Marie Antoinette wants to be a portrait of a young queen, and it spends most of its runtime being a portrait of a girl having fun. That tension is the whole movie. Sofia Coppola’s 2006 historical drama, starring Kirsten Dunst as the titular Austrian princess, is a strange beast: a costume epic that feels more like a coming-of-age comedy set in a palace, and a coming-of-age comedy that feels more like a tragedy waiting to happen. It’s tonally inconsistent, visually stunning, and oddly compelling in ways it doesn’t fully earn. The result is a film that critics have argued over for two decades, and the verdict hasn’t settled yet.
Trailer, via Oscars.
From Archduchess to Queen
The film opens in 1770, with fourteen-year-old Archduchess Marie Antoinette (Kirsten Dunst) traveling from Austria to France to marry Louis-Auguste, the Dauphin of France. The union seals an alliance between the two empires, and the ceremony is a spectacle of pageantry and protocol. Dunst plays the princess with a wide-eyed innocence that quickly wears thin as the court’s expectations crash into her personality. She is a child thrust into a role she wasn’t prepared for, and the film captures that confusion through its lens.
The early scenes establish the stakes: Marie Antoinette must abandon her Austrian identity, meet King Louis XV (Rip Torn), and wed at the Palace of Versailles. The wedding itself is a disaster, as reported the next morning that “nothing happened” on the night. This is the film’s central joke, and it sets the tone for everything that follows. Marie Antoinette is expected to produce an heir immediately, and the court’s obsession with fertility is a constant undercurrent.
The Court’s Hostility
The palace is full of people who despise her. Courtiers view her as a foreigner, and they criticize the lack of an heir with open disdain. She befriends the Princess de Lamballe (Mary Nighy) and the Duchess of Polignac (Rose Byrne), two women who understand her isolation. She also refuses to interact with Louis XV’s mistress, Madame du Barry (Asia Argento), which earns her enemies at court.
Maria Theresa (Marianne Faithfull), the empress, advises her daughter constantly through correspondence. Her advice often centers on how to consummate the marriage, but the couple remains childless. The Dauphin shows little interest in intimacy, and the strain builds slowly. Marie Antoinette responds by occupying herself with gambling and purchasing lavish clothing. The film presents this as both a rebellion and a retreat, depending on the scene.
A Masquerade Ball and a Death
The film’s most memorable sequence is a masquerade ball, where Marie Antoinette and Louis-Auguste return to find the king dying of smallpox. Before his death, Louis XV banishes Madame du Barry from Versailles. The moment is tragic, but the film treats it almost like a release. The king’s death is the trigger for the shift in power, and the film moves quickly from the old regime to the new.
Louis-Auguste succeeds to the throne as Louis XVI at the age of 19, and Marie Antoinette becomes queen consort at age 18. The film skips over the political machinations of the early years, focusing instead on her social life and her relationship with her husband. Her brother, Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor (Danny Huston), visits Versailles and attempts to curb her extravagant socializing and constant parties. His visit is brief, and his advice falls on deaf ears.
The Fashion and the Music
The film’s visual style is its strongest asset. The costumes are lush and ornate, and they carry the weight of the film’s aesthetic. The sets are grand without being overwhelming, and the lighting gives Versailles a dreamlike quality. The film’s color palette is pastel-heavy, which suits the romanticized view of the period. It looks beautiful, even when the story drags.
The music is a mix of period pieces and pop songs, and the juxtaposition is jarring. The film opens with a song about disconnection that fits the character’s loneliness. The score is eclectic, blending classical motifs with modern textures. The sound design is crisp, and the dialogue is clear even in crowded scenes. The film’s technical craft is high, but the direction is uneven.
Dunst’s Performance
Kirsten Dunst is the heart of the film. She plays Marie Antoinette as a girl trapped in a dress, and the performance is both sympathetic and frustrating. She is charming and lost at the same time, and the film leans into that contradiction. Dunst’s physicality is expressive, and she conveys boredom, fear, and defiance through her posture. She is the best thing in the film, and the film’s failure is largely about giving her less to work with than it should have.
Jason Schwartzman plays Louis XVI as a nervous, awkward man. He is not a villain, but he is a disappointment. His scenes with Dunst are the most natural in the film, and the chemistry between them is the reason the middle section holds together. The supporting cast is strong across the board, with Judy Davis, Steve Coogan, and Molly Shannon delivering sharp, funny performances. The film is a showcase for its actors, and they all rise to the occasion.
The Tragedy That Never Arrives
The film’s biggest flaw is its refusal to engage with the revolution. The French Revolution is looming, and the film acknowledges it in passing, but it never lets it become the center of the story. The film is more interested in the queen’s ennui than in the people who eventually turned against her. The tragedy of Marie Antoinette is that she was born into a system she couldn’t escape, but the film never fully explores that system. Instead, it focuses on her parties and her clothes.
The film’s ending is abrupt. It simply stops, with Marie Antoinette still young and still queen. There is no fall of Versailles, no guillotine, no final confrontation. The film ends with her looking bored and looking beautiful, and that is the problem. It is a film about a queen who never had to face the consequences of her actions, and it fails to make the audience feel those consequences either.
The Verdict
Marie Antoinette is a visually stunning film with a weak grasp of its own subject. It is a costume drama that treats the revolution as a footnote, and a coming-of-age story that refuses to let its protagonist grow up. The film is a mess, but it is a mess with style. It is worth seeing for its costumes, its performances, and its ambition, but it is a film that asks more questions than it answers.
| Element | Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|---|
| Visual Style | Luxurious, dreamlike | Overwhelming at times |
| Performances | Dunst is excellent | Schwartzman is underwritten |
| Plot | Engaging early | Bogs down in the middle |
| Music | Eclectic, fitting | Jarring in some scenes |
| Tone | Consistent in its inconsistency | Hard to pin down |
The film is a portrait of a queen who was never really a queen, and it is a tragedy that never quite becomes a tragedy. It is a film that wants to be about history, but it is too interested in fashion to commit to it. The result is a movie that is worth watching, but not worth remembering.
6 of 10.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.
