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.

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

Well, I was giving Coppola the benefit of the doubt, but if so, that's even worse I suppose. But my point is more that the film has the general appearance of being accurate, so that while students (I hope) realize that MA did not listen to New Order, they may not realize that she would not have squealed and jumped up and down (to take one example from the trailer--I haven't yet seen the movie).

It might help to explain that the French Revolution is a key period for historiography trends (and intellectual battles) in general, so historians do not take interpretations of this event lightly. To present MA as a spoiled teenager does a great disservice to recent, mostly feminist, scholarship on the queen that helps us to see her as a much more complex figure and not just a silly distraction from the "real" events of the Revolution.

ETA: I'm just trying to explain some of the backlash/frustration I had been reading about--as I can't really judge a film I haven't seen.

I guess it boils down to ths same sort of objections that were thrown at Troy, despite the maker claiming it was not the Iliad on film.

Most of the criticism of Marie Antoinette is, as far as I'm concerned, thinly veiled cattiness about Sofia Coppola herself.

What did poor Sofia do to earn this?

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.

Wasn't it based on a book? That has possibly less to do with Sofia's clout then, and maybe more to do with the source material.

Well, it's more the idea that SC read some random (not very accurate) biography of MA by Antonia Fraser and then felt she could make a movie about it and say it is "based on a true story." And her clout gave her the budget to make it seem a more accurate than it is.

What did poor Sofia do to earn this?

She's a woman who was born into a wealthy family. And she really sucked in Godfather III. And she's not nice to reporters sometimes, and gives really terrible interviews, due to the aforementioned suckage at being in front of cameras.

Also, I hear she eats a live kitten every morning for breakfast.

[eta:

and say it is "based on a true story."

The title card in the opening credits, FWIW, says that it is based on the Antonia Fraser book.]