comment #1

Edward says ...

Is still not interested in an "Indy 4."

comment #2

sardine says ...

Search
Advanced Search

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 père 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.

comment #3

nemo says ...

Ugh, does the world really want or need another Indiana Jones? Or another George Lucas anything? Why can't he just go run a vineyard and leave the poor movie industry alone? Hasn't he already done enough damage throughout his career?

comment #4

nemo says ...

"I think the secret to the future is quantity."

Yeah, quantity. Isn't that what Lucas has been all about all of the last 30 years?

And speaking of quantity, didn't you wander into the wrong thread with your massive copy and paste there, sardine?

comment #5

NYCBusybody says ...

I think Gregg Araki should do the next Indy.

Indy will start fisting gay rats.

comment #6

le corbeau says ...

"Didn't Lucas say last year that he wanted to be a indie director and make smaller, lower-budgeted features"

He's been saying that for eons, and he never does it, unless Radioland Murders counts. It's total bullshit, even if he believes it.

George, kids with $100 to their name make small movies today. If you want to, all you have to do is start doing it. The problem is, Lucas has never really had interest in actors-- which is why so many people he's worked with give the worst, if most lucrative, performances of their lives in his films. If you don't have any interest in actors, and you live in a billionaire's bubble, you're kind of at a disadvantage when it comes to making modern neorealist movies.

comment #7

D.Z. says ...

How is film risky for Lucas? His company's set for life.

comment #8

sutter kane says ...

You know, when you already have billions to your name, it really sounds like bullshit when you complain about anything being too expensive and too risky. Besides, as everyone has pointed out, you can make a good movie with a good cast for 20 or 30 million and generally break even, if not turn a profit. The Weinsteins did it- and did it very well- for a long time. Interesting that as soon as they started trying to generate Lucas-level box office returns, their movies turned to shit. Lucas could make smaller, personal pictures, but I think he's finally just faced up to the fact that he doesn't have the soul of an artist anymore. The money got to him.

And NYC, you just might be onto something.

comment #9

f.bush says ...

We need an Indy 4 like we need a Mission Impossible 4

comment #10

Larry says ...

As long as rich people want to get richer, they will make an Indy 4. In fact, Lucas is the single reason it hasn't been made yet, and he'll eventually get what he wants.

What's more, I bet it will be fun.

comment #11

Argen says ...

"As long as rich people want to get richer"

It still boggles my mind why there's any mystery about how decisions get made in Hollywood. Why are there so many CGI animated films with animals as stars? Why do we get retreads and repeats? This pretty much sums it up.

"What's more, I bet it will be fun."

Can't follow you down that road, cowboy. If you can tip me to the kind of fun you can have watching someone long past their "running around and doing cool shit" stage of life trying to relive past glory I'll take that back. For now it just seems that an Indy 4 will be sad. Unless it's some sort of examination of the quandary of being an aging action figure. But something tells me they'll avoid that. I mean Lucas thinks he still has the heart of an independent, guerilla filmmaker so you can only surmise the level of self-delusion stalking this project.

comment #12

TKC says ...

Man. By the time Lucas has a draft he's happy with, the film will be starring the rotting corpse of Harrison Ford. (Which will, curiously, be more energetic in its line readings.)

comment #13

Roddy Reta says ...

You have to give Lucas credit. He started his own company and does his own films. He created an entire universe from scratch that has influenced countless people. He will remembered long after his petty (and largely anonymous) critics bite the dust.

comment #14

Argen says ...

"He created an entire universe from scratch..."

Not entirely from scratch. The things he cribbed amount of stuff he cribbed would put QT to shame.

No one's saying he hasn't brought to life wonderful work. Many are saying that he's past his usefulness on a creative level. And history will uphold that view.

comment #15

Rich S. says ...

Remember a few weeks back when Lucas said that the fanboys were going to hate the plot of Indy 4, but oh well? Ever since, the fanboy buzz has been intense. Speculation (not backed by any facts, as far as I know) is that the film might be "Indiana Jones and the Fountain of Youth." It almost makes too much sense not to be true, in light of Lucas' comments. Is the world ready for an Indy reboot?

comment #16

Joel says ...

Lucas could make an announcement that he's solving the world's hunger problem and people would criticize him for not stopping all the wars, too. It's ridiculous.

Anyway, he's right. I'd rather get into a new series like Deadwood than crap like Poseidon.

comment #17

Edward says ...

Joel:
I'd be floored if we got something remotely as interesting as "Deadwood," but then "Young Indiana Jones" wasn't half bad. On the other hand, it's probably better to forget those Ewoks TV movies.

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

Argen: "If you can tip me to the kind of fun you can have watching someone long past their "running around and doing cool shit" stage of life trying to relive past glory I'll take that back."

Sean Connery was able to pull it off in the last film...

"Not entirely from scratch. The things he cribbed amount of stuff he cribbed would put QT to shame."

Except Lucas didn't use ILM to buy up and bury films like Hidden Fortress. And when he presented a Kurosawa film, everyone knew it was a Kurosawa film.

comment #19

Argen says ...

D.Z.: "Sean Connery was able to pull it off in the last film..."

Really? All I saw was an elderly man consigned to comic relief and bullshit sentimentality.

"Except Lucas didn't use ILM to buy up and bury films like Hidden Fortress. And when he presented a Kurosawa film, everyone knew it was a Kurosawa film."

Kurosawa had decades on Lucas. It served Lucas' career more to be connected to Kurosawa than the converse.

Hey, I see why you do this. It takes no thought and you get to be a know-it-all douchebag.

Go fuck yourself, Zelter.