***From The Telegraph:***
Queen Marie Antoinette is falsely shown as fearless in the new Napoleon film when actually she was troubled and scarred by incest allegations, an academic has claimed.
A French-born historian has raised doubts about Marie Antoinette’s portrayal in Ridley Scott’s biopic of the young military leader who rose to power during the French Revolution.
Born in Austria in 1755, Marie Antoinette married Louis-Auguste when she was 14 years old and became Queen in 1774 when he ascended the throne as Louis XVI.
Widely disliked across France over an apparent penchant for luxury fashion, which led to her nickname Madame Déficit, Antoinette was found guilty of treason and executed by guillotine in 1793.
Nine months earlier, Louis XVI suffered the same fate.
It is said Marie Antoinette lost custody of her youngest son who was forced to accuse her of sexual abuse and incest before her trial.
Depicted in the new Napoleon film, which held its global premiere in Paris on Tuesday, Marie Antoinette, portrayed by Irish actress Catherine Walker, is shown to be strong-willed and confident, but an academic has said she does not recognise those as her personal traits.
Dr Estelle Paranque, a modern history professor at Northeastern University, said it was more likely Marie Antoinette was troubled over incest claims.
“I really love Marie Antoinette in many ways so it did annoy me a little because he (Ridley Scott) made her kind of fearless and a bit feisty and at that time honestly she was not,” Dr Paranque told BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme.
“The truth is that she was extremely sad and vulnerable. She had been accused of the worst incest with her son and she tried to remain dignified at the end but I don’t think she would have been that bold.”
The apparent discrepancy marks further accusations of inaccuracy surrounding the film in which Academy Award-winning actor Joaquin Phoenix plays Napoleon Bonaparte.
Critics in France have taken issue with Scott’s biopic.
Just drop it or he’ll start whinging and moaning again about the difficult life of elderly directors
I love when historians insist they know how people felt.
There’s always some dude who has a degree in something that’s gonna nit pick tf out of these movies.
It’s just a movie,
WHAT?! A movie isn’t entirely based off true events?! This is unheard of.
Historical inaccuracy in a Ridley Scott film? I’m shocked. /s
It’s a movie, not a documentary
“Get a life” – Ridley Scott
I find this hilarious. On one hand we bitch because women aren’t properly portrayed as strong, independent characters. But on the other hand, this woman was a mess in real life.
Ridley Scott doesn’t give a fuck
Exactly. If you want history, then take a class, read a book… if you want to be entertained, then go to the cinema.
I bet. Poor woman really has been smeared, when it wasn’t just her fault.
Who cares it’s a movie
First of all, she’s dead. But in the movie she is alive.
I actually think it’s good to give attention to calling out inaccuracies like this. Too many people are historically illiterate and too many, adults and kids alike, will see these movies and take them as historical fact.
Artists (as well as propagandists) have the right to portray historical figures however they choose but highlighting how these contrast with reality is a good conversation to have!
16 comments
***From The Telegraph:***
Queen Marie Antoinette is falsely shown as fearless in the new Napoleon film when actually she was troubled and scarred by incest allegations, an academic has claimed.
A French-born historian has raised doubts about Marie Antoinette’s portrayal in Ridley Scott’s biopic of the young military leader who rose to power during the French Revolution.
Born in Austria in 1755, Marie Antoinette married Louis-Auguste when she was 14 years old and became Queen in 1774 when he ascended the throne as Louis XVI.
Widely disliked across France over an apparent penchant for luxury fashion, which led to her nickname Madame Déficit, Antoinette was found guilty of treason and executed by guillotine in 1793.
Nine months earlier, Louis XVI suffered the same fate.
It is said Marie Antoinette lost custody of her youngest son who was forced to accuse her of sexual abuse and incest before her trial.
Depicted in the new Napoleon film, which held its global premiere in Paris on Tuesday, Marie Antoinette, portrayed by Irish actress Catherine Walker, is shown to be strong-willed and confident, but an academic has said she does not recognise those as her personal traits.
Dr Estelle Paranque, a modern history professor at Northeastern University, said it was more likely Marie Antoinette was troubled over incest claims.
“I really love Marie Antoinette in many ways so it did annoy me a little because he (Ridley Scott) made her kind of fearless and a bit feisty and at that time honestly she was not,” Dr Paranque told BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme.
“The truth is that she was extremely sad and vulnerable. She had been accused of the worst incest with her son and she tried to remain dignified at the end but I don’t think she would have been that bold.”
The apparent discrepancy marks further accusations of inaccuracy surrounding the film in which Academy Award-winning actor Joaquin Phoenix plays Napoleon Bonaparte.
Critics in France have taken issue with Scott’s biopic.
**Read more: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/16/marie-antoinette-false-portrayed-napoleon-joaquin-phoenix/**
Just drop it or he’ll start whinging and moaning again about the difficult life of elderly directors
I love when historians insist they know how people felt.
There’s always some dude who has a degree in something that’s gonna nit pick tf out of these movies.
It’s just a movie,
WHAT?! A movie isn’t entirely based off true events?! This is unheard of.
Historical inaccuracy in a Ridley Scott film? I’m shocked. /s
It’s a movie, not a documentary
“Get a life” – Ridley Scott
I find this hilarious. On one hand we bitch because women aren’t properly portrayed as strong, independent characters. But on the other hand, this woman was a mess in real life.
Ridley Scott doesn’t give a fuck
Exactly. If you want history, then take a class, read a book… if you want to be entertained, then go to the cinema.
I bet. Poor woman really has been smeared, when it wasn’t just her fault.
Who cares it’s a movie
First of all, she’s dead. But in the movie she is alive.
I actually think it’s good to give attention to calling out inaccuracies like this. Too many people are historically illiterate and too many, adults and kids alike, will see these movies and take them as historical fact.
Artists (as well as propagandists) have the right to portray historical figures however they choose but highlighting how these contrast with reality is a good conversation to have!