shrift, have you seen this? It's the cruellest thing I've ever watched Bowie do.

Spoilers for Extras season 2.

Well, yes -- I'm not saying she doesn't think buying shoes is fun. But most of the really negative reviews have boiled the movie down to "OMG having money is TEH AWESOME!" which is just wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start.

We share a mind on this, I'd say.

Well, yes -- I'm not saying she doesn't think buying shoes is fun. But most of the really negative reviews have boiled the movie down to "OMG having money is TEH AWESOME!" which is just wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start.

Right, and which seems to translate to "OMG being an internationally renowned director is TEH AWESOME!"

Is this some kind of LOST IN TRANSLATION backlash I don't understand? I mean, I know plenty of people didn't like LiT, and those who did like it almost always LOVED it (myself included), but I never felt it had the omnipresence of acclaim or cultural cahce that fuels that kind of backlash usually.

I agree completely. Though I have to say, my one comment coming out of Marie was, "I think they had way more fun making that that I just had watching it."

I enjoy my atmospheric period pieces...Orlando, Restoration, New World, etc., but I found myself not particularly caring about anything in the film except for the pretty.

Then again, my tension-o-meter may have been broken by The Last King of Scotland."

I'm at work so no YouTubing for me, and I shall remain blissfully ignorant of any David Bowie cruelty.

Right, and which seems to translate to "OMG being an internationally renowned director is TEH AWESOME!"

I don't know about film critics, but I can tell you that historians of France are very annoyed that, because of her clout, Coppola was able to make a big-budget picture that gets the superficial details right (costumes, furniture, etc.) and thus seems historically accurate to the average viewer but is actually way off-base when it comes to a basic understanding of the historical events, people, and ideas of the Revolution.

I don't know about film critics, but I can tell you that historians of France are very annoyed that, because of her clout, Coppola was able to make a big-budget picture that gets the superficial details right (costumes, furniture, etc.) and thus seems historically accurate to the average viewer but is actually way off-base when it comes to a basic understanding of the historical events, people, and ideas of the Revolution.

Hmm. Anybody else see some irony in their objection being based on the potential ignorance of the masses? I mean, SC never claimed to be providing that kind of history lesson, did she?

At the most, I think it's been framed in a sort of emotional tapestry of Antoinette's life. I mean, there's a reason references to the plight of the French people and even the American Revolutionary War are merely offhand--it seems to convey, at least to me, that Antoinette herself was barely involved in the events of her adopted country. I don't think it's even lack of a history lesson--for me what was more telling was that you couldn't tell it was *France.* The same story could have been taken and put into so many different historical and modern locales...I mean, I could see it put into modern day hipster culture, for example.

SC never claimed to be providing that kind of history lesson, did she?

I don't think so, but the argument of most filmmakers when it comes to history is often "well, it's only a film and most people should know better than to accept it as historical truth." Well, yes, but that's often not the case. The historian's job is then that much more difficult (to tie things in to Natter--it's sort of like teaching a foreign langugage when students don't know grammar!).

Happily, many filmmakers that work on historical films start from a good base and use consultants etc. to make sure their portrayals are accurate. The source material for Marie Antoinette is one historically suspect biography.

gets the superficial details right (costumes, furniture, etc.)

I seem to recall reading that the costume details were wrong.

At the most, I think it's been framed in a sort of emotional tapestry of Antoinette's life. I mean, there's a reason references to the plight of the French people and even the American Revolutionary War are merely offhand--it seems to convey, at least to me, that Antoinette herself was barely involved in the events of her adopted country. I don't think it's even lack of a history lesson--for me what was more telling was that you couldn't tell it was *France.* The same story could have been taken and put into so many different historical and modern locales...I mean, I could see it put into modern day hipster culture, for example.

Very much this. It's not a historical biopic so much as it's using the trappings of historical biopicishness to tell a broader story. It's ostensibly set in the court of Marie Antoinette because she's a convenient cultural touchstone, not because we're learning about the story of her life.