Two complaints with this: first, I wish Coppola hadn't cast her cousin Jason Schwartzman in such an important role. His lack of nuance, subtlety, range, etc was deeply apparent. Second, while I realize this is a film about surfaces, I wish the there'd been a bit more digging into the sexual drama at the beginning. Obviously Schwartzman contributes heavily to this issue, as well. Loved everything else about it.
I like this a lot more that 'Lost in Translation' probably because it's far messier. It's all coloured like expensive macaroons! Either way you slice it, the film luxuriates in consumption, but manages to make a Wildean politics out of it, just about. Unapologetically pretty and frivolous. Male anarchists caught being misogynist should be forced to watch it!
Don't remember what year it was when I first watched this but it was in a French class (thank you Prof.ª Emília, u were better than my film school teachers when it came to choosing and showing movies in class). I remember visiting Versailles as a kid and it being one of the greatest experiences of my life and then watching the film and feeling like I was reviving those moments. (I had forgotten Tom Hardy was in it!)
Smart call on Coppola's part to update the period piece, transforming the titular character into a girl who's sadly, anachronistically stuck in the wrong era. The direction is Malick-lite at times (that Avril 14th scene in particular) and the narrative doesn't pack the existential punch of, say, Lost in Translation, but this is nonetheless a compelling update on the story.
Whoever says this movie is not political (I've read lots of critics like that), either their politics is triggered and covered by their anger or they are used to describe politics not covering the authenticity and essence of life, and not inclusive for artistic expressions, and feminisim, of course. This is a good review: https://www.academia.edu/2052379/The_Historical_Threshold._Sofia_Coppolas_Marie_Antoinette