Sofia Coppola’s intentions with Marie Antoinette have been doubted and questioned. Is the film an analogy of contemporary Hollywood? A personal account of what it’s like to grow up in Hollywood, surrounded by expectations and surveyed by the public? Is MA Paris Hilton or Brittany Spears? Or is it a simply an historical account? A defence of a historically defamed woman?
Todd McCarthy in his review of MA in Variety, accuses Coppola of “not dealing with the history at all.” Martha Nochimson doesn’t see any resonance of the film for today’s world, saying that “the effect is more of a shallow queen in a shallow film..” I definitely think there is more to it. I also think that perhaps it is sometimes best that a director doesn’t entirely disclose their intentions. Audiences don’t need to be told how to interpret a film and surely for a film to be received in variety of different ways is a desire for a director.
Coppola was criticized for depictng French history, like for some reason she doesn’t have the legitimacy to comment on another country’s history. This reminded me of Lars Von Trier’s Dogville. In making a film about America in the 1930s that denounces American values, having never been to the U.S, similar questions are asked. But like the Hollywood analogies in MA, Dogville can be read as a film about Denmark. Or, the lack of a real place for shooting the film may suggest that this town could be anywhere. Nevertheless, Von Trier interprets the U.S from the influx of images he is faced with and says he feels like an American. I find this strikingly similar to the way Coppola can interpret the legend of Marie Antoinette. In this global world, Coppola has access to the same records of French history that anybody does, French or American or wherever. The fact that she hasn’t grown up in France means that her view can perhaps be more valuable. At the very least, these two filmmakers offer a perspective on something they view from the outside, detached emotionally or nationally perhaps, from its ramifications.
So maybe Coppola and Von Trier are both commenting on the nature of globalization and the waning significance of the nation-state (sorry I just wrote a politics essay on this). This could be taking it a little far but I guess what I’m saying is that I think anyone can make a film about anything. And any audience member can interpret it any way they want.
By the way, I love Von Triers defence in this press conference.
“…well I’m doing it and I’m sorry…if you don’t like it …just forget it.”
Two good Dogville reveiws Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
