Marie Antoinette

cygnet74 said:
considering the anachronistic nature of the film, where "The Now" intrudes upon "The Then", i'm not so sure its really a problem. :)

the now upon the then (huh?)
if this were true the film would not spend so much time on 18th century royal mannerism in the characters, proper custumes, sayings, dialogue, traditions etc.

remember the modern remake of Romeo and Juliet (claire danes, leo dicaprio) now thats the now with the then since the modernist direction was linked into all characters, sets, clothes etc.
 
SPZ said:
Please tell me which film of Wong Kar Wai was booed at Cannes. I don't recall that happening.
the story was that Roger Ebert led the booing of 2046.

nycfilmmaker said:
the now upon the then (huh?)
if this were true the film would not spend so much time on 18th century royal mannerism in the characters, proper custumes, sayings, dialogue, traditions etc.

remember the modern remake of Romeo and Juliet (claire danes, leo dicaprio) now thats the now with the then since the modernist direction was linked into all characters, sets, clothes etc.
SPZ said:
I think he was joking.
I was, indeed.
HVX2006 said:
It takes some balls to compare Marie Antoinette to L'Aventura. :beer:
nycfilmmaker said:
cheers. that would be quite clever if i'd actually posted (or even hinted) that Marie Antoinette was the equal of anything from Antonioni's "alienation within the modern world" trilogy. L'avventura was brought up as an example of a masterful filmmaker's work getting booed at cannes to explain why I said I'd be proud to be of the caliber of filmmakers who have been received poorly there. they are frequently provacative risk-takers.

and again, with the criticizing of that which does not exist. it's like saying, "if you had blue hair, I wouldn't like it."
 
Last edited:
Thank you NYCfilmmaker, my wife thought I was crazy!

This is far from a Baz Luhrmann film...... Have fun with the soundtrack but what was the point of the converse. nycfilmmaker hit it right on the head, why so much detail to than throw in a such a silly image.

I think the advertising for this movie is way the hell off.....
 
Just found this.

While the music was deliberate, the Converse running shoe scene was a joke. It was shot by Coppola's brother, Roman Coppola, who does second unit shooting on all her films. He included it in his "I Want Candy" montage just to tease his sister. She loved it and left it in the final edit.
 
Boomerang said:
Just found this.

While the music was deliberate, the Converse running shoe scene was a joke. It was shot by Coppola's brother, Roman Coppola, who does second unit shooting on all her films. He included it in his "I Want Candy" montage just to tease his sister. She loved it and left it in the final edit.

This is why I don't like Coppola. Even though I liked Lost In Translation on subsequent viewings, and I do love her visual eye, she tries really hard to do things different regardless of if they intrude upon the intent of the film. I HATE when filmmakers do this. She did it on Lost In Translation when she left in that scene with Bill Murray in the hospital improving with the guy who couldn't speak english (clearly just something where she said "keep the cameras rolling"). She did it with this converse thing. David Gordon Green did this in George Washington where he just started including his own voice in the film, even though it had absolutely nothing to do with the story. He just wanted to be "cool and different". And Sydney Pollack in "Sketches of Frank Gehry" where he "accidentally" becomes a part of the documentary. Just do me a favor and tell the damn story. Don't become part of the movie. You're the director.
 
yeah, i hate it when filmmakers have a little fun with the cinematic form. i know most of the "good ones" pour their heart and soul into what they do, but i paid $11 bucks dammit!!!
 
meta-cinema? I blame that pompous ass Aristophanes for the whole thing! Verfremdungseffekt? Brecht, the prick.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top