criterionforum.org

Matt wrote:It is a fuckin' great soundtrack, though.

Indeed!

I don't think I saw it mentioned before, but I have to say that I am also quite fond of the Sex Pistols-derived title design.

-Toilet Dcuk

toiletduck! wrote:I don't think I saw it mentioned before, but I have to say that I am also quite fond of the Sex Pistols-derived title design.

Even though I haven't seen the film, I'm quite positive that there are strong analogies made with this film between Louis XV/Marie Antoinette and Malcolm McLaren/Annabella Lwin. The soundtrack is thick with McLaren-related tracks (3 Bow Wow Wow songs, an Adam and the Ants song, a Siouxsie track) and there are the obvious biographical similarities.

Well, I was put in mind of the "God Save The Queen" irony harkening back to another day, but, hell, that works just as well (better, really).

-Toilet Dcuk

toiletduck! wrote:Well, I was put in mind of the "God Save The Queen" irony harkening back to another day, but, hell, that works just as well (better, really).

You're right. I hadn't thought of that angle. Too bad the film's poster's not Kirsten Dunst (alias Dr. Sunkentits) with a safety pin through her nose or the title across her eyes.

Speaking of the soundtrack, Kevin Shields is back for this film as well and does a remix of "I Want Candy".

If this Sofia-Shields collaboration keeps up, eventually we'll have enough tracks to compile our own follow-up to Loveless.

Is "Plainsong" really in this movie? (I wanted that song for MY movie! ) Does anyone know where it's played in the film?

.

This got a lot of negative buzz at NYFF. I have a feeling that the NYFF does not attract many Gang of Four or Siouxsie fans. But, as long as you check your penis at the door, it is a lot of fun. I don't care about the lack of political insight, as I don't rely on film directors for such things. There are a lot of Malickisms, which Sofia confessed to at the Q&A.

Barmy wrote:This got a lot of negative buzz at NYFF.

Well, it certainly seemed quite harsh after Cannes. Since I didn't attend, I don't know what the buzz at the NYFF was like for Coppola's film. Though strangely, some NY-based film critics have been offering mild enthusiasm for the film in recent weeks. Off the top of my head I know the guys at Slant Magazine enjoyed it (Ed Gonzalez & Nick Schager), Sarris, A.O. Scott, and even Hoberman (though his praise is more muted).

Andre Jurieu wrote:Off the top of my head I know the guys at Slant Magazine enjoyed it (Ed Gonzalez & Nick Schager), Sarris, A.O. Scott, and even Hoberman (though his praise is more muted).

Smarty-pants critic David Edelstein likes it too. He finds the music "godawful," but also says that it is "one of the most immediate, personal costume dramas ever made."

Anthony Lane destroys it in The New Yorker:

[quote]In May of this year, word came through of an unruly mob in France. “Did you hear what happened?â€

Jeff wrote:Smarty-pants critic David Edelstein likes it too. He finds the music "godawful," but also says that it is "one of the most immediate, personal costume dramas ever made."

Ah! I knew I had forgotten another well-known critic. Thanks Jeff, it was really starting to annoy me that I couldn't recall the name.

tavernier wrote:Anthony Lane destroys it in The New Yorker:

...That is so Coppola. It is hard to hate the film, whose silly fizz makes it simpler and less creepy than her earlier projects....

The only thing Anthony Lane destroys is his reputation (if he ever had one) as a film critic. It obvious he hates Coppola and her work -- which he is entitled to, but if he had any integrity he would say so in the first sentence of his review. About the only criticism of his that makes sense is of the production notes -- which are not of any concern to filmgoers.

I saw Marie Antoinette at the NYFF, and didn't like it all that much -- I thought Lost in Translation was a much better film, not to mention the fabulous Poison Friends which I saw directly beforehand. But Lane's claim of awfulness is as absurd as it was predetermined.

Does anybody actually care what either Anthony Lane or David Denby think? Their bloated, self-involved reviews shower disdain and mannered contempt on nearly every movie they see. They are frankly embarassments to the rest of the honorable critics, who are still truly passionate about films (something that never comes through in Lane or Denby reviews) and who at least try and keep an open mind before the lights dim in the theater.

Does anybody care what Armond thinks?

No surprises here but some wonderfully caustic criticism regardless. Here's a sample:

[quote]Even more shocking is the number of critics and cultural gatekeepers who share Coppola's, shall we say, indifference. Try this quote from the New York Film Festival brochure touting Marie Antoinette's U.S. premiere: “A sly, absolutely contemporary vision of the cocoon that is 21st century celebrity, where the rich and famous are blissfully oblivious to reality.â€

As is usually the case, Armond's strident criticism just makes the film seem more appealing. SOFIA INTENDED IT TO BE INANE AND IDIOTIC!

Yeah, but I think his point is in asking whether that's a good thing.

Barmy wrote:SOFIA INTENDED IT TO BE INANE AND IDIOTIC!

And succeeded beyond her wildest expectations!

John Cope wrote:Yeah, but I think his point is in asking whether that's a good thing.

I actually quite enjoy White's reviews, but I do have to say that he has a tendency to miss the boat in pretty colossal ways sometimes. He often mistakes on-screen portrayals of vapidity and cluelessness as endorsement of the same - I seem to recall him making this mistake in his pan of THE SQUID AND THE WHALE. But then I haven't seen MARIE yet, so he may be right on the mark here for all I know.

tavernier wrote:And succeeded beyond her wildest expectations!

Tavernier: Have you actually seen Marie Antoinette?

Ted Todorov wrote:Tavernier: Have you actually seen Marie Antoinette?

Unfortunately, yes.

Does anybody actually care what either Anthony Lane or David Denby think? Their bloated, self-involved reviews shower disdain and mannered contempt on nearly every movie they see. They are frankly embarassments to the rest of the honorable critics, who are still truly passionate about films (something that never comes through in Lane or Denby reviews) and who at least try and keep an open mind before the lights dim in the theater.

I must confess to not having yet seen MA (I am still unsure as to whether I will bother...) and to knowing nothing about either Messrs Lane and Denby but I humbly suggest that with the amount of absolute shit out there it is hard not to 'shower disdain and mannered contempt on nearly every movie' I see because they are deserving of such! I think where you're wrong is in seeing this as not being passionate about film. It is, in fact, exactly the opposite and essentially defensive... It is love of film that makes people despair at charlatanry. When you see films like LIT and The Departed that people call 'genius' and 'masterpieces' it is hard not to feel world weary especially when some of those people have seen films by Resnais, Bresson etc and really should know better.

I am going to be now...

I agree with you and I'm not entirely sure what Antoine Doinel is driving at. Of course, this could be because I like both Anthony Lane and Armond White. I admire Armond's deeply held convictions even when I feel they obscure his vision (as is the case in his overly fervent devotion to Spielberg). As for Lane, quite frankly I just admire his writing and his thought process. Perhaps even more than Armond, Lane is dismissed by the film literate in general and often seems to be outright despised. I don't understand why. His collected book of essays (which includes his film writing) is terrific and incisive. It indicates a very well rounded, well developed cultural intellect. Sure he has his predispositions but who does not? In all honesty, I tend to think the cognesceti of film disregard Lane because they don't appreciate his humor and the way it's employed. For my part, I think he's funny as hell.

And as for Marie Antoinette, I guess we'll all establish our takes on this soon enough. I'm very interested in the project and still feel it could go either way for me (as could the new Eastwood). I'm trying to go into it with as open a mind as possible but I'm sure these early reviews by people whose opinions I respect might color my response a little. Still, the overwhelming critical reaction so far appears divided and I'm hoping that I'm wrong about what I've always suspected might be Coppola's agenda here. I still like Lost in Translation quite a bit even though it's now fashionable to disdain it. I think it's a sincere and sympathetic work. M-A, however, might require more than that to succeed.