Marie Antoinette: History as a problem in film

When unity thinks of the Coppola, unity inevitably thinks of the big(p) Francis Ford, whose dramatic Godfather movies own set the bar for dramatic storytelling and bourgeoning for generations of filmmakers to come. However, recently, the greener Coppola, Sofia, has taken all over the moviemaking role, and has sought to reinvent the diachronic story of Marie Antoinette, the infamous French business leader beheaded at the st artistic production of the French renewing. However, for those expecting a serious, dour, and diachronicly fun by play rendering of the tragic ( nearly say s rousedalous) life of the queen, they ar in for somewhat of a surprise.Indeed, the intentionally contemporary, optically stunning wrap on the well-known tale is jar in its departures from traditional historic thought. So, too the optic liberties do frequently to literally force the earr separately to see the young queen from a different perspective. The problem is, however, although Coppola chamberpot assert that her attempt is an artistic one, it is as well one of manipulation.That is because in the end, the audition is fully aw be of the juxtaposition of their revolutionary, interpretation of Antoinette as delivered by the film, with the fire force of historical fact (in as much as we ar aware). This departure from macrocosm eventually leaves the listening feeling a bit cheated, as if the visual, auditory, and even literary ministrations of Coppola on the story squander been vigor but a cheap tricka meandering of flightiness intentionally downplaying the legitimate tragedy of Antoinettes death and the serious principles throne the French Revolution.To be sure, Coppolas Marie Antoinette is beautiful. Released in 2006, the film is set and shoot in Versailles. The earshot meets the young queen as a new bride, delivered from her native Austria to the bosom of the French salute. From the beginning, Antoinette is presented as gentle, roughly simple, and lovable hearted touch on with leaving her family and her beloved pet dog behind to start a new life of duty and service at the behest of her family.Almost as striking as the gentleness of the queen, the visual imagery of the film is without par. The warps are as vibrant as any 50s Technicolor dream, and the suppress is consistently resplendent with bright pinks, blues and pastel wonders beyond imagination. This is specially unfeigned of the costuming, which is rendered in striking richness both in color and texturehelping to evoke the extravagant luxury of the French courtyard and the life of the queen.In addition to the visually descriptive nature of the film, Antoinettes affinity with her hubby is pictured as amazingly genteel, with her displaying endless patience for her husbands quirky panaches and obvious lack of sexual prowess. Further, her grave role as a mother and bearer of heirs is portrayed convincingly, with visual ( just) mention of the death of one of her chil dren in infancy.However, apart from this reflection of historical trivia, the film does little to delve deeply into any of the issues of the measure, or of Antoinettes life. Further, even the casting of the Statesns Kirsten Dunst and Jason Shwartzman waits to function as a way to move the film away from historical accuracy, if only in the audiences mind. This is particularly true when one hears the somewhat jarring sound of Dunsts and Shwartzmans flat American accents against the stylized French-accented comments of the whore of the Court.Although one could say that Coppolas enactment of Antoinette in such(prenominal) a candy-pink, innocent and accommodating fashion ( perchance more devoid of malice out-of-pocket to her straight forward and simple American twang) could be authentic in that some of it describes the queens relative youth and innocence as she entered the court. However, this does non progress to change magnitude mazyity, and the audience does non see her incre ased politicialization that by all historical accounts marks the last years of her life.Indeed, as historians denominate out, Marie Antoinette was political, some say a bit of an activist, determined to stand pat the changes brewing in the midst of the growing revolutionary fervor in the country. In fact, the movie seems to curiously, if perhaps, intentionally stay away from any true politicalization, ugliness, unrest or upheaval. Apart from one or two references to the hoi polloi being hungry and their not being enough bread, one entirely does not see the gross slew or their plight at all.What revolution?,the audience may wonder (perhaps more so amongst nows less educated tween moviegoers). Indeed, as the film closes, we are go away with nary a glimpse in to the tragic fate of the queen. Further, one would not imagine too horrible a fate, after all, match to Coppolas portrayal, Antoinette would never arrive been so callous as to put on said, Let them eat cake Certainly s he was too good for that after all, didnt she give up getting new diamonds so that the people may eat?In addition to the creative storytelling that Coppola entertains throughout the film, the music, itself sets the soundtrack as a kind of point-making device to advertise help the audience to separate with the kind queen. Strains of outstandingly upbeat popular music (Bow Wow, Cindy Lauper) make everything seem more innocent, and heck, cant the audience see they are further like us, not so foreign, not so historicYes, it could have been any wealthy American or European girl in her shoes. One can even see Paris Hilton in Versailles. downstairs this discussion, Antoinette seems less distant, complex, serious, and significant in history. Indeed, all of the messages gleaned from her experiences and narrative seem to pass away to the tune. Yes, some classical music is incorporated into the film, but only after the jarring point of the modern has been thoroughly made.Although the ci nematic techniques use by Coppola definitely lead the audience to reinterpret history, several of the references to historical fact are accurate. After all, the French did help the young America against Great Britain, and they did deplete sizable financial stores from France (exacerbating the plight of the poor) (Brinton, 1963). However, by the time these historical points are made in the film, the other visual, dialogue, and tonal points have been made. Historical errors and downright tragedies of perception seem insignificant, just another point of verbal backdrop rather than pivotal junction.In addition to the twisting of the audiences perception of Antoinette as a function of tone (visual, dialogue, etc), Coppola also departs from historical fact to presumably make the movie more fire to its audiencewho are perhaps used to a Dangerous Liaisons kind of film. Indeed, in departing from established historical fact and blithely embracing a supposed extramarital affair between Antoi nette and the Count von Ferson, Coppila goes out of her way to add to history, simply for the frolic value.Although one cannot defiantly prove that such an affair did not occur in truth, historical sources do not indicate that it did. This is hardly a trivial point in that it further contemporizes Antoinette, implying that such takes were commonplace (as they are today), and carried little consequences. The historical and religious reality of Antoinettes times were all to different, with serious consequences for both royal and common wives who strayed from the marriage bed. Of course none of these issues are dealt with and the whole affair is portrayed as just one more pleasant visual intermezzo among many, without meaning or serious interpretation.Given all this, if one were to accept that Coppola did in fact deliberately attempt to use cinematic devices and storytelling in come in to create a new version of the story, is this problematic? If such a film were simple entertainm ent the answer would be no. However, the hassle that comes along with dealing with a historical depicted object is that there is some expectation from the audience that an attempt toward accuracy be made. Yes, costumes in the Antoinette court were probably very pretty.The queen energy have been innocent, kind, sweet even. mayhap she never did say let them eat cake. Such an assertion would not be new (1963). However, using technique to reframe the events of the movie, be it through music, cinematography or dialogue creates either a problem with history itselfin essence changing it for the audience if they are impressionable, or though creating defeat or even anger in those who know betterand perhaps feel more than a bit cheated that the association of the character with the formation event of her times (the Revolution) was all but overlooked in film.Although Coppola, herself has express that it was not her intention to deal with politics or the political reality of her win (Du dec, 2006), she doesif by omission. In fact, her infamous statement, Marie Antoinette was not enkindle in politics, so why should I be? (2006) is problematic on many levels. First, in its erroneous assumption that Antoinette was not interested in politics, she indicates a real unfamiliarity with her protagonist which is troubling. Second, by not being interested in politics, one has to wonder at the appropriateness of Coppola dealing with the subject matter at all. Can one imagine, for instance, Frances Ford Coppola asserting, I am not interested in organized crime.?Coppolas troubling office and treatment of the subject matter was so striking when the movie was screened in Cannes that the audience actually booed the film. This may be in part ascribable to the fact that Coppila did not take her information from respected historical sources. Instead, she almost exclusively drew from Antonia Frasers contemporary biography, which itself is rife with similar flaws and omissions to the movie.In the end, the audience is never privy to the meat of the Antoinette storya story that the young female audience members that Coppila obviously targets could only learn from. For example, she never showcases her strength, intelligence, or real power. She does not take time to fully draw the massive political opinion and pressures against her as a foreign queen, nor does she deal with the complex nature of her death, the differences between rumor and political reality.Of course, this is not to say that the film does not have its fans. In fact, even among French audiences some appreciated the way in which Marie Antoinette was played outside of the norm. Although some might turn over that some French critics may be pleased that a large Hollywood producer would deal with the subject at all, one can assume that some found genuine satisfaction in the portrayalpuzzling or no.Thus, the problems with the film hinge directly on the historical material. Given any other non-historical subject matter, the same story might be just fine. An afternoon of entertainment and lavish visual effects. However, by choosing a historical subjectand an emotional one at that, Coppila evokes much more than she may intend. Further, the reactions of audiences must be interpreted in the condition of the subject matter, not simply on the basis of film quality, direction, art or sensibility.Audiences either like the film or hate itand each opinion carries with it serious implications. After all, if one likes the film what does that say nearly ones view or knowledge of history? Has the conjury of film influenced that opinion, and by continuation, ones historical view? Conversely, should one hate the film, would that person lack the ability to appreciate the violator of the visual art in the film? Or, instead, does ones consciousness of the subject matter as history prohibit any such range?In the end, Coppolas decision to use history as her cogitate may be the downfall of the fil m. This because history demands a certain treatment in order to be molded into entertainment. One cannot mould entertainment into historyit simply smacks of hollowness and superficialitytwo of the most common criticisms of the film.Worse, one can see that (as in the case with this film), even in the presence of some truly spectacular cinematography and visual beautynot to mention some pretty significant financial investments, it is not enough to overcome the historical liberties taken with the film. It is as if her subject matter has become her stumbling block. To be sure, one can assert that the film is great in part. However, in part is not enough for true greatness. No, Marie Antoinette leave be no Lawrence of Arabia, enjoyed for generations to comeand isnt that the true test of a films merit?Works CitedBrinton, Crane. A Decade of Revolution 1789-1799. Harper and Row, 1963.Dudec, A. Cannes reality check. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 25, May 2006. Retrieved on April 23, 2007, from , http//findarticles.com/?noadc=1