Marie Antoinette Online
  • FORUM
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:29 pm



Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 Negative points of Coppola's film 
Author Message
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:14 am
Posts: 808
Location: Le Petit Trianon, France
Post Re: Negative points of Coppola's film
Elle wrote:
And I love the Coppala Movie and watch it at least 3x per month. plus I loved the book abundance, which alot of people don't.
you are right, that move helped her reputation I think...... :wink: I think I too should visit Sweden!!!!! I could only imagine his father! :lol:

omg i loved Abundance!!!!!!!!!! it was my fav book so far except it was fiction....which made it better. The Ahabs Wife was good too

_________________
“There is nothing new except what has been forgotten.”- Marie Antoinette


Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:06 pm
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:44 am
Posts: 250
Location: There among the stars
Post Re: Negative points of Coppola's film
Oh Yes, that really was a great book, my fav too. I read part of Ahabs wife on the Amazon site, loved what I was reading too, She is really an excellent writer. :angel5: Captivating. :angel5: "Come Leonard...dress my hair... love it!!!!

_________________
Kära du, tillåt mig, med eld i mitt hjärta, att hålla dig varm.


Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:55 am
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:14 am
Posts: 808
Location: Le Petit Trianon, France
Post Re: Negative points of Coppola's film
so do i!

_________________
“There is nothing new except what has been forgotten.”- Marie Antoinette


Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:26 pm
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:44 am
Posts: 250
Location: There among the stars
Post Re: Negative points of Coppola's film
Well today I said it to my Husband in the Wallmart parking lot...& he said" What?."..... So I said it again,& he was just .........I don't know, it was funny. :lol:

"Come Leonard, Dress my hair..............

_________________
Kära du, tillåt mig, med eld i mitt hjärta, att hålla dig varm.


Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:52 am
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:14 am
Posts: 808
Location: Le Petit Trianon, France
Post Re: Negative points of Coppola's film
Elle wrote:
Well today I said it to my Husband in the Wallmart parking lot...& he said" What?."..... So I said it again,& he was just .........I don't know, it was funny. :lol:

"Come Leonard, Dress my hair..............

hehehheheheehehehe

_________________
“There is nothing new except what has been forgotten.”- Marie Antoinette


Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:48 pm
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:04 am
Posts: 253
Location: Texas.
Post Re: Negative points of Coppola's film
I liked this film as well. Enough that I have watched it at least a half-dozen times, enjoying it more with each viewing. I know that many members here did not appreciate Coppola's portrayal of M.A. as being light-hearted and frivolous, but we mustn't forget that this was an essential part of the real M.A.'s character. It is one of the reasons that I admire her. She was light-hearted, and she liked to have fun whenever she could. That's not to say that she was stupid or vulgar, she simply knew how to enjoy life, and I think the movie does a credible job of painting her this way. (The extremely vulgar du Barry character in the film serves as an excellent contrast to Dunst's naivety) Also, the real Queen did love clothing and fine things, and she did live opulently, as a Queen of France should. I don't agree that these traits in any way detract from M.A.'s character.

I really liked the actor who played Louis XVI. No, he didn't look anything like the real Louis, but he came off, at least to me, as being very sensitive and kind-hearted, an honest, decent man. He didn't appear cloddish or dim-witted as Louis is so often portrayed. Particularly in the scenes were he's sitting in council; he seemed hesitant and uncertain of what he should do, but also very earnest; a King who wants to do the right thing. Exactly how I picture the real Louis. I'm also grateful Coppola picked a reasonably attractive actor to play the part; Louis in his younger years was fairly handsome.

I agree that Rip Torn as Louis XV was terrible; an overstuffed pig. But again, I think the motive was to emphasize that the man was a jaded libertine---which Louis XV certainly was---so different from his grandson.

The principle point of this movie (from my perspective) is that M.A. inhabited a world apart, a dream-world, if you will. Versailles. Buffered from the rest of France by iron gates, acres of forest, hundreds of guards, servants, courtiers... There was no way for her to connect with ordinary people. It was not a world of her making or chosing; she was not allowed to question it: as much a victim of circumstance as the lowliest peasant. I think the movie did a great job of showing us this. The movie appropriately ends when the real world comes crashing through those golden gates, violently, almost unexpectedly.... as it must have certainly seemed to M.A. The dream is over. The lovely world of Versailles is finished. Facing the mob and an uncertain future, Louis and Antoinette look stunned, mystified, sad....

M.A. loved life and surrounding herself with beautiful things. She also deeply loved her children, genuinely cared for Louis, and there was not a cruel or cold bone in her body. Coppola's film said all of this, and gave an almost defiant challenge to the Queen's critics: "So what? So M.A. was fun, so she lived richly; where's the crime?"

Now for the mistakes, and there were many.

Did anybody notice in the opening scenes, the date given is 1768. M.A. is shown departing Austria for France. This actually took place 2 years later, in 1770.

As already noted, Provence did not father a child; Artois did.

It would have served the story better (and history) if M.A.'s relationship with Fersen had been left ambiguous, leaving the audience to wonder if they were really lovers or not.

The portraits were atrocious!

The ladies costumes left much to be desired; I thought the men's costumes were pretty nice.

The ladies hairstyles were terrible to look at, and inaccurate as well. For an idea of what they should have looked like, see the movie 'Amadeus.'

And don't get me started on the music!

As for Dunst, I thought she did a passable job. You should keep in mind this movie was made for a young American audience who knows absolutely nothing about the 18th Century or M.A. At the same time, I can think of a dozen other actresses who would have brought more grace to the role.

All-in-all, I don't think Coppola did a terrible disservice to M.A.'s image.


Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:34 pm
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:14 am
Posts: 808
Location: Le Petit Trianon, France
Post Re: Negative points of Coppola's film
Amadeus scared me,but yes.


Christophe wrote:
I liked this film as well. Enough that I have watched it at least a half-dozen times, enjoying it more with each viewing. I know that many members here did not appreciate Coppola's portrayal of M.A. as being light-hearted and frivolous, but we mustn't forget that this was an essential part of the real M.A.'s character. It is one of the reasons that I admire her. She was light-hearted, and she liked to have fun whenever she could. That's not to say that she was stupid or vulgar, she simply knew how to enjoy life, and I think the movie does a credible job of painting her this way. (The extremely vulgar du Barry character in the film serves as an excellent contrast to Dunst's naivety) Also, the real Queen did love clothing and fine things, and she did live opulently, as a Queen of France should. I don't agree that these traits in any way detract from M.A.'s character.

I really liked the actor who played Louis XVI. No, he didn't look anything like the real Louis, but he came off, at least to me, as being very sensitive and kind-hearted, an honest, decent man. He didn't appear cloddish or dim-witted as Louis is so often portrayed. Particularly in the scenes were he's sitting in council; he seemed hesitant and uncertain of what he should do, but also very earnest; a King who wants to do the right thing. Exactly how I picture the real Louis. I'm also grateful Coppola picked a reasonably attractive actor to play the part; Louis in his younger years was fairly handsome.

I agree that Rip Torn as Louis XV was terrible; an overstuffed pig. But again, I think the motive was to emphasize that the man was a jaded libertine---which Louis XV certainly was---so different from his grandson.

The principle point of this movie (from my perspective) is that M.A. inhabited a world apart, a dream-world, if you will. Versailles. Buffered from the rest of France by iron gates, acres of forest, hundreds of guards, servants, courtiers... There was no way for her to connect with ordinary people. It was not a world of her making or chosing; she was not allowed to question it: as much a victim of circumstance as the lowliest peasant. I think the movie did a great job of showing us this. The movie appropriately ends when the real world comes crashing through those golden gates, violently, almost unexpectedly.... as it must have certainly seemed to M.A. The dream is over. The lovely world of Versailles is finished. Facing the mob and an uncertain future, Louis and Antoinette look stunned, mystified, sad....

M.A. loved life and surrounding herself with beautiful things. She also deeply loved her children, genuinely cared for Louis, and there was not a cruel or cold bone in her body. Coppola's film said all of this, and gave an almost defiant challenge to the Queen's critics: "So what? So M.A. was fun, so she lived richly; where's the crime?"

Now for the mistakes, and there were many.

Did anybody notice in the opening scenes, the date given is 1768. M.A. is shown departing Austria for France. This actually took place 2 years later, in 1770.

As already noted, Provence did not father a child; Artois did.

It would have served the story better (and history) if M.A.'s relationship with Fersen had been left ambiguous, leaving the audience to wonder if they were really lovers or not.

The portraits were atrocious!

The ladies costumes left much to be desired; I thought the men's costumes were pretty nice.

The ladies hairstyles were terrible to look at, and inaccurate as well. For an idea of what they should have looked like, see the movie 'Amadeus.'

And don't get me started on the music!

As for Dunst, I thought she did a passable job. You should keep in mind this movie was made for a young American audience who knows absolutely nothing about the 18th Century or M.A. At the same time, I can think of a dozen other actresses who would have brought more grace to the role.

All-in-all, I don't think Coppola did a terrible disservice to M.A.'s image.


THANK YOU!!!!

_________________
“There is nothing new except what has been forgotten.”- Marie Antoinette


Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:30 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.