“So did those who boo perhaps have a Yankee accent? Or British, Italian, or Austrian? Who can say? The important point is that Marie-Antoinette was not hated. The daily ‘critics’ jury’ of Screen International, a cross-section of nine international critics, gave it 2.44 points out of a possible 4; it’s tied for fifth out of 14 films. In another poll, Michel Ciment rated it worthy of the Palme d’Or. I’ve also noticed that opinions on the film seem to be growing more favorable as time passes .” — Roger Ebert in his 5.25 column. All due respect to Roger, Michel Ciment and the others who admired Coppola’s pic, but this is not the truth as I knew, gauged and assimilated it in Cannes. My reaction and those of several journalists I spoke to after the film ended was one of aesthetic and moral revulsion. I stand absolutely by my original observation that this is “arguably one of the shallowest and dullest historical biopics of all time.” As I said earlier, Coppola does a pretty good job craft-wise, and she obviously has rendered a view of the French queen’s life of her own devising. The problem is that this view is atrociously lame. If Coppola were to apply the same aesthetic to a life-of-Christ movie, it would be just as bland and value-less, and it would end as Judas and the Roman soldiers enter the Garden of Gethsamene. Let’s call a spade a spade — Coppola identified with Marie-Antoinette and wanted to cut her a break.