comment #1

mutinyco says ...

I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

If you plainly admit the theme (you found it intellectually intriguing), craft (well directed, photographed, edited), and tone (aesthetics) qualify it as "well-made," then how do you go so far as to calling it "rancid?" Simply say: "It just wasn't my thing." And leave it at that.

You seem to have had a violent reaction to it, if you're using words like that -- which strikes me, considering how "well-made" you thought it, a legitimate work of art. Only a legitimate work of art can produce such a hostile reaction. Because it's honest. That's how I felt after the first screening of Mulholland Drive -- I violently thought it was fraudulent shit. However, I did give it a second chance. And when I cued into what Naomi was doing in her performance the movie started to work, and my opinion slowly reversed itself.

I haven't seen MA, so I don't know if it's good. But from my position, the worst form of criticism there is, is to hold contempt for a film based on a preconceived notion of what the critic WANTS it to be. That's as bad as a critic making thematic arguments about a movie that are unsubstantiated by its text.

And that's why some people have expressed discontent about your portrayal.

comment #2

Sanfred says ...

The truth is, Wells hated Marie-Antoinette before it was even shot and obviously has a certain intolerance toward Sofia Coppola. Not sure why, but he really seems to hate her. When Lost in Translation came out, Wells' coverage felt vaguely like the loud-mouth class bully beating up the shy, amiable art kid. But, even if you don't like her films, Coppola seems like such an inapprorpiate target for these kinds of mean-spirited, personal attacks. It's not like she's some kind of opinionated, argumentative, belligerent Oliver Stone or Spike Lee type.

comment #3

Rob says ...

I really am sick to death of the kind of bullshit defence put forward by mutincyo & others. Where's the evidence that the critics reviewed this film based on some preconceived notion? I mean something more substantial than 'but they didn't like it!' When Variety's Todd MaCarthy says ...

'But here, as elsewhere, Coppola avoids writing, or filming, involved dialogue scenes, as if aware she can't pull off anything too complicated. Despite the vast number of people onscreen in many sequences, scarcely any scenes feature sustained group dynamics, multiple moves, ambitious staging or numerous characters interrelating verbally. To get around this, she tends to attractively and straightforwardly film individuals or simple groupings and then lay in the desired content via voiceover snippets of letters, isolated conversational snippets or, better yet, songs that can simply be played over a brief montage of shots. It's an easy-listening style of filmmaking, where the basic visual notes are hit but complexities, nuances and deeper meanings remain ignored'

... the only thing he's doing is explaining, rather well, why MA feels so lacking.

For his part Jeff freely acknowledges that the film is well made & glossy but the problem appears to be there's absolutely nothing else. I find it utterly hilarious that your reaction to his review is 'Simply say: "It just wasn't my thing." And leave it at that.' Obviously, you're the sensitive type. Even more preposterously you're reduced to claiming that the level of hostility MA has engendered is in itself an indication of the film's legitimacy. Well by that calculation Pearl Harbor & Van Helsing must be two of the greatest movies ever made! Let's be honest here; you & others are pissed because the critics didn't fall in love with MA like you already have. So you attack them for their 'preconceived notions' (a good film apparently being one of them). That's the source of your discontent & it's about as funny as Sanfred's defence of Sofia Coppola which basically reads as 'She's cute, she's pretty - don't be nasty to her!!'

comment #4

PaulJBis says ...

The thing is, you can admit that a film is well crafted and well made and still disagree on a basic, philosophical basis with what it's trying to say. I am curious about MA and intend to see it, but ever since it was announced, I had a fundamental problem with the idea of showing the woman that said "let them eat cake!" as a poor victim of social circumstances (though I guess it's to be expected in times like this, when the poor drown in New Orleans and the reaction of the media is to blame them for not having the means to escape in the first place). I have the feeling that, when I finally see it, I'll come out of the theater admiring Sofia Coppola's talent for picking music and creating moods (which she undeniably has), but I'll never be in the same boat as her in the fundamental concept of her film... and that's the problem (and I suspect it's Jeff's too).

comment #5

Mike Gebert says ...

I think people don't recognize that booing is a time-honored tradition at Cannes. In fact it's quite common to boo the winner of the Palme d'Or or other top prizes as they accept their trophies, in a way that is utterly unknown at the Oscars, say. So booing at Marie Antoinette, though a legitimate expression of opinion, is not THAT big a shock.

"If you don't like me, I can tell you, I don't like you either." --Maurice Pialat's acceptance speech for Under the Sun of Satan's Palme d'Or, which, given that it was Cannes' 40th anniversary, was booed especially enthusiastically

comment #6

Martin Benitez says ...

What`s hilarous is not to defend the boos but to defend the film and Copolla before having seen it.

comment #7

mutinyco says ...

Rob,

A few samples from various critics, all of which to me provide evidence that many people had a preconceived notion of what they wanted from the film. (And as per your McCarthy quote, I'd argue what he said there could easily be applied to anything Terrence Malick has ever done. Doesn't make him anything less than brilliant.)

McCarthy: Coppola avoids famous incidents that would normally make up the essence of drama: the affair of the necklace that so seriously stained her reputation, the chance discovery of the royal family as it fled; the king and queen's imprisonment and eventual execution.

Darghis: ...what made this spoiled, rotten woman worthy of attention weren't her garden parties and fur-lined shoes, but the role she played in a bloody historical convulsion.

Xan Brooks: It felt as though the audience was providing the ending that Sofia Coppola was too decorous to show...

Ebert: “I wanted to see heads rolling,” groused Baz Bamigboye, the famous Daily Mail columnist, and there seemed to be disappointment that the film ends well before the king and queen are beheaded.

comment #8

goldenhorse says ...

The lack of beheadings etc. is what intrigues me about this film. I've seen enough standard issue historical dramas to last me a lifetime. I love the idea of recasting her life as a post modern teen movie.

mutinyco, glad you brought up Malick. That guy always gets handed a free pass based on his early work and his mysterious persona. But I think you are WAY off base with your comment "Only a legitimate work of art can produce such a hostile reaction". See Hook and Batman & Robin for proof.

comment #9

Rob says ...

mutinyco, those quotes don't prove anything of the kind. If MA was powerful enough on its own terms then viewers wouldn't be grousing. Evidently it isn't & those who've seen it are understandably left wondering how Coppola can turn a story with so much drama, e.g., the affair of the necklace, the revolution & beheading, - into something so fundamentally dull. Just admit it, you're shilling like crazy for MA & trying to shift the burden of failure onto the critics. It's a familiar tactic. Don't think it'll work though.

comment #10

Doghouse Reilly says ...

What seems to be embedded in Jeff's comments is a fairly philistine idea of what a movie is supposed to be - a maximally dramatic story filled with psychological insight where the audience has a "rooting interest."

Of course, isn't, say, much of Stanley Kubrick's career based on actually frustrating these notions - on not giving the spectator narrative payoffs and instead emphasizing qualities of the image and music?

Specifically, what about Barry Lyndon? It too is about a "bimbo," floating through monumental historical circumstances, yet the film pays little heed to the conventions of historical biopic. It does something more interesting - it makes a historical argument. And it does this through expressive possibilities of cinema, through music, through the fashion model approach to acting, through the rigorously composed, painterly images, through ironic voice-over that deliberately destroys suspense, and so on.

Jeff and others act like not providing a rooting interest and not giving the audience their narrative kicks somehow precludes a movie from being great, even as they admit that the form and style of MA mirrors the emptiness and self-absorption of the characters. I mean, I have no idea if the film is great or not. I haven't seen it and don't know much about it, but couldn't that be an accomplishment rather than a failing? Outside of the gilded cocoon of the movie industry, it is possible to imagine films that aren't all about thrilling plots.

comment #11

mutinyco says ...

Those quotes prove everything. The critics who liked it appreciated the film for what it is. Those who didn't wished it were a different movie.

There's no shift of blame. The reviews were pretty evenly divided. Usually along those lines.

comment #12

Duck of Death says ...

"I had a fundamental problem with the idea of showing the woman that said "let them eat cake!" as a poor victim of social circumstances". She never said it, and she was a victim of social circumstances. Oh yeah, and George Washington never threw a silver dollar across the Potomac either.

comment #13

PaulJBis says ...

Oh, yeah, poor Marie Antoinette, she was totally a victim of social circumstances, living all day in the most luxurious palace of the Western world and not having to do anything for a living. And Paris Hilton is totally a role-model, as the 16-year old quoted in the item above says. Give me a fucking break.

(And this, BTW, is why anecdotes like "let them eat cake" stick and end up being perpetuated, regardless of their truth. As the italians say, "si non e vero, e ben trovato").

comment #14

PCaffey says ...

The idea that every film must exhibit a "rooting interest" seems particularly shallow-minded. If you cannot manage to muster a dollop of human empathy for any of the characters in a film, then "root" for the filmmaker who made it.

comment #15

Dubbs says ...

Doghouse Reilly, you make a great comparison to Kubrick's Barry Lyndon. I can't help but think that Wells is being sexist. Maybe it's just me,
but I read his analysis of the film as "shallow" to mean that a female filmmaker's interest in a female historical figure is irrelevant if it
doesn't involve masculine politicking, fierce competition, and traditional assumptions of historicized dramatic tension. Even if it does treat Marie Antoinette as ditzy and self-absorbed, why is that lame? Stanley Kubrick portrayed Barry Lyndon as a stupid, selfish social climber, but he
presented his observations within a specific aesthetic, and was praised for it. Wells' review reminds me of Barry Lyndon (Wells admits he likes
the aesthetics of Marie Antoinette, but feels Coppola's observations are superficial and empty), but whereas Kubrick gets called an innovator
for portraying a stupid man within beautifully framed visuals, while feminizing his protagonist and making his desires base and isolated from the political, economic, and social tensions of the
day, when Coppola does the same thing, she's essentially accused of making a "girlie movie." And even if it is girlie, so what? Females watch
movies. Female artists like Coppola should portray things uncompromisingly, from their perspective. This might be a bad comparison, but on a similar note, it recently pissed me off when several critics accused Stick It of being "geared towards teenage girls." I don't understand why this is a knock. How many movies are geared towards teenage boys without any complaining going on? Or more to the point, how many movies are made for twenty-to-forty-something males? But because the cinephile hegemony is primarily twenty-to-forty-something males, it's assumed that a movie has to fit into an expected mold. I realize that male and female film critics are pretty much equally divided in their response to MA, with Dargis' dislike of the film being of particular note, but something else is going on here. There's a "how dare she" emerging in what's being written about the film that not even Richard Kelly is facing with Southland Tales.

comment #16

janice says ...

I haven't seen MA but have seen her other two films and always wondered at their acclaim. Also why are music videos being showcased at Cannes as that is what Sophia is making. Very chic, fashionabely shrewd and hip music videos with a few well placed sighs, book references and historical figures to pretend to have any depth. Her Lost in Translation was a weak copy of Wes Anderson's Bill Murray figure. Beautful, trendy, hip clothes, cool people and music is not enough to sustain a movie, but work perfectly for the MTV video music awards. At least her brother's film didn't even pretend at depth. If MA is really a story of her and Kirsten Dunst's (and other poor tragic "deep" privileged teenage girls) who are deemed to suffer life in shallow fashionable society, why use MA as a vehicle. MA is just chosen to showcase clothes and hip music and the favorite teeny bopper star who is better left playing cheerleaders. I do find Sophia's films entertaining, visually beautiful, very chic and trendy but they definitely do not deserve oscars or such praise.

comment #17

janice says ...

I haven't seen MA but have seen her other two films and always wondered at their acclaim. Also why are music videos being showcased at Cannes as that is what Sophia is making. Very chic, fashionabely shrewd and hip music videos with a few well placed sighs, book references and historical figures to pretend to have any depth. Her Lost in Translation was a weak copy of Wes Anderson's Bill Murray figure. Beautful, trendy, hip clothes, cool people and music is not enough to sustain a movie, but work perfectly for the MTV video music awards. At least her brother's film didn't even pretend at depth. If MA is really a story of her and Kirsten Dunst's (and other poor tragic "deep" privileged teenage girls) who are deemed to suffer life in shallow fashionable society, why use MA as a vehicle. MA is just chosen to showcase clothes and hip music and the favorite teeny bopper star who is better left playing cheerleaders. I do find Sophia's films entertaining, visually beautiful, very chic and trendy but they definitely do not deserve oscars or such praise.