Movie Review: Miss Potter

There are times of the year when I get more than my money's worth on my Netflix subscription. But most of the time I'm pretty sure I end up spending $10 or so per dvd because I let them gather dust for weeks and weeks without watching or returning any. I try not to think about it too hard, because I love the convenience of Netflix, "shopping" for movies, making lists (I love lists!), and frankly I just don't want to admit that it might not be all that cost effective. For the last, I don't know, five weeks or so I've had the same three movies stacked on top of the player, waiting to be viewed (just did the math: that's $7.08 per dvd--ack!), and yesterday I blew the dust off one of them and sat down to watch.

Miss Potter is based on the life story of Beatrix Potter, the British author of The Tales of Peter Rabbit and many other beloved children's classics. It stars Renee Zellweger as Beatrix and Ewan McGregor as her publisher and mustachioed love of a lifetime, Norman. Honestly, I don't have a whole lot to say about the movie itself. It was pretty run of the mill British period drama, kinda slow paced and a little dull at times. But fans of her illustrations might like the bits of animation sprinkled throughout the film, although I personally found them to be awkward and inconsistent. They also served to highlight something that grated on me the whole movie: Either Renee Zellweger failed completely at capturing "endearingly quirky" in her portrayal, or Beatrix Potter was across the board cuh-razy. She kept telling everyone that her drawings were "real," called them "my friends," talked to them, scolded them for being cheeky, etc. I think the intention was to be cute, but instead it was disturbing and creepy. And the way Renee played it, I wondered if the movie was going to end with her being commited to an asylum. (Or a "sanitarium," as I suppose they would have called it back then. In case you're interested, that doesn't happen--despite one highly-justifiable bout of depression.) So I felt pretty blah about the story, script, and all that. However, I do have some things to rant about.....

One, that promotional poster? It has to be doctored, because Renee Zellweger's eyes are like half that size. And throughout the whole first half of this movie they're more like one-fourth that size, because she keeps her face screwed up into a prissy, tight, painfully pursed expression nonstop. I think it's in Breakfast of Champions that Kurt Vonnegut draws an illustration of what he thinks an anus looks like (sorry, I know this is too crude for some of you, so forgive me), and it looked something like this: That's what Renee's face looked like for a good full hour. In fact, this illustration was just about all I could think of whenever I looked at her because, kids, her mouth looked exactly like that. I mean it.

The second half of the movie she looked like Frumpy McFrumperton, a la Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (remember how bad she looked in that???): This photo has to be doctored, too, because she doesn't look all that bad. But I'm telling you, in the film the girl looked broke down. Hair all akimbo, complexion rough, skin red and splotchy like a spanked behind..... Was their budget so low that they couldn't afford hair and makeup people? She's a beautiful girl and quite capable of looking radiant and lovely. Why, then, does she so frequently appear in movies looking like a boiled chicken? I truly don't get it.

Let's see....what else bugged me......? That's all I can think of at the moment, but I'll post a revision should anything come to mind......

Movie Review: Marie Antoinette

Thanks to Netflix, I have the opportunity to see a variety of films I never would have considered paying $8-11 to see in the theaters, plus many other documentaries and indies that are difficult to catch on a big screen. Our latest viewing was of Sophia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette, starring Kirsten Dunst and Jason Schwartzman. This film was hyped quite a bit before it premiered at Cannes, and then got a lot of bad press when it was reportedly booed after that screening. But I learned a long time ago to see or read what I want and make my own judgments rather than letting critics, so-called experts, or even friends dictate what’s good or bad. Plus, I love Coppola’s first film, The Virgin Suicides (also starring Dunst, coincidentally), and I also have liked other films that re-imagine familiar or historically-significant stories using unexpected settings and modern music (for example, Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge). So I went into Marie Antoinette with an open mind and expecting to, at the very least, enjoy the spectacle.

And that’s pretty much what I got—a lot of eye candy and not much else. Halfway through, Matt and I remarked how little dialogue there was. Seriously, all of the actors could have been deaf mutes and we would have barely noticed. As for the story, there wasn’t much of that either. As I mentioned to my friend Reynold later, it was like the difference between reading a biography and looking at a child’s picture book telling of the story. A really beautifully illustrated one, but a 2-hour-and-3-minute long picture book nonetheless.

Coppola goes out of her way to make sure we develop a sympathy for Marie, and it’s quite effective. You get a real sense of just how young (only 14 when she left Austria and wed Louis) and inexperienced Marie was, and how she was not only a product of her environment but also a victim of the culture at that time—all of which combined to make her quite misunderstood. And Kirsten Dunst plays the role superbly, in my opinion—letting us see the “real” and vulnerable person behind the perfectly-coifed and ornately-dressed Marie Antoinette we are used to seeing in oil paintings. And that’s the one-dimensional image her subjects had of her as well, so when the mob comes to storm Versailles you do feel for her and wish they could have better understood all sides of the situation—something that is usually possible only after the realities of that moment in time have turned into history.

So there were some interesting characters portrayed, and Marie’s character goes through some development. But the real and lasting impression left by this film is all visual. If you like lush colors, ornate costuming, still life portraiture, frilly shoes, close ups of pastries, and film as artwork all set to a catchy 80’s post-punk soundtrack, then you’ll enjoy looking at this film. But just looking, I’m afraid, as there isn’t a whole lot of substance beyond the surface. And I, personally, prefer my films to stimulate my brain as well as my heart and eyes.

Thankfully Reynold happened to have a copy of the PBS documentary on Marie Antoinette’s life, which he lent to me and that I’m eager to watch in order to balance out my experience.