aesthetic regimes

October 10, 2007

Historical Truth?

Filed under: Marie Antoinette thoughts — zoe @ 12:06 pm

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 Leave a Comment

Deterritorialization

Filed under: Marie Antoinette thoughts — zoe @ 7:25 am

Deleuze and Guattari talk about the power of music to create territories. 188 Perhaps in Marie Antoinette a territory is created at the beginning of the film in Austria. The scenes in Austria are layered with more classical music that is consistent with our expectations of a period piece. When MA travels to France, the music immediately becomes more contemporary and acts as a deterritorialising force. It is not stable and doesn’t depict a territorial sense of “home.”

In getting my head around this idea of a “deterritorializing force,” I found the example of Spike Lee’s Do The Right Thing really helpful. Patricia Pisters (190) describes how Spike Lee uses Public Enemy’s Fight the Power as a territorial force to create a “home.” I tend to think of “home” more in the sense of the audiences’ perception, kind of like the concept of the refrain. Also, this song may be so successful as a territorial force because it was created in the black urban environment in which the film is set. There is such as sense that the music belongs to the image, the setting and the politics of the film. Conversely, Gang of Four, New Order, Bow Wow Wow, Adam and the Ants etc… were created 200 years after the time of MA in response to different circumstances and politics. Yet, as I described in an earlier post, there are still similarities to be drawn and their sentiments can be conceived as the same.

“Flags can do nothing without trumpets”

Filed under: Marie Antoinette thoughts — zoe @ 4:13 am

Patricia Pisters talks about a shifting emphasis towards sound.

…the sound track is no longer strictly contained by the image track. Sound (not only the voice) gains prominence and even independence at some points… 192

Music definitely gains prominence in Marie Antoinette. This is clear even in the opening credits as Gang of Four’s Natural’s Not In It plays as names printed in bright pink font are flashed onto the screen.
The lyrics..

The problem of leisure
What to do for pleasure

…are played over a black screen presupposing the following image of Kirsten Dunst playing MA lounged on a chair reaching lazily for a dip of cream before looking directly at the camera. This is so self-conscious and playful and it presupposes the rest of the film.

Opening shot

In cinema, when sound takes over from the image, this opening is created, an opening to something beyond the image, a connection with the earth or even the cosmos. 190

Hmmm…so why does Sofia Coppola choose post-punk music as the deterritorializing force? Is there perhaps some connection to be made between the character of MA and the post-punk movement/genre? Perhaps this is the “opening” emphasized by Deleuze and Guattari.

Post-punk began in the late 1970s as a follow on from the original punk movement which was early-mid 70s. Post-punk retained punk characteristics such as anti-authoritarian, free thought, individualism etc… But in terms of music post-punk was more introverted, experimental and complex.

Paralells between post-punk and Marie Antoinette are pretty apparent.

Take this quote from a music website for example:
post-punk “turned inward, creating gloomy, atmospheric soundscapes that bristled with tension and claustrophobic angst.”

“Claustrophobic angst” is a perfect way of describing Marie Antoinette. She is trapped by circumstance, alienated and constantly surveyed and criticized.

At the forefront of post-punk are, of course Gang of Four whoose album Entertainment! has been described as “an album born of frustration, of being boxed in, trapped, imprisoned and socially rejected.” Sound familiar?

Great interview with Gang of Four here.

So we can see here how the music takes us away and opens up to something beyond the image. Creating this parallel, being able to transcend the restrictions of the image perhaps brings us closer to the character of Marie Antoinette. The music perhaps helps us to understand her in a better way. Maybe Sofia Coppola feels that the audience of 2006 can understand the sentiments of the post-punk movement and will therefore understand those of MA?

Jon Savage in his “blank regeneration” article, talks about Elastica taking their melody for Waking Up from the Stranglers’ No More Heroes and questions of plagiarism. He says that they used a song popular when Elastica were in pre-school to make something new and contemporary. I find this similar to the way Coppola has been something new and contemporary out of an event that happened over 200 years ago. The tale of Marie Antoinette has been told over and over again yet the film brings a new perspective, with an entirely new aesthetic. The article asks “can the present escape the shadow of the past?”. But I suppose in the same rhetorical way we can ask (and Coppola does I think) “can the past escape the interpretation of the present?”

Marie Antoinette

Filed under: Marie Antoinette thoughts — zoe @ 3:59 am

Sofia Coppola’s film Marie Antoinette deterritoralizes the tradition of ‘costume/period drama’.

What is a period film?
I think of those mini-series often on the ABC. Elaborate costumes, classical music.. Sense and Sensibility or Pride and Prejudice style.

Coppola does this is two ways:
-through the anachronistic soundtrack
-through the intimate, immersive and personal aesthetic

She looks at MA in a way historical figures are not usually viewed.

Coppola plays with the idea that it is impossible to recreate a historical period without the imprint of the contemporary society in which it was made. No matter how hard filmmakers may try to accurately reflect a particular historical period, a historical event may never be depicted so precisely. Although advancing technology means the ability for filmmakers to replicate a period is improved, for example costume construction or special effects, technology also makes it more difficult. If Sofia Coppola had chosen to research and use the music from the period for her film, using exactly the same instruments etc… the imprint of modern society and technology would remain in the way music is recorded. This is in relation to Delueze and Guattari’s concept of the sound machine.

A sound machine = a machine that molecularizes and atomizes sound matter and harnesses a cosmic energy.

So, instead of trying to replicate a period precisely and facing contradictions with the technology used, Coppola has put a completely modern take on the period. Although the film does incorporate costumes, colours and set (shooting in Versailles!) accurate to the period, Coppola continues to play with this idea. I guess as with music, costume technologies advance that may in fact prevent costumers from so precisely replicating the clothing that was actually worn. The controversial shot of converse sneakers in the montage sequence continues to play with this idea. While the way the construction of gowns is shown throughout this same sequence also adds to this notion of exposing construction. It is almost as if Coppola is mocking the typical classical period piece that will inevitably fail in replicating the time. Also, all of this adds to the very personal aesthetic, bringing the audience closer to Marie Antoinette as a character.

Converse shot

Blog at WordPress.com.