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.]
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'm fine with all that, but again, I've seen ads for the movie that say "based on a true story." That's pretty much begging for people to judge its accuracy.
I think that Sophia Coppola was trying to ease the historians' transition to this film.
this film.
Every time I see a trailer for that, I think it's ad ad for a video game. I can't remember the last time I've seen such crappy looking CGI.
Yeah, the woman is bland as all get out in front of a camera, but sucking in Godfather III can hardly be her fault and her fault alone.
But she's a decent director, and not acting in films any more.
I suppose it's too much to ask for some critics to let one bad, nepotistic acting appearance go.
Every time I see a trailer for that, I think it's ad ad for a video game. I can't remember the last time I've seen such crappy looking CGI.
Oh dear. Actually, I may wind out checking it out, just because.
BUT..... That number, 300, has always bugged me. Yes, there were 300 Spartan warriors guarding the pass at Thermoplye (sp???), but there were also about 700 slaves and servants there too, that always seem to get left out of the count of defenders. Not that it makes the defense any less spectacular, but those peeps deserve their place in history too.
I suppose it's too much to ask for some critics to let one bad, nepotistic acting appearance go.
I swear, it's like they're relishing the chance to bash her because she finally made the kind of movie they were expecting from her the first time around, and have all this pent up bile that they couldn't do so for VIRGIN SUICIDES or LiT.
I can see the accuracy issue being a big deal with the crowd at Cannes (where the response was mixed, not out-and-out negative), but I somehow doubt that's what got up the nose of the US critics who are getting personal with the reviews.
