I'd say one of them and definitely the most beautiful film in Sofia Coppola's filmography. The way she and Lance Acord capture the beautiful decadence of Versailles and the gilded, mundane day to day living of the royal court is on the same level as what Kubrick accomplished with John Alcott in "Barry Lyndon".
https://www.criterion.com/my_criterion/15660-will-c/collection
I agree.
shareI should say not. There are many films I think more beautiful. Alas we shall never know which of us is correct, since beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
shareNot everything is in the eye of the beholder, some things are simply beautiful. Which films do you think are more beautiful?
shareReally? What is "simply beautiful"? Beauty is entirely subjective and non-empirical. Nothing is beautiful because it is beautiful; it is only beautiful because somebody (some "beholder") thinks it is beautiful.
Off the top of my head I'd say Grand Hotel Budapest, Edward Scissorhands and Dr Zhivago are all beautiful films, certainly more beautiful than Marie Antoinette. It has some nice moments, but I wouldn't call it beautiful.
That is not true at all. Some forms in nature are intrinsically alluring and beautiful and the brain reacts accordingly. This is physiological. 99% of human beings are going to prefer a curved line to a zig zag line. We prefer light to darkness. The red color will ALWAYS pop up over a blue or green color. This is physiological and mathematical, it is NOT in the eye of the beholder or based on opinion.
Gran Budapest Hotel is ugly on top of being a terrible movie, and Edward Scissorhands is interesting but not beautiful, it's more grotesque. Marie Antoinette is a truly beautiful film.
Would it surprise you to learn that I don't agree with a single thing you've just written?
You claim that some "things" are "intrinsically beautiful" and are not only beautiful because people think them so, and then try to justify that argument by writing about people thinking things beautiful. There's no logic in that argument. You have tried to prove your point by stating the opposite of your point.
"99% of human beings are going to prefer a curved line to a zig zag line."
(a) I don't think that's true. Why do so many people prefer the straight lines and angles of classical architecture over the curves of, say, La Corbusier.
(b) It's irrelevant anyway. Who is to say that either a curved line or a zig zag can be or is beautiful in itself, rather than as part of something else? Some people may, I suppose; that's because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
"The red color will ALWAYS pop up over a blue or green color"
I don't know what that even means. "Pop up"? Do you mean stands out more? That doesn't mean it's more beautiful, just that it's more vibrant.
Do you mean more people like red than blue or green? I don't know that this is any more true (you can't prove a point by making up facts) and even if it is true, that people prefer one colour over others doesn't mean that colour is more beautiful.
What shade of red, blue or green are you referring to? People may prefer one shade of red over another, but that doesn't make the one shade more beautiful.
I'd be minded to say that a single colour isn't ever beautiful anyway. Perhaps it is in its context that colour becomes beautiful.
"This is physiological and mathematical"
No it isn't. Please explain how to measure beauty. What instrument are you measuring it with? On what scale are you measuring it? If it were either physiological or mathematical then people would all find the same things attractive and would always have done so. In the 1660s, fat girls were beautiful; in the 1960s thin girls were beautiful; in the 1990s, skinny girls were beautiful. What physiological or mathematical factor made one girl more beautiful than the others? What physiological or mathematical factors changed to stop the one being the most beautiful and another to take her place? The answer is none.
"Gran Budapest Hotel is ugly..." in your opinion, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion it is a beautiful film.
"...on top of being a terrible movie..." in your opinion, because taste, too, varies amongst beholders. In my opinion it is a wonderful film.
"...and Edward Scissorhands is interesting but not beautiful..." in your opinion, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion it is a beautiful film.
"...it's more grotesque..." in your opinion, because grotesqueness is in the eye of the beholder and some people may find the grotesque beautiful. In my opinion it is not grotesque; it is a beautiful film, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder .
"Marie Antoinette is a truly beautiful film" in your opinion, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion it is not a beautiful film.
You will notice that I have said "There are many films I think more beautiful" than Marie Antoinette and I have listed some films that "I'd say" are beautiful. That's because I know beauty is entirely subjective and non-empirical.
You, on the other hand, have said "This is beautiful; that is ugly; that is not beautiful." I have stated my opinion as my opinion; you have stated your opinion as if it is fact that must be accepted as Gospel truth by all. You are not wrong to think Marie Antoinette is beautiful, but I disagree with you. You are wrong to assume that you know what is beautiful, because you don't; you only know what you think is beautiful and what others have told you they think is beautiful, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm not going to bother reading your response, the things I said are what scientific research has discovered, if you want to dismiss that then you are incredibly ignorant and I have no interest in discussing this any further.
shareIf you're not even "going to bother" reading my response, then it is you who is incredibly ignorant. Ignorant and wrong.
shareNot at all, I'm just not here to read someone dismiss the FACT that the brain responds in a particular way.
shareIt is not a "FACT that the brain responds in a particular way".
It is a fact that the brain responds - I have not dismissed or denied that anywhere, indeed, I have said exactly that; the perception of beauty is the action of the brain. (I said, you will note:
...it is only beautiful because somebody (some "beholder") thinks it is beautiful.
[deleted]
Ignorant and wrong; now childishly petulant as well? How embarrassing for you.
shareIt's not a fact I'm afraid, let them eat cake.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as is taste in films, or anything else for that matter.
For example- Our house is painted a lot in blues and yellows... I think if it was painted red it would look terrible!
His argument is 100% valid ... nothing can convince a person that something is beautiful or not unless it is originally their true conviction.
You say there is scientific research done on beauty that proves your point; care to mention it? Does it really allocate mathematical standards to beauty? I seriously doubt it.
And what do you mean by "pop up?" I am only asking as someone who thinks blue is far more beautiful than red?
Is this the most beautiful film of all time?
I've never seen Barry Lyndon, only stills and videos, it does look pretty but also old, stuffy.
shareLike someone said, it was directed like by someone who was a director at that time (well described by whoever said that). It is a verrrry slow film. The thing is, probably people then moved completely different than nowadays (meaning much slower). Sitting, standing. A lot of that "stuff". And that stuff is shown plenty in that film. De Palma said in the Baumbach documentary about "De Palma" that at first, he (meaning De Palma) didn't like the film, but then he kinda get it in the sense that everything was muuuch slower back then (18th century) and that was well shown in the film. Who knows, probably, people would've also been initially disappointed by "Napoleon" (had Kubrick directed it). Would've probably been also a verrry slow film...
shareI really don't like slow movies, they beat the point of cinema, if your story is told in a torturous way there really is no point to it.
shareThe New World, Lawrence of Arabia, Winged Migration?
There are no uninteresting things, only uninterested people. – G.K. Chesterton
It is one of the most visually beautiful films and a food/pleasure orgy. In terms of quality and acting though? it's mediocre. Some call it terrible. But unforgettable visuals. And Kristen Dunst does indeed look like her, at least in the painting interpretation.
share