REVIEW: Marie Antoinette, The Yale Herald, 11/3/06

I wrote a response to this review published in the Herald. This is the unedited version, because the edited one is not online for some reason.

In last week’s issue of The Herald, Espinosa wrote, “If you don’t like Marie Antoinette, you’re probably missing the point.” I am writing this response because I disagree so vehemently that it makes my blood boil. I originally intended to write this review for the Herald myself, but since I am in Paris, time flies and I forgot to do it. I would like to argue that you cannot only dislike, but you can loathe and deplore Marie Antoinette even if you get the point. Instead of just saying that Marie Antoinette is a “substance-less piece of shit,” let me respond point by point.
Espinosa understands exactly what Sophia Coppola is trying to do, which is catch the ennui and isolation of this young girl removed from her family and placed in the French court. The main problem is this is the only film the point makes, and by the end, you just don’t care how miserable or misunderstood her life is. After all, if this truly “screams Paris Hilton and co.” like Espinosa claims, ponder this: have you ever shed one tear, or felt an ounce of pity for that spoiled, worthless brat? The day I feel sorry for someone who is rich and can have everything in the world is the day I swallow the cyanide capsule I’ve been keeping in my molar for such an occasion. It’s just not enough to keep a viewer entertained because it is so repetitive, so drawn out, and so easily graspable within the first half hour. Yes the visuals are stunning and everything is impeccably arranged. Yes this is a reflection of celebrity culture. But the truth is I get enough of watching this sort of behavior by reading US Weekly and Pink is the New Blog (trent.blogspot.com). In Marie Antoinette, if you aren’t intrigued by this point, if you don’t feel an ounce of sympathy for the lead (who is in every scene and almost every shot), you are going to have one hell of a painfully boring two hours to sit through.
One of the other major downfalls is the integration of hipster culture into the film. It just does not fit. Instead of coming off as clever and interesting, it comes off as forced and overplayed. The best parts of the film are when Coppola sticks to history, and shows court life as it really is. The scenes where Dunst and Schwartzman eat dinner in the most formal and awkward manner possible is a great example of this. The use of converse next to traditional footwear doesn’t make it seem like Coppola is winking, but rather like she’s saying “look! I’m so young and hip! Isn’t this film young and hip? Only hipsters wear converse! Marie Antoinette is a hipster! Isn’t that cool? Can’t you relate?” No, Sophia, I can’t relate. Why don’t you try editing your scenes shorter so that every long take isn’t so painful it makes me want to tie my overpriced Red Vines into a noose and hang myself from projector in the back of the theater?
A few other things I could probably discuss at length if given the time or space, as it were: 1) A serious under use of Jason Schwartzman, who’s comic relief as Louis is much much needed. 2) Kirsten Dunst can’t act her way out of a bag in this film (see: the scene where she’s “crying” after hearing from her mom. 3) The scenes illustrating the awkwardness of their marriage are repeated way too many times. 4) This may have been an accurate portrayal of the queen, but if her life is really so one note, maybe Sophia should have focused on things other than how much money Marie Antoinette could spend, and how sometimes, she gets upset. 5) They stop the action right when it gets good! The only thing that would have saved this boring exercise in self-indulgence via nepotism would be Marie Antoinette’s head served on a plate. Now that’s something I could really sink my teeth into.