Marie Antoinette: Needs More Tits

Rather than crap in the other thread on the film, I figured I’d do the polite thing and start my own. I certainly wasn’t awed by this film, even though I thought that the acting was fine, and the sets were lovely.

I’m not going to really spoiler the film, except for one part near the ending, and I’ll box it. It didn’t suck, but I couldn’t help but think that this film could have been so much better (even without added tits). In the beginning of the film, you kind of get the sense that Marie is just a hapless pawn in the grand scheme of aligning national dynasties with one another, but they just let that whole plot line peter out fairly quickly. You never really get much sense of why anyone in the film does much of anything. Louis hunts, Marie (at least occassionally) spends money, and that’s pretty much it.

Kirsten Dundst is freakin’ hot, but whomever did her costumes for this film should be shot. One thing I absolutely lurve about 18th Century clothing is that women’s boobies just pop right out of their outfits. However, just about everything Dundst wears mashes down her great rack (as anyone who’s seen her bed jumping sequence in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind knows, it’s fantastically proportioned), though there is some glimpse of nipple early on in the film when she’s climbing out of the bath.

It’s never clearly explained if Louis is gay, or just stupid, but for some reason, he can rarely be bothered to have sex with her. There’s rumors that he’s gay, but we never see anything conclusive. Nor do we get any idea of what the hell he does as king, other than hunt. (A glaring error in the film is that when his father contracts smallpox, there’s no physical symptoms of it.) There’s two scenes with him discussing finances, and agrees to fund the American Revolution, but that’s it (nor do any American figures show up in the film, which is kind of odd, given that Ben Franklin was immensely popular in France). You get no idea of what makes any of these characters tick, in short.

For reasons I don’t understand, instead of using period music, the film relies on modern music, and the selection is just horrible. Not that the songs are bad, but there’s a number of songs which they could have used which would have worked much, much better than the ones they chose. A couple of examples, Marie is “shopping” (though she doesn’t go out, the wares are brought to her) you hear I Want Candy by Bow Wow Wow. Two much better choices would have been to use Material Girl by Madonna or Lust for Life by Iggy Pop. Both of those tracks would have fit the scene better (BTW, it’s in these scenes that you get a couple of shots of pairs of Doc Martens laying about, certainly not accidental). Then there’s a massive birthday party for Marie. There’s a lighthearted scene where Marie and others at the party dance outside, down a hill, and end up beside a reflecting pool to watch the sun rise. The music that’s playing is Ceremony by New Order. When I saw them start to dance outside, I started singing, “We can dance if you want to, we can leave this world behind.” You know, Safety Dance by Men Without Hats. The scene freakin’ screams for that song.

One thing that I’m wondering about is that Marie is shown having 3 kids, and yet, I’ve only read about one in the history books. What about the others? Were they real? If so, what happened to them?

I have a few problems with the ending, but I’ll box them.

You never really get a sense of what’s going on outside of the palace, so when the peasants rise in revolt, it’s just sort of, “Uh, why?” Later, when the peasants are outside the palace, torches and pitchforks in hand, Marie goes out on the balcony to look at them. They’re screaming for her death, and none of them has anything to throw at her. (I couldn’t help but wonder why she didn’t throw her jewels at them, since that would have set the crowd at each others throats and probably insured the royals safety.) Marie stretches her arms out, lays them on the balcony railing, and bows to the crowd so that her forehead almost touches the railing. This, IMHO, is where the film should have ended. Do a fade to black, with the noise of the crowd still thundering in your ears, then the sound of a guillotine blade coming down, followed by silence. Instead, we get a scene of the royals fleeing in a coach, then we cut to a scene of the royal bedroom after it’s been trashed, with the sound of a bird fluttering about.My advice is to wait for this one on video.

While I can only applaud your ‘quest for breast’, wouldn’t Marie need more bread? :confused:

Let them eat breast!! That could have saved her head.

Perhaps that’s what Marie meant when she said they should eat cake. :eek:

The master speaketh:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_334.html

Really??? I’ve always found two to be pretty much the optimal number, but whatever floats your boat…

Supposedly, when Gillian Anderson was hired for The X-Files, somebody told her that some network executives had originally wanted to cast an actress with “more breasts”. She said she was glad they apparently decided two was sufficient.

Louis’ problem was phimosis. From Wiki:

*On 16 May 1770, when he was 15 and she 14, he married Marie Antoinette, daughter of Francis I of Austria and Empress Maria Theresa, a Habsburg. They were not able to have children for several years due to the fact that Louis XVI suffered from a sexual dysfunction (reputedly phimosis), corrected seven years later by minor surgery.[1] Subsequently, they had four children:

Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte (19 December 1778 – 19 October 1851);
Louis-Joseph-Xavier-François (22 October 1781 – 4 June 1789);
Louis-Charles (27 March 1785 – 8 June 1795);
Sophie-Beatrix (9 July 1786 – 19 June 1787)*

Louis was not gay. He had a physical affliction which made erection painful and penetration basically impossible. It required surgery. In those days, surgery was, uh, not something to look forward to, particularly in that area. Louis was basically a coward. He eventually overcame his fear, had the procedure, and was able to copulate.

I’m going to address one of your spoilered points, but not bother with boxes myself. (I don’t think that it reveals much about the plot.)

I think the fact that we never see what is going on with the peasants is intentional. We’re supposed to be seeing this through the eyes of Marie, who probably had little idea herself. She simply wasn’t all that interested and didn’t realize how bad things had gotten.

Not really her fault-- the court was designed to sheild royalty from the people. Marie probably only saw peasants on ceremonial occasions. (I don’t know if France had a similar custom, but in England, the king would wash the feet of peasants on religious occasions-- peasants who had been carefully selected not to be sick or deformed and who had been pre-washed before being presented to the king.) Other than that, she might catch a glimpse now and then of cheering people as she rode in her carriage. Why *wouldn’t *she think that they were happy and that they loved her?

It reminds me much of the famous (though probably anecdotal) story of Queen Victoria who saw pieces of paper floating in the river Thames when she was on an outing. The paper came from raw sewage which was dumped into the river, but when she asked what they were, her courtiers told her that they were notices which said that swimming was prohibited.

When you’re a young girl, do you really pay all that much attention to the plight of the poor? Especially when you’re a pampered rich girl and everyone around you intentionally shields you from it?

In the film, there’s a scene with him being asked by a doctor if everything works, to which he nods “Yes.”
Lissa, if that was their intent, it failed miserably, and in any case is as wrong as her only having 3 children.

In the book by Antonia Fraser, it’s stated that Marie was always very kind and giving to the poor. In fact, she makes it clear the rest of the royal family spent as much, or more, on frivolities and outlandish jewels than the Queen.

Her book really makes it sound like the Austrian queen was doing the best she could, given her upbringing(she was the last of the Austrian Empress’ daughters and never meant for royalty). The French royalty, I feel, had been overdue for a Magna Carta-type reformation.

Anyway, I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I’ve been very excited for months now.

Charity was a duty of queenship. (I’d like to see a comparison of Marie’s charitable giving and that of her predecessor.) While I don’t doubt that she was a kind-hearted woman, I don’t believe she truly understood the* depth* of the problems her nation faced.

I didn’t mean to imply that she would have been completely ignorant of the fact that there were poor people, nor that she ignored her charitable duties. But I do think that she looked at the world through somewhat rose-tinted lenses.

You could be right, but the film certainly didn’t convey that very well. (Actually, it didn’t convey it at all.)

Sorry, man, but that’s what real 18th-century costume does. It was far more modest in real life than in the fevered imaginations of Hollywood. If you take a look at some portraits, you’ll see that the “tits on a platter” look is pretty much absent. (If you look at the portraits of Marie Antoinette, you’ll also see that Kirsten Dunst is far prettier than she ever was.) The necklines of the dresses might be quite low, but they’d almost invariably be filled with some sort of scarf or decorative filler.

I haven’t seen the movie, but I’ve looked at a lot of photos from it online, and the costuming (with the exceptions of the anachronistic jokes like the Doc Martens) is pretty damned accurate.

What the hell is the fun in that!?! I’d also like to note that lots of other women in the flick had tits a poppin’ (most especially Marie’s mother :eek: ), yet for some perverse reason, we weren’t given much to see of Ms. Dundst. (Mind you, there’s a shot with her laying their wearing nothing but stockings and holding a fan [which unfortunately blocks most of your view of the radience that is Ms. Dundst], where you’re hoping for a good full body pan, that never arrives. :() And if they’re going to be so accurate with the costuming, why don’t they go all the way, and show the women unshorn? (Ya want historical accuracy, baby, there’s your freakin’ historical accuracy!)