Let Them Eat Cake! And Watch Marie Antoinette for Their Sweet 16!

To think of Sofia Coppola’s 2006 film Marie Antoinette as a historically accurate period piece reflecting the life and times of the famed last queen of France, is as much of a mistake as believing Edward Wood Jr.’s Plan 9 From Outer Space is a flawless masterpiece. Still the acceptance of Marie Antoinette as something other than a historical period piece does not dismiss the fact that the film is a teenybopper film more suitable for mall going tweens, than the average adult movie audience. It is not a film of universal appeal as one might be lead to believe, instead Sofia Coppola has made a film about an old world Paris Hilton who seems to care more about her reputation, shopping, and money, than the position of power she has been born into. In fact, based on this film, one would half expect a homemade sex painting of Marie Antoinette copulating with the young soldier with whom she had an affair to surface and spreads around the countries newspapers. Mrs. Coppola may have set out to make a film about consumerism in the (old and current) world, only set in 18th century France, yet has focused too much on the aspects of teenage girls.
The decision to intertwine historically accurate period music, with modern pop and puck rock is one that not only deters one from the narrative of the film but also feels like an overindulgence itself. When Bow Wow Wow’s “I Want Candy” burst through the speakers, Sofia Coppola has simply taken it too far, placing more importance on the beat of the pop music, than the actual message she is trying to convey; simply because a song has a line like “I want candy,” and there is candy on screen, does not make it and appropriate correlation. Also, her choice to covertly slip in a pair of purple converse during a scene all about shoes could be conceived as a clever trick to remind the audience that the theme of this movie can apply to today as much as back then. However, with British one-hit-wonders of Bow Wow Wow, and Gang of Four begin to blast through the speakers, it is like Sofia Coppola trying to thrust her intention down my throat; as if I need modern pop music to be able to make a connection between Marie Antoinette and Paris Hilton. Beyond this, there is a constant switch between the periodic music of the 1700’s and modern punk of today. This might have been an acceptable tool had the non-diagetic music stuck to one era, and kept the period music to just the diagetic music in the film. Yet, Coppola can’t seem to decide, and in the tradition of a true adolescent teen girl, is unable to make up her mind.
Music was not the only deterrent from the film, even the acting lacks any sort of continuity throughout the film. Kirsten Dunst plays the aristocratic queen of France, yet talks in American slang like she is from the California in the 1990’s. In fact she plays the valley girl so well that it remains hard to tell if what she was doing was really acting. Dunst sounds far too comfortable dragging out her words like ‘sooooo’ that it makes the others speaking English with an attempted French accent (like Jason Schwartzman trying to play young Louis XVI) sound even more ridiculous and absurd. Watching her continually shop for new clothes and dress up in new lavish costumes everyday gives more a feel that Dunst is there playing dress up, rather than acting in a film. The varied range of acting styles in the film make it even harder to accept Marie Antoinette as a serious film with anything more to do other than capture the minds of teenage girls who giggle over the young men in the film and marvel at the shoes so often depicted in the film. Coppola even gets so brash as to throw in a pair of purple converse as if to say ‘look at me I’m now in the modern era, I know what cool is.’
Not even the set design of the film allows one a break from the barrage of trendy aesthetic. Every scene is filled with elaborate patterns and bright colors distracting from the actual image, putting the viewer in a hypnotic trance of color. Even the scenes shot outdoors with Marie Antoinette are full of an elaborate excess of design in the gardens and rows of large trees all placed in perfect lines. As she walks along a path in the garden she asks for more large trees to be planted like she wanted them tomorrow, unaware that trees cannot grow to full height in one day. She then feels as though she is compromising when she is told they do not have enough money to afford a new line of trees, so she ‘graciously’ accepts the idea to just plant smaller trees, as if this will solve the money situation of the country.
The numerous over the top attempts at being clever and attempt to force connections between Marie Antoinette, and the 20th century, makes it hard not to focus on Sofia Coppola as the director. The narrative is continually broken through loud pop music, and the periods of historical context are made so unbelievable by the differing acting styles, and the frame is so plastered by lavish, colorful designs, that the viewer is forced to focus on other aspects of the film. Therefore it is hard to not make the parallels between Sofia Coppola as a director and Marie Antoinette as the Queen of France. In both cases the two happened to be born into position of wealth and power, since Sofia Coppola is of course the daughter of the Francis Ford Coppola, the man who directed both The Godfather and Apocalypse Now. As a result, on cannot entire blame Coppola for the decisions she made for she was brought up in a rich environment in which she could be spoiled. In her defense she probably feels that shoes, candy, and parties are what people really care about, and what they really want to see. Even the opening credits slashed across the screen in a flash of white lettering surrounded by a bright pink boarder, as in a poor attempt to reference the Sex Pistols, begins the assault on the legend of Queen Marie Antoinette.
Coppola barely hints on the most important aspects of Marie Antoinette’s life, like her being the cause of the French revolution. The choice to place more emphasis and screen time on shoes rather than actual events, is an insult to the history of the true Marie Antoinette. The few scenes of historical importance are brushed over quickly with only a few references to the aid to the American Revolution, and the only scene where Mrs. Antoinette address the peasants of France, is to bow quickly and leave the frame with them as soon as possible. Yet, if one goes into Marie Antoinette not expecting a filmic masterpiece, or a film about the last queen of France, and instead prepares for a shallow teenybopper film, more like Clueless than Ben-Hur, then it will not disappoint.

Marie Antoinette

Claiming It Over: Quantum of Solace Ends the Bond Franchise

Officially the 22nd film in the EON Productions franchise on the James Bond name, Quantum of Solace continues the decline of dynasty of classic Bond films. For the first time ever in the entire history of James Bond movies, Quantum of Solace begins mere moment after its predecessor, Casino Royale (2006), left off; not only in terms of plot continuity, but also in it’s diminish quality and charm of the traditional Bond flick. Many viewers know James Bond as the suave, handsome, crime-fighting, ladies man who sleeps with every attractive girl he sees, without obtaining an STD, and fights crime, without earning himself a scratch. Similarly, the Bond tradition is one that has stood the test of time with fresh new Bond films coming out every couple of years since Dr. No in 1962, that continues to entertain the audiences of each generation. However, Quantum of Solace defies each of these timeless qualities, dropping almost of Bond film traditions for a quick cut action overload more like an ADD afflicted child’s mind than a well structured spy film.
The decision of EON Productions to hire on Marc Forster as the director may have sounded like a strong choice for his previously proven work on dramatic (and romantic) films like Finding Neverland and Stranger Than Fiction, had they not tried to balance it out by hiring on Dan Bradley of the Bourne series. The potential of these two was seemingly too much of an expectation to be placed on this film. Instead being treated with expertly coordinated, action packed, thrill sequences and dramatically enthralling segments of character interaction, we are forced to watch jarring editing and bland story lines. Forster’s, despite his previous work, does not pull full emotions out of the characters of either Bond (Daniel Craig) or Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Instead the audience is forced to watch Bond pine over dead Bond girl Vespa (Eva Green, not appearing in this film) from Casino Royale, through the constant mentioning of her death. Rather than have the Daniel Craig actually bring out his pain through his acting, Forster relies on the constant reminder of incessant referencing of the death by the other characters. This made it hard to relate to the characters and therefore taking much of the charm and appeal away from James Bond.
On the other end of the spectrum, Dan Bradley, still hot on the popularity and success of the Bourne series attempts to continue his overused style of shaky cameras and quick cuts in an attempt to portray exciting action sequences. This may have worked well for his previous movies, but the implementation of these techniques in a Bond movie is offensive. Part of the impressiveness of a James Bond film is the use of real stunts with little, or even better yet, no special effect (especially CGI) used. The use of the unnecessary, quick cutting distracts from the action on the screen and takes away from the impressiveness of the actual filming of a live car chase along the Italian cliff side roads. Quantum of Solace had the budget, time, and staff to film the action for real, so it is simply an insult to slice up these precious moments caught on film. Each cut takes more of the believability, activeness, and splendor of the action taking place on the screen, both in terms of the actual stunt being performed as well as the event taking place in the story. At some points the cutting becomes so distracting that it is even difficult to tell the difference between blonde haired Daniel Craig and his brown haired pursuit as they run through the medieval passage under Siena, Italy.
From the opening scene of the film, much of this movie is filled with action scene after action scene, after action scene. Even though Bond films tend to be booked as action packed thrillers, the downplay of the story and overuse of action sequences follows a continuing trend in American cinema in the last few years. There has always been an appeal for spectacle on the scene, from car chases, to explosions, to sex; however, Bond films have always maintained strong balance between story and action. Sadly, these past two Bond films with Daniel Craig have broke from this tradition and instead followed the pop trend of the times. In Quantum of Solace more so than Casino Royale, it felt like the story of the film, which has always played an integral part in the Bond franchise, feels less creative and existent only to show the action sequences, despite it’s being adaptation from another Ian Fleming work.
Whether this attempt at making prequels to the previous Bond and Bond films remains to be seen. Daniel Craig is still contracted for three more Bond films before the absolute fate of the Bond franchise is determined. Quantum of Solace (and Casino Royale) are supposed to be set in a time prior to the other 20 Bond films, during a time when Bond is young, messy, and motivated by revenge; a time where he was fallible, full of testosterone infused rage, and loaded with a trigger-happy finger rather than mind. It is yet to be seen as to whether Daniel Craig will mature into the classic James Bond we all knew before, and if EON Productions will revert back to it’s matured state of production rather than fall victim to the trend of the times. It may be premature to say this now, but Quantum of Solace just might be the “jumping the shark” installment of the James Bond series.


Quantum of Solace