If the movie Clueless had been set back in 18th century France, it would have been a lot 
like Sophia Coppola?s Marie Antoinette.I really wanted to like this film. At best, it is visually stunning. But the rich colors and beautiful cinematography could not save what felt like half a movie.
Don?t get me wrong. It was no fault of the cast. To be fair, Coppola’s cousin, Jason Schwartzman did a very believable job in the role of the bumbling, sexually awkward king, Louis XVI (or Louis the 14th). Kirsten Dunst was amusing and natural as the young, frustrated yet flighty queen. No, it was the writing and unfortunately the directing which may cause moviegoers to form an angry mob and storm out of the cinema.
Marie Antoinette is the story of an Austrian princess who weds the French heir to the throne when she is only 14 years old as part of a peace treaty between the two countries. Much like a young starlet with the paparazzi today, she was
surrounded by rumors and gossip from day one. The fires are only fed when it becomes common knowledge that she and her husband, Louis XVI, have not consummated their marriage, even after 2 years. In a fit of perhaps depression, or just plain distraction and boredom, she turns to spending extravagant amounts of money gambling at parties and shopping for lavish gowns, outrageous hairstyles and the unnecessary re-landscaping of Versailles’ already luxurious gardens. Of course, with the help of wagging tongues and the Feuille Volante (18th century scandal sheet, the
equivalent to modern day gossip magazines) the rumors about the queens spending and social outlook are blown out of proportion. The public, who are already in the midst of changing political and social ideology, grasp firm hold to the rumors. Later in life, they also accuse her of being a spy.
The young couple soon step into the spotlight again when the King dies and Louis the 14th is crowned. After a frank talk from Antoinette?s brother, the marriage is consummated and an?heir to the throne on its way. But the damage is already done and what isn?t shown in the movie, is why the blood thirsty mob storms Versailles in the first place; the Kings scheming brother plots against the couple from the start because he wants the throne for himself.
Like a roller coaster, the plot was slowing building
momentum towards some great climatic ending. It worked it?s way up past Marie?s affair with the dashing Count Fersten (another part of the story that was factual and rapturous and could have saved the film had it of been shown in greater detail) to the point where the order of events reach it?s peak?And then the ending credits roll.
Walking dejectedly out of the cinema I thought back to the words uttered by Dunst?s character after she has gone through the tedious morning dressing ceremony ?This is ridiculous.?
If black and white doesn?t bother you, check out a copy of the 1938 version of Marie Antoinette starring Norma Shearer, for a more detailed account of the riveting life and death of Marie Antoinette.
