« A Year in a French Market | Home | A year in a French market: When life hands you January vegetables… »
Queen in a candy shop: Marie Antoinette
By Ann | January 26, 2009
I’m about three years behind, but I finally saw Sophia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette last night. After all the negative reviews, I was quite pleasantly surprised to find that I really enjoyed it. To all those history buffs who criticized the rock music soundtrack, and shots of Converse all-stars among Blahnik heels, and Kirstin Dunst’s Valley-Girl-accent, I say — it’s a modern interpretation, people!
Anyway, what struck me about the film was the candy confectionary lushness of the shots. I’ve heard Versailles described as a “piss-pot of intrigue” but Coppola made it look like a sweet shop, full of ruffles and flounces and pastels — not to mention cakes and cookies made by famed Parisian pâtissier Ladurée.
So girly and pink — and I love the cake-stands of different heights.
The pastries were almost like jewels or objets d’arts — more for admiration than for consumption. They probably look better than they taste, too.
Of course, I also loved the costumes. Flirtatious fans, angled hats, enormous hair, flounced dresses — all in candy-sweet shades.
Love the bright touches of coral pink and blue on Marie-Antoinette/Dunst’s hat and wrap. And check out the men behind her — aren’t their powdered wigs and ruffled shirtwaists a hoot?
P.S. According to this AP article, a 223-year-old tree, which was planted for Marie Antoinette in her garden, toppled and died in a wind storm a few days ago.
Topics: Food and Film | 15 Comments »
15 Responses to “Queen in a candy shop: Marie Antoinette”
« A Year in a French Market | Home | A year in a French market: When life hands you January vegetables… »
January 26th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
The funniest part was when Dunst/Marie Antoinette wore a hat decorated with a huge model sailing ship! Given France’s mastery of the art of grandeur, I suspect such a hat actually existed. I also liked Jason Schwarzman, of “Rushmore” fame, as Louis XVI. This movie was definitely a guilty pleasure for me! (As was the utterly bizarre and disjointed “Flamingo Road” [1949, directed by Michael Curtiz, starring Joan Crawford and Sidney Greenstreet], which CtB and I saw Sunday afternoon at Action Christine.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Come on Ann! Stick to what you know – food! If you are going to start talking about such nonsensical bollocks as “Marie Antionette” then it’s time for you to close the blog. “it’s a modern interpretation, people!” Uhm, no Ann Mah! Dangerous Liaisons was a modern interpretation – Marie Antionette is an historically inaccurate, culturally ignorant, utterly miscast piece of Hollywood tripe. Kirstin Dunst?! French?! A Lady?!Elegant?! What a load of bollocks and a complete waste of money and waste of time.
I’m dissapointed in your intellectual capacity Ann. If you actually enjoyed this poor excuse for film, then you can be no different in IQ to the valley girls you so apparently adore.
Your excellent food commentary and wonderful, enlightening and adorable views on Paris and France are so such, that I actually believe this particular entry can only have been written by a ghost writer!
Come on! Let’s compare this “movie” to its food equivalent; what we have here is a clear case of International House Of Pancakes. Mmmmm! Why not write about that lovely garbage food that is killing Americans?
In other words, this entry is totally inconsistent with your actual standards of the past. Please fire the jellyheaded ghost writer and do the blog yourself in future.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Ah, you got me, Jolly Frank. Encouraged by your comment to reflect on what I liked about this movie, I must admit that it was the visuals that drew me in. What can I say? It’s eye candy. Pretty! Pink! Ponies! Princesses! (Okay, queens.) Sorry, I am a girl at heart. I can’t help but like these things.
Perhaps it will make you feel better to know that I spent much of the movie commenting to my husband on the various historical inaccuracies in the film. Also, when I first typed the post above I inadvertently spelled the lead actress’s name “Kristin Dunce.” Honest mistake? Or Freudian slip?!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I’m completely relieved that you hadn’t lost your marbles after all!
I accept that you are “a girl” as you say, and that you were temporarily entranced by the Royals, ponies and pinkness.
However I can only accept your plea of temporary insanity to a point. You have indeed already proven that above and beyond everything, you are a gastronome of the highest order, a connoisseur of the sublime, and an advocate for superb customer service. Clearly the rare, cosmopolitan mix of passion, femininity and the quest for knowledge is, unlike the majority of civilization, in your DNA. Thus, you more than most, ought to be able to tell by looking, simple food coloring on Papier-mâché from fresh organic flavor.
So, I ask that you take another look at the pictures of the repulsive pink confectionery, and ask yourself if this imagery belongs anywhere without a serious health warning, but especially in your blog. After all, is this the Ann Mah brand that you have working so hard to create?
I know it was only a movie, and a bit of fun, alas, standards are standards, and this……
Otherwise – thanks for being there, love the show, love your writing! Did the strikes close the restaurants etc?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:31 am
Jolly Frank, give her a break. She’s entitled the right to enjoy any movie she wants to enjoy, historical inaccuracies or not. It’s your opinion that Marie Antoinette was stupid, not hers. I also enjoyed it, and I didn’t care is it was “ignorant” or any of the above- I loved it for it’s artistic value. It had the most beautiful sets and costumes, and there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with loving a movie that doesn’t go by the history books!
There will ALWAYS be disagreements when people post their own opinions, however this is Ann’s blog, not Jolly Frank’s. Accurate or not, this movie was incredibly enjoyable. Ann doesn’t need to apologize to anyone for liking something and wanting to write about it.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Mica said “I loved it for its artistic value.” You simply must be American dear Mica! For only an American would surely love such tripe.
In answer to your nonsensical whim at being Ann Mah’s lord and protector;
1. “This blog is supposed to be about good food, and good journalism, and is a hitherto good attempt at such. Further, it is supposed to be a brand build up to Ms. Mah’s boook launch. A book about…food..Yes, food, not silly, girlish, hollywood attempts at Americanising history. I understand that American history is, well, at best, rather dull. But the constant reinventing history and historical players to serve the bubble-gum chewing American “intelligentsia” demonstrates the lack of imagination and innovation that, coming from such a young upstart, is astounding! Perhaps it is due to the deliberate homogeneity practiced by the US, in it’s linear “education” system, in it’s “communities,” and it’s frighteningly xenophobic population. Whatever the reason, it is wrong to applaud such drivel, and wrong to do so on an otherwise good blog.
2. Ann Mah had the opportunity to reply to my original post, and did so. As you have apparently either not read, or what is more likely, not understood what she wrote within that reply; she goes on to mention that her original posting about the movie’s features and benefits, had mislead her. Upon further reflection, and after reading my post, she realized that the movie had little appeal, save that of the garish display of costumes and cakes. Hardly the foundation of a good movie, and hardly anything the Coppola family will want to mention around the dinner table, ever!
3. You say that Ann Mah is entitled to enjoy any movie she desires, and you are, of course, correct. She is, as you propound, also entitled to write about it afterwards, and in her blog, also correct. However, when one starts writing opinions about said media, in a blog, on the internet, with comments from readers encouraged, then any reader, as in my case, also has the right to comment. This is clear by you exercising your own opinion, however misguided and uncultured it is.
4. To complain that I complained is typical of the sort of modern double-standards that people with a sense of entitlement, usually Americans, display. Yet another astounding factor, especially when your constitution bangs on about “free-speech,” but of course, the rest of the world knows that this “right” of yours, is but a convenient hyperbole so as to comfort the dumb masses.
5. I was actually doing the author a favour in commenting so. The commentary about her love of the movie was absolutely incongruent with the rest of her journalism, and as such, her brand. A consistent brand message is essential, especially when trying to market a book, blog and career about those things in life that signify uncompromising quality. Although it may be tempting to write about what one’s bedroom habits are, you must first consider the price you might have to pay downstream. My advice was simply to stick with the brand, or consider giving it up if her brain had turned into pink jello overnight.
6. I’m sorry if this offended you, and also sorry for your lack of cultural experience. It is indeed painful for me to have to witness people suchn as your good-self, seeing the world through such drivel, and believing it to be a good enough standard to be categorized as “artistic value” or indeed any other sort of “value.” The reason I was attracted to this blog in the first place, was because of it’s integrity.
7. I was, and am still somewhat, annoyed that it’s author, especially a former New Yorker, has gone to live in such a deeply historical and cultural area, and apparently taken American filters with her; These days, we mainly read about movies that are “just great” because they were draped in garish vomit-inducing pink, and pizza-parlours. The sudden “home-sick for the mid-west” type of reduction in quality, especially when there is so much to write about in Europe, is dissapointing. My suspicions are clearly correct, as is indicated by the blog now being read by such discerning tastes as your own, Mica..
I suppose it’s true that you can take the girl out of America but….
What a disspointment!
March 17th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Jolly Frank needs to get over himself, snide comments about other peoples culture and background are not very constuctive or intelligent. Initially I thought the film was really awful for much the same reasons as the majority of historians out there, but on watching it again on television a couple of years later, I was able to take it for what it was. A “sense” of the era for a modern audience. Had they gone full-on authentic, the costumes, sets and wonderful pastries, cakes and macarons, would not have been so delightful. Likewise the post-punk, new wave soundtrack (fairly clever usage, as the fashionable new romantic club-goers dressed with an 18th century influence during the early 1980s – or we did in England anyway). The modern music gave a “feeling” of the decadence and headonisim at court that baroque could not do for a 21st century listener. I feel very sorry for people who’s self percieved intellect stops them enjoying the superficial “eye candy” in life, they are really missing out on things – Now, lets just appreciate those wonderful cakes for being the works of art that they are… after all those wonderul confections are what Ann Mah’s post was all about.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Jolly Frank,
Americans are not stupid. YOU may not like them but that doesnt mean that you have to be so outrageously rude. The whole rant about “free speech” is completely contradicted by the fact that you are speaking freely yourself.
Marie Antionette was a historical figure, whether you like it or not. Her life was filled with frills and costume. I agree with Ann’s commentary.
For god’s sake go practice some tolerance, I hear it does the soul good.
June 22nd, 2009 at 7:33 am
@ Andrea
You are a little late, but OK, I will answer you.
It is not about my likes and dislikes. It is about your national love of recreating all things historical into conveniently warped, self-serving, American vigniettes. The fact that you adore such tripe as this movie does, in fact, label you as stupid.
The writing, casting, set, wardrobe all serve to insult good taste and intellect, and are just another indication of the sort of bollocks that Hollywood and LA excretes out of it’s behind for the likes of you, and you only.
Of course, you are welcome to go ahead and recreate history so that it looks as vulgar as American food itself. After all, one look at American food, American tv, American “literature” and the American sense of style, all speaks volumes as to the American’s taste.
June 22nd, 2009 at 7:37 am
@ Essie
Where do I start with you? I’m sorry but there is simply too much diatribe to answer. It is not my job to educate you as to reality. Suffice it to say I don’t think Coppola wanted the movie to be a Duran Duran video. Alas, perhaps she achieved this!
“Now, lets just appreciate those wonderful cakes for being the works of art that they are..” OK obese High Fructose Corn laden cake lover. Go ahead! After all, it is the workers who pay for your national health service.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:44 pm
JF, short for Jolly Frank:
Go to thisiswhyyourefat.com. Amazing site! I’m sure you’ll love it!
July 8th, 2009 at 3:57 am
Dear Mr. Jolly Frank,
What is so bad about Americans? The whole world contributes bad things. Not everybody is fat in America and not everybody is thin in Europe. Your thoughts on America is based on sterotypes and highly judgemental. Negativity is a very bad thing, one should remain positive at all times. After all, things could always be worse. Have a good day!
July 31st, 2009 at 5:11 pm
i loved this film, i loved the music c’mon people this is what makes us americans! we are different and we are unique, fun and explore our jungle of imagination!
August 27th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Jolly Frank is a crusty old coot!
September 21st, 2009 at 7:01 am
*Comments to this post are now closed.