Marie Antoinette (Sofia Coppola, 2006)

Message

David Ehrenstein · #101 Post by **David Ehrenstein** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:32 pm

miloauckerman · #102 Post by **miloauckerman** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:24 am

A little worried about:

The real problem is that Coppola clearly loves Marie Antoinette and her world of parties and beautiful people. She's not interested in looking beyond the walls of the palace, in considering this queen in any critical depth.

This was precisely what distracted and annoyed me about Lost in Translation.

HerrSchreck · #103 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:32 am

I never, never, never, never understood what all the fuss was about over LosInTrans. I thought it completely & inescapably just "sorta okay, I guess". Anything beyond that using superlatives of excellence just baffles the shit outa me, and I mean that with profoundest sincerity. I would encourage and welcome someone to slap me around a bit and wake me up to what everyone was seeing that I didn't. I saw a lite date comedy with a touch of melancholy... nothing near the heft of a good Allen film, say.

Kirkinson · #104 Post by **Kirkinson** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:06 am

miloauckerman wrote:A little worried about:
The real problem is that Coppola clearly loves Marie Antoinette and her world of parties and beautiful people. She's not interested in looking beyond the walls of the palace, in considering this queen in any critical depth.
This was precisely what distracted and annoyed me about Lost in Translation.

This would definitely be a problem if the films in question pretended to be interested in examining their characters critically, but I think there's something to be said for telling a story from a particular character's perspective. It's unlikely that Marie Antoinette herself was interested in looking beyond the walls of the palace or considering herself in any critical depth, so if the film is being told from her perspective it wouldn't really make sense to take such an approach. And I would go on to say that this leaves the audience free to examine or criticize the characters in any way they choose.

HerrSchreck wrote:I would encourage and welcome someone to slap me around a bit and wake me up to what everyone was seeing that I didn't.

I really like Lost in Translation, but I don't think this is the right thing to do. Maybe if you had some specific sticking points that really irked you I could try to refute a few of them, but from the way you described yourself it seems like the connection just wasn't there. And that's okay. Although I don't really believe any film is "objectively good" I think this one's value might be more subjective than most. Aside from the performances and camera work (both of which I really liked) and the well-assembled soundtrack, for me it was just the right film at the right time. The themes of finding solace in mutual isolation, and what I might call "the dread of irrelevance," filtered through the melancholy but warm atmosphere that pervades the picture, just sort of enveloped me like a long hug from a good friend. I don't say this apologetically but simply as an observation: I only really love it when I'm in the sort of mood I was in when I first saw it.

John Cope · #105 Post by **John Cope** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:41 am

Kirkinson wrote:This would definitely be a problem if the films in question pretended to be interested in examining their characters critically, but I think there's something to be said for telling a story from a particular character's perspective. It's unlikely that Marie Antoinette herself was interested in looking beyond the walls of the palace or considering herself in any critical depth, so if the film is being told from her perspective it wouldn't really make sense to take such an approach. And I would go on to say that this leaves the audience free to examine or criticize the characters in any way they choose.

Well, as I said earlier I doubt Coppola fully understands what she likes about MA and is probably unwilling to explore that or "love" her nearly enough (though if she doesn't fully understand what she likes then that's a good thing). And I totally disagree with the idea that her approach leaves the interpretive process all in the audience's able hands. If you believe that MA was as much of a solipsist as you suggest and that this "subjective" portrait would be an appropriate way to do her justice, how are we supposed to disregard the implicit idea of her self absorption? That won't play a part in directing our response? I guess this argument goes back to the whole question of how we audience films to begin with. How much can we ever remove ourselves from the effects of directorial intention? I still cite Spielberg's Catch Me If You Can as the best example of frustrating viewing of this sort. Though he's often slammed for being overly controlling, rarely has his fix been so in place as to prevent any other way of seeing his main character. I wanted to be able to see a possible critique in that picture and there is just no way.

In respect to MA, I was hoping Coppola would allow for something a little more expansive in scope than this--not the usual harangue but a portrait graced with the kind of nuance and understanding she brought to her other films.

Kirkinson wrote:Aside from the performances and camera work (both of which I really liked) and the well-assembled soundtrack, for me it was just the right film at the right time. The themes of finding solace in mutual isolation, and what I might call "the dread of irrelevance," filtered through the melancholy but warm atmosphere that pervades the picture, just sort of enveloped me like a long hug from a good friend.

I do agree with you here. I love this picture, too, and for many of the same reasons. For me, it is just a superb evocation of sustained mood and atmosphere. That may not sound like much and it may not be much if that doesn't play to your temperament but it certainly played to mine. At the very real risk of overstating its importance I do have to admit that I thought of Hou while viewing it, though it is nowhere near as exacting and precise as his work. Still, for an American to have the sensitivity to allow for this kind of submersive experience is a rarity. Nothing is rushed or overly emphasized. All is allowed to coalesce and accumulate in impact as with, well, Hou's work. Oh, and as a personal aside I will say that I fell for Scarlett hard after this. Nothing she's done since has really sustained my affection but the delicacy in her performance (and really in her visage) touched me and still does.

Kirkinson · #106 Post by **Kirkinson** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:11 am

John Cope wrote:Well, as I said earlier I doubt Coppola fully understands what she likes about MA and is probably unwilling to explore that or "love" her nearly enough (though if she doesn't fully understand what she likes then that's a good thing). And I totally disagree with the idea that her approach leaves the interpretive process all in the audience's able hands. If you believe that MA was as much of a solipsist as you suggest and that this "subjective" portrait would be an appropriate way to do her justice, how are we supposed to disregard the implicit idea of her self absorption? That won't play a part in directing our response? I guess this argument goes back to the whole question of how we audience films to begin with. How much can we ever remove ourselves from the effects of directorial intention? I still cite Spielberg's Catch Me If You Can as the best example of frustrating viewing of this sort. Though he's often slammed for being overly controlling, rarely has his fix been so in place as to prevent any other way of seeing his main character. I wanted to be able to see a possible critique in that picture and there is just no way.

This is a very persuasive paragraph. You may be right. If the portrait is totally subjective then the audience will be encouraged to see the character as the character sees herself. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it still deflates what I said above. I hope I remember to come back to this after I've actually seen the film -- it's tough to build an argument based entirely on speculation.

John Cope wrote:Still, for an American to have the sensitivity to allow for this kind of submersive experience is a rarity. Nothing is rushed or overly emphasized.

Submersion is exactly it. It often seems like most American filmmakers come at you with a fire hose. I think my favorite scenes are those in which Scarlett Johansson is wandering around alone observing different elements of the culture that she doesn't understand (the flower ritual, the Kyoto wedding, etc). They have little bearing on anything that happens, but these scenes build such an expressive atmosphere that the film really seems to surround me when they occur, and that in turn draws me deeper into the rest of the film.

Lino · #107 Post by **Lino** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:53 am

I still haven't seen the movie but isn't the whole point trying to portray MA as the Paris Hilton of her day or something? At least that's the impression I've got from the trailers and the reviews I've been reading. And if that is really Coppola's intention, hasn't she hit the nail on the head?

Maybe people are misunderstanding her whole approach. Now, the real problem would be if she hasn't managed to fully convey her initial intentions on the final product.

#108 Post by **Matt** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:30 am

Annie Mall wrote:I still haven't seen the movie but isn't the whole point trying to portray MA as the Paris Hilton of her day or something?

If by Paris Hilton you mean a teenage girl thrust into the spotlight by parents and handlers, married to a silly man she's never met and doesn't love, and beheaded because of an idea (not because of any particular crime), then yes. If by Paris Hilton you mean an attention-craving, idiotic slut with more credit cards than sense who just loves to get druuuunk, then no.

Though I haven't seen the movie, I had read some of the book on which the film is based and I have seen Coppola's other films. I'm pretty sure the picture intends to portray MA as a naive girl, tossed into the fantasy land of Versailles where her every wish is made manifest, who has no concept of the revolution rattling the gates outside, who just wants to have a good time with her friends. I think Coppola wants to show that MA was not a unique figure and that any girl of that time and age would have reacted in pretty much the same way.

I don't think Coppola has any interest in doing straight history. Her films rely on impressions and intuitions. Frankly, they're quite feminine (not feminist, not frivolous). So often female directors get taken to task (and this forum is no exception) for not being "direct" enough, for not having a point. For not being "male" enough, really. I love Coppola's films because they don't try to cram a point of view or a message or even an artistic statement down my throat. They're content to engage me visually and emotionally and to stir up a lot of mixed emotions that linger well after the credits have run. No, I don't think about her films every day and what an amazing director she is, but I do think that she's the Agnes Varda of her day. She'll get some respect for her accomplishments, but not a lot, and she'll always be compared (unfavorably) with her male contemporaries until decades later when people can begin to accept her work on its own terms.

tavernier · #109 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:34 am

matt wrote:If by Paris Hilton you mean a teenage girl thrust into the spotlight by parents and handlers, married to a silly man she's never met and doesn't love, and beheaded because of an idea (not because of any particular crime), then yes. If by Paris Hilton you mean an attention-craving, idiotic slut with more credit cards than sense who just loves to get druuuunk, then no.

=D> =D> =D> Nice to see Matt FINALLY letting loose!

Andre Jurieu · #110 Post by **Andre Jurieu** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:32 pm

matt wrote:If by Paris Hilton you mean a teenage girl thrust into the spotlight by parents and handlers, married to a silly man she's never met and doesn't love, and beheaded because of an idea (not because of any particular crime), then yes ... No, I don't think about her films every day and what an amazing director she is, but I do think that she's the Agnes Varda of her day. She'll get some respect for her accomplishments, but not a lot, and she'll always be compared (unfavorably) with her male contemporaries until decades later when people can begin to accept her work on its own terms.

Damn! That... was... AWESOME. My keyboard is awash in tears of joy.

Lino · #111 Post by **Lino** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:33 am

Yesterday I bought the french PREMIERE magazine which dedicates its cover to MA this month. They even go on to award the film 3 stars which is substantially good considering their usual classification standards.

In it, there is an interview with Coppola in which she states that MA is the third film in a loose trilogy of teenagers getting to grip with environments they don't fit in and how they cope with it (as such, it's also a metaphor for Coppola's own life, surrounded by the glitz and glamour of Hollywood since the day she was born and how she learned to live with it all). In MA we get to see her grow up (the Dunst character, that is) and for Coppola this means that she finally has accepted her adult phase to sink in (at least hopefully and this her speaking).

Now this all seems very interesting and from this point of view, her filmography so far is very coherent and even important from a female director's standpoint. With that said, I am curious as to why most of the reaction seems to be negative towards the film. So far the critics have been very eager to point out the frivolity of the film and of its main character. I wonder why and this is what I want to find out when I finally sit down to watch it.

Michael · #112 Post by **Michael** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:35 am

This article also exhibits Sofa Coppola's favorite films. Interesting that one of them is her father's Rumble Fish but she does have an excellent taste - Darling, All That Jazz, Safe.

I think Sofia Coppola is one of the finest directors working today. I believed that there was no way anyone could film the difficult book The Virgin Suicides (which is my favorite novel of all time, next to Nabokov's Lolita) but Coppola shattered that belief. She completely, brilliantly captured the tone and themes of the book but still made it her own (very much like what Kubrick did with Lolita). That's quite impressive for her first big work.

David Ehrenstein · #113 Post by **David Ehrenstein** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:07 am

Sofia's IN Rumble Fish. She palys Diane Lane's kid sister. I imagine she learned quite a lot from that shoot.

Michael · #114 Post by **Michael** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:16 am

Isn't Rumble Fish FF Coppola's favorite work also? Maybe it's my imagination but I think I remember reading about this claim in his interviews some time ago. I'm planning to see this film very shortly.

I remain surprised that Darling, one of Sofia's favorites, is rarely if never mentioned on this forum. I really love Darling a lot. It's sort of like a female version of La Dolce Vita.

Fletch F. Fletch · #115 Post by **Fletch F. Fletch** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:31 pm

Michael wrote:Isn't Rumble Fish FF Coppola's favorite work also? Maybe it's my imagination but I think I remember reading about this claim in his interviews some time ago. I'm planning to see this film very shortly.

By all means, you should! It is, hands down, my fave Coppola film. And yes, it is also his favorite film as well -- he says as much on the commentary on the new SE DVD that came out a little while ago. It's a really good listen as he muses, amongst other topics, why he didn't stick with modestly budgeted films like this one instead of tackling big budget epics like Dracula which burned him out.

Antoine Doinel · #116 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:12 pm

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:
Michael wrote:Isn't Rumble Fish FF Coppola's favorite work also? Maybe it's my imagination but I think I remember reading about this claim in his interviews some time ago. I'm planning to see this film very shortly.
By all means, you should! It is, hands down, my fave Coppola film. And yes, it is also his favorite film as well -- he says as much on the commentary on the new SE DVD that came out a little while ago. It's a really good listen as he muses, amongst other topics, why he didn't stick with modestly budgeted films like this one instead of tackling big budget epics like Dracula which burned him out.

If you don't mind summarzing, why didn't he stick with more modestly budgeted films?

Fletch F. Fletch · #117 Post by **Fletch F. Fletch** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:42 am

Antoine Doinel wrote:If you don't mind summarzing, why didn't he stick with more modestly budgeted films?

Interestingly, he blames himself. At the time, Coppola thought that he could successfully bounce back and forth from big budget movies and smaller, independent ones and found that on the bigger ones he was more of a hired gun (Rainmaker) than anything else when he should have stuck to making modestly budgeted films. After awhile, he says that he got burnt out and just stopped directing movies altogether.

Antoine Doinel · #118 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:00 am

Very interesting, thanks. It seems bizarre that Coppola would even consider helming something he didn't completely believe in. It seems baffling to me he would waste his energies on movies like Jack and the Rainmaker, but perhaps those were the biggest signs that he has just going through the motions, cashing a paychque and burning out.

Fletch F. Fletch · #119 Post by **Fletch F. Fletch** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:43 pm

Agreed. Reading between the lines on his commentary I get the feeling that the success of his daughter Sophia maybe has revitalized him and shown that he can keep on making personal movies just at modest budgets. It should be interesting to see how his new movie turns out, how it's received and so on.

Gordon · #120 Post by **Gordon** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:00 pm

Not a historical figure that has ever captivated my attention, but a humourous event in History and I was somewhat intrigued by this film at first, but I have read that it ends well before Antoinette's fate, ie. beheading, which is a bit of a jib and frankly, the whole "Y'know, she was like, y'know, the Paris Hilton* of her day, y'know?" angle only produces a jaw-breaking yawn to my being. If that is the film's context, then I shall pass. What's next an Oliver Cromwell / George W. Bush allegory?!

There may, of course, be more than meets the eye. I caught the last fifteen minutes of Lost in Translation on television a few months back and it didn't look like much of anything, just as the premise doesn't strike me as something I usually find interesting in a film, but that's not very fair and I should give it a fair viewing at some point.

*Other skanky, billionaire, walking freakshows are available. Maybe.

Gordon · #121 Post by **Gordon** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:18 pm

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:Agreed. Reading between the lines on his commentary I get the feeling that the success of his daughter Sophia maybe has revitalized him and shown that he can keep on making personal movies just at modest budgets. It should be interesting to see how his new movie turns out, how it's received and so on.

Well, to be perfectly honest, adapting a Mircea Eliade story shows either pretentiousness or incredible guts. Eliade, one of the greatest shamanism scholars of all time and a writer with a genuinely unique voice and worldview, is not someone who would translate to the current filmmaking vogue. Coppola's film will either be either be percieved as one of the greatest films ever made or a confusing disaster. I hope and pray it's the former. No one who has written about the film seems to have read to the book or know who Eliade was, with the film being called a "WWII thriller" which is quite amusing. It is more Tarkovsky than Fritz Lang.

Antoine Doinel · #122 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:47 pm

I'm not sure I follow your logic that Coppola's next film is a masterpiece or bust endeavor.

#123 Post by **Matt** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:35 pm

Hey doods. There's already a thread for Coppola the Elder's new movie. Can we try to stick to Coppola the Younger in this one?

Lino · #124 Post by **Lino** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:33 am

Just talked very briefly yesterday evening with someone who went to Cannes this year (he's a programmer of the most famous film festival we have here in my country) and he says that he found Coppola's film to be a genius piece of filmmaking. Somehow I trust him.

Antoine Doinel · #125 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:34 pm

New trailer here