Marie AntoinetteReview by Lisa Ann Cockrel |
posted 10/20/2006
1 of 3


In her short life, Marie Antoinette was both adored and reviled. It's perhaps appropriate, therefore, that the most recent movie based on her life has garnered similarly split reactions. In its debut at France's Cannes Film Festival in May, media outlets reported audiences were split between boos and cheers—the revolutionists versus the royalists all over again.
As seen through Sofia Coppola's lens, one can imagine that Marie Antoinette would find all the hubbub amusing. Played by Kirsten Dunst, who manages the unique feat of being angular and cherubic at the same time, this Marie is full of naiveté, cheer, and courage. She is always in search of a good time, and I was quite often pulling for her to find it.
Kirsten Dunst as the title character
At 14, Marie was married to the 15-year-old boy who would later become King Louis XVI of France in order to stabilize and secure relations between her native Austria and the Gauls. But for a marriage quite literally dictated by politics, scant attention is paid to them in Marie Antoinette. Instead, we're entertained with the absurdity and frivolity of life at Versailles for the young bride—the gossip, the odd customs such as the dressing ceremony every morning that allowed the ladies of the court to dress the queen-to-be, and the ongoing attempts to consummate her marriage. The king-to-be, played perfectly by Jason Schwartzman, was quite shy.
The French government allowed Coppola and her team to shoot the film at Versailles; the sets are ornate, the costumes flamboyant, the props splendid—a visual feast. The prop budget for cake alone must have been steep—not only a reference to her famous non-quote, but perhaps also a sort of nod to Marie's high spending ways.
Jason Schwartzman as King Louis XVI, whispering sweet nothings to Marie
The script is informed largely by Lady Antonia Fraser's biography of Marie Antoinette, a best seller that is widely thought to be responsible for rehabilitating the image of the queen from a weak and morally lax spendthrift to a person historian Simon Sebag Montefiore called "a woman more sinned against than sinning."
Indeed, perhaps the trickiest aspect of the story as told by Coppola is that her protagonist is acted upon more than she acts. This dynamic means that the plot drifts at points. But the narrative is buyoed throughout by Coppola's use of a New Wave-spiked soundtrack that provides a creative point of access to the emotions of the characters—especailly Marie's angst at her unconsummated marriage and her boredom. Marie Antoinette is essentially a modern mood piece, despite its replendent period drama garb. When seen with her friends—all playfully stumbling in the pre-dawn grass after her blowout birthday party, hoping to see the sunrise—Marie and the isolated concerns of her rich, beautiful, and powerful circle call to mind the contemporary stories told of New York City's haute bourgeoisie by director Whit Stillman.
Marie falls for the Swedish Count Fersen (Jamie Dornan)
There are misteps. A musical selection or two takes the New Wave experiment off track. And I'm still unsure how I feel about the last ten minutes of the movie when the outside world crashes in on Versaille quite literally. It's arguable that the most gripping part of Marie Antoinette's life, certainly the period filled with the most political intrigue, was that which begins where the movie ends.
These concerns notwithstanding, Coppola has created a fantastic aesthetic experience that offers a sense of what it might have been like to be in the shoes of foreign 14-year-old girl who carried the great expectation of two countries on her shoulders.
Talk About It
Discussion starters
- Discuss the sorts of expectation and pressures Marie Antoinette faced. How do you think you would have handled those sorts of demands? Do you think Marie was brave in her optimism or cowardly in her isolation?
- Marie indulged her whims. She was eventually reviled by the French public for what they perceived to be her excessive spending in the face of their poverty. And yet her spending seemed innocent in a way. What do you think about this aspect of her life? Do you think she understood the "plight of the people"? Should she have lived in a different manner