Marie Antoinette

It would not be an exaggeration to say I had very high expectations of this, after Sofia Coppola's last film Lost in Translation ranks in my all time top ten, and The Virgin Suicides before it also comes higly rated.

It didn't live up, unfortunately.

Coppola Jr.'s thing with her films so far has been dealing with women who jar with their surroundings (this film, Lost in Translation) or women who are just not of this world (The Virgin Suicides), and if ever there was a time for her to charter new territory, now could well be it.

One of the things I liked so much about Lost in Translation was how contemporary it was. The dialogue and the situation both of the characters found themselves in had never been approached in the same way before, nay approached at all, by any other writer-director, and it was only right that the film scooped an Oscar for best original screenplay.

Marie Antoinette was different. It was a period piece, and while the sets were spot on - it must be said they always have been in her films - the rest of it didn't really fly. For a start, the film was quite gender specific in that the men weren't exactly given all that much to do, with Marie's husband in particular enjoying the rather bizarre role of a leading character with very little to say. Women have been given the spotlight in Coppola's other films, but not generally at the expense of the opposite gender. Marie's frustration is linked to her husband, and while the director knows better than to pull a stunt like the one that was done with the prince in Braveheart, the circumstances the couple have found themselves in can hardly be described as his fault. It's left to the likes of Rip Torn, and to a lesser extent, Steve coogan, to carry the torch in that respect.

None of the other characters are fleshed out all that much either, with the ladies-in-waiting providing some diversion but never really allowed to participate fully in their own right.

Then there is the soundtrack.

I've waxed before about using contemporary songs in films. The fundamental problem is that the movement and climax of a song will not coincide with those of the scene in which it is used. The director got around this problem before by using tailor-made recordings for The Virgin Suicides, and using atmospheric songs without an obvious beginning, middle, or end in Lost In Translation. This was to a certain extent the case here, but (and I appreciate that this may be my problem) the thing was, the songs were almost without exception ones that I had heard before. It almost seemed to me like a game of spot-the-80s-artist, like she had compiled a mix tape of all the songs she liked, and thrown them up there. When you hear something like The Cure's Plainsong (played for, like, five seconds during Marie Antoinette's coronation as queen), it automatically registers as a separate entity, evoking something that you have previously associated with the song, rather than complimenting or augmenting the scene in which it is heard. But I appreciate that that is partly just me. It's integrated well, and still better than Martin Scorsese throwing in a U2 song or another Rolling Stones song into one of his films. Still, I think original composition for each film - provided it's affordable - is the way to go.

Still, the sound and visuals are as compelling as usual, such as the aforementioned sets, the views of Versailles, and the scene where they're using their wine glasses to make sounds reminds me of that scene in Lost In Translation where Bill Murray's character was swimming lengths in the pool, it's got that kind of experimental vibe.

A point of note that I mention is the historical aspect of it. There was none. External events are allowed only the most minor of intrusions into the storyline, and any historians who pick at it are only making themselves look like pedantic old farts.

So, cinema is better off for it than without it, but it still lacked a certain something for me. Next one, set in the present day please, Sofia, with more for the men to do.