With 'Megalopolis,' the Flop Era Returns to Cinemas
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Coppola is no Fellini, nor a Michael Bay. I feel film artists lose their ability to make art when their brain is infected by money and power. This happened to Spielberg and Lucas. It's okay. It's how Hollywood unfolds. Coppola should have restricted his budget and hired someone who is brave enough to tell him when he's wrong.
Creativity blossoms under constraint.
With the notable exception of "Gone with the Wind", few Hollywood films over 3 hours made money.[1] This is less of a problem today, because there are alternatives to theatrical distribution. Long-form mini-series are a thing, and home screens are good enough for epic movies.
IMdb says of Megalopolis, "It's 138 minutes long, but feels like it exceeds the three hour mark." The worst of both worlds.
[1] https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/the-longest-hollywood-m...
I disagree. It's largely age based. Especially for filmmakers as novelty is part of the appeal of movies. As the artist ages, I think Yeats said it best: "What can I but enumerate old themes".
Coppola is 85. How many octogenarians are still creatively significant? Yes, they can still put out an album or a film or a book, but their best days are behind them.
Coppola paid for "Megalopolis" out of his own pocket. He wrote and directed the story and cast the actors that he wanted. What is art in its purist form but the self-expression on an individual?
Previously, Coppola mortgaged his home and went legendarily overtime and overbudget for "Apocalypse Now". That's regarded as a classic and was lauded in its time. "Megalopolis", not so much, though time could add a new perspective, as sometimes art becomes more favorably viewed upon reflection.
Can they even be in the eyes of the audience? I saw Megalopolis a few days ago and I think it's more creatively ambitious, weirder and interesting than a lot of the stuff he's made. But people even in principle won't grant this because of the narrative you describe.
People don't judge output by old artists on their own merits, they always project their age and biography on it regardless of the content. The reverse is also true, a lot of "young genius" work often isn't what it's made out to be, but the fact alone that some Wunderkind made it convinces the audience. David Foster Wallace I think is someone who heavily benefited from this. If a young artist made Megalopolis today as their first film I think it'd be framed very differently, but because of how much legacy Coppola and the movie have it's just not going to be treated the same way.