Jump to content

Talk:Marie Antoinette (2006 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move to Marie Antoinette (2006 film)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. JPD (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a dash between Marie and Antoinette? On the IMDb page it is without it, so like all promotional material.

For the reason stated above, I nominate this article for move to Marie Antoinette (2006 film), - not even the picture in this article has a dash. - Рэдхот 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Survey

[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Absolute monarchs

[edit]

Does it make sense to refer to Louis as France's last absolute monarch? Napoleons I and III were arguably absolute monarchs, as well. john k 22:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Napoleon I was indeed the sole ruler of the French Empire at the time, but under his reign there was a constitution and many ideas of the Enlightment were put into practice (like a schoolsystem by the government, instead of the church), unlike before. Louis XVI's power was without boundaries. For Napoleon III, he was nothing but a absolute monarch. Remember, he became emperor by a referendum. While he was emperor, his decision were often made by public support. --Soetermans 22:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how any of that necessarily contradicts with also being an absolute monarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.33.64 (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King Charles X was the last official absolute monarch of France. Emperor Napoleon III was the last monarch of France over all, but he was a constitutional monarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emporole (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles X was also a constitutional monarch, the Charter having been adopted during the reign of his brother Louis XVIII (1814-1824). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.170.130 (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accents

[edit]

Dunst said she was prepared for Antoinette's Austrian accent because her Dad is Swiss german. That would seem to contradict the statment that the actors are using thier own accents? Anyone know for sure? Amo 21:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia, Jason and Kirsten have all mentioned the use of natural accents in recent interviews and the second trailer confirms it. Maybe Dunst said that when the film was still very early in production and I guess Sofia changed her mind and decided to go more modern. Pinchofhope 21:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but ... in what language is this film?
English. Except for Marie's kid and her servants, they speak French.--Soetermans 20:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box office

[edit]

Why is only The Netherlands mentioned? I, as a Dutchman, don't feel that it adds anything. If it were US or global boxoffice, I'd understand, but this is too little to mention. --Soetermans 22:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The film hasn't come out in the US yet, so there can't be any US box office totals yet. I suppose the movie has only come out in the Netherlands? It seems rather strange, but that's okay... --72.148.233.186 21:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly out here, in France. john k 23:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tyler hickson/mikie kablacek

[edit]

How do you get rid of these comments/names...? They don't show up on the edit page? 213.112.249.100 17:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a making a "list of Anglophone media with presentations of French culture" (or similar)?

[edit]

key films: Marie Antoinette The Count of Monte Cristo Elizabeth Ever After The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc The Man In The Iron Mask Les Misérables Phantom of the Opera The Three Musketeers Kingdom of Heaven Green Card Random Hearts Le Femme Nikita The Patriot Ronin Timeline Master and Commander: On The Far Side of the World Beauty and the Beast The Hunchback of Notre Dame The Pink Panther

key people: Alexandre Dumas Luc Besson Jeanne Moreau Juliette Binoche Carole Bouquet Brigitte Bardot Catherine Deneuve Eva Green Anne Parillaud Sophie Marceau Christopher Lambert Jean-Claude Van Damme Gérard Depardieu Tcheky Karyo Julie Delpy Jean Reno Vincent Cassel Gerard Butler

Rhode Islander 03:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack/trailer inconsistency

[edit]

No desire to find out correct info and edit, just pointing out that the Soundtrack entry for the article does list New Order's Age of Consent and the Trailer entry for the article states Age of Consent was used in the trailer despite not being in the film. Seems to be an inconsistent statement unless Soundtrack covers film and studio promotion music. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.255.26 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The plot/summary never said anything about her affair with that other guy. That was a major part of the story Iman S1995 02:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot description problems

[edit]

The description of the plot of the movie seems to follow the real life of Marie Antoinette, rather than what was actually portrayed in the movie. For example, the movie does not show her death. The final scene is the royal family leaving Versaille. 71.218.194.50


I was also going to comment on this. The description breaks from the plot of the movie and moves to a more historical perspective several times. The difference between what is historical fact and what is purposefully shown to the viewer is a critical distinction in this movie. For example:

  • "Ironically, the Revolution that worsened the plight of the French peasantry soon inspired them to start one of their own. Food shortages grow more frequent, as do riots in Paris."

A more accurate description would point out that just as Marie is naive regarding the shortages, so too is the viewer. There are, however, subtle references to her declining popularity, such as the "Queen of Debt" image and the scene at the second Opera.


Also:

  • "hedonistic and decadent", "where they continue in their frivolity."

'Hedonistic' and 'frivolity' are somewhat loaded terms, they could be more objective. "Lavish" would be a better alternative to "hedonistic." Likewise, instead of a subjective judgment of what happens at the ball ("where they continue in their frivolity"), why not offer a more objective description: "where a masked Marie meets and seduces a Swedish Count, Axel von Fersen. The two are quite taken by each other, but Marie must return to Versaille before she can reveal her identity."

  • "It is suggested also that at this time Marie Antoinette enters into an alleged affair with Count Axel von Fersen (Jamie Dornan)."

It is not suggested or alleged. In the film, the two do in fact have an affair. Historical accuracy is not relevant to a description of the plot.

Perhaps a "Historical Accuracy" section following the "Plot" description would improve this page. Happy editing! 76.81.218.167 20:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there's not much mention of the advisor or the count, even tho the film might leave a doubt of who would be Marie Antoinette's second child's true father? (And by the way, the stylized film also skips pregnancies complitely! Rather unusual of a film concerning biography of a woman, who has many children. This emphasizes MA as a hedonistic teen even further than just cakes & shoes.) - Suviko from fi-Wikipedia / --82.103.201.248 23:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot compares the movie to the ancient French monarchy and I grew confused about what was what. It needs to focus more on the movie and the transitions and comparisons made about the ancient French monarchy need to be stated in a clear manner. Also, the plot is too wordy and too many unnecessary details are provided from the movie. Plots are supposed to cover the main events throughout the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latashism (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comments, the plot is way too detailed. It should hit the important events in the film and also provide a brief description of the characters. The writing needs to be cleaned up too, it sounds like an essay on MA not a description of the film. My big issue with this article though is the "Inaccuracies" section. Items like the Schonbrunn/Hoffberg, the Palais Garnier and Reims Cathedral should not be there. It goes without saying that movies are not always filmed at the actual locations. Also the mention of the Converse shoes isn't really an inaccuracy; if anything these items could be part of a "Trivia" section. Also in reference to the Polignac items - just because the movie does not touch on these facts does not make the film inaccurate. The main item that should not be removed and could even be expanded upon was the merging of the Comtesse de Provence and the Comtesse d'Artois. Also the most glaring inaccuracy, the number of children MA actually had, is looked over. This must be mentioned in this section since her two sons, Louis-Josephe and Louis-Charles, were merged into one character in the film.Tpalmieri85 (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished a major overhaul of the plot summary. I kept the basic outline intact but tried to make the style simpler and clearer as well as eliminating a lot of redundancies and unnecessary detail. There were also a few sections that seemed to confuse the historical Marie Antoinette with the movie version, which I changed. Ebolamunkee (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French Press

[edit]

Removed a reference to a "chilly reception by the French press". Actually the film received mostly positive reviews: http://www.allocine.fr/film/revuedepresse_gen_cfilm=57887&note=4&ccritique=18661214.html

Givennovel 18:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Reception section I think more weight should be given to its reception in France where it was highly influential, especially in fashion. It was also very successful in Japan. I think especially since so much space is given to the various dvd releases in France there should be justification of that in the Reception section. I don't have the source material at hand and I can't seem to find it. I feel like it was in the NYT. Anybody?

--scazza 21:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Spoiler Warning?

[edit]

Was wondering if others thought it necessary to insert a spoiler warning in the plot section, I do realize it's historical, but still it may be a good idea. Astadtler 10:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's no longer our style - it should be expected that plot sections include spoilers. -- Beardo (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove the bias?

[edit]

The Response and Box Office sections of this article read as extremely biased, with wording which attempts to refute or "explain away" criticism and poor performance of the movie (without citation, naturally). These sections should be re-written to remove the bias. -- Mecandes (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical inaccuracies

[edit]

Why does this section no longer exist? The way she was portrayed in this film, beyond details like how many children she had, was a source of much consternation with historians. Ebolamunkee (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously commented about how the "inaccuracies" section needed a complete overhaul - and I then fixed it. It is now back to the way it was before i.e. mentioning things that are not actually historically incorrect while overlooking the actual inaccuracies. Once again the majority of info currently in this section is TRIVIA and if someone wants to create a section for that it should be done by all means. But that section needs to be fixed - it makes absolutely no sense the way it appears now. If no one has any objections I am going to fix it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.5.52 (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy yourself fixing the inaccuracies of the... inaccuracies ! Frania W. (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the major inaccuracies concerns Yolande Martine Gabrielle de Polastron, duchesse de Polignac, and this inaccuracy is not only in this article, but in every article in which she is mentioned. She was known under her first name Yolande, not "Gabrielle". Frania W. (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marie Antoinette (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marie Antoinette (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marie Antoinette (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Legacy Section Needed

[edit]

This article is majorly lacking in a legacy section to address the significant critical reevaluation the film has experienced in the last five, or so, years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.138.230.140 (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Converse trainers.

[edit]

Did anyone else see them in the film? 2A00:23C5:15:3E01:8819:BD0E:8A4:6A6 (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marie_Antoinette_(2006_film)&oldid=1198938719"