Monday, October 23, 2006

Marie Antoinette

Infusing a historical period piece about a 17th Century icon who was beheaded with "modern" rock songs and dialogue is an ambitious and exciting idea. However, Marie Antoinette starring the beautiful Kirsten Dunst manages to be more style over substance and at times insipid, evoking confusion in the viewer rather than thoughtful insight into the mind of the ill fated Queen of France.

The movie is a visual cupcake; the powder caked actors drapped in rich pastels and wigs look edgy compared to the run of the mill period pieces out there. The lush grounds of the palace Versailles is at once dynamic and gaudy; creating a backdrop that reinforces the underlying politics behind the monarchy's downfall. Sadly, the entire history lesson divulged here has more to do with the King and Queen's sex life than the build up to Marie's ultimate death, so maybe the locale was relied upon too much as a part of the narrative. Show over tell works on some levels, but there is a lot of meat on the bone when it comes to Marie Antoinette that is tragically never explored.
marie

I've joked that I think the idea was hacked by the creators that it would be cool to make a period piece unlike any period piece ever made. "We'll use cool costumes and throw in New Order songs and make being a teenage Queen kind of punk rock!" But no one bothered to write a script. The first twenty minutes of the movie, while interesting, wallows in its silence for too long. Yes, I too have thought it's always amazing how when a carriage is used as a transportation method from one country to another in a film it appears as though the journey takes 2 hours when in fact it takes quite a while to go from Vienna to France by horse, but I'm not certain I needed to have it feel like it took forever in the opening scene of a movie.

The cast assembled is just underused as a result of having no traditional narrative to speak of. Judy Davis and Steven Googan are wasted as servants who merely serve, and here I'm not asking for their roles to be beefed up, I'm just thinking some no name actors would have done the job just fine. It's almost distracting when a capable actor has such an insignificant role. You are waiting for their character to break out of being a servant and establish a connection with the royals and that is a) not accurate and b) it never happens in this film. Rip Torn is just incredibliy miscast as the King of France, father of Marie's husband Louis, and doesn't get any favors from the script which gives him the first line of dialogue, an offcolor remark about Dunst's breasts which was more funny than intended in my opinion.

The gem of the cast for me was the exact person I was scared to see in this film, Jason Schwartzman. As King Louis, Schwartzman is aloof and fey, but never does his performance stray towards silly. And considering his body of work, I was expecting his portrayal to be over the top instead of subtle and well thought out. On the other hand, altough Dunst did a capable job as Marie, I wasn't exactly buying her as a mother. Early in the film, as a teen, Dunst shines despite having little to say or do. Watching her adjust to the formality of the monarchy of France's daily regime is delightful, but as her character ages her performance suffers. In the end, Dunst to me is like the rest of the movie, pretty to look at but not much more.

For a film to be this colorful and spirited yet completely vapid and boring is a shame. How do you make a film about a beheaded Queen and not show the beheading or even indicate that this was the fate of Marie Antoinette? Sofia Coppola is a very capable director, see Lost in Translation and the Virgin Suicides, but on this film she stumbles a bit. Hopefull she will do what Mariah Carey says to do and Shake It Off before she helms another project.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home