MovieChat Forums > Marie Antoinette (1938) Discussion > Astonishing costumes, almost unwatchable...

Astonishing costumes, almost unwatchable Shearer

posted 14 years ago by jackboot
28 replies | jump to latest

This film had some truly astounding design, principally, the costuming, which was unbelievable!

I think that poor old Marie Antoinette was perhaps more poorly portrayed than she deserved to be in this telling of her story, but that seems to have been the prevailing popular opinion of her at the time of this film's conceit. That, and the spin put on her story by her biographer, Stephan Zweig.

Considering the time period in which this film was made, there are many forgivable flaws and liberties taken, but, I have to say that Norma Shearer's performance was excruciating to sit through. Her wildly exaggerated physical gesturing, out-sized even for silent film, was just beyond distracting. And I am a fan of some of her other performances. She was at the height of her beauty, at the peak of her skills and experience and at the right place, at the right time and with the right influence to win this role of a lifetime. It is regrettable that she felt it necessary to crap all over her own performance with such ill-advised histrionics.

The story of Marie Antoinette is an endlessly interesting one set in the time of great upheaval that changed France and the world forever and I hope that some day (the smart money is NOT betting on this ever happening) someone will make the definitive film that tells her story. The recent, 2006, Sofia Copola travesty is completely unwatchable and makes Woody Van Dyke's 1938 effort showcasing Norma Shearer's insatiable appetite for chewing upon scenery look great by comparison.

[–] SusanJL 14 years ago

I agree to some extent. At the beginning of the film, she was truly awful as the "teenage" Marie & young bride of the future king. Ridiculous, silly gushing that went on & on.
I actually liked her performance as the queen (most of the time) and thought she did a good job.
At the end, there were histrionics - but considering what transpired, perhaps they were justified!

[–] jackboot 14 years ago

I have to disagree with you and quite to some considerable extent. I would argue that the Maria as teenager was possibly the closest thing to honest acting by her in the film, as it would be very believable for her to be silly and gushing adolescent emotion. That bothered me the least of her many other transgressions.

Not that all of her moments as the adult Marie were so bad. I was touched at her first difficult moments alone with her new husband. And there were many others that she played very well.

The wildly over-exaggerated gestures she put on throughout the rest of the picture, which occurred primarily any time there was ANY indication of any emotion, small or large, were bordering on the absurd and would have been comical had they not distracted from an otherwise serious story. Ms. Shearer should have kept her acting skills more current and should have chosen more believable behavior to suit those moments, many of which were very serious, particularly at the end.

If I ever had to see her again, in a moment of feeling some sort of welling emotion, jerk her head back and thrust her arms out, in the most over-telegraphed and indicating silent film style, I think I'd hurl a brick at the screen.

This was the role of her career and the role of a lifetime any actress would practically kill to have. She coulda and shoulda done better.

[–] bill3-1 14 years ago

I know and agree, I find Shearer's acting embarrassing to watch at times, and I can't quite understand why her director accepted this kind of over exaggerated performance from her? It's like he was afraid to criticize her because of who she is, but on the other hand, I don't feel she would have been capable of toning it down - she was locked into a certain antiquated skill - incapable of using the correct techniques. Norma Shearer isn't all bad, unfortunately that's how she acts, check out The Barrett's of Wimpole Street for more of the same. Marie Antoinette is still a great movie, imagine if it was in color, the costumes and sets are fantastic!

[–] jackboot 14 years ago

I have not seen the Barrett's of Wimpole Street, but I keep thinking of her in The Women, which is a real favorite and which I had also recently watched. In The Women, she is kind of the straight man to a lot of other over the top performances, but she actually did a great job of holding the whole thing together and keeping it grounded. I found her acting to very naturalistic and believable for almost all of her scenes in The Women so, I'm puzzled why she would have gone so wildly over the top with the silent schtick in places for her performance in Marie Antoinette.

Yes, but it really is a great film, in spite of its flaws. I wish that they had done it in color for all the great design. Compare this film to the Sofia Coppola travesty: the 2006 version is wonderfully photographed but they really skimped on the costuming and relied on a few locations. Then, there is the problem of the interpretation of which the kindest thing I can say is that it's problematic, what with the rock music, casual contemporary American dialgoue and contemporary behavior in the performances and then the bizarre massaged and mangled story line. It's the Knight's Tale version for teen drama consumption. Definitely a missed opportunity. The 1938 version has some problems, too, but I think that it's probably closer to the facts, as they are known, or were known at the time and certainly the portrayal of characters were closer to what would have been believable period behavior. I think that her husband was portrayed as more dysfunctional that the real king was and there were many other compressions of story line to fit it all into a film, but I feel like I got a much better idea of the person Marie Antionette was in the context of her contemporary surroundings from Shearer and the 1938 film.

[–] digitaldiva 14 years ago

Hi jackboot,

I recently saw Marie Antionette on TCM and enjoyed it immensely. I've seen most of Shearer's talkies and a couple of her silent films over the years and though I prefer more natural acting, in my humble opinion she was effective through most of the film. The director of Marie Antionette was One Take Woody Van Dyke and he truly deserved that name. He kept to a tight ship and in a huge popcorn fest like Marie Antionette, nuance was thrown out the door. Of course Louise Ranier was a master of natural acting but for sheer star power, they went with Shearer.

[–] bill3-1 14 years ago

Don't even get me started on the 2006 Marie Antionette, the two aren't comparable. Do see The Barrett's of Wimpole Street, Shearer could/should have taken some lessons from Charles Laughton, but just about anyone could though, but you'll see what I mean about Norma.

[–] cookiela2001 13 years ago

<< If I ever had to see her again, in a moment of feeling some sort of welling emotion, jerk her head back and thrust her arms out, in the most over-telegraphed and indicating silent film style, I think I'd hurl a brick at the screen. >>

Uggh!

There's this other thing she does (you can see it a lot in the scene where she meets Ferson on the steps at night) where she does this weird thing of apparently "feeling" something, then kind of rattling her head and smiling and slitting her eyes...like a silent laugh of some sort (??) Is that her "delighted surprise" look???

I am only beginning to watch her now in a film or two....her style was so synthetic I used to get ticked off just looking at stills of her. She has to be the person who's gone the FURTHEST on SO LITTLE (in every department) in human history.

It's jaw-dropping.

[–] jackboot 13 years ago

I can only imagine that she must have been a very shrewd and calculating person with great ambitions.

So, I suppose that we should give her some sort of back-handed credit if only for her sheer drive and business sense to have gone so far as she did.

And then, after Thalberg died and she was done with pictures, she ran off with a ski instructor 20 years her junior! Norma took care of Norma, that's for sure!!

Although she was turned down for the Ziegfeld Follies, Alfred Cheney Johnston did photograph her. Search on google images using the search term "alfred cheney johnston photo norma shearer". Worth the look!!

[–] cookiela2001 13 years ago

I don't know how much of her success was due to her ambition, or to Thalberg's ambition to celebrate his wife...which then increased his stature, as well.

I've always found Shearer to be such a boring person (and screen presence) that I've never dug that deeply into her story. She is just so ordinary in every possible way. (Her nose in profile is unique, but that's hardly grounds for stardom!)

[–] jackboot 13 years ago

(Her nose in profile is unique, but that's hardly grounds for stardom!)

Hey, it got John Barrymore the moniker of "The Profile"! But, then again, he was a very talented actor to say the least.

Well, the story goes that Thalberg wanted Norma to quit acting in films once they were married but she had other ideas. She used her insider's influence and nagged him into giving her all the plum parts in his major releases.

I still say she redeems herself of most of her other transgressions in The Women.

[–] cookiela2001 13 years ago

<< I still say she redeems herself of most of her other transgressions in The Women. >>

Yes. She's fine in that. Not great...but then, it's not a very demanding role, either, and there's probably no way to play it brilliantly.

[–] lolarites 10 years ago

She did a lot of head thrusting and flailing arms in The Women too. What I can't take is the crossed eyes, it makes her look like a Siamese Cat. I think her greatest accomplishment was discovering Janet Leigh when she and her young husband was at a ski resort. Janet's Dad managed the place.

[–] joystar5879 13 years ago

Dear Jack...Norma did NOT "run off" with Martin Arrouge. She married him well after the the death of Irving Thalberg, and at the end of her career. She was a lucky woman, because both marriages were true love matches. She and Marty were married for many happy years.

BTW, My parents met the Arrouges at Atlanta Naval Air Station during WW2. My Mom said that "Mrs. Arrouge" couldn't have been sweeter. My Dad was Marty's Senior Officer, so Norma was living in Junior Quarters...with girls young enough to be her daughters.

My mother got an autograph for my gran...not a film still, just a sweet faced woman in a plain dark suit...signed "Norma S. Arrouge"

Her acting style may have been "Unique", but the Lady herself was 24 Karat, Solid Gold CLASS!

[–] jackboot 13 years ago

joystar5879 ~ Dear Jack...Norma did NOT "run off" with Martin Arrouge. She married him well after...

Well, I suppose I owe you, and the memory of Mrs. Arrouge, an apology! We all deserve to find whatever happiness we can find in this world and from you accounting, Mr. and Mrs. Arrouge should not be excepted! Quite the contrary! I guess that I am guilty of the worst kind of guttersniping gossip, casting aspersions on Norma for finding love again after the death of Irving Thalberg, with a man much younger than herself, what with my cheap shots based on stereotypes and all the rest of it. If they were happy together, as it surely sounds that they were, then I have no business making snide remarks about their respective ages. How wonderful that your father and mother actually knew them!

I am, however, going to let stand my remarks regarding her performance in Marie Antoinette, though. I believe that she was capable of better work and a monumental production, such as was this film, would have called for her best work.

I do appreciate your sharing of this story! I would never have had any insight into the quality of her second marriage were it not for your coming forth with this information and I humbly thank you for calling my attention to it. Regretfully, I jumped to the easy and obvious (and, apparently, wholly incorrect) conclusion that she had "run off" with some "boy toy" or gigolo, simply because he was a ski instructor twenty years her junior. Thank you for setting the record straight!

[–] joystar5879 13 years ago

I'm afraid I agree with you, about Marie Antoinette, because I also found it pretty unwatchable. There were some fine bits here and there, (Robert Morley,John Barrymore...) and the final scenes where the family is separated. I think the last scenes are better, because Ms. Shearer was portraying the part of a woman her own age...with two young children. It gave her something that she could draw upon. The rest of the film is pretty bad, but exquisitely beautiful.

The moral is this: Ladies of uncertain years should not attempt to play teenagers unless on a stage, and shielded by a bank of rose coloured spots...

JS

[–] digitaldiva 13 years ago

Hi joystar5879,

I watched Marie Antoinette in HD DVD tonight and enjoyed it immensely. Adrian's costumes were superlative and was blown away by the pacing of the film. I found Shearer quite good in most scenes, less in others but overall enjoyed her performance. Her acting was the dramatic film style of the periodfound in the grand romances and epics. Though playing a teen was certainly a stretch, I saw the film on the 72 inch screen and she looked radiant in black and white. Certainly male actors during the period played parts that were decades younger (Fredric March in Anthony Adverse) and no one complained.

There has been a great deal of incorrect information bandied about in this thread. I recommend Mark A. Veriara's biography of Irving Thalberg to anyone who wamts to learn more about Shearer. The author had access to the MGM archives and Shearer's personal diaries. Though the late Pauline Kael and a few others have dismissed both Shearer and Thalberg, she had not seen Shearer's pre-code films or some of her better silents. The public made Shearer a star, not Thalberg. She had worked for Mayer since 1923 and was one of the most popular actress in films before she wed in 1927. They had a strong marriage and Shearer had offered to quit her career more than once. She was extremely well-liked by her co-workers and a true pro. She was never called box office poison and her films made money. When it was time to call it quits, she did.

[–] FloatingOpera7 13 years ago

I thought this was the best performance of Shearer's career. We complain and criticize her performance as Marie Antoinette as being melodramatic and over the top, but this was very normal and common for 1930's historical high drama. The story of Marie Antoinette, especially as it led up to her execution, is dramatic stuff and old Hollywood would ham it up of course. There is nothing wrong with her performance. She's a good actress. She has many moments of genuine brilliance. For instance when she is in prison awaiting her execution and Fersen comes to visit her. She looks at him for a bit and then recognizes him, bursting into tears. This was really well done. She truly gets into character and at any rate, in the 30's, not many people knew the real accurate details about Marie's life. She was still stereotyped as being a frivolous spoiled queen who didn't care for the poor. This movie portrays Marie as being more human and more caring and we sympathize with her suffering, especially at the end of her life. Norma was really good as Marie, even if not perfect. She's still 100 times better than Kirsten Dunst in the recent 2006 version which was unwatchable and awful.

[–] bill3-1 13 years ago

We complain and criticize her performance as Marie Antoinette as being melodramatic and over the top, but this was very normal and common for 1930's historical high drama.

No it was not! Only common by silent film actors who couldn't make the transition to sound. Can you imagine Stanwyck or Laughton making those exaggerated gestures? Never

[–] sunrise333-1 12 years ago

I thought she was unwatchable in the best way possible. Sure, she was melodramatic, but she completely threw herself into the role in a way that few others could or would have. In the final half of the film, she was truly heartbreaking and kept finding new ways to top herself; the scenes of Marie's tearful last night with her husband till her execution were some of the best acting moments captured on film. Honestly, I thought this performance deserves to achieve legendary status.

Just my opinion, of course.

[–] dmdiamond 12 years ago

I agree to some extent about Shearer's performance but again its not so easy to review a 1938 MGM melodramatic film since we have seen so many natural acting performances in the ensuing decades since its original production...When seeing the film again today I discard any melodramatic theatrics that were commonplace in the 1930's but revel in the fact that its a throwback to a time when MGM was the king of all studios and they pulled out all the stops on this film..Bottom line - the backstory was that Irving Thalberg connected Shearer to this project long before the cameras rolled and the MGM brass completed the film more of a tribute to Thalberg than any star power that Shearer had - her starpower had begun to fade somewhat by the close of the 1930's already.

[–] larkpraise 12 years ago

Shearer was superb! If one wants to watch exaggerated over-the-top acting watch Bette Davis in anything.....she was the true master of over-the-top acting.

[–] blondee661 11 years ago

I can't believe that people are bashing Shearer's performance, even though she was way too old for the opening scene where she learns of her upcoming marriage, I think she was brilliant. One scene I want to point out is the wedding night scene where her husband tells her he doesn't care much for her company and prefers to be alone. If you look closely Shearer's eyes are teary in a subtle way and her character is trying to comprehend and make the best of her situation. And I think some people are missing the point that Marie Antoinette supposedly had a exaggerated and over the top personality when she was young. I can't believe that people say she can't act, that scene towards the end in the jail where they take her son away kills me every time.

[–] Yuna_Fantasy 11 years ago

Have to agree.
While the acting was over the top it was in no way bad acting, perhaps more a product of it's time. Most movies I've seen of around this era have over acting and over gestires in them, so I don't get the hate :/

"Never bite into an apple without knowing what lies within..."

[–] digitaldiva 11 years ago

Hi Yuna-Fantasy,

I've seen this marvelous film several times and found Shearer quite good. Her performance is mannered at times but she is quite good as a giddy teen who is unprepared for life let alone to be the Queen of France.

[–] blondee661 11 years ago

Have to agree.
While the acting was over the top it was in no way bad acting, perhaps more a product of it's time. Most movies I've seen of around this era have over acting and over gestires in them, so I don't get the hate :/

Yuna-Fantasy, I think you nailed it! Shearer's acting was a product of her time and I think some people who don't watch many classic films struggle with that sometimes.

[–] bill3-1 11 years ago

Norma in my opinion was maybe the worst making the transistion from silent to talkies, watch any Barbara Stanwyck film from the early 30's, Stany a product of the same time, she's as modern as any actor today, Norma Shearer just didn't have the ability to tone down her silent technique.

[–] denis-38 10 years ago

Norma Shearer's acting was always a strange combination of realistic and stylized, over-the-top. But I think her affectations work for, rather than against her in "Marie Antoinette." Some of those gestures are giggle-inducing, but appropriate for the period. (Let's put aside that she used them almost always.)

I think Shearer's "MA" emoting is powerful and convincing throughout. Only a stone would not weep over her scenes toward the end.

[–] crlnrgbrght5 10 years ago

Shearer was considered a beauty in Hollywood but, I've never thought she was very pretty at all. Not knowing Marie Antoinette's history, I wonder if it was true if she was going to be sent back to Austria, because she insulted Lady Dubarry?