Marie Antoinette -- 2006 -- PG-13

I guess I'm one of the slow ones who doesn't get it. This film won some stuff and was nominated for some other stuff, but I found most of those nominations and wins have to do with costumes and production design, which, I'll have to say, were quite good. My overall opinion of what I look for in a film, however, showed it to be lacking in what it takes for a film to survive through the ages. It was directed by Sofia Coppola, daughter of esteemed writer/director of The Godfather, Francis Ford Coppola, but it appears in the case of this film, the apple didn't land anywhere near the tree.

This film starts out very well with the transfer of young Marie from Austria to France to wed the prince over there, Louis, in an effort to bring peace to their nations. The transfer and wedding goes off without a hitch, but apparently Louis and Marie don't make a connection...literally. Their marriage goes unconsummated for years after the legal act is done. They sleep together, but never "do it." This, naturally, upsets everyone involved in both France and Austria as her purpose as the wife of a king-to-be is to produce an heir and a few back ups, so the royal family does not end with Louis. Well, no sex means no heir.

So that's an interesting start, and I'm sure it's a historical fact and such that this occurred (I'm no history buff, but hey, movies ALWAYS tell the truth, right?). Personally, I would have liked to have seen at least some measure of effort on the part of Marie to get Louis moving. It would have made for some nice tension and conflict between them with her trying to jump his bones, and his pushing her off. She has the motivation to do it; pressure from everyone on every side saying "your marriage and our lives are in jeopardy unless you do it with him," so I was waiting for a good argument and shouting match or something from them. Instead, we get "I'm tired" "Okay." Here's where dramatic license takes precedence over historical accuracy. I don't care if they never argued; I'm falling asleep here.

The bigger problem with this film comes in with what is used to fill the screen time when we're not being bombarded by letter and problems related to the issue of no action. We get lots and lots of parties. This film might as well be called "The Many Parties of Marie Antoinette" because that is a good 75% of this film. It actually got really boring watching her go to party after party after party. I know this aspect of her life is important, and it does help to shape her character really well, but these scenes needed to be a lot shorter catching only the high points and leaving out the rest of the nonsense.

As for pacing, nearly every scene goes on longer than it should. As I'm watching it, I start thinking, "okay, this scene is over; let's move on." A few seconds later, it does, but it should have moved on before we reached the point when it was over. Trimming the end of each scene would have probably cut a good 5-10 minutes out of the film and created a piece that at least moved quicker. This film could have easily been shortened to 90 minutes and been a breeze to watch; instead, we're treated to a flick of over two hours, and we feel every minute.

Finally, we all know how the life of Marie Antoinette ends...I am no history buff, but that fact is ingrained enough. Knowing how she dies is enough to give some tension to the end of this movie, but guess what...it never happens. The people might be storming the palace, but Louis and Marie get into their carriage and ride off. Roll credits. Whoa. A modernized and stylish biography of Marie Antoinette and no guillotine. There's something wrong here. Maybe guillotines aren't PG-13 material.

What went right? The presentation of this film is definitely Oscar-worthy. We get 17th century environments with a 21st century feel. Instead of string orchestras, we get each party overdubbed with modern rock music. Most of the film is scored with a rock orchestra, with very little period music. Actions of the characters are very 21st century in nature as if she took the nature of the activity from back then and updated everything to make it presentable to modern audiences while retaining the values of the earlier era. Very clever. Very stylish. Very wonderfully done.

So, we get a cool update of an old story, but one that misses the mark considerably in terms of storytelling. It could have been much better had we been given more of the story and less of the parties. Trim about 30 minutes out of it, and we just might have something here. How'd it win Best Film somewhere? I dunno. Nepotism got her into the industry, right?