Seriously? I know it was a rumor back in the eighteenth century, but there was never any proof. This is just Hollywood being sensational just to be sensational.
Jack O'Neill: "Oh, for crying out loud!"
Um... what part of this production reads "Hollywood" to you?
shareThis film is not a Hollywood film, is a French one.
Marie Antoinette probably was bisexual (surely not a lesbian) - her letters to the countess Gabrielle Polygnac were quite intimate as well to the Swedish count Axel von Fersen, but obviously there is no evident proof in this matter. Historians never gave a firm statement. It was centuries ago and taking only pamphlets attacking the queen into consideration would be a mistake.
Ermergerd! Can't the world ever have an accurate telling of Marie Antoinette? She wasn't a slut, child molester, lesbian, heartless bitch or French.
Been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding.
Hi tam! Long time no see! I should have known you'd be hanging out on the board for a new MA film!
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Same thing with Catherine the Great of Russia. Her story is similar, at least the beginning. Young girl exiled from her home to be a queen, married to a lunatic. She was besmirched by vicious gossip, too.
shareI sincerely hope you're not saying that Louis XVI was also a lunatic! Peter III? Yes! Louis XVI, far from it.
shareNo, this film absolutely does not portray her as a lesbian. I think the whole point of the film is that sexuality is fluid & that we cannot help who we are attracted to. It is about the nature of love & the lengths we will go to in order to protect the people we love, even when they treat us badly. You see a similar theme in Love & Death in Long Island with John Hurt & Jason Priestly. The John Hurt character is a heterosexual widower, who becomes obsessed with Jason Priestly's character & falls in love with him. Les Bien-aimés (Beloved) is a more recent French film (I saw it the night before I saw Farewell, My Queen), that touches on this theme, in that one of the characters is a gay man & yet he is attracted to a woman.
I believe the whole point is that sexuality is a continuum & that we are not able to pick & choose whom we desire.
I agree that this film explores the fluidity of attraction rather than focusing on one "attribution". For example, Sidonie is teased that she will become a nun if she isn't careful. She's sort of attracted to Paolo (aka Rene) but gets interrupted before anything can happen. She's rather passionately devoted to Marie Antoinette, but the reasons for that devotion are never clearly defined (is it hero-worship? Curiosity? Following the old order? A girl-crush? etc).
However, this film does toe dangerously close to the line in terms of portraying Marie Antoinette as being romantically attached to the Duchesse de Polignac. The Queen is shown as being very touch-feely with her friend, and is reduced to anxiety and hysterics when she's away from her. I lay blame with the camera work and some choice scenes that the director includes that underline an erotic element in the film. For example, the cameras just loved panning around Kruger's and Seydoux's bosoms when Sidonie is reading to the Queen, and the two are staged very close to one another. And the scenes where Sidonie sees the Duchesse naked and later when she strips down to don the Duchesses' clothes hint at sexual curiosity both in Sidonie and, to an extent, in Marie Antoinette. It's not just contemporary viewers who are questioning the extent of Marie Antoinette's attraction to the Duchesse or women. Sidonie seems to be checking out the Duchesse when she's nude, as if she's trying to figure out what the fuss is about. And when Sidonie is stripped down near the end of the film she instinctively covers herself to try and protect her modesty before dropping her hands under the Queen's lingering gaze. How exactly are modern viewers supposed to interpret this? I think the director does a good job of conveying the complexity of the film's characters and is wise to keep things ambiguous. And Kruger & Seydoux give excellent, layered performances. By the same token, though, that means people are going to pull lesbianism as a theme from this movie.
Historically speaking there is absolutely no evidence that there was a sexual attraction or relationship between Marie Antoinette and the Duchesse de Polignac. Those accusations were founded in a desire to discredit and shame the Queen, and throughout history there's a tradition of casting accusations about a woman's sexuality for the same reasons that women were accused of being a witch. No, Marie Antoinette and the Duchesse de Polignac's friendship could better be defined as an intense "girl-crush". Certainly there was a level of emotional attachment between them, but Marie Antoinette was also close friends with the Princesse de Lamballe (who doesn't really appear in this film).
[deleted]
[deleted]
"But gee, when it's two attractive WOMEN, the line-ups of heterosexual male horndogs will be around the block. That's called "HYPOCRISY"."
I don't follow. Heterosexual men, by definition, are attracted to women. So why would it be hypocritical for them to prefer a movie featuring women doing sensual things to one featuring men doing them?
Uh, homophobia was certainly not my reasoning when I wrote my post. My point was that historically there is NO EVIDENCE that Marie Antoinette was ever engaged in a romantic, sexual relationship with a woman. I was personally upset to see that idea in this film because historically speaking - and as it's related to Marie Antoinette specifically - accusations of lesbianism at that time were equivalent to witch-hunting and slut-shaming. Marie Antoinette was accused of lesbianism in pamphlets at the time as a way to discredit, shame, dehumanize, and personally attack her. She was called a bitch and a whore, and drawn in crude, sexually explicit cartoons with men and women for no other reason that to destroy her. There's precious little evidence (most of is circumstantial) to back up any of those claims. I'm tired of people perpetuating ideas that were only ever created as a way of being hurtful to Marie Antoinette.
I also didn't outright dismiss that lesbianism is a theme in this movie, so you can leave the homophobia accusations at the door. (Plus, as someone who has a gay brother and several gay friends who are both men an women, I'm personally a little offended. You don't know the lives of everyone who posts here, so don't go throwing around loaded terms at them.) I wanted to give the director the benefit of the doubt that his film wasn't just some horny male-fantasy about Marie Antoinette. And I think this film is more layered than you're giving it credit for.
@pear_berry
Nice to read something well written, sensible and logical.
And I suspect well researched.
Totally agree
Thanks! :) In college I took several French classes that related to the history and literature of the Enlightenment. Marie Antoinette featured heavily, and we read historical pamphlets and other writings, several of which related to her and the French Revolution. I've also read several books about her (Antonia Fraser's "Marie Antoinette: The Journey" is a really good one). So many people think she was just some fluffy airhead, but she was far more complex than people give her credit for.
I would like some clarification of this one myself as I've never heard that 'rumor' or read it anywhere to be honest. It certainly was heavily implied in this film but these days, I find directors throw in a whole lot innuendo for the hell of it I guess.
This was NOT a Hollywood production however. Did you not catch the foreign credits on the film?
RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman 1967-2014... a tremendously great and talented actor.
Um.... not really. Marie Antoinette had an affair with Axel von Fersen. A man. So if she was into women, that would make her bisexual. But with Sidonie, it's still a little hard to tell... But, this isn't Hollywood. This is a French film.
The issue of LGBT historical figures can be a controversial one. There was, ofcourse, the same proportion of queer people in the past as there is now. So, is it possible some famous historical figures were gay/bisexual? Ofcourse, it is. As for Marie Antoinette specifically, well, it was a contemporary rumour. It's not a modern invention as it is with someone like George Boleyn. But, it does originate with revolutionist propaganda and they pretty much said everything under the sun about Marie Antoinette.
However, it also true that Marie showed a atypical amount of favour towards Yolande de Polastron and raised her higher than she may ought to have been, truthfully. But, this is far from conclusive proof that their relationship was in anyway romantic. Having said that I have no problem with how the film plays with their relationship and the rumours surrounding it. It should be noted we have no conclusive proof that Marie and Von Fersen were actually lovers in the active sense either. But, people don't offended when films show them romping out.
Overall, it seems unlikely that Marie and Yolande were lovers. Their relationship doesn't seem to go as far as Queen Anne's and Sarah Churchill's for example. Which does seem to have been a romantic relationship (whether it was consummated or not is another question entirely).
Obviously you've never heard of the amitie amoureuse.
I wish people would read about history before watching movies about historical figures. If they did they might not make such silly comments.
"Nothing is more ill bred than trying to steal the affections of someone else's dog."
[deleted]