Megalopolis is baffling and plainly nuts but worth it
thespectator.com
thespectator.com
I wonder if there's a sort of imposter syndrome thing going on, not letting people say it's bad.
"I didn't get it, but I'm unclear on the backstory of the roman empire. I better keep my mouth shut or they will know I'm uneducated!"
In comparison some movies are sort of a mess that resolves into something in the end.
Charlie Kaufman movies are like that. I liked synecdoche ny (didn't like anomalisa)
Or even the plastic bag in american beauty.
Ok - most recent movie I would recommend spending your money on: Didi
Let the rich enjoy even the decision making, as long as everyone knows the score when taking the job, why not? And does the camera or grip or other such professional, need to be plot-level motivated to do their job with skill, grace, pride, and.. with paycheque in hand?
No one says anyone need watch it, so I think it's all good.
I've never been involved in films, but from my own experience, the answer is a strong 'yes' - people want to have faith that the effort they're putting in will lead to something good. It's part of the process that sometimes projects fail, but generally people need to have hope, in order to feel that their work has meaning.
An interesting recent example is the debacle around the development of the game Concord, which is said to have been plagued by toxic positivity[0]. Reading up about this, I understand that people who worked on that came out with a very negative experience, exacerbated by the disastrous launch.
I worked in film visual effects for a decade and the answer is a strong 'no.'
In my case, we were in it for the enjoyment of the work and the craft. We didn't write the scripts, and the quality of the film wasn't our job. We were hired to make the best effects we could and if we delivered quality, we were happy. I'm sure a similar attitude works in other aspects of film (or any large collective enterprise, really).
If you know it's a rich person's pet project, and they will be creatively involved, if you are informed, you have choice.
And thus my prior post stands as valid.
I am fully aware people often care about their output, but there are many who don't, or just want work. Up-post was saying the rich shouldn't be allowed to have such projects, my response indicates conditions where it is reasonable, and there is no harm to actors/crew.
Fun fact: More people worked on the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise than there were pirates in the Caribbean.
(The 1949 movie version is amusing today. Roark's architecture is bad early brutalism, now a cliche. The art deco office interiors are great.)
Worst of all, I know that deep down i'm desparate to appear witty and cultured and knowi f i did go see it I'd make myself feel guilty If i didn't enjoy it and come out the theatre somehow thinking i'd witnessed a true masterpiece. I'd have to keep quiet and hide my joy at it being over as I muscle my way out the vacating crowds only to be occasionally stopped by someone needing to tell me how great it is to go see something that isn't just another Marvel superhero crap. "Yes, yes, they are mindless aren't they..." i mutter, not even sure what I believe anymore. My mind trying to recover for near suicidal leaves of pretentious crap.
Maybe Coppola made an obvious movie to say a thing is obvious?
Or maybe not, and neither one of you was being clever.
This is without commenting on how well it translated to screen (I saw it on IMAX for a NYFF partner screening with Q&A)
It is normal to project your external experiences and expectations into fiction, but this is something else.
Context from Coppola via IG:
> These are 4 books that strongly have influenced @megalopolisfilm and my view of the "society we live in." I offer three by David Graeber and one short story by Herman Hesse.
> To see where I’m coming from, please understand that our family, Homo Sapiens, has been around for 350,000 to 400,000 years. There is much evidence that the last 10,000 years have been under patriarchy (male domination) due to male animal herders from Steppes of Asia and the advent of "the horse." With that unfortunate innovation, men swooped down like something out of a #Kurosawa movie, and began woman-enslavement in particular, slavery, war, caste, plague, and many things we all should agree are terrible. Also, "man" began writing, usually out of the need to record who was entitled to bags of barley and matrimony of various types, to ensure that our heirs were actually our children. Before this period of so-called “civilization” were thousands of years of matriarchy. Unlike patriarchy, women did not necessarily give out orders, but rather things were settled in egalitarian councils led by women, and often with a wise woman giving perspective.
> A wonderful glimpse into that world is in Herman Hesse’s unfinished tetralogy THE GLASS BEAD GAME, which is followed by three short stories, of which I recommend “The Rainmaker”
> #DavidGraeber #HermannHesse
(He completely misunderstands Graeber and Wengrow but his enthusiasm for their work is underrated)
With comments from Coppola about Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade, but also Cao Xueqin's The Dream of the Red Chamber, William Bolitho's Twelve Against the Gods, Cole and Chinoy's project Directors on Directing, and Goethe's Elective Affinities
[or a matriarchal order (Bene Gesserit?) vs Sith knights/knaves]
I like the biographical detail that Herbert grew up near an anarchist town next door and learned from it.
EDIT: The more I read this the stupider it gets and the more angry it makes me. How do we know these societies were matriarchal if they didn’t write anything down and didn’t pass on any surviving oral tradition? Why did these matriarchal societies suddenly fail because of horses? How did males invent plagues? Is Coppola suggesting we return to a civilization without writing?!
Megalopolis is like a Neil Breen movie. A power fantasy with magical powers, with a cadre of power-hungry demagogues who must concede to the morality of the main character.
The Room has no good parts - it's all terrible unintended humor.
Another commenter said something which made me think of "The Room" as well:
> it seems like all the actors were given the stage notes to forget how to act, but in a way that only a skilled actor could
For the longest time, I thought that Tommy Wiseau was some sort of Andy Kaufman-esque comedic genius, because how else could one director get so many things wrong, unless it was on purpose?
Until now I really had no interest in seeing this movie. I mean, a character named "Wow Platinum"? Really? But you may have just convinced me to give it a shot.
Wow could be a alluding to a first name with connotations of wonder or surprise. For example, Aaron is a Hebrew name meaning "miraculous".
As opposed to a lot of other Hebrew names, it is not picked for some literal meaning but due to a biblical figure Aharon which was Moses's right hand man.
I am flattered
--
Does this community have any good insight on this "project and implementation"?
> Coppola adopted an experimental style that permitted improvisation during the shoot by letting actors write scenes and himself make spontaneous changes to the script. These methods proved divisive, leading to the resignation of the art department and visual effects team, among others, and raising comparisons to Coppola's history of challenging productions
> Wong has an unusual approach to film making, starting production without a script and generally relying on instinct and improvisation … cast are given a minimal plot outline and expected to develop their characters as they film
Edit: Yes:
> the director has shared a list of 19 movies that inspired Megalopolis … Wong Kar-wai's Chungking Express. [2]
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Kar-wai#Method_and_coll...
[2]: https://movieweb.com/megalopolis-director-reviews-his-own-mo...
Wong Kar-wai uses improvisation to explore characters and emotions to help write the story. Whole narratives can change based on the actor’s acting.
See: Tony Leung explaining how his character in WKW’s Happy Together changed drastically after a week of filming: https://youtu.be/KkNBh24cLvo&t=2m45s (it’s just 20 seconds)
# Francis Ford Coppola on Books That Influenced “Megalopolis”
https://www.newyorker.com/books/book-currents/francis-ford-c...
Generally, I came away with the distinct sense that I was seeing an alternate reality version of myself.
Point is, when Battlefield Earth came out, no one really discussed how it was a Scientologist film, certainly not mainstream media, and not the general public. Yet certain corners of the Internet did, and there was all sorts of conspiracy theory style concern thrown around.
Some said that it had subliminal messaging, designed to lure people into scientologist's hands. It didn't have 1st order, or 2nd order level subliminal messages, but deep, deep 5th or 6th order messages, utterly undetectable mental memes that would be unpacked by your unconscious, and lead you deeply into their fold! Post-watch, you'd be primed to clutch your arms around their ideals, and you and yours would be theirs.
Whatever this 5th or 6th level subliminal messaging was supposed to be, or even what this gibberish meant, I wanted no part of it. So when some of my friends went to watch it, I thought of several questions to ask them, prior and post, and cleverly discussed a few topics with them. I was hoping to get a pre-watch view on topics that might be changed, and then get a post-watch view after.
I sort of post-watch interviewed them all, casually asking questions, and detected no real significant deviation. Still, I was uncertain and didn't see it in theatres, where supposedly the surround sound, large screen, and "socially derived, shared audience mega-cues" had the most "devastating impact".
Anyhow. My point is, this movie's descriptions in this post makes me think of that. All this discussion of it being wonderful gibberish has me recoiling in Battlefield Earth horror, my normally inquisitive self is now huddled in fear under a bed of paranoia.
The worst part is, even if I don't see it... well you'll all be changed around me, and now the world is different, regardless. That's how they get you, you see. Even those unvarnished by such machinations, fall prey to a changed society, akin to standing on shifting sand, you follow where the soil takes you.
And yes, I haven't seen Battlefield Earth yet.
I did laugh out loud at a few lines, and while the theater held about a dozen other patrons, nobody else was into laughing. There were no other reactions. I should've walked out after the first "Wow Platinum" scene, because the final one was disgusting.
Glad hen announced hen's taste. Not sure I'll like megalopolis...
Talented hero faces tragedy -> adopted by outcasts-> is the promised savior -> learns their ways -> defeats the challenger -> wins heart of ladies -> becomes king.
Dune's wildness is only evident once Paul Atreides' arc ends in a tragedy of galactic proportions ushering an era of worm NSA personified.
No, they don't. Like the book series they deconstruct the hero's journey. The outcasts only accept him because of his mother. He is the promised savior because of deliberate societal manipulation, something he even repeatedly points out within the movie. He doesn't defeat the challenger; he is the challenger. He repeatedly rejects being a hero and assumes the role of villain, first as a terrorist and latter as a tyrant who leads an invasion that murders millions. And in the movie at least he loses Chani's heart at the end; a deliberate change from the books.
Dune's wildness is only evident once Paul Atreides' arc ends in a tragedy of galactic proportions
This doesn't happen in the books for several thousand years, long after Paul has died.
>What is my purpose.
I don't know, I just like bringing you back to life.
>Oh my god.
Yes.
I would take any unknown Coppola over known and dreary Dune any day and I'm not a hen (as far as I know)
[^1]: Though I guess it's (in-)appropriate to use it to denote an individual who is marginalized by being considered a single individual when instead hen harbors multiple independent personas inside.
[^2]: Al least the ones which will be abused by creating them asexual, without giving them a choice.Or the ones that deliberately re-configure themselves to be insulted when being alluded with a term that implies sexual organs and alleged hormonal moods.
It's not exactly a new word, it's borrowed from Finnish, which doesn't have grammatical gender. So it doesn't have the "he or she" problem at all.
1. It is often unnecessarily overly precise. The number of times I care about the sex/gender of the pronouned individual is much more rare than when I do.
2a. Using the masculine as the default leads to confusion at times or outright error. Is the equivalent of using zero as a default value for all integers when you don't know have the actual value.
2b. Using the plural they/them as the default for the ungender pronoun also leads to confusion and sometimes outright error. Although it follows a historical precedent of "you" becoming both singular and plural, I would point out that that's also why we have invented "y'all", to disambiguate, and it seems it would be clearer to have a singular ungendered pronoun.
3. The fad of the bespoke pronouns is basically just attention seeking toddlerism and socially destructive. Catering to that zeitgeist does nothing to reduce neuroticism that drives it.
We got rid of gendered nouns in English a long time ago. It is time for us to have at least an option for ungendered pronouns.
I was just reading it as if someone from Glasgow was drunkposting.[1]
Sir, this is a glorified Markov chain
It just that the cinematography and the soundtrack are so fantastic by themselves, that they make us forget how mediocre is the rest of the movie.
Instead of feeling exhilarated by scenes of sandworm ridding, I found myself rolling my eyes.
Similarly, I'm ok with modifying the source material to make a story work on screen, but I thought the changes had the opposite effect. They muddled the message and created more narrative issues than they solved.
Also, was #triggered by the voiceovers. In the words of Robert McKee in adaptation (2002) :
>God help you if you use voice over in your work my friends, God help you. It is sloppy flaccid writing. Any idiot can write voiceover narration to explain the thoughts of a character
"Immediately after making that statement, Royal realized that it was true."
Not a bad thing