chief thesis and point of exploration being that the young filmmaker has somewhat parlayed her privilege and wallflower image as a fancifully perplexed yet effortless artisan into the sort of ancillary acclaim upon which one can stake a long-term livelihood.
But is Marie Antoinette really a public ballot initiative on the future of her career? Budgeted at $40 million, it’s both a gamble (Lost in Translation cost $4 million) and a well-hedged bet, in that each of Coppola’s movies to date have grossed more money abroad than domestically. So does mainstream America care about an impressionistic, sugar-pop take on the titular French royal? Or do they even have to?
It’s not coincidence, in my mind, that of all the people who have expressed a hearty pre-release interest in Marie Antoinette, most are female professionals between 27 and 42. To get to the nut of what that implies, is Coppola then chiefly the beneficiary of conditions beyond her control, or is she a unique and talented sensory collagist of mood, space and setting? Well, the point, of course, is that the two are not mutually exclusive, and Marie Antoinette — bowing