Marie Antoinette (Sofia Coppola, 2006)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
pianocrash
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:02 am
Location: Over & Out

#1 Post by pianocrash » Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:09 pm


User avatar
Doctor Sunshine
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:04 pm
Location: Brain Jail

#2 Post by Doctor Sunshine » Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:46 am

I enjoy seeing period pieces infused with modern sensibilities, but why would anyone want to infuse one with 80s sensibilities?

User avatar
Lino
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
Contact:

#3 Post by Lino » Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:56 am

Marie Antoinette as the original It! Girl? I like it.

User avatar
Jean-Luc Garbo
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:55 am
Contact:

#4 Post by Jean-Luc Garbo » Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:03 pm

Wow. That was one hilarious trailer. Props for the inclusion of that shot of Dunst and her fan! Seriously, what can we expect, do you think? I'm one for a good period picture, but directed by Miss Coppola? What was that song they played for the trailer? I love it.

Mysterypez
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:12 pm

#5 Post by Mysterypez » Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:23 am

Age of Consent - New Order.

User avatar
Jem
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Potts Point

#6 Post by Jem » Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:31 am

I almost thought she'd at least attempt to pull a "Barry Lyndon"
Why would you expect that?

User avatar
Lino
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
Contact:

#7 Post by Lino » Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:40 pm

But that could turn out to be a pleasant surprise for you, Dylan. Just open your mind to new and different things. I have in the past been disappointed many times over because the final results were not what I'd expected them to be - yes, I'm still talking about movies here. :wink: But if I keep an open attitude towards things, I often find that I am positively surprised. And that's always a good thing, no?

For my part, I am curiously waiting for this movie. It sounds and looks fresh and God knows noone would ever be able to do a Barry Lyndon again. Besides, what's the point?

User avatar
ben d banana
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: Oh Where, Oh Where?

#8 Post by ben d banana » Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:43 pm

Whatever! I'm totally all over it! You can't put "Age of Consent" over gorgeous shots like that and not expect me to drool. Vanity Fair wasn't so hot, give me this trailer anyday.

Actually Dylan, I'm surprised by your dismissal of Coppola as you seem to be a real style as substance type of guy.*

*Not a value judgement.

User avatar
Dylan
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:28 pm

#9 Post by Dylan » Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:35 pm

Admittedly Marie Antoinette was a rock star in her day, so it's all fitting, if you ask me.

I guess I'm missing something. The production looks very good, I guess I should've pointed that out.

And I never said I didn't like Sofia Coppola. "Lost in Translation" is a very good film, but "Virgin Suicides" is just okat (Picnic at Hanging Rock or L' Avventura it isn't). But it has Josh Hartnet's best performance, so that's something.

Ben, we disagree on so much that neither of us are qualified commentators on each other's taste. We could certainly talk about "Blue Velvet" forever, but not Italian cinema or Verhoeven. I know you meant your comment lightly, but to dismiss my taste as 'style as substance' is simply not fair (though I guess I do have a large devotion to great cinematography). You can't say that about Bergman, whom I consider the greatest. There are certain styles that can carry a film, but there's usually some other form of psychology or emotion that I connect to.

Moving on...
Last edited by Dylan on Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#10 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:06 pm

Dylan wrote:Admittedly Marie Antoinette was a rock star in her day, so it's all fitting, if you ask me.

Well, I'm glad she didn't do "Amadeus."

Meanwhile, this is why I almost never post my negative reactions, so sorry for opening the can of worms.
Er, I don't see why you should be sorry, or why you should hold back either. Nothing particularly eventful happened here. I at least think you should post your negative thoughts as often as anything.
I know you meant your comment lightly, but to dismiss my taste as 'style as substance' is simply not fair (though I guess I do have a large devotion to great cinematography).
To be fair, I don't think he was dismissing your taste, but inferring that, based on what he understood of your taste, you would like this movie. It wasn't a criticism. "Style as substance" has a long and venerable critical tradition; if it were true, you may consider yourself in good company.

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#11 Post by tryavna » Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:22 pm

pianocrash wrote:trailer.
Does this trailer come from the same site as that fake trailer for "The Shining"? Otherwise, I just don't get it. New Order playing in the background as two 18th-century frigates fire cannons at one another? And that purple, 80's-style artwork at the end? Somebody needs their head examined.

User avatar
Dylan
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:28 pm

#12 Post by Dylan » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:01 pm

tryavna, I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Justin, it's just that a lot of films I love that people accuse as that are filled to their outer edges with ideas, emotion, and psychosis that somehow elude those who dismiss them (because of the style its being presented in, or they just don't like it altogether, or it's boring). You don't know how many times I've heard "A Clockwork Orange" called 'style over substance' and I've never understood that, nor do I even remotely understand people saying that about "The Conformist."

To be fair, I don't think he was dismissing your taste, but inferring that, based on what he understood of your taste, you would like this movie.

Perhaps, but Ben knows he and I don't agree on very much. But also, to me, 'style as substance' means absolutely nothing. There are very few films that can actually be called that, in my opinion. Style is important in cinema; I adore a great cinematic style as much as anyone, but very few films I love have only style going for them. But that's just my opinion on what I like.
Last edited by Dylan on Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:19 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
pzman84
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:05 pm

#13 Post by pzman84 » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:27 pm

There was once a time where historical films were supposed to be allegories to the present day (ie. The Wild Bunch) or just fun-loving adventures (The Adventures of Robin Hood, which, interestingly enough had some allegories, as Bunch was also an adventure). It is sad to see period pieces take over by elitist film makers, trying to seem cool and post-modern and have no action or deeper meanings. They make period melodramas like The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex look like an action film.

However, I did like the shot of Kirsten Dunst and the fan. If this movie has some good nudity and sex, I will take back my insult. However, if Coppola doesn't reward us with any of Dunst special features (as she deprived us of Scarlett Johansson's features in Lost in Translation), I will give Coppola, as Stephen Colbert would say, a "wag of the finger." And to those of you who say I am perverted, I ask this: "Why would I want to spend $8 on a movie about a person I don't care for and there is no violence or nudity?" (The clips didn't show the French Revolution, so I do doubt any violence in the movie)

User avatar
ben d banana
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: Oh Where, Oh Where?

#14 Post by ben d banana » Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:26 pm

Dylan, once again Mr Sausage has it right. Obviously we disagree on most things, hence my asterisk to keep you from believing my comment was some sort of cheap shot. Now if I'd said "style over substance", that would have been an attack, and one for which you'd have every right to bitch slap me, and I'd hope you would.

Besides Blue Velvet, we also both love Dressed To Kill and agree that Virgin Suicides is no Picnic At Hanging Rock and nowhere near L'avventura. However, it certainly seems that style and cinematography mean a hell of a lot to you (again, not a value judgement), and Coppola does use style and mood to tell her stories much more than any traditional/contemporary here's the story narrative. I didn't enter a distaste for pop culture/music into the equation, but I should have considering your love of old movies and their scores. Still, I definitely don't think you should take "style as substance" as an insult by any means, but I'm someone who believes it most certainly applies to The Conformist, DePalma, and many other things I (and you) enjoy, so we probably disagree again.

Anyway, just a conversation starter.

User avatar
Dylan
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:28 pm

#15 Post by Dylan » Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:13 am

Ben,

Style “asâ€
Last edited by Dylan on Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ben d banana
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: Oh Where, Oh Where?

#16 Post by ben d banana » Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:48 am

[quote="Dylan"]My point is that a creative, intelligent screenplay (like, lets say, at least according to me, “Bad Education,â€

User avatar
Dylan
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:28 pm

#17 Post by Dylan » Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:36 am

"Bad Education" is indeed a stunning exercise in style and atmosphere, and also a thematically loaded film (lets see, dealing with identity, the creative process, spirituality, sexuality, and reality, to name just five); the script is my favorite part about it. That's a film I watched three times in a week when I first saw it, and it kept getting me. A very successful revisionist film noir that only Almodovar could've done.

With that said, does anybody know anything further about the production of this new Coppola? I knew very little about it before seeing the trailer, it'd be nice to read exactly what Sofia hoped to achieve with it.

leo goldsmith
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Kings County
Contact:

#18 Post by leo goldsmith » Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:53 am

I'm a little late in coming, but this is the greatest trailer I've ever seen. Unfortunately, the movie probably has scenes, dialogue, plot, etc. Ah well. If it were just this trailer for 90 minutes, I'd be thrilled.

User avatar
Floyd
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:25 pm

#19 Post by Floyd » Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:37 am

I'm pretty confused here after that trailer, but after seeing it has Jason Schwartzmann with that wig on and probably a bad accent I will most likely be there.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#20 Post by HerrSchreck » Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:03 am

Dylan wrote:Admittedly Marie Antoinette was a rock star in her day, so it's all fitting, if you ask me.

Well, I'm glad she didn't do "Amadeus."

Meanwhile, this is why I almost never post my negative reactions, so sorry for opening the can of worms.
Cinema-- not to mention the organs of news transmission and most of the core devices of economic and sociological interaction-- has become so manipulative, that the appearance of same on a stakes-free board as this is just dadburned Unpleasant.

che-etienne
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:18 pm

#21 Post by che-etienne » Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:14 am

First of all I disagree that cinema en masse, in general, from hollywood to indy, big-budget to low-budget, has become 'so manipulative'. Second of all, would you like to rephrase your point into a less awkward sentence? I lose you at 'the appearance of same'.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#22 Post by HerrSchreck » Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:46 am

ben d banana wrote:Dylan, once again Mr Sausage has it right. Obviously we disagree on most things, hence my asterisk to keep you from believing my comment was some sort of cheap shot. Now if I'd said "style over substance", that would have been an attack, and one for which you'd have every right to bitch slap me, and I'd hope you would.
I'm sorry for stirring the pot here but something a little passive agressive was going on here which boxed the young man into an uncomfortable contortion.

Saying the guy regards "style as substance" is not the same as saying "the guy prefers films with noticeably/actively beautiful images over those with a more subtle integration". Suggesting a preference for things constructed with "style as substance" implies, if not a radical avant garde, an almost actual sociological defect... substance being the obviously Good Thing out of the two properties (do you want your daughter to marry a man of all style or a man of all substance in the traditional usage of the words?)-- i e style being the Means of presentation, and the substance being the Thing being presented. Thus, we as smart folk know deep down that as a plate is not a meal, style and substance cannot theoretically be united-- purpose without purpose. Thus airheads-- or your stereotypical brainless well-dressed wealthy gorgeous brat-- being regarded as "All style & no substance." I'd say that "Style over substance" is more generous than "Style AS substance", as the former implies the presence of substance (it merely not being the primary preference), and the latter suggests the confusing of the two, the warping substitution of one for the other, whereas the overriding descriptive is the wiser in it's acknowledging the lack of Actual Substance.

It sounds all rather silly, very belabored, but it's true-- running underneath is the implication "The kid doesn't care what lies beneath-- he's only interested in how this Nothing looks."

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#23 Post by HerrSchreck » Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:02 pm

che-etienne wrote:First of all I disagree that cinema en masse, in general, from hollywood to indy, big-budget to low-budget, has become 'so manipulative'. Second of all, would you like to rephrase your point into a less awkward sentence? I lose you at 'the appearance of same'.
...en masse, in general, from hollywood to indy, big-budget to low-budget is an embellishment with a killer 360 degree sweep specifically for your own convenience, that you may safely disagree with what I said above.

Would I like to rephrase? Well I'd be lying if I said I'm about to do it because it was my own original idea, but since you require an explanation for my use of a kind of shorthand phrasing occasionally used as a sort of ditto " " " mark, and my use of what people mean by "manipulative"--

A man might file a report:

"Logged on to bulletin board. Described my sex organ to Potential Partner 1. Opened up video-conference with PP1. Jumped up & down to show fleshy bouncing of my incredible unit to s a m e. PP1 removed shirt. I removed s a m e."

My use of sex & cheap humor is a manipulative way to try & get our audience on my side, try (probably unsuccessfully) and make them think I'm a cool clever dude whereas in fact they have no real reason to actually empathize with me or substantively like me. This is what cinema in general does a lot more of today, rather than through the more slowly-paced, less sizzly-edited & old fashioned technique of storytelling and (very very crucial) good acting (so unnoticeable in most old films because it's so good). This does not mean 100% of the time in 100% of all modern features.

If you're not familiar with the manipulative tendencies of today's cinema vs. that of yesterday, it's probably because you're a fan of today's cinema, and are not comparing it to that of yesteryear-- and that makes your appreciation of cinema neither invalid nor incomplete. There is, however a general ongoing discussion (I hear it in a lot of commentaries lately, most recently I heard Tooze use the term on Beaver in reference to Spielberg & WAR OF..) about how manipulative cinema has become nowadays.

User avatar
ben d banana
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: Oh Where, Oh Where?

#24 Post by ben d banana » Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:02 pm

HerrSchreck, you're simply more verbose than I am, although we disagree on "as v. over", which is, to my mind, the means/form being deliberately chosen over trad plot/narrative to convey the director's message/ideas v. pretty fluff. If I intended to call Dylan out as merely a fan of empty confections I would have, and as I stated in my reply to him, he'd be welcome to justly fire back. I've certainly given him, and everyone else, enough ammunition.

I'm with you on the increasing manipulation of films, to a degree anyway. Certainly most (big) Hollywood films, and I generalize because who has time to see them all to make such a call even if they wanted to, bombard the viewer with OTT music cues, etc. The same can obviously be said of Coppola here with the New Order track, or the Lost In Translation soundtrack, but seeing as how those work for me I find them compelling rather than needlessly obtrusive (read: successfully manipulated rather than annoyed). However, this comment by you (in regards to acting),
HerrSchreck wrote:so unnoticeable in most old films because it's so good

goes as well the for manipulation of the era, since any storytelling method relies on such, it's just that it seems the dominating theory today is the audience needs to be spoonfed, and subtlety has largely gone out the window.

Your arrival in the forum has been most welcome, no manipulation intended.

che-etienne
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:18 pm

#25 Post by che-etienne » Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:40 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:Would I like to rephrase? Well I'd be lying if I said I'm about to do it because it was my own original idea, but since you require an explanation for my use of a kind of shorthand phrasing occasionally used as a sort of ditto " " " mark, and my use of what people mean by "manipulative"--

A man might file a report:

"Logged on to bulletin board. Described my sex organ to Potential Partner 1. Opened up video-conference with PP1. Jumped up & down to show fleshy bouncing of my incredible unit to s a m e. PP1 removed shirt. I removed s a m e."

My use of sex & cheap humor is a manipulative way to try & get our audience on my side, try (probably unsuccessfully) and make them think I'm a cool clever dude whereas in fact they have no real reason to actually empathize with me or substantively like me. This is what cinema in general does a lot more of today, rather than through the more slowly-paced, less sizzly-edited & old fashioned technique of storytelling and (very very crucial) good acting (so unnoticeable in most old films because it's so good). This does not mean 100% of the time in 100% of all modern features.

If you're not familiar with the manipulative tendencies of today's cinema vs. that of yesterday, it's probably because you're a fan of today's cinema, and are not comparing it to that of yesteryear-- and that makes your appreciation of cinema neither invalid nor incomplete. There is, however a general ongoing discussion (I hear it in a lot of commentaries lately, most recently I heard Tooze use the term on Beaver in reference to Spielberg & WAR OF..) about how manipulative cinema has become nowadays.
You do not have to be so defensive. You made a pretty huge generalization, and I responded with exaggeration to slam home my point. You should not assume that just because I disagree with your phrasing means I disagree with you completely. This time, your elaboration was much more coherent and comprehensive, and I do tend to agree with you about this current trend in world cinema. I have had it on my mind now for a while, and am glad to see more and more people bringing it up as an issue.

Still, your comments are, as ben d banana has already pointed out, quite verbose, and at times a little convoluted and awkward in structure. You might want to tone it down for us, literary minimalists and illiterates (*raises hands*) as the case may be. It is your prerogative of course, but to me your writerly embellishments are a lot like films too soaked in style, all that eye candy distracting from what is really a simple incite.

Post Reply