This movie was quite interesting

I agree completely about Shearer seeming to be way too much of a silent film actress. Her quick, dramatic movements especially. I hated the kid that played their son. He reminded me of the little boy from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, with the cowboy outfit and guns -- grating, whiny voice and all. I kind of wanted to punch him in the face...D; I expected him to go "Golly! Gee whiz!" at any minute.

I also didn't like the actor who played Louis XVI. I only saw the last hour or so of the movie (right when the citizens or whoever storm the palace and one of them slaps Marie Antoinette), so maybe I saw the bad part. What I saw was just a bunch of clueless "Huh?" expressions every time his character was addressed...however, I have to give points for appearance. He certainly looked the part.

I also liked the way they portrayed Princess de Lamballe's death. How they just showed the pike's shadow at the window. I'd already researched a bit about Marie Antoinette and some of her favorites, so I knew how Lamballe died and was curious as to how it would be portrayed. Her death was horribly barbaric. :( No one deserves a death like that.

-What does it matter?
-It matters! "What does it matter"? I wanna know!

I don't think any of the posters here really get the movie, but I do think some good points have been brought up. Shearer's weakest moments are when she is using silly gestures and an affected, high-pitched voice to portray a 15 year old girl. Truly, consciousness of her age, and vain attempts to seem younger were her greatest weaknesses as an actress in general. To a certain extent, she wasted her latter years trying to play teenaged divas, while simultaneously turning down the best roles of all time for a woman of her age. She refused to play Mrs. Miniver, because she didn't want to be the mother of an adult son. Greer Garson not only played the mother, she took the son home...Now THATS a lady. She also turned down Sunset Boulevard because she didn't want to be middle-aged (despite the fact that she had been a silent film actress).

As far as this film goes, people have justifiably brought up the affective contrast between Norma Shearer as M. A. circa 20 years old, and M. A. in the last days of her life. It is to Shearer's credit that she abandoned her characteristic vanity and allowed herself to be portrayed in a less than flattering light (literally). This interpretation is notably stronger than others in that it shows the physical transformation the Queen underwent in her final days (it took just 72 days in prison for her hair to turn shock white). The scenes spanning from party-girl Marie to the Guillotine are really brilliant, in my opinion, even as the earlier ones are weak. Shearer had an idolatrous obsession with Antoinette, and spent weeks frolicking around in farthingales and wigs trying to perfect the Queens characteristic grace of movement. Her way of moving, while affected, is true to character, and I do think she looks the part. She is attractive, without being too hollywood, and has Marie Antoinette's Roman Nose that is apparent in portraits, but absent in many movie portrayals.

Robert Morley deserves a bit more credit. He does exactly what I believe the director wanted him to do as Louis XVI. He is more caricature than character, which I think is what was intended. After all, this was partially based on Zweig's biography, which is relentlessly unforgiving of Louis' weaknesses. In truth, he seems to have had a quiet strength which has gone unrecognized, but which Antoinette herself respected and wrote of in her letters.

OP, Have you seen Witness for the Prosecution? Tyrone Power is really good in that. I'll admit I don't think Power was the greatest actor early in his career but he did get better with time.

Actually the interesting thing is that Marie Antoinette was pretty similar in reality. She was fairly childlike and innocent... not surprising given how young she was when she was married off to someone... and was very conservative/religious and was even mocked for it... preferred simple foods as she'd been raised to enjoy, was less interested in clothing, and tended to have to be told what to wear as she preferred simpler clothing compared to the fashion of France at the time. For the most part she wore what she was told to wear in public and in portraits but records show the other side of her as well.

The line 'let them eat cake' and most of what was said about her extravagance was mostly early 'tabloid' material used to rally anger against the monarchery in general. Not only that but the French royalty mocked her often as well for her 'Austrian ways' and for the lack of children for years. They claimed she had multiple affairs, spent too much (such as on a diamond necklace which she never actually ordered or paid for) and used her as a figurehead for everything wrong with the French monarchery as she was a very easy target to use.

She also was accused of having sexual relations with her own son, as the movie hints at, but that was also more or less proven false. Marie Antoinette's son spent his entire life in prison from childhood onwards. Her daughter was married off and died childness and sick.


Most French culture still doesn't really talk about the truth of her but the sad thing is... she was just a target for people who were poor, starving, and seeking an easy person to blame.

I liked it. I've never seen it before, so, I was Viewing it with an open Mind. I didn't know about Marie Antoinette, so, I couldn't tell if the Movie was pro or con in Her favor. I expect They probably took some liberties in the Film for Dramatic effect, which is done in most Hollywood Motion Pictures. Of course They couldn't alter History, so She couldn't refuse to Marry the future King, despite the way He looked, that might explain the love affair with the Handsome Swedish Count. And, She did get the Guillotine, so, They're attempted escape from France was futile. I did like Robert Morley's Performance as the King of France, and was glad that They had a loving Marriage, and liked Joseph Schildkraut as the wicked d'Orleans, and thought He looked a little too pretty in His white Wig.

I actually think Norma Shearer was the only good actor in the whole production. Her charm and talent carried the movie (admittedly largely because the script made all the other characters underdeveloped). I actually didn't mind her "younger" self. I thought she did the best job she could given her actual age. Norma and the costumes are the only reasons I would ever recommend this movie to someone.

Terrible decisions...
1. Making the Duke of Orleans the main villain. Not only does it grossly oversimplify the plot and everyone's motivations to just have this Big Bad but it eliminates the need for a lot of the historical accuracy this film is missing and makes it feel more like the fairytale that it is. And they made him such a stock villain too. A foppish character scheming to take the throne. Where have we seen that before?
2. Making the Count this vague love interest. I know the character is based on a real person but as a character in the movie, he didn't work. He came in out of nowhere with the idiotic excuse that his sister's governess had told him stories about her and he'd fallen in love with her only based on that. Then they spent one night together and he just popped in and out of the movie as the script called for it.
3. Inconsistent accents. It would have been slightly irritating for everyone to have British accents which is what tends to happen with English-language period pieces even if they aren't set in England. What I can't deal with is the casting director who hired all these actors apparently without listening to them speak and whoever decided they should all use their normal accents. It was bad enough that everyone in the palace couldn't decide on one accent. But it was inexcusable for all the bit parts of the peasants and the children and the officials at the assembly. I get that the cast was American but did they have to hire so many people with really, really strong regional accents?
4. The son. Precocious children do not belong in a film like this. Especially when they haven't been introduced until they're fleeing the palace and their precociousness can only be grating in moments of tension.
5. Pacing. I agree that the pacing was terrible. The first hour flitted around skipping years at a time and could have been it's own film. The second hour dragged a little with the romance and her life as queen but with a little editing they could have ended the movie sooner. The third hour was long slog to the finish line. If ever a movie poorly compressed and dilated time, it was this movie.

But I thought Norma Shearer did a great job (even if she was wrong for the part) and the costumes were stunning.

When you're sleeping with the producer, who happens to be your husband, you can have any part you want, no matter how hammy you act.