Wednesday, August 4, 2010

My First Movie Review

Recently stumbled upon my first-ever movie review, which I had written in freshman year. Before movies, I'd been mostly preoccupied with Amazon.com (I'm not kidding) and immersing myself in all the generally impish and lively activities most thirteen-year-olds go through with on Saturday nights, like writing searing reviews of Christopher Paolini's
Eragon using multiple accounts and playing a very addictive game called "Redbeard" on Miniclip.com


Sofia Coppola has stated over and over again: This is not supposed to be a historical document. She never intended this to be something that came from the History Channel. So to the people who bash it for its historical innaccuracies, start looking at it as a MOVIE and less as a high school history project.


This is a movie about the girl herself - NO, not about the French Revolution. About a girl, and Coppola does a stunning job of fusing the audience into her world.


What Coppola is trying to do is document the personal life of a lonely teenage girl, completely ordinary except for the fac that she is queen. And we can see it - when Marie and her friends paw through endless shoes and dresses like today's girls at their favorite boutique, doing exactly what teens of today's society might do if suddenly thrust into a life of seemingly endless wealth - fulfill their dream of a play-house (or in Marie's case, a play-village), on a ridiculously extravagant birthday party (I mean, watch "My Super Sweet Sixteen" and see if you can honestly penalize Marie Antoinette.


We are able to comprehend her ignorance, her oblivion to the outside world, the seduction of Versailles, when all she sees her her Versailles bubble are the beautiful gowns, trimmed gardens and stately palace. (Think about how clueless and extravagant today's upper-class teens can be). And especially when she's constantly distracted and plagued by relentless, vicious gossip (again, teen girls can certainly empathize).


There's also beautiful visuals, and not just the lovely, succulent montages of seductive pink cakes and gowns-of-your-wildest-dreams. The use of light is extraordinary, as Coppola expertly and artfully maneuvers it to maintain the feeling she wants instilled in us - claustrophobia, fear, nostalgia, frivolity. The last shot, I thought was particularly beautiful, when a mixture of sunshine and shadow fall onto the sober, wistful faces of Marie and Louis as they look back at Versailles one last time.


Coppola is more of an artist than an entertainer, so if you were expecting big battles and The Patriot-type action scenes, be sadly mistaken. Coppola affectively employs everything in the movie for meaning - the little dialogue, the monotony and seeming repetition of Marie's life, etc.


If you are seeking to be entertained, go watch Spiderman. If you are seeking for a thoughtful, masterful, personal interpretation, watch Marie Antoinette.

I wrote it in quite a passion. MA was my first Sofia film and at the time, I was feeling that the movie was dreadfully misunderstood (incidentally the crying title of my review). In retrospect, I still agree with the things I said, though I wince a little at the spelling errors ("affectively") and wildly inventive phrases like "gowns-of-your-wildest-things". The hyphen has always been an enemy of mine, grammatically speaking. It's cute to look back on these things, isn't it? Off to hunt down my Eragon reviews. My friend and I spent, um, lots of time on them. They're funny, at least!


4 comments:

  1. Hi! Thanks for my finding my blog! Yes, I did run Plain Jayne for awhile, but had to shut it down to personal reasons. Now I'm back (since January) and posting under my real (first) name! I still do style files from time to time:

    http://quintessentialquirkiness.blogspot.com/2010/06/style-file-kristen-stewart.html

    http://quintessentialquirkiness.blogspot.com/2010/06/style-file-michelle-williams.html

    http://quintessentialquirkiness.blogspot.com/2010/02/style-file-kirsten-dunst.html

    As for your current post:

    Marie Antoinette is misunderstood, but I think mostly because people expected it to be as good as her previous films when it is completely different. If she didn't have such a rep to live up to I think it would've been better received. Nonetheless, I love MA for all of its excess, beauty, and simple direct acting. I think its healthy to look back at your old reviews to see how you've learned, just don't agonize over them. Think of it this way, if we never improved life would be boring.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just saw your Eddie Redmayne posts. First off, I love him too. He is endearingly sexy with those freckles and that auburn hair. Plus he comes off as an intelligent thoughtful actor for once. I actually loved him in "The Yellow Handkerchief," his character starts out as totally crazy, but slowly turns out to be a really great guy. Eddie manages to capture the perfect mix of charisma and crazy, which is what makes him so good. I think you really need to get over your K. Stew prejudices and give the whole film a shot. Sure, its not terribly original, but a heartwarming film about three lonely souls just struggling to find some understanding and connection. And Kristen is actually quite good in it as a vulnerable teenager who likes to pretend she knows what she's doing. Then again, I'm a Stewart fan, I think she does her best with how horrible Twilight is and the projects she does on the side demonstrate someone with a keen eye for good stories with real characters. She always picks challenging, sometimes unflattering controversial roles and really holds her own. She's something else in the Runaways, she is Joan Jett. And she's surprisingly winsome awkward college student in the underrated "Adventureland." Okay rant over, but I'd suggest seeing a few of her indies, since the only actor who Twilight does any favors for is Taylor Lautner.

    Oh and if you're interested here is my review of Yellow Handkerchief: http://quintessentialquirkiness.blogspot.com/2010/03/three-words-that-became-hard-to-say-i.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry for this trail of comments. I've just been reading some of your older posts:

    First off, love love love Joseph Gordon Levitt. Want to marry that guy, for his nerdy yet winsome good looks, intelligence (hello columbia graduate!), keen eye for intriguing films ("Inception" is probably the best thing I've seen this summer), and creativity in general.

    Second, I've always loved JD Salinger. I kind of loathed Holden Caufield, but I knew I liked Salinger's style so I fell in love with Franny&Zooey and Nine Stories. Can't decide which I like more, but he has so much to say in that wonderfully affected voice of his. And you're write is character descriptions ares subtly genius. He's not doomed to write "she had yellow hair and a crooked smile" or some trite cliche, but rather he illustrates people in their idiosyncrasies which is so much more effective and charming.

    Oh and did you know, "Royan Tenenbaums" is totally based off of Franny & Zooey!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think Kristen Stewart is a decent actor and a fabulous human being (I was totally a fan when she signed up for Twilight) but I'm growing more disinterested in her acting by the second. I just don't find her acting captivating or versatile in any manner. And I respect you and love your blog and all, but do NOT get me started on Taylor Lautner. Bletch.

    I did know about the Royal Tenenbaums-Franny&Zooey connection, thanks! The prodigies, the bathtub scenes......Franny and Zooey is actually my favorite book. The content is superior to Catcher in the Rye, and it is my sulky opinion that CITR is the iconic one because people just enjoy being jaded and cynical as opposed to reconciling and hopeful. I've always wanted to see a Franny and Zooey adaptation, but I don't know if it's possible or even allowed by Salinger's estate.

    ReplyDelete