It has taken me quite some time now to read Antonia Fraser's researched biography of MA and conveniently enough I am in the very middle when the Affair of the Diamond Necklace begins to unravel. As far as from what I understand, which is so many hands and brains away from the truth I am sure. However, from what I have read (and probably grown biased from) is that there are a lot of inaccuracies, comparitively... which is my own mistake if you want to consider.
One in particular I can think of is the forgery done by Rétaux, he signs in the movie -Antoinette de France-. Yet I recall that the forged signature was -Marie Antointte de France-. Either way, it is all wrong as MA would have signed simply -Marie Antoinette- and I am surprised they did not cover that in the movie.. because it has some weight as to why the King had set for de Rohan's immediate arrest.
I was a little upset as to how Joely Richardson had been advised, or chose to portray MA, but I found her a wonderful actress in it overall. And MA's apparent glee in the presence of children was a bit prudent and not at all how I imagine MA would respond.
Hilary Swank looks nothing like Hilary Swank on the cover and so I was surprised to find she played Jeanne. But of course, she certainly looks like herself in the movie, despite the costuming.
Adrien Brody is a fine actor and he should have played a bigger part, as well as Christopher Walken, but I guess in the end just having them in a movie is good enough.
I did not find that the sexuality in the movie was at all out of taste. As for the nudity scenes, which were few, were important to point out a vital characteristic of not only the times, but the fact that a religious man was also a pervert.
_____
=^.^=
reply
share