Though Coppola does create a deeper, more probing look at a very notorious historical figure, she also perhaps does not reach far enough. The challenge with historical films is that the whole picture must be painted in order to have the deepest understanding, and in Marie Antoinette only a portion of history is reconstructed. The queen’s ignorance is portrayed, but the audience still remains knowledgeable of France’s history and the squalid conditions at the time, so thus it still seems inexcusable even with Coppola’s portrayal of the sympathetic naïve Dauphine. Coppola at the beginning of the film hinted at Marie’s kindness and played with the idea of France’s lifestyle and poise to be its ultimate downfall, but within the last half of the film Coppola regresses back to the original portrayal of Marie and ultimately falls short of a truly grand and ultimate meaning. However, Marie Antoinette like the palace of Versailles still maintains its extremely eloquent beauty, even if sometimes it feels a little empty.
Because no one has ever really seen it before and there is no evidence of there ever being a kind of creature in existence like the Loch Ness monster, which is supposedly a dinosaur-like swan/snake by it's description.
