Introduction
History is a rather controversial phenomenon as in different epochs historians, politicians, and ordinary people perceive and interpret it in different ways. The modern world is especially concerned with this issue because popular culture introduces its demands to the interpretation of history as well. Movies produced in Hollywood are more directed at commercial success rather than at explaining the actual historical context of the events they picture.
One of such films is Marie Antoinette (2006) by Sophia Coppola. Widely disputed among the critics and historians, this film can be viewed as either an unskilled attempt of making a historical drama or a marvelous psychological movie presenting a great account of the emotional state of its main heroine. In any case, this paper will focus on the comparison of the film with the famous Madame Bovary by Flaubert, on the analysis of the message Coppola tries to render by her film – it is a positive message in which the director pictures Marie Antoinette as a victim of the circumstances and a person confused by the world, and on expressing the opinion of the author of this paper on the matters considered.
In this respect, the historical background of the movie presents considerable interest. The basis of the movie is the 2001 biography of Marie Antoinette “Marie Antoinette: the Journey” by Antonia Fraser (Cook 39).
Main body
The time depicted in the film by Coppola is the epoch of the Great French Revolution of the 18th century. The French King Louis XVI marries a young Austrian princess Marie Antoinette who becomes lost in the intrigues of the Versailles Royal Palace and tries to ease her sorrow by living a frivolous life without much concern about the problems of her subjects. The social issues observed in 18th-century France soon resulted in the people’s rebellion in the outcome of which Louis XVI and his young wife are beheaded (Coppola 2006).
It is the context in which Coppola puts her film. However, considerable parallels between this movie and the famous novel “Madame Bovary” by Gustave Flaubert can be observed. First of all, the book by the French author is the story of a young woman who was forced into a marriage, like Marie Antoinette, with a person who she did not love. Their life together was boredom for her, and the heroine of the book tried to entertain herself by having affairs with other men. For example, Leon, a young law student, was one of the objects of her affection, which, however, faded away rather soon. Living in this way and playing the role of a loyal wife to her husband, Madame Bovary loses the line of real-life like Marie Antoinette did. She becomes separated from reality and wakes up only when her husband needs money to pay his debts, and here another allusion to Marie Antoinette’s fate can be seen (Flaubert 2004).
Moreover, the parallels between the two stories can be observed in their final scenes. Madame Bovary commits suicide feeling broken because she could not help her husband out (Flaubert 2004). Marie Antoinette, also confronted by the need to help her husband, faces death as well when she and the King of France are executed in a fit of the people’s anger (Cook 2006).
Nevertheless, the comparison to Flaubert’s work is not the only matter that critics of the film by Coppola are busy with. The criticism of the film has been rather substantial after it hit the cinemas. Some critics have called the film a complete failure, while others have seen a masterpiece of the psychological drama in it. For example, Zevin (2007) is one of the former groups considering “Marie Antoinette” to be “a bad film, a longish music video, dripping with inarticulate nostalgia for what appears to be an ancien regime but, in reality, is something less distinct. ” (Zevin 33) Such a statement is made by the author based on his critique of the film’s violation of historical events.
According to Zevin (2007), one of the most tragic epochs in the French history is depicted as the misfortunes and emotional stresses of a young girl. The spectator is to guess about the time when the story takes place, while only “the final scene alludes to the Revolution by way of furniture” (Zevin 33). As a result, Zevin goes as far as suggesting that the film by Coppola is a shallow piece of art without any details on the historical background or the revolutionary setting: “Coppola’s Marie Antoinette is a shallow symbol – she quite literally lacks depth” (Zevin 33). The only thing detailed is the royal palace with all its small luxury pieces on which Antoinette’s look rests from time to time. It is impossible to understand the epoch and the issues that accompanied it and led to the tragic outcome of Marie Antoinette’s life.
As contrasted, Cook (2006) takes her time to defend the film viewing it as a masterpiece of Coppola’s directing – Coppola is famous for her psychological works that include, besides “Marie Antoinette”, such movies as “Virgin Suicides”, “Lost in Translation”, etc. Accordingly, the leitmotif of the Cook’s criticism is the statement that “Marie Antoinette” is “a picture of a teenager faced with a sexless marriage and out of her depth among the political intrigues of the French court, who grew to maturity only to face barbaric retribution” (Cook 38). So, it is a positive evaluation of the film, as Cook (2006) highly appreciates how Marie Antoinette’s figure is depicted: “While a sympathetic portrayal, Coppola’s film does not let Marie Antoinette off the hook. Instead it remains true to the contradictions that make her an ambiguous figure” (Cook 39).
Drawing from both points of view, I understand more fully Cook’s opinion about the film by Coppola. The first reason for this is the fact that art, as I am strongly convinced, is not the means of rendering exact historical or any other events and processes. The latter is the task of history and science, while art should express people’s emotions and create beauty. As for the ideas Sofia Coppola tried to convey by her film, I am more inclined to agree with the viewpoint by Cook (2006) who sees the film as, first of all, the look inside of Marie Antoinette’s soul – the soul of a girl who was caught up in the foreign land in a whirlwind of the tragic revolutionary events.
I think that Sofia Coppola tried to reflect the emotional state of her heroine as the one of distress and confusion, and all the actions she takes as the manifestations of the latter together with trying to hide her weaknesses from the public eye. On the whole, the film by Sofia Coppola can be evaluated as a skillful work, even despite the numerous historical mistakes in it.
Works Cited
Cook, Pam. “Portrait of a Lady: Sofia Coppola.” Sight & Sound (2006): 36 – 40.
Flaubert, Gustave. Madame Bovary. Kessinger Publishing, 2004.
Marie Antoinette. Dir. Sofia Coppola. With Kirsten Dunst, Jason Schwartzman, and Judy Davis. Columbia Pictures, 2006.
Zevin, Alexander. “Marie Antoinette and the Ghosts of the French Revolution.” Cineaste. Spring, 2007: 32 – 35.