In Praise of 'Megalopolis'
compactmag.com
compactmag.com
I thought Kate Wagner's review was a lot more insightful:
> Even though architecture, being drafted and built by many human hands, has never been a solitary art, writers and filmmakers like Rand and Coppola cling to the image of the sole male architect for a reason beyond mere misunderstanding of how architecture works. Architecture, to them, is public-facing, rooted in space, an art exacted upon the landscape. It can be forced – as Megalopolis is – into existence in spite of or to acculturate an ignorant or philistine public that knows no better. Being in the world, it must be reckoned with, thus eliminating the challenge of cultivating an audience that plagues other artistic endeavors. In other words more fitting to the theme of gender: architecture is the least consensual of all arts. Its power lies in being inescapable, unlike, say, seeing a really bad movie.
Excerpted from https://www.late-review.com/p/megaflopolis
From the Wikipedia plot summary:
> Crassus and Wow throw a decadent wedding reception. Ironically, the headliner is pop star Vesta Sweetwater, who appeals to New Rome's puritanical sensibilities by promising to remain chaste until marriage.[f] To neutralize Cesar, Pulcher leaks a paparazzi video of Cesar having sex with Vesta, prompting Cicero to condemn Cesar in a speech drawn from the real-life Catilinarian orations. Although Cicero arrests Cesar for statutory rape, Julia exonerates Cesar by discovering that Vesta faked her age and is actually in her twenties.
Megalopolis is fascinated with gender.
> Crassus kills Wow and injures Pulcher with a hidden bow and arrow disguised as his erection.
Obsessed with gender, even.
In other words, Coppola has directed plenty of bad to mediocre films after his incredible run from The Godfather through Apocalypse Now (1972 to 1979). Granted, that run was enough to forever ensconce him in Pantheon of great films directors. I think Megalopis is getting so much (undeserved press) because Coppola says its his last film and it was self financed. The trend line in his movies, however, has been negative for a long time. So, were it not for those two remarkable attributes, Megalopis would probably have come and gone with little notice, much like the rest of his since the 90s.
The first editor of “Midnight Cowboy” resigned because he felt the naturalistic footage looked terrible and couldn’t be used for a proper movie. The film won Oscars for both Best Picture and Direction.
People make fun of Keanu's accent, but everything else seems to be super positive.
One of the biggest things traditional media mourns is this perceived power.
Coppola changed that ending in the recut "Coda" version he did a few years ago. Don't really understand why he did that – Michael's lonely death always seemed like the ultimate take-away from all three films.
It happens with original music that doesn't conform to the norms of its day: https://www.honest-broker.com/p/why-did-the-beatles-get-so-m...
It happens with original paintings that don't conform to the norms of their day: https://medium.com/@parkwestgallery/park-west-gallery-review...
It happens with original films that don't conform to the norms of their day: https://screenrant.com/great-movies-panned-critics/
By all accounts, "Megalopolis" is an original work of art that doesn't conform to today's conventional norms. Only with the passage of time will we be able to recognize if it is genius or folly.
"The end of the auteur" is a headline as old as art criticism, and one of its most forgettable. Contrast that with the naysayers who decried Pollock or Kubrick – I don't remember their critics' names, do you?
Is this true? Apocalypse Now got relatively poor reviews when it originally came out, but I think most of his other movies are still largely seen in a similar light as when they came out.
I understand looking at a film 'in situ' by itself of course but it's more fun to see a coppola or a scorsese or even a james cameron.
It's a whole arc for him, and anyone who can't see Metropolis through that lens... is missing out on a cool and dramatic history of filmmaking.
That, occasionally, some original works of art have been underappreciated is hardly a reason to suspend judgement about all art that vaguely gestures at being slightly unusual.
Yes, it's been rejected now, but maybe someday people will reevaluate it. Maybe they'll still think it's crap; maybe not.
I loved the “Jean Cocteau meets Showgirls” overall vibe. The madcap acting and superficial dialogue recalls silent movies and even Guy Maddin’s work. The visuals are like the world’s most expensive B-movie — in a good way.
It seems people have a hard time seeing movies as an artificial composition. Actors and their lines are referential elements within a work, not a reflection of reality.
Everybody understands this in theatre and opera, but somehow cinema audiences seem to have regressed in this regard. (I’m assuming viewers of Cocteau’s “Orpheus” didn’t complain that it’s not actually possible for a man to walk into a mirror. Yet that’s the kind of criticism we hear about elements in “Megalopolis.” The whole architecture thing is a metaphor, not an actual proposition for redesigning cities.)
I’m glad Coppola got to make his film, and I look forward to rewatching it in decades to come.
Was it a great movie? Nah. It was however a visually stunning ride. I was at no point bored, at no point did it drag or seem to overstay its welcome.
The dialog can be pretentious at times, but Adam Driver did an amazing job making you believe he truly meant the things he was saying. He was genuinely fantastic in his role. One of the biggest dings against the movie however is some of the other lead actors seemed to not understand the meaning of the words coming out of their own mouths, which can make it feel at times like a High School Shakespearean production.
The amount of hate it's been receiving is silly. I think if you have a mildly open mind to strange movies, it's well worth your time. It's weeks later and I am still thinking about it. I can say that about very few films these days.
Coppola has always had a desire to re-invent cinema. He tried and failed with the digital production techniques of ‘One From the Heart’, though much of what he introduced presaged techniques that are common nowadays.
With Megopolis he seems to be trying to re-invent the form. I believe that is a folly. The form of Cinema is now pretty much fixed in stone. Reinventing it would likely be as successful as reinventing the chair. You might produce something that ‘works’. But people would be unlikely to accept it.
As black and white silent epics shot and edited on film with only practical effects, naturally. :-)
where is the clock catalina and juila spend time on? what was the house with catalina's wife supposed to represent? why is clodio even in the film? can we explore the tiny bow and arrow that is used to kill wow but only hit clodio's butt? why is clodio killed for that?
i understand that it is a competently developed film, but it is full of unexplored concepts and poorly formed sequences. i'd argue it is much more like a well produced album that is devoid of any meaningful songs.
* I saw the ability to start and stop time to represent creative vision. At the beginning of the movie, Catalina is in his office, then nervously goes out to the edge of the building and steps off then commands time to stop. I think this was him testing if he still had the ability to be creative because he didn't know if he could or not. Julia "sees" his creative ability during the building demolition, and demponstrates her understanding to Catalina, which is why he reveals his model to her, and with her eyes closed she can "see" how he actually envisions it. He tries to stop time in jail and finds he no longer can, after encouragement from Julia together they can start and stop time. I see this as either Julia becoming his muse, or that they are now creating collaboratively.
* I think this also explains the scenes of them on the clock, which is supposed to be a figurative location. I'm pretty sure we only ever see Julia and Catalina there. It's because only they can enter this metaphorical creative space together.
A few questions I have are: why do they need a lock of Catalinas wifes hair to heal his eye? Why as prosecuting Catalina did Mayer Ciscero hide Catalinas wifes corpse. Would be curious to hear others thoughts.
I thought the film was highly enjoyable. It was in a grandiose and operatic style, but I just kind of accepted that, plus there was a lot of hilarity.
Hard for me to call Megalopolis bad though.
It's operatic and impressionistic. People keep asking what it all means, I've never thought you had to know what a movie means to enjoy it.
Something like Southland Tales, meets Tree of Life, meets Neil Breen.
A Randian California Ideology hero is the exact opposite of what he spent his life arguing and fighting for.
And it reminded me of the Adam Curtis line: “we now all live in the mind of a dying hippie”. It seems like Coppola fits that bill perfectly.