I agree with you and I'm not entirely sure what Antoine Doinel is driving at. Of course, this could be because I like both Anthony Lane and Armond White. I admire Armond's deeply held convictions even when I feel they obscure his vision (as is the case in his overly fervent devotion to Spielberg). As for Lane, quite frankly I just admire his writing and his thought process. Perhaps even more than Armond, Lane is dismissed by the film literate in general and often seems to be outright despised. I don't understand why. His collected book of essays (which includes his film writing) is terrific and incisive. It indicates a very well rounded, well developed cultural intellect. Sure he has his predispositions but who does not? In all honesty, I tend to think the cognesceti of film disregard Lane because they don't appreciate his humor and the way it's employed. For my part, I think he's funny as hell.
And as for Marie Antoinette, I guess we'll all establish our takes on this soon enough. I'm very interested in the project and still feel it could go either way for me (as could the new Eastwood). I'm trying to go into it with as open a mind as possible but I'm sure these early reviews by people whose opinions I respect might color my response a little. Still, the overwhelming critical reaction so far appears divided and I'm hoping that I'm wrong about what I've always suspected might be Coppola's agenda here. I still like Lost in Translation quite a bit even though it's now fashionable to disdain it. I think it's a sincere and sympathetic work. M-A, however, might require more than that to succeed.
Marie Antoinette (Sofia Coppola, 2006)
-
bufordsharkley
- Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:08 am
Lane: Always a joy to read, if only because he writes so wittily. He has a knack for identifying what's wrong with a movie; he has a slate of hilarious pans.
That said, I put no weight into his verdict on a movie. He seems to be oblivious to aesthetism-- he isn't a film fan, it seems. I've read every article of his from the last three years, and the only thing resembling a rave was a recent article about a Mizoguchi retrospective.
You feel that there's no chance of a movie ever blowing him away, which takes a large deal of the drama away from his critiques.
Denby: Usually a decent accessor of film worth; very serious about his craft, and very serious about film. Unlike Lane, you feel that Denby enjoys cinema; he never treats his articles as a stand-up act.
...However, Denby's prose is muddled and dull. (So dull that his enthusiasm, which undoubtedly exists, never comes off.)
And is it ever repetitive. You wouldn't think the two-page movie section would be the biggest slog in the magazine whenever Denby writes it, but it is. A pity.
That said, I put no weight into his verdict on a movie. He seems to be oblivious to aesthetism-- he isn't a film fan, it seems. I've read every article of his from the last three years, and the only thing resembling a rave was a recent article about a Mizoguchi retrospective.
You feel that there's no chance of a movie ever blowing him away, which takes a large deal of the drama away from his critiques.
Denby: Usually a decent accessor of film worth; very serious about his craft, and very serious about film. Unlike Lane, you feel that Denby enjoys cinema; he never treats his articles as a stand-up act.
...However, Denby's prose is muddled and dull. (So dull that his enthusiasm, which undoubtedly exists, never comes off.)
And is it ever repetitive. You wouldn't think the two-page movie section would be the biggest slog in the magazine whenever Denby writes it, but it is. A pity.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
I think Buford hit the reasons I dislike both Lane and Denby, so I apologize if my previous criticisms came across so harshly. I do find both their writing dispassionate and their prose particularly dull, but I will concur they are knowledgeable.
But enough of that, I saw a preview screening of Marie Antoinette last night and while it isn't the complete pile of crap Lane said it was, it does suffer from terrible flaws.
Despite the advertising selling the movie as some kind of music video period piece, Marie Antoinette is in actuality a plain old period piece. As my girlfriend observed, the placement of contemporary music comes across as very forced (and is actually only in a few scenes which you've by now seen in the trailer) while the rest of the film relies on fairly dull score.
But the real problem with the film is that it really goes nowhere. One of the biggest criticisms levelled at Coppola for Lost In Translation (a film I loved) was that the script was thin. Unfortunately, for Marie Antoinette, the screenplay is astonishingly non-existent. The early part of the film drives home the point that the customs and habits of the French monarchy were somewhat ridiculous and pompous, that the entire court led a decadent lifestyle and that Marie was very lonely. Fine. But Coppola has no idea where to go from here. The rest of the film meanders pointlessly from various parties to balls to mildly amusing comedy of manners scenarios all to underline in thick red lipstick that perhaps the idea of putting a couple who were ostensibly children in charge of a nation wasn't the greatest idea. So in lieu of having anywhere narratively to go Coppola employs a tedious amount of "Malick-isms" in the latter forty-five minutes of the film. Long shots of the countryside, Dunst lying in the grass, Dunst walking around the countryside but with none of the poetry or power. The film looks good (particularly the interior sets) but that's about it.
And this is all really a shame because the cast is uniformly excellent. The biggest revelation is Jason Schwartzmann who finds both Louis XVI's shyness and fiercely proud devotion to the crown. It's a great performance. Steve Coogan is also fantastic as is Judy Davis. While Asia Argento is hilarious as the mistress to Rip Torn.
The film is easily a half an hour too long, but even at 90 minutes I'm not even sure it would have anything else to say. To call the film a comment on celebrity would be giving far more credit that it deserves. Marie Antoinette is empty calories. A confection, that as the movie rolls on, sours your stomach.
But enough of that, I saw a preview screening of Marie Antoinette last night and while it isn't the complete pile of crap Lane said it was, it does suffer from terrible flaws.
Despite the advertising selling the movie as some kind of music video period piece, Marie Antoinette is in actuality a plain old period piece. As my girlfriend observed, the placement of contemporary music comes across as very forced (and is actually only in a few scenes which you've by now seen in the trailer) while the rest of the film relies on fairly dull score.
But the real problem with the film is that it really goes nowhere. One of the biggest criticisms levelled at Coppola for Lost In Translation (a film I loved) was that the script was thin. Unfortunately, for Marie Antoinette, the screenplay is astonishingly non-existent. The early part of the film drives home the point that the customs and habits of the French monarchy were somewhat ridiculous and pompous, that the entire court led a decadent lifestyle and that Marie was very lonely. Fine. But Coppola has no idea where to go from here. The rest of the film meanders pointlessly from various parties to balls to mildly amusing comedy of manners scenarios all to underline in thick red lipstick that perhaps the idea of putting a couple who were ostensibly children in charge of a nation wasn't the greatest idea. So in lieu of having anywhere narratively to go Coppola employs a tedious amount of "Malick-isms" in the latter forty-five minutes of the film. Long shots of the countryside, Dunst lying in the grass, Dunst walking around the countryside but with none of the poetry or power. The film looks good (particularly the interior sets) but that's about it.
And this is all really a shame because the cast is uniformly excellent. The biggest revelation is Jason Schwartzmann who finds both Louis XVI's shyness and fiercely proud devotion to the crown. It's a great performance. Steve Coogan is also fantastic as is Judy Davis. While Asia Argento is hilarious as the mistress to Rip Torn.
The film is easily a half an hour too long, but even at 90 minutes I'm not even sure it would have anything else to say. To call the film a comment on celebrity would be giving far more credit that it deserves. Marie Antoinette is empty calories. A confection, that as the movie rolls on, sours your stomach.
-
Lino
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
- Location: Sitting End
- Contact:
I don't know what everybody is talking about here because I just saw the film last night and fell completely in love with it. What is there not to like about this film?
I just don't know how people can look at it and see all form and no content. The way to rightfully appreciate this movie is to perceive it as a meditation mostly told through visual terms rather than narrative ones. And isn't that what cinema is all about? Coppola already demonstrated her knack for conveying mood, emotion and atmosphere by using very simple but effective set-up pieces in her previous one, Lost in Translation, and in Marie Antoinette, she goes even further down that path. And comes out a winner. MA is one of the most lyrically beautiful films in the history of american cinema. And I'm not saying this lightly, trust me.
Someone over at the now defunct LIT thread, mentioned the spirit of Antonioni's filmmaking hovering over Coppola's way of seeing the world and expression. And certainly the same can be applied here -- the existential (teenage) angst is there for all to see, as is a sort of ennui that comes through the faces of the actors (Dunst is perfectly cast in the role of the beheaded monarch, with her angelic features and cherubic face). But unlike the heroines in Virgin Suicides and Lost in Translation, Marie Antoinette is a teenager that suddenly is forced to grow up rather quickly and through the very course of events (and History) sees herself no longer as a girl in a woman's body but as a day-for-night Queen with two offsprings clinging to her, but this time around still longing for her own lost childhood.
I partly agree with Antoine Doinel about some Mallick-isms being used here and there to accentuate mood rather than move the story forward. Again, what is there not to like about this kind of filmmaking? You just can't expect to see a story being told in the same ways over and over again. In that sense, I always appreciate when a director is able to say so much more by the use of a simple gesture or a striking image rather than a whole paragraph of vapid or obscure words uttered by an actor. I guess if you don't like this sort of approach, then this is not a movie for you. Simply put, if you didn't like her previous one, then it's more than likely that you won't enjoy this new offering either. And it also doesn't help if you're going to see it with a pre-conceived notion about it. However, if you're going with an open heart, this one will win you over just like that!
Dylan observed earlier in this thread about some images conjuring the ghost of Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, right after seeing the trailer. Well, if you're going for visual filmic references, then yes, you can see a bit of BL here and there but MA is more of an heir to Bo Widerberg's Elvira Madigan than to the Kubrick epic. There are some scenes that made me literally gasp at their beauty of composition and lighting, mostly the pastoral ones, with their heavenly, golden hues. It sometimes feel like you've seen a painting right out of the Prado or the Louvre come to life. If the cinematography doesn't get an oscar nomination, it will be a grave injustice. Oh, and yes, it is eye-candy from the beginning to end but of the very best sort. And those people that say that it is too much of a good thing are either jealous, spoiled or whining saddos. Coppolas has concocted one of the most gorgeous pieces of contemporary cinema and you just don't see it as often as you should these days.
As a final note, I only would like to add that this one isn't probably going to get the recognition that it deserves from the critics and most of the undiscerning audience (by the way, whose idea was it to premiere a film about Marie Antoinette in France?! She is a laughing matter over there! Do you know just how many jokes involving the words "losing her head" and "Marie Antoinette" there are over there?! This film was doomed from the word "allez-y"!) but I firmly believe that many years from now it will be seen as one of the most important works from this new generation of directors/auteurs.
Sofia Coppola has made a truly beautiful and moving piece of filmmaking and you americans should be so proud of her. The girl is doing just fine!
P.S. the soundtrack is a killer! And as crazy as it seems, it really does suit the movie.
I just don't know how people can look at it and see all form and no content. The way to rightfully appreciate this movie is to perceive it as a meditation mostly told through visual terms rather than narrative ones. And isn't that what cinema is all about? Coppola already demonstrated her knack for conveying mood, emotion and atmosphere by using very simple but effective set-up pieces in her previous one, Lost in Translation, and in Marie Antoinette, she goes even further down that path. And comes out a winner. MA is one of the most lyrically beautiful films in the history of american cinema. And I'm not saying this lightly, trust me.
Someone over at the now defunct LIT thread, mentioned the spirit of Antonioni's filmmaking hovering over Coppola's way of seeing the world and expression. And certainly the same can be applied here -- the existential (teenage) angst is there for all to see, as is a sort of ennui that comes through the faces of the actors (Dunst is perfectly cast in the role of the beheaded monarch, with her angelic features and cherubic face). But unlike the heroines in Virgin Suicides and Lost in Translation, Marie Antoinette is a teenager that suddenly is forced to grow up rather quickly and through the very course of events (and History) sees herself no longer as a girl in a woman's body but as a day-for-night Queen with two offsprings clinging to her, but this time around still longing for her own lost childhood.
I partly agree with Antoine Doinel about some Mallick-isms being used here and there to accentuate mood rather than move the story forward. Again, what is there not to like about this kind of filmmaking? You just can't expect to see a story being told in the same ways over and over again. In that sense, I always appreciate when a director is able to say so much more by the use of a simple gesture or a striking image rather than a whole paragraph of vapid or obscure words uttered by an actor. I guess if you don't like this sort of approach, then this is not a movie for you. Simply put, if you didn't like her previous one, then it's more than likely that you won't enjoy this new offering either. And it also doesn't help if you're going to see it with a pre-conceived notion about it. However, if you're going with an open heart, this one will win you over just like that!
Dylan observed earlier in this thread about some images conjuring the ghost of Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, right after seeing the trailer. Well, if you're going for visual filmic references, then yes, you can see a bit of BL here and there but MA is more of an heir to Bo Widerberg's Elvira Madigan than to the Kubrick epic. There are some scenes that made me literally gasp at their beauty of composition and lighting, mostly the pastoral ones, with their heavenly, golden hues. It sometimes feel like you've seen a painting right out of the Prado or the Louvre come to life. If the cinematography doesn't get an oscar nomination, it will be a grave injustice. Oh, and yes, it is eye-candy from the beginning to end but of the very best sort. And those people that say that it is too much of a good thing are either jealous, spoiled or whining saddos. Coppolas has concocted one of the most gorgeous pieces of contemporary cinema and you just don't see it as often as you should these days.
As a final note, I only would like to add that this one isn't probably going to get the recognition that it deserves from the critics and most of the undiscerning audience (by the way, whose idea was it to premiere a film about Marie Antoinette in France?! She is a laughing matter over there! Do you know just how many jokes involving the words "losing her head" and "Marie Antoinette" there are over there?! This film was doomed from the word "allez-y"!) but I firmly believe that many years from now it will be seen as one of the most important works from this new generation of directors/auteurs.
Sofia Coppola has made a truly beautiful and moving piece of filmmaking and you americans should be so proud of her. The girl is doing just fine!
P.S. the soundtrack is a killer! And as crazy as it seems, it really does suit the movie.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Wow, Lino, it seems we saw two completely different films! I honestly found the whole thing to be leaden, its messages obvious and outlined so heavily, that it's practically impossible to miss them. I honestly felt the film strained at lending itself an air of importance that I didn't feel it deserved.
Lost In Translation is also about a girl who is forced to grow up quickly. Newly married, in a different country and forced to try and figure what she is to do with her life -- it falls on her rather quickly as well. Perhaps it's no surprise that LIT was written as Coppola was initially working on MA. There are some strong parallels. Except I think LIT benefitted from a stronger screenplay and better captured the confusion and angst that MA seriously missed.
Also, perhaps I can't take a movie seriously that gives away bright pink t-shirts with "Let Them Eat Cake" written on it and pink quill pens prior to its preview screening. If Coppola was going for lyrical and subtle, her marketing department certainly missed the memo.
Lost In Translation is also about a girl who is forced to grow up quickly. Newly married, in a different country and forced to try and figure what she is to do with her life -- it falls on her rather quickly as well. Perhaps it's no surprise that LIT was written as Coppola was initially working on MA. There are some strong parallels. Except I think LIT benefitted from a stronger screenplay and better captured the confusion and angst that MA seriously missed.
Also, perhaps I can't take a movie seriously that gives away bright pink t-shirts with "Let Them Eat Cake" written on it and pink quill pens prior to its preview screening. If Coppola was going for lyrical and subtle, her marketing department certainly missed the memo.
-
Andre Jurieu
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)
Ok, so you spent an entire post talking about the form (mood, atmosphere, lyrically beauty, beautiful compositions and lighting, award-worthy cinematography, envy-inducing eye-candy, resembling Antonioni, Malick, Kubrick, Madigan), but you still haven't told us very much about the content. What exactly are the visuals meditating over that is so substantial other than a teenage girl's sense of existential angst and ennui? If that's the only thing the film is meditating over, why is that substantial content?Lino wrote:I just don't know how people can look at it and see all form and no content.
I'm asking because this is the topic that almost every reviewer had to make a decision upon, since everyone seems to be certain that this is the main point of the film. Yet, I don't really hear anyone telling us why exactly this is an important topic or a useless subject, other than by dropping Paris Hilton's name into their review as a method of dismissing the film's chief concerns as immature.
Lino wrote:In that sense, I always appreciate when a director is able to say so much more by the use of a simple gesture or a striking image rather than a whole paragraph of vapid or obscure words uttered by an actor. I guess if you don't like this sort of approach, then this is not a movie for you.
How exactly are you coming to the conclusion that the people who don't enjoy this movie also don't appreciate films that convey their concerns through visual methods? I think a substantial portion of the forum has displayed their ability to read a film through it visuals rather than through the film's dialogue, so I'm not really understanding how you're just discarding their opinions as inept.
Like the pre-conceived notion that it's a misunderstood masterpiece that's receiving unwarranted negative reactions?Lino wrote:And it also doesn't help if you're going to see it with a pre-conceived notion about it.
Should we really evaluate a film based on its marketing campaign?Antoine Doinel wrote:Also, perhaps I can't take a movie seriously that gives a way bright pink t-shirts with "Let Them Eat Cake" on it and pink quill pens prior to its preview screening. If Coppola was going for lyrical and subtle, her marketing department certainly missed the memo.
-
tavernier
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:18 pm
I really have nothing good to say about this movie (I wish I had those two hours back!), but I agree that SC should not be penalzied for a vapid marketing department.Andre Jurieu wrote:Should we really evaluate a film based on its marketing campaign?Antoine Doinel wrote:Also, perhaps I can't take a movie seriously that gives a way bright pink t-shirts with "Let Them Eat Cake" on it and pink quill pens prior to its preview screening. If Coppola was going for lyrical and subtle, her marketing department certainly missed the memo.
-
Lino
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
- Location: Sitting End
- Contact:
For me, the key to understand and appreciate Marie Antoinette (and marvel at is beauty of form and content) is to view it as a contemplative piece of filmmaking.
Contemplation really is a word and notion Coppola is after here. And if sometimes the mood changes drastically to an in-your-face, more direct approach, it's only for very brief moments. Much akin to lying on the lawn and basking on the sunlight and suddenly feeling swept away by a brisk breeze.
Mind that I still need a few days for the film to really sink in and maybe a second or a third viewing. In fact, this is a film I strongly recommend to give it another go if you didn't like it at first.
Contemplation really is a word and notion Coppola is after here. And if sometimes the mood changes drastically to an in-your-face, more direct approach, it's only for very brief moments. Much akin to lying on the lawn and basking on the sunlight and suddenly feeling swept away by a brisk breeze.
Mind that I still need a few days for the film to really sink in and maybe a second or a third viewing. In fact, this is a film I strongly recommend to give it another go if you didn't like it at first.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Ok, I see your point, but certainly Coppola is at enough stature to make sure the teaser/trailers at least somewhat resemble the actual tone of the film which - I think even Lino will agree - they do not. This observation was more of an afterthought, not the reason I disliked the film.tavernier wrote:I really have nothing good to say about this movie (I wish I had those two hours back!), but I agree that SC should not be penalzied for a vapid marketing department.Andre Jurieu wrote:Should we really evaluate a film based on its marketing campaign?Antoine Doinel wrote:Also, perhaps I can't take a movie seriously that gives a way bright pink t-shirts with "Let Them Eat Cake" on it and pink quill pens prior to its preview screening. If Coppola was going for lyrical and subtle, her marketing department certainly missed the memo.
-
Andre Jurieu
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)
That's fine, but what exactly is she contemplating through the film, or what exactly is she asking the viewer to contemplate?Lino wrote:For me, the key to understand and appreciate Marie Antoinette (and marvel at is beauty of form and content) is to view it as a contemplative piece of filmmaking.
Contemplation really is a word and notion Coppola is after here.
Well, many filmmakers have enough stature to exert some degree of control the form and content of their trailers/teasers, but I doubt they have as much influence as we think. I'm sure after finishing their films, they usually allow the marketing department to handle most of the grunt work (they probably have approval if the have some power) while they concentrate on interviews. But contemporary marketing is usually more about attraction rather than substance since they have 30 seconds to convey the nature of a film, while filmmaking can be about much more since they have 90+ minutes.Antoine Doinel wrote:...but certainly Coppola is at enough stature to make sure the teaser/trailers at least somewhat resemble the actual tone of the film...
That having been said, as much as I know I probably shouldn't enjoy those flashy Maria Antoinette TV spots, I still find them appealing (they've actually made me appreciate "What Ever Happened," which is a song I initially didn't really care for on a pretty mediocre album).
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Yeah, you're probably right on the cutting/marketing of the film. Coppola not only focused on interviews, but probably on post-production work as well.
A fellow Strokes fan? I loved Room On Fire so I was pretty pleased to hear the song both in the trailer and film. First Impressions Of Earth however....yikes.....
A fellow Strokes fan? I loved Room On Fire so I was pretty pleased to hear the song both in the trailer and film. First Impressions Of Earth however....yikes.....
-
toiletduck!
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 pm
- Location: The 'Go
- Contact:
I'll be seeing MA on Sunday, so I could probably just wait until then, but for months now, I've been reading in-depth pans and raves about it, and from what I've been able to judge, it sounds like it's all boiling down to a case of unabashed style over substance (at least that's what I'm anticipating going into Sunday). I like have no problem with that equation, especially with Sofia's style, so could someone who has seen it (pro or con, I don't care), please whittle it down to the basics? Is this the case or no?
-Toilet Dcuk
-Toilet Dcuk
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
-
toiletduck!
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 pm
- Location: The 'Go
- Contact:
Style over substance and style as substance are really two ways of saying the same thing. The question is whether or not a filmgoer finds it a valid choice. And judging from the fiasco that is MA's reception, it's apparently a pretty split field.
Personally, I'm with you, Michael. I'm willing to rock out with style all day long if it's well-done and unapologetic. And will probably be back on Sunday with a glowing review for the same reason.
-Toilet Dcuk
Personally, I'm with you, Michael. I'm willing to rock out with style all day long if it's well-done and unapologetic. And will probably be back on Sunday with a glowing review for the same reason.
-Toilet Dcuk
-
rs98762001
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:04 pm
The film certainly has an abundance of style, but it's often a derivative one. In the same way that LIT had an abudance of KarWai-isms, MA is predictably influenced by BARRY LYNDON and not so predictably by Terrence Malick. There's a very flat section in the middle of the film in which Dunst and her daughter retire to the countryside, and it's almost like the projectionist mistakenly spliced in a reel of DAYS OF HEAVEN or a complilation of Ben Chaplin's memories of his wife in THE THIN RED LINE.
MARIE ANTOINETTE is a strange one to get your head around. I certainly see why it's provoking such mixed reactions. Some of it is awful. There are an enormous amount of repetitive, irritating scenes closely detailing the title character's empty-headed hedonism (sometimes it feels like all Coppola is interested in is close-ups of cakes and lapdogs). The dialogue is awful and sophomoric, although I'm sure some will claim this is intentional.
But somehow there is a weight to the film. I found the first and last half hour to be extremely moving. Coppola is clearly a talented filmmaker. She tends to think more in images than in words, which is helpful considering she is a far lesser writer than director. MA feels like one of those auteur follies, too interesting to be a disaster but too flawed to be a masterpiece.
MARIE ANTOINETTE is a strange one to get your head around. I certainly see why it's provoking such mixed reactions. Some of it is awful. There are an enormous amount of repetitive, irritating scenes closely detailing the title character's empty-headed hedonism (sometimes it feels like all Coppola is interested in is close-ups of cakes and lapdogs). The dialogue is awful and sophomoric, although I'm sure some will claim this is intentional.
But somehow there is a weight to the film. I found the first and last half hour to be extremely moving. Coppola is clearly a talented filmmaker. She tends to think more in images than in words, which is helpful considering she is a far lesser writer than director. MA feels like one of those auteur follies, too interesting to be a disaster but too flawed to be a masterpiece.
-
Mr Sausage
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Canada
Well, not really. They indicate two different methods of considering art. "Style over substance" indicates a lack, an insubstantiality, an imbalance between two separate elements. "Style as substance" is a different method of approach, where aesthetics, form, ect., are in fact the substance of the work, its most important element, none of which can be or should be separated. What the idea posits is that style, rather than big ideas, social comment, or what have you, is where depth in art is to be truly found. Basically, importance and transcendence in art are found chiefly through a sensitivity to beauty; it is a search for the sublime in aesthetics.toiletduck! wrote:Style over substance and style as substance are really two ways of saying the same thing. The question is whether or not a filmgoer finds it a valid choice. And judging from the fiasco that is MA's reception, it's apparently a pretty split field.
This approach is more about where one places substance in a work rather than an attempt to give substance to insubstantial films (although it can be done) of which one cannot otherwise defend one's enjoyment. In other words, it is not so much a pigeon-holed attempt to find lasting importance in Michael Bay's films to justify one's liking of them. It merely posits that, if there is lasting importance to be found in Bay's (or anyone elses) films, it is to be found in the style.
-
toiletduck!
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 pm
- Location: The 'Go
- Contact:
Sorry, rephrase: They are two ways of talking about the same thing.
Style over substance and style as substance are the opposing sides of the split field I mentioned. Simply asking "can't style be substance?" isn't going to do a thing to convince the other side, and I was attempting to focus on the fact that is an argument that goes beyond a simple qualitative answer and, as such, is pretty much irrevocable. But, you're right, it was poorly stated.
-Toilet Dcuk
Style over substance and style as substance are the opposing sides of the split field I mentioned. Simply asking "can't style be substance?" isn't going to do a thing to convince the other side, and I was attempting to focus on the fact that is an argument that goes beyond a simple qualitative answer and, as such, is pretty much irrevocable. But, you're right, it was poorly stated.
-Toilet Dcuk
-
Mr Sausage
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Canada
Ah, yes, I thought you were going somewhere else with that.toiletduck! wrote:Sorry, rephrase: They are two ways of talking about the same thing.
Style over substance and style as substance are the opposing sides of the split field I mentioned. Simply asking "can't style be substance?" isn't going to do a thing to convince the other side, and I was attempting to focus on the fact that is an argument that goes beyond a simple qualitative answer and, as such, is pretty much irrevocable. But, you're right, it was poorly stated.
-Toilet Dcuk
It's not uncommon for critics to take socially or politically loaded works and ignore that in favour of form (Nabokov?). But I think you're right about it being somewhat beyond the simple qualitative, if I've read you correctly.
-
numediaman2
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:51 pm
I haven't seen MA, but A.O. Scott has . . . and his video review on the NYT web site is no better than the worst video seen on YouTube. Why is that? Does the NYT think so little of the Internet that it can't do serious criticism online?
Scott ends his silly little review by stating "Marie Antoinette is supposed to have said 'let them eat cake' . . . she probably didn't, but there are few films as delicious as Marie Antoinette" (not an exact quotation). What drivel.
In the newspaper he ends his review with the following:
Scott ends his silly little review by stating "Marie Antoinette is supposed to have said 'let them eat cake' . . . she probably didn't, but there are few films as delicious as Marie Antoinette" (not an exact quotation). What drivel.
In the newspaper he ends his review with the following:
Slightly better, no?And the film's visual extravagance somehow conveys its heroine's loneliness as well as the sheer fun of aristocratic life. We know how this story ends, and Ms. Coppola refrains from showing us the violent particulars, or from sentimentalizing her heroine's fate, preferring to conclude on a quiet, restrained note that registers the loss of Marie's world as touchingly as the rest of the film has acknowledged her folly, her confusion and her humanity.
-
Lino
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
- Location: Sitting End
- Contact:
Watch the premiere podcast at the official site and hear samples of its amazing soundtrack. Here is its accompanying text:
[quote]The music reflects Coppola's intention to tell the story in a modern way. While writing the script, she found inspiration from the New Romantic pop music movement of the 1980s — which was itself heavily influenced by 18th century ideals of extravagance. New Romantic artists such as Bow Wow Wow (“I Want Candy) and Adam Ant (“Kings of the Wild Frontierâ€
[quote]The music reflects Coppola's intention to tell the story in a modern way. While writing the script, she found inspiration from the New Romantic pop music movement of the 1980s — which was itself heavily influenced by 18th century ideals of extravagance. New Romantic artists such as Bow Wow Wow (“I Want Candy) and Adam Ant (“Kings of the Wild Frontierâ€
-
Michael
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm
A few hours passed since watching MA. Lino is right about the film requiring some time to sink in. The film still grows on me.
It's visually gorgeous as expected but even with the orgy of flowers and pastries in every sight, the melancholy always lingers in the air around Marie Antoinette, even so much more than Lost in Translation. I was prepared to dismiss Kirsten since I never liked her but she really surprised me with a very heartfelt, beautiful performance.
Lost in Translation is a great film and Marie Antoinette is even better. A huge step up for Coppola. I've been reading a variety of reviews and not meaning to sound arrogant but every negative criticism really missed the whole point of MA.
It's visually gorgeous as expected but even with the orgy of flowers and pastries in every sight, the melancholy always lingers in the air around Marie Antoinette, even so much more than Lost in Translation. I was prepared to dismiss Kirsten since I never liked her but she really surprised me with a very heartfelt, beautiful performance.
Lost in Translation is a great film and Marie Antoinette is even better. A huge step up for Coppola. I've been reading a variety of reviews and not meaning to sound arrogant but every negative criticism really missed the whole point of MA.
-
Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
As my previous posts in this thread will indicated, I really, really wanted to love this movie. But...
...I'm disappointed. No, I'm not complaining about style over substance. If anything, I wanted more style. I could have watched the men riding to hounds or Marie-Antoinette daydreaming on her bed, all accompanied by pop songs, for hours. What disappointed me was that the film was so inconsistent and undisciplined. One scene would be amazing and then the next would be so, well, hacky.
The whole "I Want Candy" montage was an embarassment of kitchsy editing (and unncessary given that the message of unrestrained consumption and decadence is handled much better in the masked ball scene and in the "hanging out and gambling" scene). The scene with the changing of the portraits was extremely touching and subtle, but then right before it was the jarring montage with the slogans on masking tape - "Queen of Deficit" or something - over a different portrait.
The first half-hour was uniformly good, as was the final 20 minutes, but everything in the middle was just kind of a pretty mess. Everything at Le Petit Hameau was beautiful, and the repeated montage of waking, dressing, eating was well done, but all of the other scenes seemed butted up against each other with no concern for transitions of tone or mood.
I'd like to see the whole movie re-edited by a better editor. And more Asia Argento.
...I'm disappointed. No, I'm not complaining about style over substance. If anything, I wanted more style. I could have watched the men riding to hounds or Marie-Antoinette daydreaming on her bed, all accompanied by pop songs, for hours. What disappointed me was that the film was so inconsistent and undisciplined. One scene would be amazing and then the next would be so, well, hacky.
The whole "I Want Candy" montage was an embarassment of kitchsy editing (and unncessary given that the message of unrestrained consumption and decadence is handled much better in the masked ball scene and in the "hanging out and gambling" scene). The scene with the changing of the portraits
SpoilerShow
upon the death of her 3rd child
The first half-hour was uniformly good, as was the final 20 minutes, but everything in the middle was just kind of a pretty mess. Everything at Le Petit Hameau was beautiful, and the repeated montage of waking, dressing, eating was well done, but all of the other scenes seemed butted up against each other with no concern for transitions of tone or mood.
I'd like to see the whole movie re-edited by a better editor. And more Asia Argento.
-
Michael
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm
-
neuro
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:39 pm
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
I didn't care for the movie at all (apart from the musical and editorial nods to All That Jazz). I'm willing to accept the "style over substance" argument, and am willing to accept that pie-eyed teenage romanticism seems to be Sofia's aesthetic, but I found the film to be completely dramatically inert (as well as somewhat sloppily made, as others have pointed out). I don't seem to understand what the film had to say that couldn't have been said in a short film, or even a music video (which it resembled most). The film was certainly visually gorgeous for most of its length, but I'm not entirely convinced that its decadent visuals were that large of an achievement (you could point a camera anywhere in Versailles and it would be gorgeous).
If the film was an attempt at historical revisionism, I think its largest flaw was its complete lack of actual historical context. I feel the film needed at least a toe in reality to provide a sense of fatalism. While it may have been history as seen through Marie's eyes, the only real time the audience is given a sense of unrest amongst the French people is when the mob is already at the door.
On the other hand, if the film was autobiographical (Sofia as Marie, born into privilege), then why would anyone want to sit through two and a half hours of such rampant self indulgence? My main concern seems to be the fact that I may have missed the entire point.
If the film was an attempt at historical revisionism, I think its largest flaw was its complete lack of actual historical context. I feel the film needed at least a toe in reality to provide a sense of fatalism. While it may have been history as seen through Marie's eyes, the only real time the audience is given a sense of unrest amongst the French people is when the mob is already at the door.
On the other hand, if the film was autobiographical (Sofia as Marie, born into privilege), then why would anyone want to sit through two and a half hours of such rampant self indulgence? My main concern seems to be the fact that I may have missed the entire point.