criterionforum.org

I am wondering, does anyone know anything interesting in the life of Marie that would warrent a 2 hour movie. I know she got her head chopped off, but the trailer brushes over the Revolution parts of her life. I ask this because it seems this will turn out to be just another boring period melodrama. Can anyone prove me wrong?

Personally, I feel the best person from the Revolution to make a film about would be Napoleon. His conquests of Europe brought the ideas of the Enligtenment to the parts of Europe (funny how egalitarian ideas are often spread through military conflict). These ideas lead to the rise in nationalism and would eventually result in the creation of nation-states like Germany and Italy. The nationalism ideas would spread to places like the Middle East. We are currently seeing the effects of nationalism in Iraq right now. It would be interesting to have a movie about the man who helped spread the idea of nationalism to different part of the globe. But I guess we have to settle for another boring period melodrama.

It should be noted that Air (french band) will be scoring the film, and, again, this is just a teaser trailer. I'm so glad that a minute or so of footage can cause such a (non?) worthwhile ruckus. I can't wait till the movie actually hits screens! Perhaps then we will all have a justified reason for endless bickering. But probably not.

I'm hoping for a dozen or so pages discussing the pros and cons of "Age of Consent" and its relation to period costume dramas before the mid-October 2006 release date. See, I can't help myself. Can I have a post count for just this thread?

leo goldsmith wrote:I'm a little late in coming, but this is the greatest trailer I've ever seen. Unfortunately, the movie probably has scenes, dialogue, plot, etc. Ah well. If it were just this trailer for 90 minutes, I'd be thrilled.

Damn straight!

Just the specific combination of these images and music alone makes me appreciate the effort involved here. Never mind the fact that this is just a teaser trailer and probably isn't an exact representation of what the film is like (it might not be anything like it), but in my mind this looks far different from Vanity Fair and A Knight's Tale.

Besides, the dissonance created by the inclusion of the New Order song over images of France prior to revolution probably says just as much about the 80s as it does about the Revolution. How come no one ever complains about classical music being played in contemporary settings?

Finally.

Well said Andre.

pzman84 wrote:There was once a time where historical films were supposed to be allegories to the present day (ie. The Wild Bunch) or just fun-loving adventures (The Adventures of Robin Hood, which, interestingly enough had some allegories, as Bunch was also an adventure). It is sad to see period pieces take over by elitist film makers, trying to seem cool and post-modern and have no action or deeper meanings.

It all seems so very long ago...

che-etienne wrote:You do not have to be so defensive. You made a pretty huge generalization, and I responded with exaggeration to slam home my point. You should not assume that just because I disagree with your phrasing means I disagree with you completely. This time, your elaboration was much more coherent and comprehensive, and I do tend to agree with you about this current trend in world cinema. I have had it on my mind now for a while, and am glad to see more and more people bringing it up as an issue.

Still, your comments are, as ben d banana has already pointed out, quite verbose, and at times a little convoluted and awkward in structure. You might want to tone it down for us, literary minimalists and illiterates (*raises hands*) as the case may be. It is your prerogative of course, but to me your writerly embellishments are a lot like films too soaked in style, all that eye candy distracting from what is really a simple incite.

Was that an Exaggerated Slam?

ben d banana wrote:It all seems so very long ago...

I do admit Good Night and Good Luck is an exception to the rule. And I probably shouldn't have used the elitist. It was very O'Riely of me. I am sorry. However, one could argue GNGL is not the same type of period piece as what I was talking about (I never considered East of Eden or Limelight period pieces even though they were set 40 years prior.) I was thinking more of the 1700s or 1800s. What I was trying to point out (with some crudeness, to which I am sorry) is how film makers would use a period for the setting of an action film or as an allgeory for the present day. By the trailer, this film seems like neither and seems like just another one of those period pieces that thinks it is a period piece, it must be inteligent. This is how many period pieces nowadays (ie. any adaptation of Jane Austin) act.

ben d banana wrote:HerrSchreck, you're simply more verbose than I am, although we disagree on "as v. over", which is, to my mind, the means/form being deliberately chosen over trad plot/narrative to convey the director's message/ideas v. pretty fluff. If I intended to call Dylan out as merely a fan of empty confections I would have, and as I stated in my reply to him, he'd be welcome to justly fire back. I've certainly given him, and everyone else, enough ammunition.

I'm with you on the increasing manipulation of films, to a degree anyway. Certainly most (big) Hollywood films, and I generalize because who has time to see them all to make such a call even if they wanted to, bombard the viewer with OTT music cues, etc. The same can obviously be said of Coppola here with the New Order track, or the Lost In Translation soundtrack, but seeing as how those work for me I find them compelling rather than needlessly obtrusive (read: successfully manipulated rather than annoyed). However, this comment by you (in regards to acting),

HerrSchreck wrote:so unnoticeable in most old films because it's so good

goes as well the for manipulation of the era, since any storytelling method relies on such, it's just that it seems the dominating theory today is the audience needs to be spoonfed, and subtlety has largely gone out the window.

Your arrival in the forum has been most welcome, no manipulation intended.

I salute you for a welcome dose of genuine gentility. I sort've regretted stepping into the middle of you two guys discussion after I sent it-- I fully expected a major blast when I logged back on tonight, but it came from Akira Ettienne instead. Cheers to you & thanks for the kind words**

Andre Jurieu wrote:How come no one ever complains about classical music being played in contemporary settings?

Actually, I do complain about this from time to time, especially when the use of "classical" music comes out of nowhere. The example that drives me up the wall the most is the sentimental, heart-tugging use of Pachelbel's "Canon in D" in Redford's Ordinary People. I guess I should be glad that Redford helped aid in the rediscovery of Pachelbel, who was fairly obscure up until then -- though he also did the composer a disservice by reducing his entire output to one work in the minds of most people (perhaps forever). But I dislike how the music dominates the film for no apparent reason. Contrast this with how Polanski uses Schubert's titular string quartet in Death and the Maiden. In that film, that piece of music is an integral part of the story.

I generally dislike meaningless juxtaposition of music and time. Even Woody Allen's constant use of swing music for his films sometimes works to their detriment. Not a popular view, I know, but I watched Mighty Aphrodite again last night and began to realize how Allen's choice of music comes out of nowhere. Considering the clever use of Greek Chorus and the opening title track of Greek folk music, why not use Greek music throughout? It would make as much -- if not more -- sense.

Maybe I'm just too thoroughly convinced by Miklos Rozsa's views on film music. He believed that the accompanying music should be as historically accurate and painstakingly researched as anything else about the movie -- costumes, sets, lighting, etc. Why should some aspects of a film be more priviledged -- or held to a higher standard -- than others?

pzman84 wrote:I am wondering, does anyone know anything interesting in the life of Marie that would warrent a 2 hour movie. I know she got her head chopped off, but the trailer brushes over the Revolution parts of her life. I ask this because it seems this will turn out to be just another boring period melodrama. Can anyone prove me wrong?

From a purely historical perspective, Marie Antoinette wasn't hugely important. She wasn't officially involved in state decision-making, though her degree of influence over King Louis was considerable. Perhaps her true historical significance is that, as a foreigner (an Austrian Habsburg), she became the easiest target/symbol for the revolutionists vitriol. To them, she represented just how out of touch the monarchy/aristocracy had become as far as the reality of French peasants were concerned. That's why her execution was considered so important to the revolution's leaders, even though it didn't serve any legal purpose.

From a human-interest point of view, however, Marie Antoinette is a fascinating figure. Her relationship with the childish Louis is an oddly touching love story. He was sexually dysfunctional for many years until, at her insistence (and for the purposes of producing an heir), he underwent an operation; thereafter, they apparently fell in love -- finally realizing how sexually compatible they were. She's also interesting for the ambiguity of her influence on Louis. Did she exert powerful pressure on the king from behind the scenes? Or was she merely the "fall guy (girl?)" for that emerging nationalism you mentioned earlier?

Of course, there's already a fairly serviceable film version of Marie Antoinette, starring Norma Shearer (I think). It's been a while since I've seen it, and I'm sure it plays fast and loose with historical facts. But it's entertaining in that glossy MGM way and worth checking out.

As far as who would make a better candidate for subject of a bio-pic...? I've always thought that Lafayette would make a fascinating subject for a major historical epic. He was a leading figure in no less than three revolutions (the American, the French, and the French of 1830). His reputation also underwent one of the most extreme and puzzling about-faces in history -- from priviledged aristocrat in his childhood to revolutionist radical for his involvement in the American Revolution then to arch-reactionary for his apparent level-headedness during the early days of the French Revolution, which the more radical leaders always resented.

From the very first frame of the trailer, I knew exactly who was directing this film. I completly forgot that I had heard she had another film on the way. But when I seen the first frame, It gave me quite a good feeling. There are a handful of directors who truly have their own feel and a specific look to their films. Its amazing to me, that she already has her own look, and that its so good. I seen the trailer at some movie recently, and I must admit, while watching the actual film, I couldnt get her trailer out of my head. The shots are just beautiful and amazing. The trailers soundtrack, just perfect.

That, I believe is one of my favorite trailers of the past 5 years at least. Im SO sick of these bloody trailers anymore. They want to show you every turn of the film. Someone gets sick,and the story makes a switch, They Show this! I mean there have been a few films recently that have given away plot points in a film, where I presume, they would want people to find these things out AS THEY WATCH!!
True, most of these movies are basically tripe to begin with, but still! I mean, at least try editing the freakin thing some.

At any rate, I only wish this was coming out sooner. This has quickly went very high on my anticipated films list for this year.

The Trailer is now in bran-spankin' HD. I still maintain a movie about Napoleon would be better: epic battle scenes, women showing their breast (it was the fashion then), explaining how people go from idealist revolutionaries to power-mad dictators. The way movies used to be made: deep political discussions mixed with pleanty of violence and sex. Ah...Those were the days...

A whackload of pics from the film, scroll down to the bottom of the page

Judging from those pictures, the film's got at least two Oscars locked up already: makeup and costume design.

foofighters7 wrote:From the very first frame of the trailer, I knew exactly who was directing this film. I completly forgot that I had heard she had another film on the way. But when I seen the first frame, It gave me quite a good feeling. There are a handful of directors who truly have their own feel and a specific look to their films. Its amazing to me, that she already has her own look, and that its so good.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I love Sofia, personally. The best way I can describe her films is as a young girl's daydream, soft tones, romantic to the hilt, full of characters who would love nothing more than to find creative, harmless ways to enjoy life. However, to counter this, she injects reality (or at least society) from characters that do not share her main character's world view (parents in Virgin, significant others in Lost). For all her style, there is an intelligence behind it that knows all too well this sort of daydream is an illusion, but it can be reality for a little while, anyway (being out all night in Virgin, pretty much all of Lost). She has a strong feminine presence, a fresh and well informed outlook, and a dreamlike taste in music, which helps create the daydream for the viewers (Air will be in all three of her films, and getting Kevin Shields for Lost was a magic trick).

I actually agree with what's being said here: the trailer looks great as a trailer, and judging from the trailer, the film could be stunning or embarrassing. I can see why she picked the project, though. Marie's story could definitely fit her "daydream meets reality, tragedy ensues"...well, I don't want to say formula. World view?

Kirsten who? We've got Jason Schwartzman in this film!
I love that still of her with the maid attending to her feet and the desserts all around.

A new international trailer is online. sounds like a different New Order song is used as well...

Ceremony by New Order. Bravo! I like this trailer, too. I still have my reservations about the film, however.

An interview with Sofia translated from the latest ish of Les Inrockuptibles

I thought Lost in Translation was absolutely brilliant, and Virgin Suicides pretty good for a first time director, though not something I would bother to view a second time. This? Well, if it provides spectacle and a little titillation I'll be pleased. I don't think Antoinette's life (as much of it as I know) warrents any kind of bio along the lines of Amadeus or the likes. Really curious to see how Schwartzmann can pull this off. But can't be any worse than Keanu Reeves in Dangerous Liaisons.

I enjoyed the trailer, but only because I like early NO.

But anyone who thinks NO (even early NO) is "hip" should be guillotined.

And it is QUITE clear that Ms. Coppola thinks NO is "hip".

I don't think Coppola thinks New Order is hip so much as she has a great ear for soundtracks. The soundtracks for Virgin Suicides and Lost In Translation are fantastic and really worked well in capturing the vibe of those films, which I think the New Order song achieves for the trailer.

I'm just thankful she didn't use Arctic Monkeys.

Barmy wrote:I'm just thankful she didn't use Arctic Monkeys.

Amen to that!