Обсудить Megalopolis
Обсудить → Фильмы → Megalopolis → Общее
Mega No Editor
опубликовано northcoastSTAFFMOD, 5 июля 2024 в 11:29
Early reviews for this film have not been great. It is lumbering, it is all over the place, it is grandiose to the point of pretentiousness. No coherent organizing theme. Remarks of that nature.
This is not a unique situation for creatives at the end of their career-- especially ones who have achieved greatness and a higher order level of deference. In the world of cinema, one could say Stanley Kubrick demonstrated such unrestrained hubris with Eyes Wide Shut (1999), and-- though it was well-received --Martin Scorsese with Wolf of Wall Street (2013). Although there is evidence that Wolf of Wall Street is not aging well, and even at the time of its release, there was uneasiness about its arguably exploitative portrayal of various sexual escapades, and that this only further pointed to what happens when a respected artist is released without people around him who will act as creative guardrails. Kevin Costner with his "Horizon" films-- which, if fully-completed, will number four movies with a total runtime of 10 - 12 hours --might very well be heading down the same lumbering, shaky path.
In the world of literature, Stephen King-- once he cemented his fame in the 1980s --has long been accused of being permitted to toss out into the world whatever slop he wishes, riding on the fame of his name alone (I was told years ago that in one of his books, a main character starts out with brown eyes, and by the end, has eyes of blue. No editor).
I have enjoyed many of Mr. King's earlier work over the years, but I realize "literature" might be a bit generous when describing his work, so, to give another example of much more literary literature, Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus has often been vilified as so violent, grotesque, and irreverent that it couldn't possibly have been written by him. From my viewpoint, it was simply an example of an artist operating unrestrained. For better or for worse.
Will Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis share the same fate? As a cautionary tale of what happens when a revered artist-- who has already accomplished the magnum opus of the Godfather films --is left unrestrained and unleashed, with no one around him to temper or constructively-criticize potentially unwise creative decisions? Thus possibly leading to a finished work that is just not very good, and sloppy?
I don't know. I was on the fence about checking out Megalopolis, but, seeing as Coppola has finally found a distributor and is getting a late September 2024 theatrical release, I think I might try to see it.
And then we'll see, if Coppola has truly accomplished another masterwork, or if it turns out to be another sad example of an accomplished artist churning one movie too many . . . when he could've just stopped when he was ahead.
Ответ от rooprect
, 5 июля 2024 в 13:35
Interesting discussion, 'coast. I agree that many big name directors become incoherent when they're unrestrained. A rare few turn out their best work without studio meddling--but I think those are the exception.
I think in most cases, certainly with the directors who become financially successful like Coppola, their late-career magnum opus often turns out to be a pretentious dud that wins awards but falls short of connecting with audiences. Who knows, maybe it's the award that they're after, so all they have to do is churn out something that's confusing enough to justify the judges' praise.
But now let's talk about the exceptions and what made their unrestrained work great. Orson Welles, Chaplin and JP Melville come to mind. The common denominator is that all 3 of these individuals broke loose and built their own studios from the ground up. This meant that they took a very hands-on role with every production, in many cases pulling late hours doing all the editing themselves because they didn't trust anyone else to do it. I think that's where we saw true artistic genius because at the heart of it they were still starving artists, funding their own projects, driven by the passion of creating.
With the big moneyed institutions like Coppola, George Lucas, maybe even Kubrick (though I never saw Eyes Wide Shut) I think they're coasting on their money & free labor from the studios, maybe even feeling like they're above the audience. That's the worst kind of artist, when they become so successful that the audience means nothing to them.
I have issues with Coppola on a personal level so I have no interest in seeing anything he does, but even setting that aside I think his enormous financial success points to him being one of those 'above the audience' types who's going for the predictable golf-clap award rather than having anything really heartfelt to say. He aint no starving artist, that's for sure.
Ответ от northcoast
, 5 июля 2024 в 14:15
Okay . . . okay . . . (backing up the train) . . . I'm assuming that you still like The Godfather, though? But that you're not really a fan of Coppola's other stuff . . . which is fine. Now, if you didn't like The Godfather, that's okay, but I've never heard anyone outside of trolls trolling that they didn't like it. I mean, I'm sure such people exist, just like I'm sure neutrons exist, even though I've never seen one.
It's alright if you don't like The Godfather-- I saw Goodfellas (1990) not long ago for the first time and found-- to my surprise --that I didn't much care for it. Even though everyone else, apparently, does. (You can find my thoughts on that movie on that particular board here on TMDB).
I just need some clarification?
Ответ от bratface
, 5 июля 2024 в 16:38
Nope, not everybody.
Ответ от rooprect
, 5 июля 2024 в 16:43
Ah no problem, here's clarification: I have absolutely no criticism of Coppola's work, I just don't like Coppola the man. Specifically the production of Apocalypse Now crossed a lot of red lines with me, even though I think it's one of the best war films ever made.
That said, I haven't seen The Godfather but I'm sure it's a masterpiece. I think Coppola is one of the greatest filmmakers of the 70s. But just like watching Naked Gun, one of the funniest films ever made, it's kinda hard not to get distracted when OJ's scenes pop up 😅
Ответ от rooprect
, 5 июля 2024 в 16:45
(quietly count me as another one who wasn't all that impressed with Goodfellas 😬)
Ответ от bratface
, 5 июля 2024 в 17:02
Why haven't you seen it? It is in my humble opinion a perfect film!
Ответ от bratface
, 5 июля 2024 в 17:11
It's because I judge most crime/gangster movies by 'The Godfather'. But I prefer Scorsese's non-crime films:
The Age of Innocence
Kundun
Hugo
Ответ от rooprect
, 5 июля 2024 в 19:27
I've heard it's pretty amazing but my personal issue with Coppola gets in the way. There are quite a few filmmakers & actors on my naughty list, I just steer clear. It's not like the universe cares what's on rooprect's watchlist lol
Ответ от rooprect
, 5 июля 2024 в 19:44
I loved Hugo. Been meaning to watch Age of Innocence for years.
I have a love/hate relationship with Scorsese on an artistic level. He's one of the most knowledgeable filmmakers in history, like an encyclopedia of cinema. And his foundation for film preservation make him an all round swell guy. But I get frustrated because his own movies often miss the mark with me. I've been trying to make it all the way through The Last Temptation of Christ for the past year, but I keep shutting it off after an hour because I don't see what makes it so special. Same feeling toward Goodfellas although I did make it all the way through.
Ответ от bratface
, 5 июля 2024 в 20:06
So what did Coppola do to warrant your dislike? If you don't mind me asking.
Ответ от bratface
, 5 июля 2024 в 20:06
So what did Coppola do to warrant your dislike? If you don't mind me asking.
Ответ от rooprect
, 5 июля 2024 в 20:44
Animal cruelty/killing on set is my hot button. The buffalo slaughter at the end of Apocalypse Now was real, and Coppola got away with it by claiming it was a ritual that he happened to film. That's what everyone believes because it comes from Coppola's mouth. But if you dig deeper you'll find interviews with the Ifugao tribe who say that Coppola brought in "truckloads of animals" every day for them to slaughter while he filmed it. (“Ifugao extras and the making of Apocalypse Now” if you can find it)
It should be pretty obvious from how artistically the scene is filmed from multiple cameras; this was no accidental filming of a secret ritual with Coppola hiding in the bushes with a camera. It was absolutely scripted, carefully lit, staged, choreographed and shot with precision. The Ifugao say that Coppola told them exactly how to sing & chant. I'll take the Ifugao's word over Coppola. They have nothing to gain or lose by telling the truth.
PS There are also credible allegations that the corpses in the movie were real, and Coppola paid various grave robbers to bring them. That's unsubstantiated but believable, considering how insane the shoot was. According to Dennis Hopper, everyone was so high on "every drug known to man" that nobody knew what was going on. And since it was all filmed in the Philippines with no oversight or accountability, I think the power got to Coppola's head and he did whatever he wanted--almost a real life Kurtz behind the camera. Who knows, maybe that's what made the movie great. But I can't sit through it, or any other movie of his, just thinking about it.
Ответ от bratface
, 5 июля 2024 в 21:48
That's pretty grim. I have never seen Apocalypse Now (do NOT like war movies), so I can't speak to the atrocities. But the Vietnam War was pretty atrocious. May I ask how old you are?
Ответ от rooprect
, 5 июля 2024 в 22:39
lol to quote Captain Kirk, "You may ask...!"
I'll dodge giving a specific answer but let's just say late Gen X. Vietnam was well before my time. But I grew up watching a lot of Vietnam movies like Good Morning Vietnam, Born on the 4th of July, Platoon, etc. When I was a kid I thought war movies were cool, but nowadays I don't like them either.
Apocalypse Now was based on the short story "Heart of Darkness" about the 1800s Belgian conquest of the Congo, and Coppola cleverly set it in Vietnam. So it's not really a war movie except superficially. It's about a psycho (Kurtz) who becomes a tyrannical ruler of his domain.
In the movie, Kurtz argues that in order to win a war you must become cruel, amoral and outright savage. That's why I think it's interesting that Coppola himself may have become Kurtz on the set, doing whatever questionable things he felt were necessary. I hate to admit it but it worked. Apocalypse Now is a great film.
Ответ от bratface
, 5 июля 2024 в 23:46
So then you are in your mid-40s? Your parents were boomers, did your father go to Vietnam?