Die Königin von Versailles

"The Queen of Versailles" is an extremely unusual documentary, and I can only assume the histrionic nature of the Siegel family is why the film was ever made. It consists of a camera crew following this family (and in particular Jackie and her husband David) during a period which appears to be about two years to three. I honestly cannot expect most families being willing to have their lives chronicled and disrupted like this--particularly because the second half of the film shows the family at their worst. Odd, that's for sure.

When the film begins, David Siegel is an incredibly wealthy man. He's made his fortune with his vast empire of time share properties and because he is so wealthy, he and his wife are in the process of building a new home they nickname 'Versailles'. It is projected to be the largest single family home in America! During most of this period of the film the camera follows Jackie--a woman who seems to love the attention and who lives a charmed life of luxury.

Part-way through the film, however, comes the market and housing crash of 2008. And with it, disposable incomes have diminished--making selling of time shares almost impossible. Additionally, bank financing, which had previously been easy to obtain by David, suddenly evaporated--leaving his heavily leveraged empire on the brink of collapse. During this period of the film, Jackie has come to accept that she WON'T be moving into the new palace--and they might lose their current home as well. She handles this by shopping.

It's rather hard to adequately rate this film. On one hand, the filmmakers have provided a wholly unique film showing these folks--warts and all. And, it is well constructed and compelling. But on the other hand, there really is nothing to like or admire about these folks. Despite their wealth, they seem spiritually impoverished, self-centered and sad...profoundly sad. In fact, after seeing the film, my entire family felt depressed and insisted we watch something uplifting or fun. Seeing this film is anything but fun and it's not even good for someone wanting to laugh at the Siegels. They aren't funny....just profoundly sad. A very sad marriage, spoiled kids, a love of money, looks and possessions...all quite depressing to witness.

Before I say anything, let me be clear: Ms. Siegel comes off as a nice person. I honestly do like her.

I just find what she is representative of disgusting: A generation that has ZERO regard for ANYTHING other than SELF GRATIFICATION - in EXCESS.

Within the first 5 minutes of The Queen Of Versailles, you are exposed to so much of the conspicuous consumption of this clan - it's like watching a modern-day Beverly Hillbillies.

Ms. Siegel has obviously not skimped on her 'upfront assets,' nor the many (nauseating) 'outfits' (some - featured in horrid 'paint-by-numbers'-like paintings) that look more like PIECES of togas, to focus does attention on her aforementioned assets.

Yet, also within these first few minutes, one is shown Mr & Mrs. in close-up, and, it's very apparent - from the yellowed, really bad looking - teeth, that what's most important to Ms. Siegel ISN'T oral hygiene.

It's sad (for me) to say 'I wasn't surprised' at that, as this society in general has devolved into people living (mostly) on credit - and most of them, living on credit they should've ever been given.

As for the tale of Mr. & Mrs. Siegel, Mrs. Siegel's story is a modern day 'rags-to-riches' tale, which I don't say kindly.

In the 'old' days, that type of tale would've been about someone who started by selling newspapers on a corner, or working in a mailroom, and their HARD WORK eventually led them to becoming a big muckety-muck.

In Mrs. Siegel's tale, we're told of how she started at IBM, then gave that up to move to NYC (to 'model') where she married a man (it's not a stretch to figure if he had big money prior to this marriage), with whom she moved to Florida to (sigh) 'model' and enter beauty pageants.

Through these 'jobs,' Mrs. Salamon (her name before becoming Mrs. Siegel) met her future husband and film co-star, Mr. Siegel.

The reason Mrs. Siegel gave up working at IBM is NOT because of anything more serious than a fellow worker saying he built a countdown clock program that counts down the time until he retires - at which point, he said, his life would begin.

It depressed Mrs. Siegel, and was the 'reason' that Mrs. Siegel decided work wasn't for her.

Seeing this - as a person who's parents put me through the best schools, and wanted the best for me - is sickening.

In Mrs. Siegel, we see a person who's a microcosm of the greater ills and shallowness of today's society (America in particular) which places 'hard work,' EDUCATION (!) at the BOTTOM of the list, with 'is he/she rich?' fame, and (oy!) celebrity at the top - as a very, very sad state of affairs.

So, while I do like Mrs. Siegel (I'm no fan of Mr. Siegel, who around the time this was being made had financial setbacks and just comes off as odious), I'm utterly repelled by what they stand for as a couple, and to this country as a whole.

I knew the back story to "Queen of Versailles" before I saw it, but I wasn't prepared for the extreme revulsion I felt for these characters, particularly David Segal. These folks are poster children for the worst extremes of our materialistic, narcissistic culture. Their values are money, ostentation, self-aggrandizement, acquisition and mindless hedonism. They are venomous leeches on society.

Yet I felt pity for them as well, particularly Jackie. She's something of an enigma. She boasts about getting an engineering degree so she wouldn't have to work as someone's assistant, yet she mostly devotes herself to keeping young-looking and voluptuous (those breasts of hers deserve some sort of special effects award) so she can snag and keep a rich hubby. As her world starts to fall apart around her, she begins to have some insights about what life is really about (not building the world's biggest house), yet still can't abandon her out-of-control shopping sprees or torturous visits to the beauty clinic.

The children, also, seem to be far more aware than their parents of the emptiness and ridiculousness of their lifestyle.

Fortunately, I saw very little of myself in this abhorrent couple, but I did see some similarities to friends and family. Everyone is susceptible to greed and an inflated sense of self. This film shows what happens when that proceeds unchecked and fueled by obscene wealth.

You have to laff when the "Queen"--often seemingly desperate to kiss her AH husband into some sort of affectionate submission (she always fails to receive anything other than an aggressively polite peck, which seems more like a 'kiss-off')-- the "Queen" plays the victim card, due to the financial upheaval in 2008. She's truly sickening, despite her "humble" roots. Were these pigs ever in real jeopardy? Well, their "conspicuous consumption, had to be "downsized" from poisonous excess to sheer madness, and meanwhile, the wonderful housekeeper has suffered and struggled to meet her own dreams--and you get the feeling she's cast her lot in with the wrong people. Fascinating and disgusting, see it.

There is a famous, though fictional, exchange in which F. Scott Fitzgerald says "The rich are different from you and I" and Hemingway replies, "Yes, they have more money." That quote suits this film's central character, Jackie, whose tendency towards excess is magnified to an insane level by seemingly limitless wealth.

The movie is about how Jackie, her tycoon husband David and their children and employees deal with a crushing recession that forces them to struggle to live within their means.

Even though they are never broke, they genuinely do struggle because Jackie has satisfied too many whims, filling her house with pets and children and furniture and other things that require servants and lavish spending to keep going.

The movie could easily have caricatured Jackie, whose giant fake breasts and obsessive shopping are qualities that could make her seem white trash, but she comes across as a reasonably intelligent, generally nice person who simply has no concept of "enough." If she were poor she would probably be in debt because she collected memorial plates or something, but because she's rich she has collected everything.

David is less likable, a cold, brusque businessman with a sense of entitlement. As the movie begins he shows overwhelming confidence; it's easy to see how the sort of person who can build up a big business is the sort of person who never has insecure thoughts like, "did my wife marry me for my money." David claims in the movie to have personally made GW Bush president, but even though he expresses doubt about whether that was a good idea, because of the wars that resulted, after this movie came out he threatened his employees with job loss if Obama beat Romney, so I'd say he is as awful as he seems in the movie.

One of the best qualities of this movie is how non-judgmental it is. It shows its characters being both thoughtless and thoughtful and it gives them a chance to represent themselves to the camera; it's a movie that has no interest in being a hatchet job. At the same time, it juxtaposes their problems with those of one of their nanny's, whose situation is far sadder; it also has no interest in being a whitewash.

The even-handedness of this film means you are free to see the characters as you like. Some reviewers here reacted very differently from me, seeing David as a hard working businessman stuck with a white trash gold digger, or seeing them both as odious monsters. If you hate the rich, that will probably be your reaction, but if you *are* the rich, you would probably see this as a reasonable portrayal. In fact, if you're rich enough you probably wouldn't see anything wrong with the way they live. (Rich people are different than you and I; they think living like millionaires is normal.)

Overall this is a very engrossing and admirable film that made me feel some sympathy for people who, in the natural order of things, I would consider leeches on the belly of America.