DVD: Marie Antoinette

3113

Hello Summer!
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Posts
13,823
I did not expect to like this movie, but it does something no other historical film has ever done, and does it so remarkably that I thought I'd write up a quick review.

First, on the negative side: The movie has no real plot and it does drag toward the middle. The reason for this is because it's all from Marie's pov, and so we never get a larger context for events. Although we are *told* that people are unhappy and saying nasty things about Marie, we never see it. So when peasants with impliments of distruction finally show up, we kinda wonder why. All we know is that France has been helping out the American Revolution (Thanks France!), and maybe folk are angry about all their money getting spent on a foreign war (hmmmmm). That's pretty much the extent of the larger context.

Onto the positive: what this film does is a masterful trick. It uses our modern experiences and music for that matter to trick us into identifying with Marie and her situation...and that gets us to see the history not as some painting from the past, or some time-machine visit, but as NOW.

When this works, it's quite mind blowing. For example, we're all familiar with Versailles and this rococo period. The tendency is to see this style, on film or in a museum and say "So, that's the way it was, huh?" But back then, all that elaborate, over-the-top style wasn't the past. It was the present and modern. This movie gets you enough into Marie's pov that when she arrives at the French court, so do you. And you suddenly *get it*. The whole style clicks together. It's mind-boggling, but it is everywhere--clothes, food, pianos. The powdered wig style isn't just something old men signing the constitution wore, it's all the rage. And when we see Marie dreaming of her lover in cape and tri-corner hat, well, we can see how incredibly dashing and romantic a style it could be as well.

In the end, the director achieves her aim primarily by turning Versallies into an elite private school--you do end up wondering if the metaphor is that the French Court was like a modern high school or if a modern high school is like the French court; but you get that feeling of rich young people stuck at an elite retreat--with only each other to talk about and talk to; with strange customs and manners built up out of being so rich and so elite. This, as I mentioned in my first point, is problematic. Most private schools don't get shut down at the end by disgruntled public school kids.

Well...at least not yet.

This is also what makes the film drag. If you ever dreamed about being a prince/princess with all the money in the world and servants to wait on you hand and foot...watch this movie. It'll change your mind real quick. There's only so many times you can see these people eating elaborate sweets, watching fireworks, gambling, and dressing up in ever more elaborate outfits just to amuse themselves. You start to wish this elite private school would teach some classes or get the kids doing charity work.

It's a dazzling film, historically accurate with a twist or two--and that twist or two is what brings it to life--like the dancers at the ball doing period steps to modern music, making the viewer understand this party as a party, and, in one brilliant shot, a pair of modern sneakers by Marie's bed (if you're not looking closely you'll miss them. They're a subliminal and artistic message).

Well worth watching, IMHO. Certainly a very different kind of film than most of what's currently available on DVD.
 
I thought it was a fairly good story, but who ever picked the sound track really dropped the ball.

I know what they were trying to do with all the modern music, the same thing they did successfully with A Knight's Tale. I just don't think they did very well in choosing which songs should be used this time. I found the whole sound track disconcerting. It kept throwing me out of the story. I know what they were trying to express with a given song, I just think they could have made better choices, ones that weren't so damned jarring.
 
R. Richard said:
Does the DVD include her cake recipe?

ROTFLMAO. Seriously good laugh there.

No fan of the Jacobins, but not exactly sympathetic to Marie Antoinette, either. She wasn't her brother Joseph's bootstrap. If only Joseph had been the girl and had married Louis. The country might have been spared a lot of trouble. France needed more drastic reforms that Joseph preferred and would have welcomed them more than Austria, I think.
 
R. Richard said:
Does the DVD include her cake recipe?
How about a scene of Kirsten Dunst wearing nothing but thigh-high stockings and a well placed fan?
 
3113 said:
How about a scene of Kirsten Dunst wearing nothing but thigh-high stockings and a well placed fan?

That sounds very interesting. Marie Antoinette did have a certain reputation, didn't she? ;) The Comte de Artois and rumours of bisexuality...... :devil:
 
3113 said:
How about a scene of Kirsten Dunst wearing nothing but thigh-high stockings and a well placed fan?

Sproing!

Marie was an inbred idiot. When she and the king made a break for it, rather than travel fast and light, she insisted they take one of the big royal carriages. And stopping in every hamlet so she could be seen.

And she made Louis wear a pink wig as a 'disguise'. :rolleyes:

Poor girl was really out of her depth as Queen. The Paris Hilton of her day.
 
rgraham666 said:
Sproing!

Marie was an inbred idiot. When she and the king made a break for it, rather than travel fast and light, she insisted they take one of the big royal carriages. And stopping in every hamlet so she could be seen.

And she made Louis wear a pink wig as a 'disguise'. :rolleyes:

Poor girl was really out of her depth as Queen. The Paris Hilton of her day.

Well, she did rule the King and thus the country, and look where that got them. I think that she tried to be Maria Theresa, but without Maria Theresa's brains. :rolleyes: :devil:
 
rgraham666 said:
Poor girl was really out of her depth as Queen. The Paris Hilton of her day.

Now that would've been an interesting bit of meta-casting. Kinda like the Veronica Mars episode where Ms Hilton was cast as a spoiled little rich girl who delighted in buying pink mopeds and other such fluff.

The Earl
 
ChristopherMaxwell said:
Well, she did rule the King and thus the country, and look where that got them.
I've done my reading on Marie Antoinette and I'm afraid that doesn't sound at all right. That she was a wasteful and foolish queen, yes; shoved into marriage at age 14 and given lessons on how to act from the wasteful, back-biting aristocrats at Versailles, how the fuck else was she supposed to turn out? You were expecting maybe Golda Meir? :rolleyes:

That she ruled the King...not really. He liked her, she liked him, she had influence over him when she wanted something...but for most of their time together she had no interest in politics, and so hardly influenced him to do shit in that regard. Louis XVI was pretty much a quiet, dull guy who just wanted to hunt, and was easily pushed around by anyone, and Marie was, at best, one of many who pushed him around.

Here's a quote from one site: "The royal court at Versailles was just 20 miles from the raging cauldron of Paris. Marie Antoinette too feared the Paris mob and counselled Louis to repair to the country so he could quell rebellion from afar, but Louis would not leave Versailles."

So, it seems, she offered good advice to the king...and he didn't take it. That doesn't sound to me like she "ruled" him or that she was altogether an idiot.

As for the pink wig story....
"The royal couple with their children all disguised as common travellers, escaped from Paris. The king and queen had insisted that they travel with all needed comforts, so their coach was lumbering and slow. It required extra horses and changes and attracted attention.

At one change an alert patriot noticed an attractive but familiar woman who issued orders though dressed as a maid. He thought he recognized the queen and from a gold piece given as a tip recognized the king. This patriot Jacques Drouet sped ahead and reached the small town Varennes and alerted the people who confronted the king and queen on arrival."

So. Half true from the look of it. No pink wig, and it was BOTH the king and queen who insisted on traveling with all comforts.
 
3113 said:
I've done my reading on Marie Antoinette and I'm afraid that doesn't sound at all right. That she was a wasteful and foolish queen, yes; shoved into marriage at age 14 and given lessons on how to act from the wasteful, back-biting aristocrats at Versailles, how the fuck else was she supposed to turn out? You were expecting maybe Golda Meir? :rolleyes:

That she ruled the King...not really. He liked her, she liked him, she had influence over him when she wanted something...but for most of their time together she had no interest in politics, and so hardly influenced him to do shit in that regard. Louis XVI was pretty much a quiet, dull guy who just wanted to hunt, and was easily pushed around by anyone, and Marie was, at best, one of many who pushed him around.

Here's a quote from one site: "The royal court at Versailles was just 20 miles from the raging cauldron of Paris. Marie Antoinette too feared the Paris mob and counselled Louis to repair to the country so he could quell rebellion from afar, but Louis would not leave Versailles."

So, it seems, she offered good advice to the king...and he didn't take it. That doesn't sound to me like she "ruled" him or that she was altogether an idiot.

As for the pink wig story....
"The royal couple with their children all disguised as common travellers, escaped from Paris. The king and queen had insisted that they travel with all needed comforts, so their coach was lumbering and slow. It required extra horses and changes and attracted attention.

At one change an alert patriot noticed an attractive but familiar woman who issued orders though dressed as a maid. He thought he recognized the queen and from a gold piece given as a tip recognized the king. This patriot Jacques Drouet sped ahead and reached the small town Varennes and alerted the people who confronted the king and queen on arrival."

So. Half true from the look of it. No pink wig, and it was BOTH the king and queen who insisted on traveling with all comforts.

Interesting. I'd always heard that she was in control of the King, which made sense to me at the time, given how weak the King was. I have also heard that he preferred being an amateur locksmith to being a ruler and that he was impotent for a while. There were some questions as to the Dauphin's paternity, as I recall.

Maybe it was because she was the daughter of Maria Theresa that people assumed that she held the upper hand, much like her mother. Evidently, however, her brother Joseph got the family backbone and brains. Even if he took it a bit far, from some accounts.

I wonder about the rumours of bisexuality. Might it have been vicious gossip or some substance to it? Of course, the same people who spoke of it called it the "German vice", which says a lot about them more than about her.

I'm no admirer of Marie Antoinette, in any case. But it is possible that she was simply an unprepared consort instead of a shadow ruler, as I previously thought. Bear in mind that I had read somewhere that many people tied despotism to female influence as being somehow inherently linked.

It is almost certain that she had enemies at court. Every Queen does. The same with every chancellor or vizier.
 
ChristopherMaxwell said:
Interesting. I'd always heard that she was in control of the King, which made sense to me at the time, given how weak the King was. I have also heard that he preferred being an amateur locksmith to being a ruler and that he was impotent for a while. There were some questions as to the Dauphin's paternity, as I recall.
It is true that Louis XVI suffered from depression and indecisiveness, at which time his wife who more or less made decisions for him. But keep in mind also that Marie became the scapegoat of the French Revolution. So I've no doubt the way in which this information has come to you might well have been colored by a propaganda machine which, as with Cleopatra, has been kept alive since its inception back in the 18th century.

Marie simply wasn't savvy or Machiavellian enough to be her husband's puppet-master. Would that she had been, things might have worked out better.

The king most certainly did not want to be king. He was treated badly by his parents who prefered his older brother--and disliked Louis even more when his older brother died, leaving Louis as the eldest son. Louis was eleven when his father died and he ended up as Dauphin. His Grandad, Louis XV, didn't teach him much of anything. He married Marie at age 15--but they didn't consumate the marriage for 7 years due to, likely, to a condition where the foreskin won't retract--or is just painfully tight. He had a circumcision, they had sex, and children.

He inherited the throne at age 19, and the government was already deeply in debt when he became king. So. You're 19, your queen is 18 and you've inherited a throne that deeply indebt...and no one has taught you shit about running a country.

So, yes, shy, depressed, conservative, indecisive Louis XVI prefered locks, astronomy and hunting to sitting on the throne. But that's the story in most monarchies, isn't it? Sometimes you get Peter-The-Great, sometimes Ivan-the-Terrible, and most times, some milktoast king no one can remember at all--and it's fine, so long as King Milktoast isn't on the throne while the country is going through a financial crisis and a grain shortages leading to starvation and mob violence.

Such was Louis XVI's situation. This is not to excuse him from responsiblity, mind. Just to point out that heriditary monarchies are a crap shoot and if that's the form or government...well, you get whomever an accident of birth and circumstance places on the throne.
 
Last edited:
3113 said:
It is true that Louis XVI suffered from depression and indecisiveness, at which time his wife who more or less made decisions for him. But keep in mind also that Marie became the scapegoat of the French Revolution. So I've no doubt the way in which this information has come to you might well have been colored by a propaganda machine which, as with Cleopatra, has been kept alive since its inception back in the 18th century.

Marie simply wasn't savvy or Machiavellian enough to be her husband's puppet-master. Would that she had been, things might have worked out better.

The king most certainly did not want to be king. He was treated badly by his parents who prefered his older brother--and disliked Louis even more when his older brother died, leaving Louis as the eldest son. Louis was eleven when his father died and he ended up as Dauphin. His Grandad, Louis XV, didn't teach him much of anything. He married Marie at age 15--but they didn't consumate the marriage for 7 years due to, likely, to a condition where the foreskin won't retract--or is just painfully tight. He had a circumcision, they had sex, and children.

He inherited the throne at age 19, and the government was already deeply in debt when he became king. So. You're 19, your queen is 18 and you've inherited a throne that deeply indebt...and no one has taught you shit about running a country.

So, yes, shy, depressed, conservative, indecisive Louis XVI prefered locks, astronomy and hunting to sitting on the throne. But that's the story in most monarchies, isn't it? Sometimes you get Peter-The-Great, sometimes Ivan-the-Terrible, and most times, some milktoast king no one can remember at all--and it's fine, so long as King Milktoast isn't on the throne while the country is going through a financial crisis and a grain shortages leading to starvation and mob violence.

Such was Louis XVI's situation. This is not to excuse him from responsiblity, mind. Just to point out that heriditary monarchies are a crap shoot and if that's the form or government...well, you get whomever an accident of birth and circumstance places on the throne.

Fascinating take on the matter. Especially on the foreskin situation. That would explain the rumours about his potency. So, you're saying that much of this was Robespierre's followers spinning tales about her, to some extent or embellishing facts for politics. Well, that does happen.

Doesn't change the fact that they were the wrong people to rule France at the time. Just makes them untrained and unqualified instead of evil. Of course, when you're a starving French peasant, that's not going to be what comes to mind.

I am curious as to what you meant by it might have turned out better if she had. Is that because she had the Hapsburg strengths at times, which might have come out more with better training or education in government?
 
ChristopherMaxwell said:
Doesn't change the fact that they were the wrong people to rule France at the time.
Well, no. But like I said, if you're going to give the power to rule to whoever is the eldest son--and the wife you force him to marry because you want an alliance with some other country--then you're not guaranteed the most qualified people to run the country no matter WHAT the circumstances.

Rule by way of monarchy screws both parties--the ruler and the ruled. It screws the ruler because it gives him no choice in the matter, whether he feels he's right for the job or not, whether he enjoys or wants the job or not. And it screws the ruled because it gives them no choice or chance to hire the best and most qualified person for the job.

Saying that they were the wrong people fo the job is pretty obvious--but that's not their fault. That's the fault of the system of government that maintains an aristocracy and lets that aristocracy rule by right of birth alone.

I am curious as to what you meant by it might have turned out better if she had. Is that because she had the Hapsburg strengths at times, which might have come out more with better training or education in government?
I don't know if she had the Hapsburg strengths. She was the fourteenth of seventeen children and likely didn't get much attention; as a girl, she'd be trained to be decorative, obedient and to make babies, not to rule a country. In addition to this, she comes across as a pretty typical teenaged girl: wanting to have fun, interested in new fashion, gossiping with girlfriends, etc.

As for what I said about being savvy/Machiavellian: What I meant is that if she were more like a Catherine the Great, who had her own ambitions to run a country, and a willingness to really learn how to take control, make decisions, etc., then Marie might have done better by France. She certainly could have done no worse than Louis and the rest of the nobility did.

One website gives a good picture, I think, of how Marie and Louis *tried* to help:

"The stories of Antoinette's excesses are vastly overstated. In fact, rather than ignoring France's growing financial crisis, she reduced the royal household staff, eliminating many unnecessary positions that were based solely on privilege. In the process she offended the nobles, adding their condemnation to the scandalous stories spread by royal hopefuls. It was the nobility that balked at the financial reforms the government ministers tried to make, not the King and Queen, who were in favor of change."

A stronger or cleverer king/queen might have been able to impose their will on the nobility and make radical reforms...but this was the best these two could manage. Under other circumstances, it might have been enough. But not under these circumstances.
 
Interesting points, there. Well, bearing in mind that while I'm a history buff, the late Bourbon monarchy isn't my strongest area, I have no reason to doubt you on those matters.
 
R. Richard said:
OK, if she loses the fan!
She ain't gonna lose it, R.R. You want it gone, you're gonna have to take it away from her ;)
 
3113 said:
She ain't gonna lose it, R.R. You want it gone, you're gonna have to take it away from her ;)

Merde! Kirsten Dunst dressed as Marie Antoinette, and she won't lose her fan? Damn! ;)
 
Back
Top