Filmbrain's Screen Capture Quiz: Round 9, Week 11

Last week's quiz was a bit of a gimmie, was it not? Only a scant few fell for the Tarkovsky/bleak diversion -- the rest of you had no problem spotting Gene Hackman as the blind man who never gets to make espresso in Mel Brooks' comedy classic, Young Frankenstein. Super duper! Well, the New York Film Festival press screenings began yesterday, which means I'll be taking in about thirty films over the next couple of weeks, and I couldn't be happier. If things are a bit quiet around here for a while, you'll know why. However, extensive coverage is guaranteed -- if not here then elsewhere. (Quick preview -- saw Marie Antoinette yesterday. Not one, not two, but three Bow Wow Wow songs on the soundtrack. Need I say more?) Last week's cakewalk was a bit of a breather before the final two quizzes of this round, which will be markedly more difficult. This week -- hmmm...which director would include Truffaut's book on Hitch? There are at least half-a-dozen bloggers on the list to the right that should get this with little difficulty. Yes Girish, that includes you. Submit your answers to this address. Good luck!

Comments

[cinetrix]

Bow Wow Wow has three songs?

[Filmbrain]

I Want Candy, Aphrodisiac, and their brilliant cover of Fools Rush In.

[girlwithamoviecamera]

i saw marie-antoinette in paris a few months ago - first of all, need to say that i've always gushed so much about sofia coppola's films, how they inspired me for my work, that my friends & family have nicknamed me "coppolina"...

that said, i was terribly disappointed by her latest film... the music didn't bother me so much - it was rather the melange of accents (california girl + british + italian pulling off a british accent) and even more the complete disregard of historical events, the most salient events in marie antoinette's life. i only saw shoes, and dresses, and cake, and champagne. photographed *incredibly* well by lance acord, but they're still just shoes. and dresses. and cake. and champagne...

... one could argue that M-A was so sheltered that such superficial things were indeed the focus of her life... but it's also a matter of ellipses and rhythm and simply a plain awful screenplay populated by caricatures. found the acting quite atrocious, too, esp. jason schwartzman.

any thoughts?

[Eric]

You're killing me, filmbrain! What would Barthes say about your scroll-over clues?

Salutations!

[Eric]

girlwithamoviecamera, I think your criticisms about MA are exactly why I'm excited to see it. If there's a twenty minute scene where she's trying on shoes and dresses then I think I might love the movie. It's kind of a punk thing to do her -- in theory. I seem to have had the exact opposite reaction to Coppola's first two films, even though I thought they'd be terrific.

Oh yes, hands down Schwartzman is a terrible actor, but then so is Coppola.

[Filmbrain]

girlwithamoviecamera -- Don't want to say too much here as my full review is forthcoming, but I really dug her approach to the film -- that of a piece of well-tread history as seen through the eyes of a teenaged girl.

Embarrassingly, I know very little about M-A, so I have no comment/thoughts on the historical (in)accuracy.

It's interesting that you mention the screenplay, for one of the things I found remarkable about the film was its almost complete lack of actual dialog. Nearly everything said is some sort of formality, or a bit of gossip. Characters rarely communicate with one another -- they speak around things. I admire Sofia for that.

As for the 80s music -- well, she won my heart there. These are the songs of my own teenage years, so hearing them in this context seemed perfect.

[Filmbrain]

Eric --

As for Barthes, well, there's always this quote - "The photographic image... is a message without a code." That, or something about humiliated repetition as the bastard form of popular culture.

[Eric]

I was thinking more along the lines of the "Striptease" essay, where the spell is broken at the moment of exposure--I'm being snarky. Your stills are so perplexing and have me hooked, but then your scroll-over clue exposes the answer.

[A. Horbal]

Someone arrived at my website today by Googling "she picks up a book called hitchcock/truffaut"

[Filmbrain]

That is SO perfect, Andy.

Submissions this week are flying in fast and furious. Some incredible guesses, but only a few have nailed it.

[girlwithamoviecamera]

filmbrain
- i understand what you mean when you say that you appreciated the spare dialogue, as it reflected how life at the court might have been like... and i can see how history can seem not *that* relevant to the approach sofia coppola took...

... that said, i still find the film atrociously superficial and with big gaping holes - strongly feeling like the lack of dialogue is not a deliberate choice towards mood and minimalism, but rather sofia coppola's ineptitude at writing a serious period piece: "i don't know what to have them say so i'll just put some music in the background and let it be it". what disappointed me was the portrayal of the ENDING of marie antoinette's life, which is as important as her making: ms. coppola just glided over that... As I mentioned, especially in the time ellipses, I could feel a palpable uncomfortableness at dealing with historical data...

there are other ways to be minimalist, to give a great importance to costumes/mise-en-scene/mood BUT still imbuing a film with meaning, giving it subtext, and making characters three-dimensional - WONG KAR-WAI's films are a fine example, especially "In the Mood for Love" and his contribution to "EROS"... I think Sofia Coppola did just that in LOST IN TRANSLATION but failed miserably with M-A. because the french revolution is a bit more layered and complicated than the pseudo-autobiographical story that inspired LIT. my two cents...

[Filmbrain]

the lack of dialogue is not a deliberate choice towards mood and minimalism, but rather sofia coppola's ineptitude at writing a serious period piece

That could be the case -- perhaps I'll ask her about it at the press conference.

It's funny that you should mention Wong Kar-wai, as he is one of her biggest influences. I agree with you that she came close to capturing that Wong Kar-wai feeling in LIT, but failed to do so in Marie Antoinette.

[HarryTuttle]

Filmbrain, I'm looking forward to your review of Marie Antoinette.
The ambitious production wasn't an attempt at "minimalism". I agree with girlwithamoviecamera's reservations. Although Sofia confessed in Cannes her conscious distanciation to historical accuracy, and disregard for anachronistic details.
The problem is the atmosphere of the film is vague and ultimately fails to give an identifiable posture, either toward subversive satire or credible historicity...
I wish she risked to venture away from the safe middle ground. To pick a historical characer with all its build-in charisma and then dropping all the complicated rules tied to period movies without any significant artistic justification (other than disinterest) is rather weak.

IT's been said that Marie Antoinette was kinda auto-biographical again, where Sofia sees herself as an idle spoiled princess at the Hollywood royal court...

[Filmbrain]

Harry --

I wonder if there isn't a cultural divide at play here. Specifically, I would imagine that Marie Antoinette (as an historical figure) is of greater importance to you than me. Hate her or love her, she is part of your cultural heritage, and to see her story presented without political context might be somewhat disconcerting. I could be wrong, of course, but my reading of the film isn't tainted by its, as you say, lack of identifiable posture.

I don't mean to say that Sofia shouldn't (or can't) be criticized for this, but it hasn't (as of yet, at least) colored my thoughts about the film one way or another.

I think there's no question about the autobiographical angle, to some extent.

[HarryTuttle]

She is indeed an icon because her life is related to many important things of French culture, and she fairly well known by everyone. So it would be hard to get away with a mischaracerisation.
Someone re-created her perfume just recently to commercialize it ;)

I wouldn't expect non-French viewers to be as nitpicky of course, but aside from historical considerations (whoever the real-life figure is), I thought anybody would be sensible to the statement implied by the directorial language. A baroque aesthetic is one thing, but to make a point would be better.
Sofia's point is that Marie Antoinette was no less than today's Paris Hilton in Hollywood, therefore terribly "Avant Garde". And this doesn't ring very clever even without being an historian expert. It's a weak Post-Modern parody. For instance the backstage making of in Tristram Shandy is a much more interesting subversion/commentary of history than to play a modern music soundtrack.

I don't mean you contradict yourself at all, but how do you explain you feel more conservative about respectful representation of Japan history in DR9, or Korean culture with Kim's movies, and more liberal about French period movies made by an american? Is it a cultural divide as you say or do you consider the "appropriation" different in nature?

p.s. I know I still have to get back to you on DR9's cultural appropriation... (I keep postponing)

[Filmbrain]

A baroque aesthetic is one thing, but to make a point would be better.

Couldn't agree more, but I'm not yet convinced that Marie Antoinette is pointless. Or rather, her point may not be terribly poignant -- neither political, social, historical, whatever -- but I do believe there is some there there.

If you recall, the film opens with a shot of Dunst, posed coyly on a chaise lounge, surrounded by extravagant sweets. She dips her finger into some creamy pastry, and gives a knowing wink to the camera. This set the mood of the whole piece to me -- that it was very self-aware -- as if we were watching a group of kids play dress up, hence the various anachronisms.

I don't mean you contradict yourself at all...

I was waiting (hoping) you would bring this up. I think there's a distinct difference in what Coppola attempted vs. Barney. Simply stated, DR9 is (in theory at least) a "serious" piece of art. He didn't just set his film in Japan, he actively appropriated culture to rather dubious ends (in my opinion, of course).

Can we call what Coppola has done appropriation? Of an actual person, yes, but at a macro level -- simple customs, rights, rituals, language -- is for the most mere window dressing. Had Barney simply filmed a Shinto matsuri (for example) then perhaps I wouldn't have been so critical.

Save for the fact that everybody speaks English, Marie Antoinette is through and through a period film, with a tremendous attention to detail, even if it's purely at the surface level. It's not as if the king and queen sat down at the table and munched on burgers and fries.

[girlwithamoviecamera]

One last thought, which pretty much sums up my objection to the film: "Would people feel differently about Sofia Coppola's 'Marie-Antoinette' if the film hadn't been shot so lushly by Lance Acord? With such gorgeous costumes and props?"

I think the film is visually stunning to the point of making people forget there are such important things to consider when judging filmmaking - filmmaking the art - as screenplay and acting... (although the film would make for an excellent MTV super long music video)

Think: Fellini – "La Dolce Vita" is also terribly lush but also possesses a strong undercurrent of meaning... and yes, as filmbrain said, Sofia Coppola has often said she was influenced by Wong Kar-Wai, Fellini, and Antonioni - I feel she pulled off the visual mastery in "Marie-Antoinette" but failed in the content/substance department...

[phyrephox]

I'm probably in the minority, but I didn't think Acord's photography was particularly lush. Maybe I was hoping for more baroqueness, but the photography mostly emphasized the natural lighting in the Versailles interiors, and it wasn't until the film went to the "country" in the second half, or a few of the night parties that deep shadows were included and, in my opinion, the film became more impressionistically stylized.

[HarryTuttle]

Filmbrain, my bias would rather go towards Sofia (I'm a fan) than obtuse jingoism. As you know, foreign appropriation of somebody else's culture for art purpose is not something that bothers me in principle. So I don't think I'm being French defensive there. I'm not saying the film is bad, it's quite enjoyable, but i'm not convinced another no-name director couldn't have done as much for the most part, and that's a let down from Miss Copola who I hold in high esteem.

It's just that the film is not historical enough to please period fans, and not subversive enough to please baroque fans. Ultimately it looks like Sofia didn't know who to please/shock most. Her aesthetical motivation for bending some rules and following other rules aren't explcited.

Yes you're right, the nature of the appropriation is different from DR9, but Barney's bother me less because he does so with a clear statement that makes sure we won't confuse the original and the satire. Ok, maybe the bottom of it (and the contention of most French critics on the film) comes down to Sofia producing the typical culturaly ignorant Hollywood "remake" whereas she's supposed to represent the independant school of insightful american filmmakers. The general american audience watching her film will take it as a history class... like any Cecil B. Demille (highly stylized) period flick. And it's disappointing such a talented auteur like her would contribute to this unwarranted dilution of reality.
I don't think an uneducated audience would mistake Barney's "furry parody of shinto wedding" for the real thing. The place claimed by the artist lies in the distance between the original and the copy.

"It's not as if the king and queen sat down at the table and munched on burgers and fries."
I would admire more this type of risk, bold provocation and formal satire as far as artistic contribution to film as art, than a painstakingly details period movie with unidentifiable facile "transgressions".

[colinr0380]

Reading this discussion and especially HarryTuttle's last comment is fascinating especially thinking of this Marie Antoinette argument and how it might illuminate discussion of the World Trade Center film.