By Dave McCoy
MSN Movies

May 24, 2006

I got Frenched this morning. No, sadly, I don't mean that I was kissed; I received that special, stereotypical French behavior reserved for "ugly Americans."

We were about 20 minutes into Sofia Coppola's sublime period piece, "Marie Antoinette," and I was loving it. The film begins amid a crash of loud guitars and bright-pink lettered credits, and then starts painting a dazzling, revisionist portrait of France's famed queen. It begins when the Austrian-born princess, Marie (Kirsten Dunst), is 14 and is leaving for France to marry Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman). Their union will align the two countries politically. But young, naïve Marie has no idea what she's in for.

The first quarter of Coppola's third feature presents and then mocks the hilariously strict etiquette forced upon elite French society. Meeting rituals, dinner rituals, wedding rituals ... life is one big straitjacket with no room for self-expression. At one point, Marie, just awakened by a swarm of servants, stands naked and cold, while family members decide who gets the privilege of dressing her. Until this point, Marie has said little in the film. When finally clothed, she utters, "This is ridiculous." "This is Versailles," responds her servant.

I laughed, as I had been doing for the past 20 minutes. I was laughing at the satire, at Coppola's brash approach and from the pure joy that a great film can trigger. That's when two French journalists to my right Frenched me. "Those were the rules! They had rules!" one hissed, while the other sneered and added, "Not funny! Not funny!" Of course, this made me laugh harder. I briefly considered explaining the concept of satire to my hosts, but it was pointless. Coppola was gleefully taking the piss out of uptight 18th-century French society; I got it (as did many others), but to these ladies, their homeland was being besmirched.

The word "rules" was appropriate, however, as Coppola's film spends much of its two hours breaking every single one when it comes to making a period costume movie. After seeing the trailer (played out to a New Order song) and cast list, I was skeptical. I thought, "Oh, no, she's gone all Baz Luhrmann." But there is a method to the madness. Coppola floods the film with '80s new-wave music (The Cure, Adam and the Ants, Siouxsie and the Banshees), hip fashion and a rebellious attitude and spins the famed story of Marie Antoinette into a study of a young outsider struggling to find independence in a suffocating society.

History tells us that Antoinette was the decadent symbol of frivolity and self-indulgence whose spending and gambling habits bankrupted France, led to the French Revolution and cost her her head. Coppola's film slants history to Marie's point of view. Like fellow outsider Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) in Coppola's Oscar winner, "Lost in Translation," Marie spends her early years isolated in a new country and neglected in a loveless, sexless marriage. She is mocked by French gossip, unloved, and her only reason to exist is to produce an heir to the throne, which is tough to do when your flaccid husband is more interested in the history of keys and locks. Left to herself, Marie becomes a free spirit and spends a ton of money to fill her emptiness, which naturally causes more scandal.

Coppola's feminist profile and social commentary is kept afloat by an incredibly natural, largely quiet Dunst. The bubbly personality that sank "Elizabethtown" is used perfectly here to convey naivete and autonomy, though she also controls the quiet, sadder, reflective moments. Additionally, Rip Torn, Judy Davis and especially Steve Coogan all shine, though poor Schwartzman looks like Max Fischer dressing up for one of his "Rushmore" plays. It's just silly.

The film, however, is not, though reception at the end was decidedly mixed. It took Coppola guts to debut this here at Cannes, the same kind her dad showed by submitting a working print of "Apocalypse Now" at Cannes 27 years ago. Half of the audience booed and yelled, while the other half clapped enthusiastically. And the two women next to me? They just stared daggers through me and spoke in perturbed French. And I doubt they were discussing the meaning of satire.

"Babel": Competition for "Volver"?

Acclaim wasn't mixed for "Babel," however. The latest film from the Mexican directing/writing team of Alejandro González Iñárritu and Guillermo Arriaga ("Amores Perros," "21 Grams") is perhaps the only serious competition Pedro Almodóvar's "Volver" has for the Palme d'Or. Everyone loves it, and for good reason. This global tale of loss and responsibility is the duo's strongest collaboration to date, and believe it or not, even more ambitious than their previous two multi-narrative films. Here, they weave together four stories involving a dozen characters in four countries — Morocco, Mexico, America and Japan.

The title comes from the famed tower in the Bible, which a united humanity built toward heaven. Apparently, this angered the Big Guy, so he made people speak different languages and scattered them across the globe. So, you probably get the thematic point. In the movie, one catastrophic accident caused by two Muslim boys has consequences that affect people in three other countries. A couple vacationing in Morocco (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) is most affected by the tragedy, but it spills over to their home in America, where a Mexican nanny watches their children, and to Japan, where a catalyst for the event originates. Also in Tokyo is a story about a teenage deaf-mute who's lost her mother to suicide and is trying to find herself in an overwhelming society. Meanwhile, back in San Diego, the "event" causes a delay home for Pitt and Blanchett, forcing the nanny (Adriana Barraza) to take the two kids south of the border for her son's wedding. Let's just say things don't go as planned. And back in Morocco, the young children who caused this mess are under serious heat.

"Babel" is tough to summarize without giving away too much, but it's engaging to watch and easy to follow (not as much non-linear narrative structure as "21 Grams"). From the description, you can probably conclude that the relationships between parents and kids is on the minds of the creator — specifically the hopelessness of protection — and difficult relationships are all explored in heartbreaking detail.

All of the performances are terrific, as usual for an Iñárritu film, but special mention must be given to Pitt. It's a tremendously stressful, raw performance — his best since "Fight Club," and one that may net him the Best Actor award. His Hollywood good looks are muted — wrinkles are showing around the eyes, gray hair flecks his beard and hair — and watching him, I couldn't help but think that Pitt may become one of our greatest actors in the next 20 or so years. He's evolving, stretching, and it's great to experience.

A demain...

Will you see "Marie Antoinette" or "Volver"? Write us at heymsn@microsoft.com.

Dave McCoy is lead editor for MSN Movies.