Posted by
Emmett of the Unblinking Eye on Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:50:23 PM
Frankly, it baffles me why so much of the media is obsessed with, and obsessive over,
Sofia Coppola. Her prior works --
The Virgin Suicides and the
Lost in Translation -- have been uneven, at best, and she remains, IMHO, the most self-indulgent director currently active. Maybe ever active. And yet most critics seem to froth over her every work and creative move, for reasons that I find baffling.
Which brings me to
Marie Antoinette, her latest effort. On the plus side, this is an absolutely gorgeous movie. Much of it was filmed at and in
Versailles, one of the most beautiful places in the world, and the costuming and set designs are beautiful and beautifully realized. And Kirsten Dunst, as Marie, does her usual fine job of bringing Marie to the screen. She plays her as she quite possibly really was -- a young, naive, spoiled, uneducated aristocrat who, frankly, is not all that interesting.
Which brings up the fundamental problem of the movie. Although the French Revolution and many of those who precipitated it and suffered from it are interesting historically, Marie Antoinette just isn't one of them. By focusing on her, and on her complete disconnection from the people of France, she comes off as someone to whom things happen, but who does nothing to make things happen herself. She does nothing productive or important during the entire 123 minute running time, and her entire life is devoted to herself and those who she considers her friends. As a result she is boring and effete -- as is the movie. That, coupled with the serious miscasting of Rip Torn (
Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story) of all people as King Louis XV and Jason Schwartzman (
Rushmore) as Louis XVI, results in a movie that has lots of pretty but no heart. Although Marie Antoinette is the titular star, it is, once again, all about Sofia.