Marie Antoinette, the review

Marie Antoinette was written and directed by Sofia Coppola and based on a book by Antonia Fraser. This is not a film about a historical figure; it's about a human being. That said, historical inaccuracies abound, but the movie seems intended to be a larger study in perspective. No one is all good or all bad, and Marie Antoinette cannot be judged solely on a single quote ("Let them eat cake."). Historians have, in fact, called into question whether she really said this. So, perhaps she does not totally deserve to be one of history's villains.

Sofia Coppola presents this premise by melding a period piece with modern elements. The costumes and setting are 1700s France, while the dialogue, dialects and soundtrack are all meant to help the audience stand in Marie Antoinette's shoes. In fact, the movie is from her viewpoint alone, which is an attempt to show how she developed the tunnel vision that baffles us in retrospect. It might be a bit overly sympathetic to a woman who let her people starve, but I guess the hope was to swing the pendulum back to the middle.

I walked away realizing how much our cultural background causes us to judge (or maybe misjudge) leaders of other countries. In this instance, you see a young girl who has known no other life than that of royalty, which is believed to be a God-ordained duty. You catch a glimpse of how easy it could be to be out of touch with the people you rule, when your mother sends you to another country to marry a stranger and forge an alliance between two countries the way our mothers would send us to clean our rooms.

I can see how we try to apply an American aesthetic to royals and always come up with a negative image of them. Our popular view of aristocrats is that they were originally immigrants who came to this country with a dream and the shirt on their backs. In essence, they came from "nothing" and built a fortune by capitalizing on the freedom of opportunity, and we expect them always to remember where they came from or suffer the public flogging of their image and reputation. Even their children, born into privilege, are expected to carry on a legacy of philanthropy or be reviled. I'm not sure that it worked that way for royals or their subjects in past centuries.

The movie certainly spends time making royalty seem less than glamorous, using the typical idea of a king or queen being trapped in a life he or she didn't choose. In Marie Antoinette's case, she actually suffers quite a few indignities in the name of tradition and pomp and circumstance. Though she obviously lived a life full of far more creature comforts than her subjects, you wonder if she was actually any happier or freer than they were. It begs the question: If you don't live in a democratic republic, is anyone really free?

At any rate, Marie Antoinette appears to live much of her life in a disconnect between ruling and living as a queen. Of course, she was 19 when she took the throne, and the film explores what it might look like if a true-to-life teenager — immature, oblivious to everyone else, self-obsessed, all giggling and clothes — was suddenly in charge of a country. It's kind of ridiculous. Instead of perceiving a real threat from revolutionaries, she thinks of public criticism like gossip that she will simply rise above. It's a childish view of the world, and that gets her into trouble.

Even near the end, when you would think that humanity or just plain common sense would prevail in dealing with the masses, it doesn't. Royalty is her religion, and she sees her decision as either to flee or face the mob, but never to recant her aristocratic views. To me, it offers a lot of food for thought as to what can happen in our individual lives when we turn a blind eye to our own problems and continually choose to believe something that's askew, yet stay committed to the idea that we are absolutely right.

But Marie Antoinette also gives you a portrait of a loving mother, which helps you to see her as a complete person. You almost feel that what she really wanted to be was a stay-at-home mom.

Overall, it makes you question whether she deserved her fate. Why not dethrone or exile her? While you wonder how many people suffered because of her infamous excesses, I don't think it's as simple as deciding she spent too much money. There was an entire system and way of life at fault that had been supported by the people until they ran out of bread. Did the royals abuse it? It would seem so, but where exactly do you draw the line in their minds? Needless to say, it always comes down to a matter of perspective. And, here, we get Marie Antoinette's.

Acting: Good, not great, though Kirsten Dunst seems perfect for the part
Directing: Good. Interesting techniques and approaches to storytelling. Slow in places.
Should you see it in the theater? Yes -- it heightens the drama.