So I went to paris for a week last year and did the regular tourist things... I am going back for a week in March and want to do some things that I didn't get to do. Any suggestions would be great.... We are thinking about visiting Versailles, but I wanted to make sure that it is not under construction or anything... someone said they heard that, I have no clue. Anyways, just trying to think of some interesting things either in or right outside the city that I wouldn't have gotten to do on my first trip... thanks so much!

Versailles is such a huge complex that parts of it are always under construction. The Petit Trianon is closed for repairs right now and not expected to reopen until late summer 2007. And the Hall of Mirrors is still under renovations, but part of it is open. There's nothing going on that's so massive that it will detract from a visit there.

Try hitting Versailles on a Tuesday, Friday or Sunday and check out the market in the middle of town. Great eats and great fun!

Rent or buy the new dvd of Marie Antoinette starring Kristin Dunst; you will get a real feel for the place and its history!

But be careful, the DVD is not very accurate but it was filmed there so you can see lots of the palace.

Two things:
1. Sophia Copppola's Marie Antoinette is a great film. We saw it in paris last year and through my own error wound up at a version dubbed in French. It is so well done that my niece, who speaks no French, was able to follow the plot perfectly. Don't know about accuracy, but do know that the world's leading scholar on MA loved it.
2. Consider the <<forfait loisir>> for your day trip to Versailles. You purchase round trip train plus admission tickets, save a bit and (more importantly) avoid having to wait in line, and it includes the headphone audio tour which is pretty well done. We bought ours at the Gare du Nord .http://idf.sncf.fr/web/site/accueil/...ailles/lang/en

The advice about the forfait loisir is excellent.

The film is fluff, and may be one of the worst films I've ever seen. I doubt that it would ever have made its way into the theaters if the director were not named Coppola. The film is a celebration of nepotism -- Louis XVII is played by a cousin of the director, and the musical score is by her boyfriend. I know this isn't unusual in Hollywood, but in this case it is really to the detriment of the film.

It was pretty. Why not? Versailles is photogenic, as were many of the actors, and the costumes were wonderful.

We see Marie-Antoinette dancing at a masked ball at l'Opéra Garnier, never mind that construction began 70 years after her death. Somehow, the director was able to find a really bad artist (probably another relative) to reproduce the portraits by Madame Vigée-Lebrun, with the face of Kirsten Dunst.

I think the accents were the worst. It seems that Louis XVI was from Arkansas and Madame du Barry from Brooklyn. The court was filled with various American and British regional accents. On the occasions where French was spoken, the accents would have done a first-year French student proud. Don't they have voice coaches in Hollywood anymore? There weren't any French extras available for a one-liner? For some reason, the adorable little girl who played the young Marie-Thérèse spoke French, while her mother answered her in English.

Louis XVI is portrayed as a lecherous redneck. The Comtesse de Noailles (in the role of the wicked stepmother) takes the poor girl's puppy away from her (and that puppy must be the most adorable pug in captivity). What a cheap shot! We hear nothing else about the little doggie until about halfway through the film when, in case we've forgotten just how evil these courtesans are, Kirsten (I can't bring myself to call her Marie-Antoinette) asks, plaintively, "Is Mops coming?"

The film is filled with cheap shots. We learn that the Dauphin has died (we hardly saw him) when a tiny coffin is loaded onto a coach, and, in the next scene, the grieving mother is seen floating through Versailles. Kirsten attempts to look grief-stricken, but she seems to know she is wearing one of the most attractive costumes in the film -- in black, of course.

One of the most tragic periods in French history, and I kept waiting for them to break into a song-and-dance routine -- something along the lines of "Springtime for Hitler" in "The Producers." I shudder to think what a viewer who knew nothing about French history will take away from this. The worst part is that it was taken from the Antonia Frasier book, which was exhaustively researched.

If I were French, I would find the film insulting. On second thought, you dont have to be French. I found it insulting. Exporting this kind of trash isn't doing America any favors, either.

By all means rent the film if you are so inclined, but please don't go away thinking it has taught you anything about French history.

I read Antonia Fraser's book and just rented this film over the weekend. Last week I posted on another thread that I couldn't stand going to Versailles. Now with my mother and sister coming over to visit I have changed my position on that and can't wait to see it. I had forgotten how beautiful it was. And I actually loved the film, even knowing it wasn't exactly historically accurate (although the dog thing did bug me a bit because he showed up in one scene later on with no mention as to how he got back).

beaupeep,

I read and really enjoyed the Fraser book. I agree that the movie is beautiful in terms of scenery and costumes, just that I hope no one comes away from it thinking they've learned anything about history.

I didn't like Casanova for about the same reasons..
Why can't the US make good period pieces?

We should probably shift over to the Forum, but...
Toupary, the premise of the film is exactly that it is from the viewpoint of MA - not from the usual perspective of so-called "accurate" history books. History, as we know, is usually written by the winners with little regard fro those who lost the battle.
The backdrops - Garnier or otherwise - are scenery, part of the craft. It is not a documentary that claims architectural rectitude. Perhaps because many scenes were shot at Versailles you are mistakenly assuming that the producer claims all were done on "actual location"? What is amazing about the film is its ability to communicate a story cinematographically. My niece's ability to closely follow the storyline despite an utter lack of French is testimony. And yes, of course it is "pretty" - beautiful, actually - it is a visual medium, after all!
Much of the response is similar to what cubism engendered in its infancy or initial reaction to the Tour Eiffel - it is different, a departure from the mundane, not literal. That usually generates an outcry from self appointed guardians of propriety and good taste but good art stands on its own.
OK, off the soapbox now and back to scrounging for cheap fares to Paris. ;-)

Seamus,

I did say that visually it is beautiful, and it does communicate a story -- just not the one that occurred.

Coppola doesn't have what it takes to understand Marie-Antoinette's viewpoint.

I am not assuming anything about what the producer claims as to locations, but I am not the only one who found it jarring to see an 18th Century ball taking place in a 19th Century opera house. She could just as easily have filmed at the Opéra Bastille.

The comparison to the cubists, who were talented and classically trained painters, or to Gustave Eiffel, a renowned architect, just doesn't wash. There is nothing innovative about this film. If one is going to break with tradition, it helps to know what what it is.

And I agree, good art stands on its own.

SO does anyone know of a more accurate move that can be viewed. Has anyone seen the PBS Marie Antoinette? I wonder if it is any good.

I saw the PBS documentary and like it very much. If you get a chance to see it, it will put things into nice historical perspective.

I saw the aforementioned film just last night, and it has renewed my desire to visit Versailles during my trip to Paris this summer. I suggest watching it, and of course, don't think you'll get a history lesson out of it. The film is stylish and takes liberties. Every detail of it was not meant to be historically accurate. Hence, the English-speaking actors don't have French accents, as would be appropriate during that time period. J/K
Well, I suggest going to Versailles even if some of it is under construction. The last time I went, I didn't even go into the palace but just wandered around the grounds. I walked to the little hamlet that was built by Marie Antoinette (got that little historical tidbit from a guide book), and had the most wonderful time. So, yes, go to Versailles.

I heartily suggest you pick up Eyewitness Travel Paris which is very nicely laid out and has given me a number of ideas on stuff to do beyond the typical attractions of Paris.

I just finished Antonia Fraser's book which is very sympathetic to the plight of the royals. It appears from the book that everything happened TO them rather than BECAUSE of them. Which may be rather true as neither Louis or Antoinette seemed educated or interested in politics and grew up believing in the divine rights of royalty. To me it appears that all the ridiculous court rituals that Louis XIV put into place helped cause the downfall of Louis XVI.

I watched the movie as well. I thought it a little slow and very much "Marie Antoinette-Lite" not to be taken seriously. I'd say Sophia C. meant to show the audience it wasn't to be taken seriously, with the punk rock music and a shot of a Chuck Taylor high-topped tennis shoe in one scene.