Lane on "Marie-Antoinette"

email this story
read comments (28)
post a comment

I'm just an impartial observer here -- of course I'm not -- but New Yorker critic Anthony Lane sure knows how to kick the pretense out of Sofia Coppola. His Marie-Antoinette review is glorious. I haven't felt such an intravenous surging of pure pleasure in weeks...no, months.

"Is this film to be believed?," Lane asks at the one-third mark. "Coppola films Versailles with a flat acceptance, quickening at times into eager montage, and declares, in her notes on the film, that she sought to capture her heroine's 'inner experience.' Her what? This is like a manicurist claiming to capture the inner experience of your pinkie.

"The one, transfixing virtue of Marie Antoinette is its unembarrassed devotion to the superficial. There is no morality at play here, no agony other than boredom, and, until the last half hour, not a shred of political sense. The fun dies out of the film -- in fact, the film itself expires -- when Coppola suddenly starts dragging in discussions of the American Revolution and, at the close, a baying crowd with a hatred of chandeliers.

"I can see what the director was after here: the kind of irruptive shock that cuts short the jamboree in 'Love's Labor's Lost.' But horrified realism is not her style, and her lunges at historical gravity seem insulting and uncourageous; she should have kept her nerve and stuck to the fripperies -- to the noisy, brightly decorated void in which her characters spin.

"The question has to be: what does Coppola know? Was Lost in Translation really, as it first appeared, a wistful commentary on the plight of Americans abroad, who shut themselves in their hotel rooms and fell lightly in love because it was sweeter, and less scary, than venturing outside? Or was it, as a later viewing suggested, in hock to that same trepidation, creating an insular chic out of xenophobia?

"A similar uncertainty pervades Marie Antoinette, borne along on a wave of anachronistic rock. Is the movie somehow contending that the Queen was, with her gang of cronies and her witless overspends, the Paris Hilton of the late eighteenth century? If so, then the catcallers of Cannes were even more misguided than they knew, since any decent French Marxist would be happy to deconstruct the film as a trashing of the idle rich.

"On the other hand, I spent long periods of Marie Antoinette under the growing illusion that it was actually made by Paris Hilton. There are hilarious attempts at landscape, but the fountains and parterres of Versailles are grabbed by the camera and pasted into the action, as if the whole thing were being shot on a cell phone and sent to friends.

"The young Queen builds a faux-pastoral paradise in the grounds, where she and her little daughter sport like shepherdesses, but, rather than raise an eyebrow at this make-believe, the director treats it as just another white-linen moment, like an outtake from The Virgin Suicides, and, for good measure, tosses in a few shots of nodding flowers and ickle bouncy lambs. That is so Coppola.

"It is hard to hate the film, whose silly fizz makes it simpler and less creepy than her earlier projects. If it does drop larger hints, they have less to do with the vanished culture of Versailles than with the fretful stasis of our own. The movie's approach to the world beyond, to everything that one doesn't know or wouldn't care to buy, is like the look on Kirsten Dunst's face: a beautiful blankness, forever on the brink of drifting, with a smile, into sleep."

Returning to LA<< previous | next >>Pope video

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 17, 2006 at 2:16 AM

comment #1

Rich S. says ...

"I haven't felt such an intravenous surging of pure pleasure in weeks...no, months."

Schadenfreude, thy name is Wells.

Posted by Rich S. at October 17, 2006 5:02 AM

comment #2

Chris D. says ...

Right on, Jeff. Even my seventeen-year-old who dragged me to a screening said, "I thought it might be bad but not that bad."

Posted by Chris D. at October 17, 2006 5:13 AM

comment #3

sardine says ...

Anthony Lane is plays a big part in the dumbing-down of film criticism....since the death of Pauline Kael. He is one of the worst critics in America. Why he was ever hired at the NEW YORKER remains a mystery. The New Yorker has some power....thanks to Kael. Denby is not very good either, altho he is the better writer. Dargis of the NY times is lousy too. These guys have lousy instincts. So do you Jeff. Among the better critics in New York and LA these three are regarded with rolling eyes..... But enough about Marie Antoinette & Coppola....lets talk about one of the worst directors in America today, Mr. Clint Eastwood....and his brand new movie FLAGS OF OUR FADDERS......it's so brilliant. Ha, ha ha. As my dear friend Kael used to say...."Sorry, but we disagree....!"

Posted by sardine at October 17, 2006 7:05 AM

comment #4

JD says ...

Lane's cluelessness here reminds me of his cluelessness regarding all things Star Wars. He attempts to make biting, critical remarks, but his prose conveys another point altogether: he's a painfully out-of-touch old guy with no tolerance or understanding of youth culture. The clearest giveaway of his (and Jeff's) out-of-touch-ness is the parallel he draws between Marie-Antoinette's soundtrack and Paris Hilton. No offense guys, but if you see any connection between The Cure, New Order, Gang of Four, Siouxsie and the Banshees, etc. and Paris Hilton, you're totally lost. She wasn't even born when most of this music came out. I suppose an argument could be made about Sofia Coppola's preoccupation with "hipster" music and fashion, but I don't think anyone, ANYONE would ever call Paris Hilton a hipster. Which begs the question: if you know absolutely nothing about the music in question, don't you fear that you might be slightly unqualified to comment on its role in the movie?

Posted by JD at October 17, 2006 7:06 AM

comment #5

Doghouse Reilly says ...

I may be wrong, because your railings against MA are a bit incoherent at this point, but...isn't Lane arguing something different from you? For him, the film is at its best and most pleasurable when reveling in its own dazed sumptuousness. Where it goes wrong is when it goes for political or philosophical seriousness.

Posted by Doghouse Reilly at October 17, 2006 7:07 AM

comment #6

sardine says ...

One more time, Jeffrey & friends:

Film Let Them Eat Film
Tales of wars and misguided youth dominate Cannes 2006

By SCOTT FOUNDAS
Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 6:00 pm

Marie Antoinette At the Cannes Film Festival, where fortunes can change more quickly than at the court of Versailles, Sophia Coppola's Marie Antoinette arrived the odds-on favorite -- buoyed by enthusiastic advance reviews in Paris, along with the sentimental possibility of history's first father-daughter Palme d'Or winners -- only to go home empty-handed. In between, there were those who wanted off with the head of Coppola and her rock-and-rococo biopic of France's most notorious queen.

"While it's impossible to know how many French nationals were among the small but vocal minority that booed Marie Antoinette's first official press screening, it's a fair bet that some Gallic viewers bristled at the film's depiction of a time when Franco-American relations ran so strong that French troops and financial support were funneled into the American Revolution, even as France's own economy teetered on the brink of collapse. But as Cannes wound on, there were critics of many nationalities who expressed disappointment with Coppola's third feature film, bringing to mind one trusted colleague's tried-and-true observation that sometimes people see a movie, but they don't really see the movie.

In the case of Marie Antoinette, I suspect that many came to the film expecting one thing -- perhaps the kind of dense, multicharacter historical epic Coppola pere might have made -- and didn't know quite what to make of what they found instead. Don't get me wrong: Marie Antoinette is a feast for the senses, shot on the grounds of Versailles, with hundreds of extras parading through the frame in candy-colored costumes by Oscar winner Milena Canonero.

"But the movie is less notable for its opulence than for its intimacy, as Coppola cuts through the rigid pomp and circumstance of so many period movies to create an irreverent snapshot of an impetuous young monarch (played with bubbly insouciance by Kirsten Dunst) more interested in haute couture and gossip among girlfriends than in the troubles of the nation that lies at her Manolo Blahnik-shod feet. Those who accused the film of failing as a study of 18th-century French politics missed Coppola's point, for this Marie is a resolutely apolitical figure, not so much insensitive to the woes of pre-revolutionary France as ignorant to them, safely ensconced in a bubble of superficiality and decadence far from the madding crowd.

"Daubed with anachronistic touches (including a soundtrack loaded with New Order, Bow Wow Wow and Gang of Four) that invigorate but never overwhelm, Marie Antoinette was, following the unqualified disaster of Richard Kelly's Southland Tales, the one movie in this year's Cannes competition that felt authentically hip and young and the product of a dazzling pop sensibility.

"It may also be Coppola's most personal film to date, not because she is herself the scion of a royal Hollywood family, but rather because she came of age during her father's lean years, when the palace of Zoetrope was set upon by angry creditors and King Francis was forced into working as a director-for-hire just to pay the bills. This is a movie made by someone who knows firsthand what it means to watch a once-glorious empire crumble.

Posted by sardine at October 17, 2006 7:21 AM

comment #7

MAGGA says ...

I actually avoided this film when it played in Paris, but reading about it here makes me wish I had seen it, dont know why

Posted by MAGGA at October 17, 2006 7:22 AM

comment #8

NYCritic says ...

I wonder how much of this criticism would be made if the film had been made by a MALE director. A lot of people are missing the point about this movie which has a point of view and sticks with it.

And by the way, I'm way older than Anthony Lane. I do enjoy his writing as he can turn a phrase or two, although I don't always agree with him.

MA can be read on a lot of levels. Some have seen parallels with Diana in it (a stranger at court who bucks tradition and pays a price for it and who also had a fashion sense that those around her didn't). Others see it as Sofia Coppola's autobiography -- Hollywood princess dealing with publicity machines and gossip. Someone dismissed as shallow and superficial because she cares about fashion and nice things and seemingly nothing else (charges that HAVE been leveled at Coppola). Others see it as an attempt by a filmmaker to invigorate a moribund genre. This isn't the staid British period piece that gets embraced in Hollywood.

I had some issues with the movie but I can appreciate what Coppola was attempting to do.

Posted by NYCritic at October 17, 2006 8:19 AM

comment #9

typop says ...

I'm always surprised to find that there are people who don't enjoy reading Anthony Lane. He isn't the once-in-a-century great critic that Kael was, but he's not bad, and he's five times the writer.

Posted by typop at October 17, 2006 8:29 AM

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

"Was Lost in Translation really, as it first appeared, a wistful commentary on the plight of Americans abroad, who shut themselves in their hotel rooms and fell lightly in love because it was sweeter, and less scary, than venturing outside? Or was it, as a later viewing suggested, in hock to that same trepidation, creating an insular chic out of xenophobia?"

Replace Lost in Translation with Kill Bill, and I'd say yes. Though, in the case of Lost in Translation, I don't think love or fear was the reason for them hotel-hopping, as much as boredom.
Unfortunately, the viewer ends up being bored in the process.

"A similar uncertainty pervades Marie Antoinette, borne along on a wave of anachronistic rock."

Most period pieces made by Hollywood tend to be anachronistic. Coppola's just being honest about it.

"There are hilarious attempts at landscape, but the fountains and parterres of Versailles are grabbed by the camera and pasted into the action, as if the whole thing were being shot on a cell phone and sent to friends."

And that's somehow culturally inferior to some amateur college student showing his/her work to his/her friends, because...?

NYCritic: "I wonder how much of this criticism would be made if the film had been made by a MALE director."

True. It sounds like something Godard would have done.

Posted by D.Z. at October 17, 2006 8:42 AM

comment #11

Steve Felix says ...

Now is a good time to share this on-topic Achewood comic from last week:

http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=10132006

Posted by Steve Felix at October 17, 2006 8:51 AM

comment #12

jeffreywells says ...

Wells to Sardine: Here's the part of Scott Foundas' review that I agree with the most fully: "It may also be Coppola's most personal film to date...because she came of age during her father's lean years, when the palace of Zoetrope was set upon by angry creditors and King Francis was forced into working as a director-for-hire just to pay the bills. This is a movie made by someone who knows firsthand what it means to watch a once-glorious empire crumble."

Posted by jeffreywells at October 17, 2006 9:16 AM

comment #13

sardine says ...

No legs to stand on....jeffy? what is it you are trying to say exactly.....? Francis Coppola is doing very nicely as is Sophia. As is Roman, as is Eleanor. You need to see a movie. How about Flags of our Fadders?

Posted by sardine at October 17, 2006 9:31 AM

comment #14

T. S. Idiot says ...

To return to JW's earlier comment about how even dummies "get" good movies, have a look at today's IMDb poll, where the unwashed met to vote, and see what film is in last place:
http://www.imdb.com/poll/

Posted by T. S. Idiot at October 17, 2006 9:49 AM

comment #15

RoyBatty says ...

"... in a few shots of nodding flowers and ickle bouncy lambs..."

The only definition of "ickle" I know of is an archaic alternative to "icicle" which makes no sense as used. Is this a typo (perhaps intending it to be "fickle")?

Apparently there is some sort of Harry Potter connection, but that would be too bizarre a usage for Lane.

Posted by RoyBatty at October 17, 2006 10:29 AM

comment #16

christian says ...

i'm gleaning from this that if you claim the film is "shallow" sofia can say, "no duh" while wallowing in the fashion porn.

so it sounds like she wants to have her cake and let them eat it too.

how soon before a line of manolo b MA shoes hits the street? i know sardine will be there...

of course, if this wa a michael mann film of sweaty sulking men in high testosterone poses, then would it have more depth?

Posted by christian at October 17, 2006 10:36 AM

comment #17

christian says ...

i'm gleaning from this that if you claim the film is "shallow" sofia can say, "no duh" while wallowing in the fashion porn.

so it sounds like she wants to have her cake and let them eat it too.

how soon before a line of manolo b MA shoes hits the street? i know sardine will be there...

of course to be fair, if this was a michael mann film of sweaty sulking men in high testosterone poses, then would it have more depth?

Posted by christian at October 17, 2006 10:36 AM

comment #18

christian says ...

sorry for the double post. sorry.

Posted by christian at October 17, 2006 10:37 AM

comment #19

T. S. Idiot says ...

"Ickle" is baby talk for "little." Such usage was in vogue among sophisticates in the twenties: see Nicole's snide comments to Dick Diver in Fitzgerald's Tender Is the Night. Snotnosed Tony is trying to be cute. As usual, he's cuter than he is incisive.

Posted by T. S. Idiot at October 17, 2006 12:17 PM

comment #20

qwiggles says ...

Come now, Jeff.

Posted by qwiggles at October 17, 2006 12:19 PM

comment #21

Chris Molanphy says ...

I'd love to know what Anthony Lane thinks of 'The 40 Year-OId Virgin.'

Posted by Chris Molanphy at October 17, 2006 12:25 PM

comment #22

jeffmcm says ...

So nobody sees the irony in the shallowest major critic in the country (Lane) writing harshly about this movie?

Posted by jeffmcm at October 17, 2006 1:19 PM

comment #23

sardine says ...

Sofia is good biz for Jeffy-POO.

Posted by sardine at October 17, 2006 3:47 PM

comment #24

nola says ...

I have no desire to see this movie. I liked Virgin and Lost but something about the trailer annoucing it's based on a true story makes me roll my eyes.

Posted by nola at October 17, 2006 4:08 PM

comment #25

sardine says ...

nola, please read Stephanie Zacharek's review of MA on Salon.com. If you like the first two movies, you'll love this. Lady Antonia Frasier and her Hubby Harold Pinter both think the movie is "Brilliant." YES THE MOVIE IS BASED ON A TRUE STORY.....It is based on Frasier's book.

Posted by sardine at October 18, 2006 12:43 PM

comment #26