Eating Cake with Kirsten Dunst

The French Revolution was never my favorite period of history. I think a lot of it stems from all of these right-wing ideologues over the decades holding the French Revolution up as the Horrible Example of what happens when you overthrow the government. Why, you automatically get the Reign of Terror and Robespierre putting all his opponents to the guillotine and why, out and out anarchy!

These ideologues ought to check their terminology. The last time this anarchist checked, anarchism did not involve the sitting government, however "revolutionary" it styles itself, executing all of its opponents. That's not anarchism. That's Dick Cheney having a wet dream. No one ever mistook Dick Cheney for an anarchist.

The right-wing argument against revolution goes somewhat like this. If you loosen the restraints of law against dissidents, however oppressive the law, idealists who want to establish a freer society will never be able to stand up to nihilistic power-hungry thugs. That's because idealists have scruples while power-hungry thugs have none, and therefore will employ ruthless means to gain power that idealists will never use.

There is at least some truth to that, at least with regard to the French Revolution. But only some. After the Estates General threw out the power of the monarchy, the militant Jacobists gradually amassed power through their own ruthless means and instigated the "Reign of Terror." But these purported historians usually neglect to tell you that the actual Reign of Terror from the execution of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette to its bloody end lasted all of three months. Compare that to how many centuries the House of Bourbon and its predecessors conducted their own Reign of Terror against their subjects.

Not that I approve of cutting the heads off dissidents, even if it only lasts for three months; quite the opposite. But we need to keep these things in perspective. And we need to think about all of the revolutions that didn't follow the Robespierre model.

Starting with the American Revolution, you know, the one that gave us the United States of America. We've had our Reigns of Terror over the decades, including the present one, but the United States came out of its Revolution a free country, more or less. Whatever else you can say about George Washington and Co., they weren't Napoleon Bonaparte.

Now the same right-wingers who criticize the French Revolution will argue that the American Revolution wasn't really a revolution; unlike the French, they didn't overthrow the British government. Yeah, well, they were a little busy 3,000 miles and an ocean away from London. The ideologues will say the colonists were merely struggling for their established rights as Englishmen. So, explain why we aren't still sending taxes to London and singing the British National Anthem. "We don't need no education..."

Considering the current illegal Nazis for Jeezus administration in Washington, we might have been better off staying with the Crown.

Beyond that, it's hard for me to comment on the American Revolution, since I wasn't around to see it, even if only via mass media. So I will comment on some revolutions I did see.

Back in the 1980s, the revolution that overthrew the government of Czechoslovakia was pretty peaceful, and it resulted in a freer country, at least on the "Czecho" side of the Carpathian foothills. So did the one about the same time in the Philippines -- not only did they get a freer country, but they also got a bunch of shoes from Imelda Marcos. The revolution in Romania was quite a bit more violent and bloodier than either the Czech or the Philippine revolutions, but that also resulted in a much freer country -- well, just about anything after the Ceaucescu's would be freer, including my dogs' kennel.

So overthrowing the government is not always a bad thing, and sometimes it is a very, very good thing. The Nazi regime in Washington would do well to keep that in mind.

Which brings us in a roundabout way to Marie Antoinette, which Penny and I saw Friday night. Overall, director Sofia Coppela's effort was not bad, if a little distorted.

It was very pretty to look at, at least. Somehow Ms. Coppola persuaded the French government to give her free reign of the Palace at Versailles, which is like traveling back 200 years in a time machine, if you could take an unlimited budget back with you as well. It really was shot there -- I've been there, and these were no computer-generated scenes. The decor seemed pretty accurate to me, and Penny is an experienced costumer, and she thought the custumes were pretty good. At least they didnt stick poor Louis in any pink satin pants.

Coppola made some interesting choices. The film focuses entirely on the experiences of Marie Antoinette as the Dauphine and then the Queen of France, and unlike most films set in that era, you only see the grounds at Versailles, and no attempt is made to depict the squallor of 18th century Paris or the hardships of the general populace of the time. That gave the film a very skewed and removed-from-reality sense. There is almost no scene showing Louis XVI performing his duties as king (except his hit or miss "duties" to produce an heir with Kirsten Dunst -- and I can honestly say that she woulnd't have nearly as hard getting a " royal rise" out of me!). There are a couple of scenes showing Louis with his advisors discussing French aid to the American revolution, more or less showing Louis meekly submitting to the advice of his favorite advisors.

In fact, you don't get any real world sense at all until the end, when a howling mob is depicted waving scythes and pitchforks outside the palace, and even then, you mostly see shadows and never any individual faces.

Coppola chose to depict the title character and her retinue as a bunch of Valley Girls, except instead of credit cards, they had the French national budget. I'm not sure how historically accurate this is, but I'm pretty sure the MTV soundtrack wasn't, and that was the only part of the movie that royally sucked.

There is not sense in not talking about what happened in the movie, since this is mainly a matter of historical record. Coppola chose to end the film not with the royal couple's inevitable end but with their fleeing Versailles. "I felt as though I were saying goodbye for the last time," Marie is quoted as saying, in one of the most laughibly ineffective lines in the film. I think Coppola were too fond of her characters to depict their ending. (Louis and Marie were stopped trying to cross the French border, taken back to Paris, tried for treason [then as today, the crime of losing at politics], and guillotined, thus giving right-wing ideologues two centuries worth of tut, tuts.)

Overall, I thought the film was okay overall, interesting for the calculated risks Coppola took, and very pretty to look at. And all of that food makes me wish very hard that Penny weren't a vegetarian doing Weight Watchers.

But then, I think cake is OK for vegetarians, isn't it? Let her eat cake.