Movie review - "The Fighting Guardsman" (1945) **1/2

 Willard Parker was a third tier leading man who Columbia had under contract for a while. this is a gift for an actor playing a Scarlet Pimpernel type - an aristocrat who robs nobles and gives to the poor This is the time of Louis XVI who appears. There's decent complications - Parker is in love with Anita Louise whose brother George Macready (excellent as always) is an aristocrat, Parker's men don't trust him because he's an aristocrat, ally Janis Carter (hugely fun) becomes a mistress of Louis.

Parker is dull and wooden. There's no difference between the characters. John Loder is a sympathetic Pom. He's also blank. Carter and the support are great; Louise is fine.

A strong story, solid Henry Levin direction. Just let down by its lead. 

 

Movie review - "Dangerous Exile" (1957) *** (re-watching)

Consistently interesting but flawed quasi swashbuckler. It's got a terrific central idea - the boy king Louis XVII arrives on an English island and the French set out to kill him. The film really should be a swashbuckler but director Brian Desmond Hurst seems more interested in the gloomier aspects of the story - there's expressionistic flashbacks to the kid being tortured in prison (high ceilings, use of reds, all that). There isn't a lot of action - we don't get our first duel until over an hour in, and we don't even really see the initial escape.

The hero is beyond gloomy - noble Louis Jourdan, devoted to the king, so devoted he left HIS OWN SON IN PRISON. This film is one of the few that break a great taboo - the hero puts his own son in danger (the kid doesn't look keen to be there), putting him in prison... the kid falls sick, he does get out of prison... but then he's killed by an assassin. Full on. Louis Jourdan goes to get revenge but dude - you put your kid in prison. Worst dad in a movie?

Belinda Lee is beautiful though not much of an actor. The character is American, so there are hints she might be sympathetic to Republic values - this is a real good point of difference that should have been used more. (Aside: Lee kept playing roles Diana Dors could have played - I wonder if they had been developed for Dors? Dors had more humanity and warmth.)

Louis Jourdan has plenty of dash but I kept wanting him to be killed. Keith Michell's French revolutionary officer is far more sympathetic - he doesn't want to arm kids, only does his job under great reluctance, and is quite sympathetic.

Strong support from actors like Finlay Currie and Anne Heywood (traitors on the island) and a superb performance by Richard O'Sullivan as the young prince - alert, traumatised, terrified.

Some lovely photography, art direction and location work. Characters are set up who you think are important but aren't used enough - like that British officer keen on Lee at the beginning, or Marita Hunt. They probably should have sent Michell on the island earlier to engage with Lee and Jourdan. They definitely should have lost the plot element of Jourdan offering up his son.

Still, I've always enjoyed this movie.

Movie review - "Lydia Bailey" (1952) **

Darryl Zanuck's biggest male star at Fox was Tyrone Power and as time goes on he constantly tried to created new Tyrone Powers who he'd put in movies that Power didn't want to be in: Rob Wagner, Jeff Hunter, Rory Calhoun and, in this one, Dale Robertson. His female co star is Anne Francis in a role that badly needed Susan Hayward or Linda Darnell. So its very much the B team.

Really Zanuck shouldn't have made it without stars because there's no real reason for this to have been filmed otherwise. Oh I guess it was a best seller and all that. And its fascinating culturally because it concerns the Haitian Revolution - how many other films are set in that period? I'm guessing nil.

But it feels so pointless. Robertson turns up in Haiti trying to get local slave owner Francis to sign over her dead father's property to the US, as he wanted.  They wind up doing a lot of running around and escaping from various fighting forces - it's one of those movies where you get the impression the lead duo could be cut out of the film, and nothing would change to the overall plot, which isn't great. Neither Robertson or Francis do anything that key - I guess he helps William Marshall into the compound to kill a traitorous general. And Robertson is a spokesperson for Touissant. But that's about it.

The interesting things about this movie are the bits on the side of the central couple. The black roles are really good - William Marshall gets to play a driven, polygamous, charming revolutionary, very sympathetic; Ken Renard's Touissant gets the halo treatment of, well, white freedom fighters; Roy E Glenn plays a vicious killer. It's got more diversity among its black support characters than any "A" Hollywood film I can remembers.

There's a voodoo ceremony, Napoleon's sister being saucy, the villainous white guy accidentally shoots his on. There's lots of scenes with Robertson in blackface - Francis joins in as well.

Robertson and Francis are disastrously undercast but it's a movie with many fascinating things about it.

Movie review - "The Black Tulip" (1964) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)

Alain Delon tries his hand at swashbuckling, in this adaptation of an Alexandre Dumas novel which I've never read but apparently this isn't very faithful. It would seem to owe more to The Scarlet Pimpernel and The Prisoner of Zenda with Delon playing twin brothers, one a dashing freedom fighter who runs around the countryside robbing the rich in the name of the poor, the other a more quieter, nebbish type who takes over his brother's position when the cool brother is injured.

There's a good twist in that the quiet brother discovers the groovy brother actually doesn't care about the poor, he robs for kicks - he's like the villain in The Wicked Lady. He finds love in the comely shape of peasant Virni Lisi whose father is a revolutionary.

The other great twist is the bad brother is captured and gets hung... and actually dies. This was like The Corsican Brothers. But it gives the piece some emotional kick. (Even if the movie shies away from going into the emotional turmoil the surviving brother must feel).

There's plenty of banter, action and pleasing production design, though I feel it would be prettier had it been shot in France rather than Spain. Delon is handsome and charismatic and gives two distinctive performances - it's some of his best work. The support characters are fine: some rich aristocrats and comic revolutionaries.

Movie review - "Anthony Adverse" (1936) **1/2

I remember enjoying this as a kid watching it on Bill Collins back in the day - even though I'd never read the book, you could feel it was adapted from one: a prologue leading to the birth of a title character, scenes of his childhood (including meeting a childhood sweetheart), adventures in exotic climes, a nemesis, rags to riches, etc, etc. It remains enjoyable if you can handle some melodramatic over the top acting.

It gets off to a strong start with Anita Louise married to nasty Claude Rains but in love with Louis Hayward (in the role that got him noticed in Hollywood), which results in Rains killing Hayward in a duel and Louise dying in childbirth. The resulting kid is dumped with nuns, and falls for a fellow girl. He then grows up to be the not very exciting Frederic March (I wish they'd cast Errol Flynn), though the girl is the delightful and charming Olivia de Havilland.

There's a very good support cast: Donald Woods as a random best friend, Edmund Gwenn as a kindly benefactor (very coincidentally March's real grandfather), Steffi Duna as a brown face native girl who has hot pants for March, Akim Tamiroff hamming it up outrageously as a slave trader. Most of all there are Claude Rains and Gale Sondergaard as a pair of villains.

I really like Eric Wolfgang Korngold's score and several of the scenes remain etched in my memory: March meeting his son, realising de Havilland has become Napleon's mistress, March talking to his son and them going away together, the death of Hayward. It badly misses a come uppance for Rains and Sondergaard.

Movie review - "A Tale of Two Cities" (1958) ***1/2

Proof that Ralph Thomas could make a really good movie when he pulled his finger out - he was helped by a decent budget and strong script from TEB Clarke, and of course Dickens' source material. Dirk Bogarde is excellent as the doomed Sidney Carton, all self-loathing charm and dashing looks as he goes to the guillotine. Dorothy Tutin and Paul Guers aren't that crash hot as the married couple for whom he makes the sacrifice - not really worth the effort (he especially is a charmless prat and he looks nothing like Bogarde).

But there's a superb supporting cast including Cecil Parker, Athene Seyler (Mrs Pross), Donald Pleasance, Christopher Lee (loathsome aristocrat), Rosalie Crutchley (Madame de Farge), the guy who plays the guard, Marie Versini (the seamstress, whose instant relationship with Carton was one of the things I always liked about the book - her part feels bigger here). These are all extremely good.

Because the ending is so strong I always forget how much other plot there is in this before Carton makes his sacrifice. It spanks along, with no punches pulled about the horridness of the French nobility, toughness of British "justice" or ferocity about the revolution. Bogarde and others wished it had been shot in colour - I quite liked the black and white photography but colour may have helped it escape the shadow of the 1935 version.

Movie review - "HMS Defiant" (1962) **1/2

The year before The Servant sees Dirk Bogarde tormenting another weak man who is ostensibly his superior - Alec Guiness. It's set on a ship in 1797 during the Napoleonic Wars, with Guiness as a captain and Bogarde his officer. Bogarde is sadistic and cruel but also well connected so has a history of tormenting his captains. Guiness doesn't know how to deal with him for the most part, especially when Bogarde starts picking on his weakling midshipman son. Meanwhile downstairs the troops want to mutiny. (This is based on a true story - the Spithead mutinies, which are referenced).

The first problem with this film is it tells two stories - Bogarde undermining Guinness, and the mutiny. It tries to have it both ways, with the troops being inspired to go for the kill when Bogarde takes over after Guiness is injured... but then they were plotting mutiny before... only it wasn't a real mutiny because they just want justice...

The second problem is it pulls its punches. Bogarde orders some people flogged and is mean but his evilness is more sadism. Guiness never really seeks revenge he gets frustrated. The mutineers just want a better deal, only one wants violent payback, and he's the real baddie. It's like cosy British post war industrial relations before the cut-throat antics of the 70s and 80s with the sailors (decent folk as exemplified by Anthony Quayle) going on strike rather than genuinely mutinying. Like so many class conscious films, it's prejudiced - Bogarde is allowed to die because he's bad, but Guiness and his idiot son are allowed to live, and Quayle and the extremist mutineer die.

There's some gorgeous colour photography, an accurate seeming depiction of life on a boat during this time, a bit of action, a decent enough story despite the above problems. Bogarde sweeps the floor with Guiness, whose Obi Wan Kenobi voice is really distracting here and who seems more like a benign hippy that a sea captain. (While I'm at it, it's hard to have too much sympathy for a man who press gangs his sailors.)

Movie review - "The Elusive Pimpernel" (1950) ***1/2

I was always surprised to read about what a disaster this movie was - it seemed to have an incredible amount of ingredients: David Niven, Powell and Pressburger, Korda and Goldwyn, the Scarlet Pimpernel, colour, location shooting, terrific support cast. 

And while it's no masterpiece, it's actually pretty fun. The story is strong as ever, it looks amazing (a feast for the eyes), it has a playful good nature that is infectious. I don't necessarily think it would have worked as a musical (as originally envisioned) but it's a great shame Americans didn't get to see the film for so long, and that it's been out of circulation for so long.

David Niven isn't as believable playing a fop as Leslie Howard was, but he tries, and he's superb as "straight", brave Pimpernel - smart, tough, wryly humorous, skillful at disguise, etc. Margaret Leighton felt a little old and cold for the part of his wife (I always think this role needs to be played by someone very passionate) but she is a good actor and is more of an "equal" to Niven. 

 

Very strong support cast including Cyril Cusack (scary and different as an all-white-makeup Chevalier), Jack Hawkins (not quite well cast as George IV but I got used to him), always-reliable Robert Coote, a very old John Longden and a very young Patrick Macnee.

There are bizarre scenes like the one in the steam bath where Niven recites the famous poem - leaping about in a loin cloth with jump cuts, Hawkins dancing (these two are where it felt like a musical), Cusack sneezing and seeing fireworks. It's got that touch of magic for which Powell and Pressburger were known and the film should be more widely distributed.

Radio review – Lux – “A Tale of Two Cities” (1945) ***1/2

Orson Welles is perfect casting as Sidney Carton – dashing, romantic, self-loathing, ultimately brave. It’s a good version of the classic tale, told in flashback by Carton to the scullery maid just before they get their head chopped off. Dickens ages very well because he was so true to human nature – the French revolution was harsh, so was the time before it, Madam de Farge is the perfect revolutionary – unforgiving, harsh, violent, brave. Welles comes on at the end and talks about his new job writing a column, and his radio show This is My Best. Rosemary de Camp plays the girl.

Movie review – “The Return of the Scarlet Pimpernel” (1937) **

Unnecessary sequel, presumably made to make some easy cash and launch some new talent for Alex Korda, which it didn’t – unless you count a young James Mason, who plays a revolutionary. Some guy called Hans Schwartz directed and some actors called Barry Barnes and Sophie Stewart co-star. 

 

The plot has the Pimpernel’s pregnant wife get enticed to France, forcing the Pimpernel to go after him.

The whole story feels tired. None of the key actors have any charisma – Sir Percy, Chauvelin, or Lady Blakeney – and the supporting cast don’t come to the rescue. Lady Blakeney knows about her husband’s deception, so a massive source of tension from the first film is missing, there isn’t enough action and some of the escapes are downright silly (eg at the ending when Sir Percy is saved by a French mob). Chavelin is more of a joke than a genuine threat, too. 

 

There are some bright spots, such as a cricket game at the beginning and cameos from actors playing the Prince of Wales and Sheridan the playwright.

Movie review – “The Scarlet Pimpernel” (1934) ***

Korda had a few flops after The Private Life of Henry VIII but this was a solid hit, later inspiring a sequel and a remake. It gave Leslie Howard one of his best roles, perhaps his best (although that is saying something considering his career). He was perfectly cast as the adventurer who pretends to be a fop; it mirrors his real life adventures, where the seemingly dreamy, sensitive soul was also a war hero, great womaniser and brilliant businessman, the stereotypical Englishman who was really a Hungarian Jew, etc, etc.

It’s not a love letter to the aristocracy – the English upper classes are full of pompous, blustering clowns (who better to depict that than Nigel Bruce and Melville Cooper), the excesses of the French nobles are duly noted. Also the revolutionaries are imposing antagonists – smart, ruthless.

Merle Oberon is stunning (check out that low cut gown) and Raymond Massey a superb, scowling villain. There is some funny comedy (eg “how the French speak that devilish language of theirs I’ll never know”) although to be honest the piece could have done with some more action. At times it feels very much like an adaptation of a stage play.

Movie review – “The Count of Monte Cristo” (1934) ***

Producer Edward Small had a great fondness for swashbuckling tales, presumably dating from this effort, which gave him an early success and kicked off the 30s swashbuckling cycle. For the first hour this is a very good version of the classic tale – the script is very strong, making it clear why the baddies wanted to do ill by Dantes, and how he remained in gaol for so long despite having so many people think well of him.

The second half, which concentrates on the revenge, is less good. It drags on and on, and is less fun, focusing on some particularly wet young lovers, with a rather bland courtroom climax when you want there to be swashbuckling. The whole movie feels as though it goes on for too long as well and the romance between Donat and Elissa Landi feels bland.

There's a full on moment where one of the baddies puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger! Robert Donat is very good in the lead - he had Hollywood at his feet after making this but didn't chase it up.

Movie review – “De Sade” (1969) **

When Sam Arkoff was interviewed in the early 70s he gave this as an example of AIP’s biggest disaster. It’s a surprise when you consider the subject matter would seem a natural for AIP (this was part of the second cycle of Poe pictures) and there were some impressive names involved: the cast included Lilli Palmer, Santa Berger and John Huston, the script was by Richard Matheson), the director Cy Endfield. However the shoot proved highly troublesome. Endfield apparently rewrote the script (changing it from non-linear to linear) and flipped out, causing Roger Corman to step in to help finish the film.

 

Apparently Endfield’s direction was chaste but here are lots of bare boobs here, some female bums (no male bums); Arkoff says in his memoirs that Dullea was reluctant to do orgy scenes but he’s in there, licking nipples. Presumably Corman did all this.

 

Keir Dullea's performance is a major debit. The role of de Sade is a gift but Dullea lacks spark, artistry, madness, etc. He does have a look of bored aplomb of the aristocracy – kind of like a Nazi officer – but that doesn't work for someone like de Sade. As a result, for all the orgies and boobs on display, the film isn't very interesting. There are lots of trippy sequences, music that sounds a bit like 70s TV, some decent art design. 

 

A major opportunity missed.

Movie review – “The Black Book” (1949) ***1/2

Eagle Lion and Anthony Mann had success turning real life modern day crime stories into film noir about people going undercover, so why not do the same thing for the French Revolution? 

Bob Cummings stars as a Frenchman who goes undercover as a prosecutor for Robespierre in order to stop Robespierre appointing himself dictator of France. To this end, he takes on the identity of a real-life prosecutor – who Cummings has killed! Full on – an assassin as hero. The MacGuffin is a black book of names of enemies of France, and there’s various twists with the baddies seemingly busting Cummings, but then being persuaded he’s the real deal and so on.

Cummings is best known for his light comedies and it’s rather odd to see him as a sort of hard bitten tough guy investigator, particularly in his “I’m hurt by you” moments with his ex Arlene Dahl and him killing people. (The goodies in this film are quite ruthless.) But you get used to him and there’s nothing wrong with his performance, it’s just his persona is a bit lightweight.

Mann’s direction is impressive, helped considerably by the great DOP John Alton – lots of great camera angles, and big faces, and brisk pacing. The story has plenty of twists and turns, with a solid basis in historical fact (Robespierre did have a list), and the production details are impressive – although not a large budgeted film, it’s still got these terrific sets and costumes, and even has some crowd scenes. And the cast is strong: it also includes Richard Basehart, Norman Lloyd and Charles MacGraw.

This is a real curio, a combination of film noir, historical movie and gangster film – I can’t think of anything else quite like it.

(NB After making this Mann took DOP John Alton and went over to MGM where they made a semi-documentary film noir with an undercover plot, Border Incident. Then Mann went into the Westerns for which he is chiefly remembered today.)

Radio review – Lux#197 – “The Scarlet Pimpernel” (1938) **1/2

Leslie Howard reprises his famous screen role and he’s very good, being particularly funny as the foppish Sir Percy. Olivia de Havilland is a spirited Marguerite – she’s better than Merle Oberon – and the story condenses well (it’s really three character piece), even though you miss out seeing the disguises. At the end of the show Howard chats about his plans to go back to Britain to make movies, saying he intends to have an eye on the American market.

Radio review – MT#3 - “Tale of Two Cities” (1938) ***

Orson Welles is excellent as Sidney Carton – all booming voice, wasted talent and dissolution. He would have made a wonderful film lead in this role, provided he wasn’t too fat at the time. (You know what, it would have even worked with a fat Welles). A good solid adaptation with the best performances by the Defarges; Charles Darney is a little dull but he was in the book.

Movie review - "Saramouche" (1952) ****

One of the hallmarks of Dore Schary's regime at MGM was colour remakes of older films (eg Quo Vadis, King Solomon's Mines) but they really hit a home run with this delightful swashbuckler, one of the best every in the genre.

Stewart Granger was never better in the title role, a ne'er-do-well bastard living in France during the reign of Louis XVI who is happy to sponge off his allowance and bang an actress (Eleanor Parker); his cruisy life is thrown into turmoil when said allowance is cut off and his childhood friend (Richard Anderson - who gets a big close up when we first see him hinting that MGM wanted to give him the big build up, something that never happened) is killed in a duel for his pro-revolutionary writings by aristocratic hitman Mel Ferrer - so Granger goes looking for revenge.

Most swashbuckler plots involved the restoration or the defence of the monarchy; here Granger is a pro-revolutionary hero fighting the aristocrats (though to be fair Granger is mostly apathetic politically, his motivation is personal -it's just he is co-opted by the revolutionary movement to be kind of duelling hitman). Scaramouche is a bit of a scoundrel and a scamp who earns a living as an actor - it's the sort of role Errol Flynn would have been perfect for in his hey day (actually many of the parts seem modelled on Warners types - with Ferrer as a Basil Rathbone type, Janet Leigh as Olivia de Havilland, Eleanor Parker as Ann Sheridan).

But to be fair all the actors MGM have cast rise to the occasion: Granger is animated and lively, Ferrer very good (he's not an all-out villain -being genuinely attached to Janet Leigh, which is presumably part of thereason why he's allowed to live), and Janet Leigh is sweet and sparky as the ingenue.

The show is stolen, though, by Eleanor Parker as the temperamental stage diva - incredibly sexy, all flaming long red hair and tights, she's also brave, smart, loyal and genuinely loves Scaramouche - so it's a real shock when he runs off to marry Janet Leigh at the end. I mean, Leigh's pretty but Eleanor Parker is a real woman. But Leigh is also a sweet virgin - that's Eisenhower America for you. (And because Parker loves Granger it's really sad - though it does mean we get a lovely closing gag.) I sort of reconciled it to myself by figuring you'd be better off financially marrying someone like Leigh -and as if Granger and Parker aren't going to have an affair down the track.

Marvellous sword fighting - though I think it was a mistake to have Granger and Ferrer fight three times. And Granger should have killed Henry Wilcoxon. One other thing (which always bothers me about anything set in pre-revolutionary France): aren't most of these characters going to be dead in a few years via the Guillotine or Napoleon?

Movie review – “Dangerous Exile” (1957) ***

Rank films of the 50s, which play so often on ABC television in the early hours of the morning, have a very strong uniform "feel": the interchangeable brylcreamed male leads (Ronald Lewis, Anthony Steele) and statuesque pretty females who lacked decent roles to play (Belinda Lee, Sylvia Syms, Mary Ure, etc), shot in that lovely colour and usually with some strong older actors in support and about some exotic subject matter (eg Mau Mau, communists, the Pacific) or else were gentle comedies with some star (eg Norman Wisdom). I enjoy many of the films: even if the results were often mediocre, they were usually pleasantly so.

This is one of Rank’s better efforts at the time, starting with a strong central idea: Louis XVII arrives in balloon and is held up in a castle in the Welsh coast. That’s a terrific basis for a movie and there’s plenty of plots: local French revolutionary spies, splits within the royalist factions, splits with the revolutionaries, etc. There are also an intriguing pair of adversaries: Louis Jourdan, so devoted to the king he gives up his own son in the king’s place, and Keith Michell as the revolutionary unhappy with how bloody his reforms have begun.

At first it seems the film is going to be a bit challenging: Jourdan in his first scene is shown to be a fanatic, but disappointingly this is never developed; when he and female lead Belinda Lee starts making eyes at each other you know Jourdan’s meant to be the hero and Michell’s doomed for a skewered ending. (Someone really should have called Jourdan on being a fanatic a bit more – I mean Louise XVI was a dictator, for crying out loud).

Lee  (beautiful and engaging but a little low on the charisma side) starts off an intriguing character, an American who befriends the boy – but then she just becomes a thing to worry about Jourdan and be brave for the boy. They could have made more with her, especially the whole republican-being-confused-by-feelings-to-royalty thing (casting an American actor would have held).

It’s a shame also there isn’t more action, because when it comes it’s pretty good. But the story is strong, the décor sumptuous, there are some avant garde dream sequences, and Louis XVII (a whiny little squirt, clearly not worthy of anyone’s devotion) is played by a young Richard O’Sullivan, who would grow up to play a series of lecherous doctors/cooks/ad men in British sitcoms.

Movie review – “Marie Antoinette” (2006) **1/2

Half a masterpiece – so much of this film is brilliant: the costumes, sets, feel of it, casting, acting; it captures the sense of Versailles more than any film I’ve seen - Coppola’s approach of making it like a high school for rich bitches seems totally appropriate, with du Barry the slutty girlfriend of the most popular person, Rose Byrne the wild party girl the most popular in school, etc. 

But when I say half a masterpiece I mean that literally- the film should be cut in half. There is so much repetition and scenes go on too long it eventually gets wearying (I know Coppola wants to show it is wearying but you can make wearying-ness interesting). For instance there are two scenes where the Austrian ambassador tells Marie she has to talk to du Barry, and about four scenes of Louis XVI not wanting to have sex with his wife when one would have done and about four scenes of the two of them making stilted conversation at the table when again one or two would have done. 

And Coppola misses the great opportunity of the final months at Versailles – I don’t mind so much she left out Marie’s escape and execution (the two things most people who tell stories of her life normally fix on, especially as the escape was masterminded by her lover Fersen) because that’s the story she chose to tell, but there could have been more of the creepiness and violence of the revolution affecting life at Versailles – it’s like Coppola is skilled at the school stuff but not when the school comes under attack. 

She also kind of cheats – having made the decision to tell it from Marie’s POV she then cuts away a few times to scenes without her (she did the same thing in The Virgin Suicides). 

OK to take a walk on the sunny side, Kirsten Dunst is perfect as the princess, not a bad person, someone who tries her best, but a bit of an idiot (by the end of the film she’s a more mature idiot but still an idiot), would have made a great powerless monarch (it’s as if Posh Spice was made queen of France) but probably deserved to have her head chopped off. Rose Byrne, who normally I’m not a fan of and who seems to get work mostly because directors become enamoured of her, is perfect as Marie’s party girl friend, just like a dopey immensely pleased with her self Bondi idiot (which from all accounts Rose is not but she’d certainly know a bunch – this is her best ever work, maybe she needs to make more movies with people who don’t fall in love with her); she also gets the film’s two best lines, “your hair what’s happening with that” and “I love the country” – both of which convey why the French revolution happened as much as any other lines. 

Asia Argento is great as the trashy du Barry as is Marianne Faithfull as the done-a-lot-of-living Empress, Rip Torn as the lecherous king, Jason Schwarztmann as the nerdy totally unqualified Louis, Danny Huston as the virile brother, the girl who played Marie’s dopey friend, Judy Davis as the I-really-don’t-like-doing-this-job noblewoman, Steve Coogan as the ambassador. So much of this film is wonderful – if only the writer-director had used a co-writer.

Marie Antoinette

The upcoming Sofia Coppola film has prompted this New Yorker piece on Marie Antoinette. My own thoughts (on the queen, I haven't seen the film): she wasn't as bad as what they said but her insensitivity and selfishness (which she shared with all royals) meant she deserved to have her head chopped off. The thing is she and Louis XVI would have made perfect powerless constitutional monarchs: Marie all into fashion and being silly, Louis into hunting and clocks. The media and public would have loved them in those roles. It was just when they were expected to actually do something...