A Couple of Favorites: Films About Marie Antoinette

The real Marie Antoinette, Queen of France and Navarre (1755-1793).

I recently rented the DVD of Sofia’s Coppola’s 2006 version of the life of Marie Antoinette which stars Kristen Durst as the tragic and unfairly maligned queen of France and Navarre. Marie Antoinette ranks as one of my favorite monarchs. I tend to gravitate toward the ones whose lives ended tragically.

Marie Antoinette was first brought to vivid life for me when I read Victoria Holt’s novel The Queen’s Confession in high school. I had heard of Marie Antoinette, but I was in the dark about the intricate tragic web of her life. Like many people, I actually believed that she had been a woman who cared nothing for the welfare of the poor of her adopted country. I believed she flaunted her wealth on an uncaring and frivolous scale. In my mind, “Let them eat cake,” must have been truly spoken by her. This general and uninformed perspective on Marie Antoinette was fostered for some reason when I had to read Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities in high school. This novel of a British lawyer who resembles a French nobleman so much that he takes his place on the guillotine so the nobleman can be reunited with his family, left such an impression on me that because of my mandatory reading of it for my 10th grade English class, I started looking around at the school library for more books that would enlightened me about the French Revolution. Holt’s book appealed to me because it was a mixture of well researched history and Romance.

I really enjoyed Coppola’s version of Marie Antoinette’s story. At first I was skeptical and hesitated to see it since portions of it sports some rock music in order to appeal to a young audience. Now I am really glad I did take the time to watch it. A second reason why I was wary of it was because I am an immense fan of the Academy Award nominated version of the French queen’s life that was made in 1938 and is also entitled Marie Antoinette. The 1938 version was produced by Irving Thalberg and stars Norma Shearer, who was Thalberg’s wife, in the title role.
Marie Antoinette of 2006 received an Academy Award and an award at the Cannes Film Festival. It has many merits in its' own right. There is a wide gulf between how Norma Shearer played the role of Marie Antoinette 70 years ago and how Dunst did it just 2 years ago. Shearer’s Marie Antoinette is more lively, talkative, and impetuous than Dunst’s. Shearer’s MA gets more on the defensive and takes a devil may care attitude when she is cruelly criticized and seen as an outsider. Later Shearer’s MA regrets her frivolity and becomes more careful of her reputation. Durst’s MA is a sweet and caring young woman, but she is isolated from the world outside Versailles and her little Trianon Palace. Both actresses show a degree of strength and humor in situations which are intensely stressful and alien to them. There is the marriage that is sexless for a little over 7 years. In the new version of the story, Marie’s husband the Dauphin or heir to the French throne is ignorant of and too shy to perform the sex act until MA’s big brother, the Emperor Joseph, comes and gives him a good heart to heart to talk. In the 1938 version, the Dauphin, who is played by Robert Morley, apparently has a physical impediment that is hindering the relationship. The 1938 version was filmed in black and white, while Coppola’s is vivid eye candy. In the 25 minute documentary on the DVD, Coppola says candy and certain pastel colors inspired her work. The 1938 version is a little longer covering from MA’s notification that she will be marrying the Dauphin of France to her final moments before being executed as a traitor to the French nation on the guillotine. Marie Antoinette of 2 years ago begins at the notification and ends with MA and her family fleeing Versailles at the start of the French Revolution. MA of 1938 was shot on lavish Hollywood sets that were recreations of Versailles. The recreated Versailles ballroom in this film was actually larger than the original. A few shots of the palace grounds were done at Versailles in France. Thalberg’s version was one of the most expensive movies made during the 1930s and also one of the most successful. I own a VHS copy, and I have seen the film at least 20 times! 2006’s version was filmed entirely in France. With beautiful and bright photography, thus giving it have a far more beautiful pallet than the old film, Coppola’s MA is a feast to look at. However, its characters are more subdued and human, whereas Irving Thalberg’s characters are sometimes more colorful and larger than life. Coppola’s film takes the controversial stance that Marie Antoinette and the Swedish count Axel Ferson had a sexual affair. The 1938 version leaves the affair platonic, with Count Fersen being such a man of honor and decency that he flees the temptation of an affair with the queen he loves to go off and fight in the American Revolution. Coppola’s Fersen appeals more to a young postmodern audience’s tastes because he is shown as a playboy who makes love to the queen, leaves, and never comes back. The Count Fersen of 1938 returns years later and plays a lead role in trying to rescue Marie Antoinette and her family from the hands of the revolutionaries. Since I believe in the high ideals of yesteryear, Count Fersen, played by Tyrone Power in ’38 is more appealing to me than this recent version. The nature of the relationship between Marie Antoinette and Count Axel Fersen has been in dispute since their live times. Both movies used sexual innuendo, but couples in the same bed was a no-no in the 30s. Coppola’s film has some sexual content, but it is tastefully done. Both Coppola and Thalberg used a mixed cast with Americans and foreign actors.

I love both versions, but Coppola’s film would be more appealing to present day younger audiences. Surprisingly for an "old fogey" like me, the mix of rock with classical music in the film was not insulting to my ear and did not take away from the film’s appeal as a well done period piece. One of my favorite historians, Lady Antonia Fraser also loves Coppola’s version which is based on her book Marie Antoinette: The Journey. In the Making of Marie Antoinette documentary on the DVD, Lady Antonia praises Sofia Coppola’s vision of MA’s world and says that Kristen Durst is how she would picture a young Marie Antoinette to be in looks and mannerisms.

I would recommend both versions for high school history classes. There is no language, like in some movies I have seen some teachers showing in high school nowadays. Only parents and students might be cautioned of the sexual content. This content does not contain any open nudity, however. There are a couple of scenes where Kristen Durst is undressed by her ladies in waiting and her bare bottom is seen, but most teenagers have probably seen far worse in movies on television.

When Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette was first released, Warner Brothers went into their vault and released on DVD the 1938 version.

Here is a video with scenes from both films.


For history buffs and those who felt they could never sit through a historical drama, I highly recommend Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette. If you have already seen it, consider seeing it again. For connoisseurs of movies from Hollywood's Golden Age with superb dialogue, Irving Thalberg's Marie Antoinette is a must see. Both are excellent escapes.

Sites on Marie Antoinette:
The Costumes of Marie Antoinette: The Movies and the Woman
Marie Antoinette Online