rising sun is not shown directly, but rather as reflection in the waters. This in itself is only beauty, but the poignancy comes at the end, in another sunrise, when they are riding in a coach away from the palace. This time her husband is with her, but they are riding to meet their death.
Talking about which, death is a state that some audience may be close to when watching this movie  bored to death. Sofia Coppola is certainly not a director trying to please everybody. But if you have enjoyed "Lost in translation", you will likely enjoy "Marie Antoinette".