Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis

drboffa

drboffa

Well-known member
Who here has seen Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis?

(Judging by the unfortunate box office numbers I'm guessing not many of you...)

I saw it last week, going in almost totally blind (I don't think I'd even seen stills, let alone a trailer, before watching the film). Curious to see what other people's reactions have been. FWIW I always appreciate a big, ambitious swing, and I think it's hard to find something more ambitious than this in recent years. But I'll save more thoughts for later...
 
Swing and a big miss for me.

I mean hats off to him for blowing his children's inheritance on this very personal political art statement film. It felt like him trying to do a shaekspearean take on the current political direction in the US by drawing parallels of the fall of the Roman Empire. I mean great I'm sympathetic to the idea, but it was just came across so heavy handed and as straight melodrama. He made GREAT actors look like they were BAD actors.

In the cinema I was in there were a five other people on opening weekend and some of them were openly laughing at the film during some moments.
 
Do you think it's kind of an 'Emperor's New Clothes' type deal? He's so highly regarded that no one around him had the balls to talk him out of it or "bet against him".
 
He knew what he was doing. It's a film that has been on his mind for 40 years. He is at the point in his life that he has nothing to prove to anyone and can do what he wants and he wants to make this film, regardless of outcome. Heck, who doesn't want to do that? But most people have a career and a reputation to uphold to stay employed. He doesn't.

Think about how many times we've all held back in doing what we want to do or say because of social norms or our need for subsistence.
 
Paul F said:
He knew what he was doing. It's a film that has been on his mind for 40 years. He is at the point in his life that he has nothing to prove to anyone and can do what he wants and he wants to make this film, regardless of outcome. Heck, who doesn't want to do that? But most people have a career and a reputation to uphold to stay employed. He doesn't.

Think about how many times we've all held back in doing what we want to do or say because of social norms or our need for subsistence.
Click to expand...
Is it not perhaps a bit like Lucas making the prequel trilogy? Just so out of practice from actually directing.
 
I think there can be some truth to most of what people are saying, and that these perspectives aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

To me it seems less like people are afraid to tell him "no" or that he's out of practice (he's directed several films in the 2000s) and more like he's less interested in doing the same types of movies that made him famous in the 1970s and 80s. There are some directors who are comfortable working within a particular groove over and over. Scorsese, for one—although he's also open to taking risks (e.g., Bringing out the Dead) and is able to make masterpieces working within his more usual milieu (e.g., Killers of the Flower Moon).

Coppola, starting at least with something like Bram Stoker's Dracula (which I think is amazing) if not earlier, strikes me as someone who didn't just want to iterate on his recognized masterworks like The Conversation or The Godfather. He's had some big misses—and for many people Megalopolis is one such miss—but I get the sense that he's making the movies he really wants to make, in the way that he wants to make them. (The third Godfather film is a notable exception, perhaps—isn't it the case that he basically had to do this one for a paycheck?)

In any event, while I loathe facile comparisons of contemporary America and Ancient Rome—they're not the same thing—I still felt like Megalopolis gave me lots of interesting stuff to chew on, even if some of it wasn't FFC's intent.
 
I don't think age affects film making skills that much. Being old, I know first hand what does and does not whither away. I would think that the stories one wants to tell change. For sure, energy level both physically and mentally decline in a big way in the 60's and beyond. So that affects "Do I really want to do this?". Thus the shift in what is interesting to us as we age.

I don't think Mr. Coppola's film making skills declined. I don't think mine have, but then who am I to say, right? I mean, does a crazy person know they are crazy?
 
Paul F said:
I don't think age affects film making skills that much. Being old, I know first hand what does and does not whither away. I would think that the stories one wants to tell change. For sure, energy level both physically and mentally decline in a big way in the 60's and beyond. So that affects "Do I really want to do this?". Thus the shift in what is interesting to us as we age.

I don't think Mr. Coppola's film making skills declined. I don't think mine have, but then who am I to say, right? I mean, does a crazy person know they are crazy?
Click to expand...
I dunno. Coppola basically made his four best movies, all in a row, by the time he turned 40. I'd say Kubrick made his three best movies, all in a row, by the time he turned 43.

Obviously they made great stuff after that, too...

Maybe people chew on some big inspiration they have and then get more emotionally detached and prone to formal experimentation later. Like Tarantino.

Someone said something like, "Teenagers make the best music albums. And Paul Simon." Graceland is one of the greatest albums of all time, and possibly my favorite. But it was pretty clearly inspired by his divorce and ensuing depression.

I guess I'd say that the spark of inspiration is maybe the key to great art. But it sounds like Coppola was jazzed about this project for 40 years, so he was plenty inspired. Maybe it stewed too long?

He made some movies in the 2000s, but nothing for 13 years. That's a while to go without directing.

Of course, people can make masterpieces when they're older, too, and I wouldn't want to discourage anyone (least of all myself) from pushing the red button in seniority. There's a reddit about late-career is masterpieces:
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/gr2c0x/what_filmmakers_have_had_late_career_masterpieces
 
ahalpert said:
I dunno. Coppola basically made his four best movies, all in a row, by the time he turned 40. I'd say Kubrick made his three best movies, all in a row, by the time he turned 43.
Click to expand...
At least Spielberg made it to age 54 before he crapped out. Not a decent movie since 2001 or maybe 2002, but at least he had some real winners before that.
 
Doug Jensen said:
At least Spielberg made it to age 54 before he crapped out. Not a decent movie since 2001 or maybe 2002, but at least he had some real winners before that.
Click to expand...
I can't tell if you're serious. I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic because he's made a number of well-regarded movies in the 2000s. Spielberg is a workhorse. But I'd say that his most influential films are probably all from 1998 (Saving Private Ryan, age 52) and before. Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, and E.T. were a 4-out-of-5 film streak ending at age 36.

Did people like Lincoln? I couldn't understand what the fuss was about. I fell asleep in the theater.

A.I. is kind of awful. I tried rewatching recently but couldn't. I really enjoyed Minority Report and Catch Me if You Can. Haven't seen Terminal. War of the Worlds and Munich were good. Crystal Skull was garbage. Haven't seen Tintin, Warhorse, or anything he's made after Lincoln.
 
You're making my point. All of his best work came before Minority Report. Some of the best films ever made in the history of Hollywood, and then . . . nothing. He flamed out. Now when I hear there's a new Spielberg movie I couldn't care less because I know it will suck. All I have to do is watch the trailers to confirm, and then move on.
 
I think A.I. is an underappreciated masterpiece but I'd agree that otherwise I haven't been interested in anything he's made since the 90s.

Although once you've made films as good as Jaws or Jurassic Park I can see why as a director you might want to try different things. He's already shown he can make films that are widely regarded as some of the best ever, so there's nothing left for him to prove.

EDIT: Actually Minority Report is pretty enjoyable, as well.
 
I agree that A.I. is pretty good, and so is Minority Report. But that's where his streak ended. He crapped out at age 54. There isn't a single movie he made after those two that I could ever watch again.
 
Last edited:
There are very few directors that get to make five or more successful movies. None of us have done it. So I cut these old guys some slack.
FFC backed himself and spent his own money. Good for him.

Nobody talking about Joker 2 tanking with a larger budget and a whole studio with them? Who should be fired for that travesty?
 
Doug Bee said:
There are very few directors that get to make five or more successful movies. None of us have done it. So I cut these old guys some slack.
FFC backed himself and spent his own money. Good for him.

Nobody talking about Joker 2 tanking with a larger budget and a whole studio with them? Who should be fired for that travesty?
Click to expand...
Joker 2 has made $165M. Megalopolis has made $11M. As flops go, Megalopolis is truly in a class of its own.

Cut them some slack? Why? Nobody's angry at FFC for failing so spectacularly. And I'm sure we're all grateful for the fabulous films these people have given us. I'm just analyzing patterns and trying to understand the career arc of directors.

I suppose that Megalopolis and Joker 2 both flopped for the same reason: taking big creative risks that didn't resonate. I haven't seen either one, but that's my impression.
 
ahalpert said:
Joker 2 has made $165M. Megalopolis has made $11M. As flops go, Megalopolis is truly in a class of its own.

Cut them some slack? Why? Nobody's angry at FFC for failing so spectacularly. And I'm sure we're all grateful for the fabulous films these people have given us. I'm just analyzing patterns and trying to understand the career arc of directors.

I suppose that Megalopolis and Joker 2 both flopped for the same reason: taking big creative risks that didn't resonate. I haven't seen either one, but that's my impression.
Click to expand...
I would be more inclined to see Megalopolis than Joker 2.
 
I didn't see Joker. I would theoretically be more interested in Megalopolis than Joker 2 but it's pretty clear that it sucks.

Looks like Joker 2 is poised to lose $150M+ for the studio and Megalopolis probably lost Coppola $130M+. But it's nearly a total loss on the production/marketing budget for Megalopolis vs "only" 50% loss on Joker 2. How often does a major movie lose 100% of budget?

As for pissing away his kids' inheritance, it looks like Coppola sold part of his winery business for $500M to finance the film. So there's still plenty left to inherit. Or to finance his next feature...
 
ahalpert said:
Is it not perhaps a bit like Lucas making the prequel trilogy? Just so out of practice from actually directing.
Click to expand...
It's not clear to me that this is the case. Clearly, something changes. Mel Brooks made for me, the funniest movies of my youth. Later, he made movies that I thought where pretty bad. What changed? Did his sensibilities of what is funny change? I think so. Did mine? Probably.

For example; as a young boy, I thought Jerry Lewis movies were hilarious. As a teenager and adult, I couldn't stand to watch it. So I changed.
But also, for sure, the director's sensibilities change as well. So the thought of Mr. Lucas being out of practice doesn't feel right to me. It's more he has changed in how and what he makes because his brain has changed.
 
Paul F said:
It's not clear to me that this is the case. Clearly, something changes. Mel Brooks made for me, the funniest movies of my youth. Later, he made movies that I thought where pretty bad. What changed? Did his sensibilities of what is funny change? I think so. Did mine? Probably.

For example; as a young boy, I thought Jerry Lewis movies were hilarious. As a teenager and adult, I couldn't stand to watch it. So I changed.
But also, for sure, the director's sensibilities change as well. So the thought of Mr. Lucas being out of practice doesn't feel right to me. It's more he has changed in how and what he makes because his brain has changed.
Click to expand...
I'd start my response by saying I've always been a big believer in that the process dictates the outcome. And one place people often go wrong is they have success with their film or TV season and then they completely change their process for the sequel or the next season, usually because they have a bigger budget to work with. And they sometimes kill the magic they had captured. As with Ghostbusters -- there's very little action and effects in the first film. The second film is crap. It's essentially a remake, and it's chock full of effects. All the things they probably wished they could do on the first.

I think Nolan has been very consistent with his process, to strong effect. (But I think he has tried to top himself conceptually with films like Interstellar or Inception and those were a miss for me. Haven't seen Tenet.)

With Spielberg -- someone told me 15 years ago that they visited his set and he was constantly taking meetings and phone calls about other projects and ventures while he was directing the movie. He was no longer fully present on the movie he was directing.

As for Coppola, what he did on Megalopolis sounds similar to what he did on Apocalypse Now. The passion and commitment and self-financing.

But I do believe you can fall out of practice of staging scenes and writing dialogue and shaping an edit. We may have to agree to disagree there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top