Intentions are there, the result is awkward...

Rating: 4/10 (9 July 2012)

It is hard to figure out what went wrong with Marie Antoinette (the movie and the character...) We may fathom Coppola's intentions, barely distinct in the final rendition. For instance, Kirsten Dunst's interpretation and acting are, at first sight, awful, deprived of any professionalism and devoid of any meaning. The 80s and 90s music is so out of place it makes you giggle (or weep, depending). Then you think what maybe, just maybe, the director had in mind: draw a sharp distinction between the context (18th century Versailles) and Marie Antoinette's state of mind; the formal décor, the classical comportment, the very serious consequences of one's actions (or inactions) stand out against the music. Her acting, for instance, appears out of place in a costume drama, more compatible with a high school comedy (or Mary Jane). However it does clash once put in opposition to almost every other actors/actresses in the movie and I can't help think it is intentional. She is the young innocent, the gamine still, who just wants to have fun but is slowly starting to grasp the seriousness of her situation. How does it come out? Not very well. We can sense the intention but the results are very much lacking, if my perception is correct. The rhythm and tension so present in Lost in Translation are completely missing here. It is a film that does not know where to go, desperately searching for itself; so are we, asking "where are they going with this scene, with this sequence, with this soundtrack?... The gap between the music and the setting, by the way, is much more bothersome than revealing and only an intellectual effort as opposed to an emotional epiphany provides the viewer with some clues as to the objectives of the filmmaker. Yes we understand that the setting (American accents, modern music, etc) is supposed to make Marie Antoinette contemporary to us, to make her the everyday girl trapped in a political marriage (saw the Converse All Star sneaker? The point is made). Yes we understand that women are blamed for everything, going from the sexual to the economy to the political realms (we kind of got it after the first 500 times it was implied). The scheme is more or less successful when it comes to detach Marie Antoinette from her environment, be it the political milieu that she completely fails to grasp or the French peasantry whose anger is brewing outside Versailles (and whose silhouettes we barely see by the end of the narrative. Still why some speak with a distinctive French accent, other with a British or Australian inflection, a couple with an American drawl, go figure. Some of the shifts in the film are quite unexplained, dramatically speaking. Marie Antoinette's relationship with Madame Du Barry first is depicted as detrimental to the Dauphine but suddenly shifts to Du Barry yearning for Marie Antoinette's attention, which is odd. The abrupt hatred of the noblesse towards her (at the opera) leaves the viewer in want of some Cliff Notes, in spite of the lengthy and seemingly irrelevant preceding two hours. Of course we were treated to "The Queens is overspending" voice-overs and other accusations and, yes, we understand that compared to the enormous expense related to sending armies overseas her antics are nothing (and she is blamed for France's financial debacle, got it, got it), but the shift is quite hasty in visual and dramatic terms. There is a historical explanation to this, but it is totally omitted in the film, hence breaking the rhythm and the plot to pieces (or what was left of it) It is one of the world's saddest ironies that French monarchy's contribution to the American Revolution partially and ultimately fed the movement that shove it in the dustbin of history. It is also implied here, but you have to make it up as opposed to feel it. At the end, Coppola's Marie Antoinette is, as a movie or character, quite "insignifiant."