Marie Antoinette interpreted by Nick Witchey

Beauty is subjective; but Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette is without a doubt the most beautiful film made in the past decade. The aesthetic details in each scene of the movie fit seamlessly with the music, whether it’s classical or 80’s post-punk, creating an experience that can be described by no word other than sensory. The colours provide the foundation for the visual aspect of the film. The wedgewood blues, bright pinks, light yellows, and soft greys are the building blocks for the hats and costumes. The film is beautiful. That is all and that is enough.

Critics of the film disagree with this. They argue that the fact that the film’s scenes are aesthetically pleasing is not enough. They criticize its lack of historical grounding. They say that Sofia Coppola did not make a biographical film, but projected her own life onto Marie Antoinette. Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette is loosely based on Lady Antonia Fraser’s biography: “Marie Antoinette: A Journey,” but is by no means historically accurate. The Duchesse de Polignac, for example, was a discrete woman who was simply portrayed as a wild lesbian by the outraged masses at the time. The film portrays her as an untamed slut. And it is true that parallels can be drawn between Sofia Coppola’s life and the life of the film’s protagonist. Sofia Coppola was the youngest daughter in a supremely privileged family. Need I say more? Both of these arguments are completely valid. Where I take issue is when people begin to make value judgments about the movie based on these perceived problems. Yes, many of the historical details and behaviors of characters are inaccurate. So what? Did you not feel a rush when you saw bright flashes of beautiful colour? Did you not feel euphoric when the courtiers were running through the gardens drinking champagne and then collapsing at the foot of the Bassin d’Apollon to watch the sun rise over Versailles? Did you not think “God I wish that was me” when Marie Antoinette and some of the courtiers were sitting under a large willow tree after the fox hunt, dressed impeccably, having a picnic, and surrounded by a beautiful blue haze? Maybe you did not. But I did.

Why does it matter that the film was not historically accurate, or that the director may or may not have made the film semi-autobiographical. Isn’t the point of art to create something beautiful? (Keep in mind there are so many different ways to interpret the word beautiful). So maybe the film does not have a lot of dialogue. And maybe it does not have an engaging story line. Again, so what? If you want to enjoy the film put these things aside and let the colours take over.