MovieChat Forums > Marie Antoinette (2006) Discussion > What spoiled it. (SPOILERS!)

What spoiled it. (SPOILERS!)

posted 15 years ago by David_Blue
27 replies | jump to latest

I think the adultery spoiled it.

The challenge with Marie Antoinette is to make palatable a story with a horrible ending.

Valkyrie (2008) did a good job of that (though not good enough to make it a big hit) by presenting the protagonist starkly as good. Maybe flawed in some ways, a little headstrong, whatever. But, by his own standards, which we are clearly meant to share, good. That way, there's some redemption. It's like: "Yeah we lost, but we were the good guys."

I thought that Marie Antoinette (2006) was shaping up like that, and I was very happy most of the way through. We could see that Marie Antoinette wanted to be a good wife and a mother, and she had to struggle a little to achieve that, but it worked out.

Marie Antoinette had a standard of virtue, which she applied maybe a little uncharitably to Madame du Barry, but which gave her a clear benchmark too: sexual chastity is fundamental. So my expectation was: she's tempted, she resists, the ending is horrible and deadly, but regardless of how irrelevant history might find her little victory, it was hers. Flighty and unfortunate, but faithful. Yay Marie Antoinette.

Instead of which, after having finally achieved a thoroughly good and fruitful marriage - cut to the eye-candy soft porn with the foreign soldier.

OK, the awful end arrives, though the curtains are mercifully closed. So: she was punished by history for being a tramp? Obviously not, she and her family were crushed by historical forces irrelevant to all this.

Then what is the point? There is no point. There were lots of nice pictures of pretty dresses and strawberries and such, and there was enjoyably anachronistic music, and ... that's about it. No story worth a darn. What a disappointment.

[–] icansmellalie 15 years ago

It's not about virtue. It's about life. It's about having it all and wanting more. Why do people cheat on their partners even if their marriage is picturesque? Because they are bored and want something more. Selfish and indulgent, but that is how it is. I don't think Marie Antoinette was trying to say that since she had sex with Fersen she was doomed. I think we learn a lot earlier on that she's doomed just by the way time floats. What we see is a lot of spending and a lot of clothes and a lot of parties, which (for even the stupidest girl who uses My Super Sweet 16 as a template) hints at a huge price tag waving at the end.

This is a story that is going to fit someone who likes Valkyrie, I'm sure. Marie Antoinette is a very particular movie and I don't think it was ever meant for just anybody. I don't think you have to have a certain mentality or style of taste, but it takes more than just some plot-driven action drama. You may say there is no point but there most definitely is. I just don't think you care enough to see it.

[–] WishfulDreamer 15 years ago

I, too, was bothered by the adultery. From a non-historic viewpoint, the scene was exciting and sensual, but in a film that is supposed to be sympathetic towards MA, it piqued me, as there is very little evidence to suggest such an affair took place (and adding it to the film only perpetuates the very gossip that plagued MA throughout her reign). We can never know for certain, but from all the facts, I believe the affair never took place.

"Everything I do, I do it for you."

[–] drouais 15 years ago

it wasn't even that sensual, it just kind of BANG happens out of nowhere after a couple of scenes of innocent flirting and smiling and dumb facial expresiions. even more jarring is that it happens after she has just given birth to her first child and her marriage is shaping up finally after seven years. i agree, i feel like it was just thrown in there to spice things up, and perhaps give credence to period accusations that the royal children were not all fathered by the king (the mystery dauphin- is it louis-joseph ? louis-charles ?- is born soon after this scene. maybe we're supposed to think the father is fersen, i don't know).

[–] MydnightRose 15 years ago

I thought the supposed son of Ferseon was Marie's second son.
Anyway the affair between Marie*Fersen just did not work in this film. There is no point to it in accordance with the plot. It just jumps out of nowhere, 2 pretty people having sex. Unlike in the 30s version of the affair you understand why it happened and that these 2 people genuinely had a love for each other. In this version it just seems so shallow like a booty call.

"... have mercy, for I've been bleeding a long time now"-Michael Jackson

[–] icansmellalie 15 years ago

I doubt if it were a "booty call," she wouldn't be sad about it afterwards. She says she wishes she could go with him, looking upset about him leaving, and then she goes on a walk in which you can visibly tell she is pondering. We may not know exactly what is being pondered but I'm only going to guess it has something to do with her not wanting to say goodbye.

This is also followed by her daydreaming at a boring party with the aristocrats about Fersen very fondly. It is melodramatic and almost silly, yes, but it displays her fixation and desire for him. It's more than just a shallow nothing and whether or not it's true doesn't really matter. If it didn't "work" for you, fine, but that doesn't mean it didn't "work" for others.

[–] drouais 15 years ago

"I thought the supposed son of Ferseon was Marie's second son."

right, that was apparently the rumour. however, i was just going off the movie, which just throws in the third kid only to have them die a few minutes later without any sort of explanation.

again, i don't know if the director didn't care or was just lazy. overlooking the dramatic license, music, etc., there are so many silly little errors in this movie (date, characters) that, had they been corrected, wouldn't have detracted anything from the main story. for example, the comtesse de provence having a child. she never had children, it was the comtesse d'artois. since these characters basically have no function in the plot apart from the whole having a child thing, why not get the correct names ? it would not have taken anything from the story apart from at least getting the names down correctly.

[–] CakesAndAle 15 years ago

Marie Antoinette had a standard of virtue, which she applied maybe a little uncharitably to Madame du Barry, but which gave her a clear benchmark too: sexual chastity is fundamental.

Perhaps you missed the point. MA didn't disapprove of du Barry because she wasn't virtuous; MA disapproved of her presence at court because du Barry was a former prostitute and because she wasn't born an aristocrat (the title was bought for her)-- those are the reasons given in the film. It wasn't du Barry's lack of virtue, it was her lack of rank.

[–] drouais 15 years ago

historically, however, marie-antoinette's disdain for the king's mistress came from both her low rank and her adultery. even before her arrival at versailles, the teenaged dauphine had been brought up to hold promiscuity with contempt- she had seen the effects of her father's affairs on her mother, which, coupled with a strict religious upbringing, would have been enough to firmly ground this attitude in her. the fact that she then came into the circles of her husband's aunts, mesdames, who were in no way friends of du barry (madame de pompadour, their father's most famous and influential mistress, was referred to as "maman putain" or "mommy whore" by mesdames, which goes to show their overall opinion), only helped further seal the deal and is an important detail to take into consideration when theorizing about rumours of her own supposed affairs with fersen and others.

[–] Pinky2000 15 years ago

I'm sorry...the fact that Marie Antoinette was a TEENAGER says it all for me.

She was married young.... when you are a teenager, your hormones are raging. Not to say that it is an excuse to run out and hump the universe but being young and then finally having your eyes opened up sexually, it is just human nature to be curious and daring. I don't know how long it took for Louis to even consummate the marriage (can't remember if they mentioned in the movie)but once it was done - the look on her face in the next scene says it all. Very carefree, excited and happy....

YOU MADE ME PLAY SECOND BASE!

[–] aphroditediamondglamour 15 years ago

Adultery? This is real life and in real life, Marie Antoinette had an affair.

And no, she wasn't a teenager, Marie was in her twenties when she first even HAD sex, let alone had an affair with whats his face.

Zombie Nugget

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aphroditediamondglamour 15 years ago

Look. Affairs make life more interesting. They also make more interesting movies. Get it?

Zombie Nugget

[–] drouais 15 years ago

there's nothing to "get". either she had an affair or she didn't. taken together, all evidence points to her having not had one. to say that a depiction of her life (cinematic or literary) without an affair would be boring is ridiculous.

additionally, i'd like to point out that marie-antoinette's first sexual experience was as a teenager. in 1772, the dauphin wrote louis XV that he had made the dauphine his wife, implying they had at least tried intercourse. although the emperor joseph II's account seems to indicate that the royal couple did not equate ejaculation with conception (the emperor describes his brother-in-law not moving after entering the queen in a letter to his brother in austria), they were trying to have children early on. the initial lack of an heir, at least between 1770 and 1772 when we have this first piece of evidence, can be explained how they were both very young and not even expected to have children until at least a few years later. louis XV and marie leczinska, married in 1725, didn't have their first children until 1727.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] linda_lee110282 12 years ago

Actually, it was strongly assume she DID not have an affair with Fersen. Unless you take into account Fraser bigraphy. For a Queen of France to have an affair is a serious, SERIOUS offense. Do you think word wouldn't go out? Do you think Louis XVI wouldn't know? Do you think he would accept it? Do you think she would risk get pregnant and have an illegitimate child raised as legitimate? Antoinette was also very religious, and for all what I've read about her, it would be out of character of her to have an affair with Fersen. And quite frankly, a scoundrel like Fersen, I don't think he was her type andI also think she wouldn't have an affair with such promiscuous man. I'm not a fan of Antoinette, but she wasn't stupid.

[–] MydnightRose 12 years ago

I don't mind the idea that MA had an affair if it is treated right. As I said before, in this film it was shallow and disgusting, furthering the idea that MA was a cheap empty headed skank. If such a theory was going to be presented in the film it should take into account this is an Austrian Princess and a Queen of France; they was Sophia handled it made MA come off as no better than Du Barry. And let's not even talk about the inaccuracies in her character.

Clark Kent + Lois Lane 4ever
DC Can Suck It

[–] Sandy0095 12 years ago

I wasn't happy about the adultery scene either, mostly because it happened when Marie Antoinette's marriage finally seemed stable. Her husband was so shy throughout the movie and then when he finally opens up and starts appreciating her, she cheats? I guess I can see from the perspective that she married very young, as a child really, and wanted to have other experiences but I'm not sure why she decided to cheat once her marriage was somewhat functional. I would've preferred they glossed over the affair or taken it out all together. Can't blame Sophia for including it if it's in the book but it didn't seem to work in the film, seemed very out of place

"You know I've always reminded myself of Grace Kelly" ~ Jenna Maroney

[–] MartinSimard75 12 years ago

Women always have affairs with promiscuous men, they like the men other women like, anyone who has spent any time around women knows that.

[–] git011 12 years ago

I was more put off by the all too personal directorial choices Sofia Coppola employed to tell the story. Most obviously, but not ending with the soundtrack. It's just too hamfisted to make connections with the era of the film and that of the modern age. I'm sure Coppola has been present for some momentous exhibitions of privilege and decadence throughout her life...and it seems as if this is either an ode to her memory of the 1980's or an elegy for the death of the music video. Dunst's playfulness works more than it doesn't. Schwartzman's performance doesn't work for me. In fact, it's distracting. I do not give a damn about him as there really wasn't any attempt to flesh out his character. Much too much ham for me. There are alot of little flourishes that are fantastic, though. Little things like a catty effete partygoer blowing out the candles behind Dunst speak to the kinds of personal touches that I find interesting because it reveals the quirkiness of human nature in just a passing remembrance. I liked much more than I didn't about this film. I suppose it could be just that I prefer a classic period piece.

" How 'bout that dipper, Bob?"
ONE EYED JACKS, 1961.

[–] deem714 12 years ago

What is disappointing is the fact that yet another person doesn't understand that this movie was NOT about Marie's life... it was about HOW she went from a young girl -- queen elect whom had overwhelming approval to her adoring public WANTING to murder her!!!

Her spending the country's money on 178 dresses one year -- yeah, Kill the bitch.
Her refusing people invitations, like years after giving birth to Marie Therese, claiming how exausted she is... Yeah, we like you >just< as much, bitch.
Her having extramarital relations with some Swedish Count Dude... Yeah, Kill the bitch.
(we don't see this bit) Her trying to fake the diamond theft in order to claim insurance... Yeah, kill the bitch.

In the beginning of the movie before all this went down, she goes to the Opera and when she applauds a wonderful performance she is told to stop because the Royalty are in attendance.... Yet the rest of the audience applauds... and notice WHO they applaud... Marie.

The second time they go to the opera... she applauds and no one else joins her. They turn around but look at her shamefully. She gets the hint and stops, looking quite embarassed.

Oh Thank you God! Thank you so BLOODY much!Basil Fawlty

[–] Agent_Pigeon 12 years ago

The adultry was pointless in the movie, and came off as purely sexist.

[–] kaskait 12 years ago

I think it unlikely she was able to carry on an affair with Fersen and absolutely no one found out. I mean there were servants around everywhere, there was no such thing as privacy.

The more interesting rumors, that Coppola never touched (oddly), were that Marie and her brother-in-law Charles Phillipe were a little too close.