Megalopolis (2024)

Francis Ford Coppola has created his dream project, and I'm afraid for many people it will be a nightmare. Megalopolis is an ambitious film that is nearly incoherent in its first half, wait let me take out that modifier and say in a very clear way that it is incoherent in its first half. That's one of the reasons that I was hating this movie for the first hour. Unless you were up on your Marcus Aurelius and your history of the Roman Empire, you will be lost on a regular basis. But even if you've recently read extensively about those subjects, you will still be lost because Coppola does not have a narrative structure in that part of the film. It consists of characters being introduced with long passages of dialogue that sometimes mimic the words of a Roman senator or those of a Shakespearean character. For what reason we don't really know, and Coppola isn't going to tell us. All of this is happening while we are being Bedazzled by visuals that are original and startling in their conception, but are not clear in function. Meanwhile there appears to be I'm going on in the time space continuum that is not clear at all. So welcome to the film.

Having said this about the movie, I do want to adjust my opinion a little bit as we get to the second hour, where there appears to be a little bit more narrative structure. And I do mean just a little bit more. It was however enough for me latch onto the film and begin to find more redeeming elements to it than just the visuals. Coppola appears to be trying to say something about consumerism, ambition, corporate capitalism, and the traditional corruption of democratic societies. Exactly trying to say about all of these things though remains ambiguous. He has big things on his mind, but we have to Wade through his mind to figure out what it all is about, and it's a jungle in there.

As usual I'm going to forgo trying to recap the whole story for you, there are plenty of other sites online that will attempt to do that for you. I'm just going to give you my general impressions and a little bit of advice about whether or not to see the movie. I will tell you, that I hugely anticipated the film since it's Premier back in Cannes in May. The word at the time was not hopeful, with many critics suggesting that the film was a complete mess, although visually stunning. That seemed enough for me to feel that the movie might have something for me that closes out copula's career with something Worthy. I insisted on viewing this movie in an IMAX theater so I could get the visual impression that the director clearly wanted us to have. I think that was a good choice on my part. However as I watched the film, I was getting more and more depressed. Art needs to speak to you at some level, and without a narrative or characters that I cared about, this film was not reaching me. Even as an abstract piece of art it was problematic.

Once the characters began to function in a recognizable story, which involved conspiracy, subterfuge, and betrayal, I began to feel like there was something in the movie that I could understand. I was able to reinvest in the movie at that point, I guess is that there will be a lot of people who won't get to that point. Even if someone does manage to stick it out with the film, they may not be willing to forgive the incoherent mess at the first half of the movie consists of. Apologists of Art that is abstract, and not easily consumed, will certainly find ways to recommend this film to the community of Cinema fanatics that might be tempted to view the movie. More power to them. For General moviegoers though this film is going to be, not challenging but off-putting. It is deliberately obtuse, and the characters are dense, and unlikable. Frequently actors engage in cartoonish performances, certainly encouraged by director Coppola. Shia LaBeouf and Aubrey Plaza are two of the actors who seem to be working in a completely different tone and mode than everyone else in the picture. It might even be true that their performances are the true soul of this extravagant farce that has been labeled a fable. Maybe if everyone else had gone in the same direction this movie would have been a more audience friendly success. 

The passage of time May reflect well on the movie, but my readers, you were looking at this contemporaneously and so I must give you fair warning. This movie is not for everyone. In fact it's probably not for most people. As a film artifact it will be interesting to look at down the road. Has a film, playing in the movie theater, to a general audience, it's simply a mess.

I'm not exactly sure why Coppola sets this movie in an imagined Roman Empire seated in the United States and headquartered in a place like New York City. Combining the Roman Empire with us hegemony seems like a interesting mix of allegories, but it also seems completely pretentious. When Adam Driver starts delivering monologue from Hamlet at the unveiling of a pitiful Casino model from his rival the mayor of New York, I started drifting. To be or not to be it needs a better answer than what this film gives us.

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series -The Godfather Part 2

If you look elsewhere on the site you will find a list of my 10 favorite films. I cheated on one of the entries by listing both The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2 as a single unit. That's because I always think of them as one big movie that just got separated by 2 years. The stories integrate so incredibly well, and the casting of the younger versions of characters that we come to know in the first Godfather is so spot on, that it feels like it was planned from the very beginning.

I'm so happy that the Paramount scheduled Godfather Part 2 on its 50th anniversary, because this is a movie that should be celebrated regularly. I don't usually wait for a round number to rewatch the film, I think I saw it just a couple of years ago when I was doing my binge on "The Offer", the streaming series based on the creation of the original Godfather. I like to catch up with this movie as often as possible although it is 3 hours and 20 minutes, which means that I'm not sitting down for a casual watch. Fortunately this is an opportunity to see the film on the big screen and once again it is as impressive as I remember.

Actor John Cazale famously made only five movies, all of which were nominated for Best Picture, and three of them won the award. It's amazing to me that Cazale  himself was never nominated. The only reason I can think that his performance in this film was overlooked is because there were three other supporting performances that were also pretty spectacular. It would have seemed odd at the Academy Awards if four out of the five slots had been taken up by actors in this film. Regardless Cazale's performance as Fredo, is both heartbreaking and frustrating. If you've never seen the movie I certainly am not going to spoil it for you, but let's just say that Michael never lets an offense to the family go unpunished.

The parallel structure of the two stories in this film starts with the rise of Vito Corleone as he and his family build a foundation in the early part of the 20th century in New York City , it is phenomenal. Robert De Niro, who did win this supporting actor award for his role in this film, actually looks like Marlon Brando might have looked in his leanest and hungriest years. He starts off as a naive waif, uncertain of where he fits in among the immigrants that he lives with and works around. When he encounters a young Clemenza, played with great personality by the late Bruno Kirby,  Vito finds his way to his true destiny. Young Don Corleone was building his family up, but Michael Corleone in his desire to control his family completely, basically dismantles its core. In Godfather Part 3 we will get to see how it all plays out, but even without that pictures existence, we have a pretty clear idea of the wasteland that Corleone's life had become.

It's hard to imagine that Francis Ford Coppola was reluctant to do a sequel to the movie. He had so much success and a natural affinity for the material that it seemed inevitable that he would take on the task. The fact that he was able to use the studios desire for him to continue the story as a way of financing the film that he made between the two Godfathers, "The Conversation", is just an extra bonus. When you watch the scenes of young Vito Corleone stalking Fanucci across the rooftops of the Italian neighborhood that this supposed member of the black hand was in control of, it's like watching a tiger follow its prey. Inevitably there is violence, but Don Corleone does his best to keep the violence away from his family all of whom are all incredibly young at this point.

Michael's story is of course a huge contrast, he starts off with all kinds of Power, but can't keep the violence from intruding on the most personal parts of his life. The machine gun attack that takes place near the beginning of the film, highlights for his wife Kay, that the family is not really capable of going legitimate. Michael's inability to confront problems with his son, or understand his wife's pleas, makes him seem cold-hearted, when what he really is is a rock hard leader of a criminal organization. He lacks the warmth that his father had with his associates. There's a great scene where he seems to be calling his adopted brother Tom Hagan on the carpet for fielding a job offer from another Institution. He comes across as bitter, and unsympathetic. Contrast this to the scene in the first Godfather when Vito actually comforts Tom when Sonny is killed. The difference between Father and Son is subtly displayed in these two scenes. Vito always played the humble part very well. Michael on the other hand is arrogant and self-assured, and never once allows anybody to see him sweat. Hell even in Cuba Michael has a hard time relaxing a little with his brother or the business associates that he is working with.

Coppola gives us fantastic set pieces, featuring hundreds of extras in elaborate costumes with distinctive music that clearly sets the time and place of the scenes that are playing out. The street festival where young Vito is stalking Fanucci, the confirmation party in Lake Tahoe, and the New Year's Eve Revolution in Havana, are all spectacularly staged and probably a big part of why Coppola received the directors award that he was denied two years earlier. This was a big picture put together beautifully, with a huge degree of thought and care as to how the story was going to integrate the two lives.

I've told the story before of taking my girlfriend to see The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2 playing together back in the late 1970s. When the first film ended as we got up for an intermission to use the bathroom and maybe get something to drink, but the lights went down again and the second movie started immediately. We both sat down, skipped getting a drink, skipped going to the bathroom, and watch the second movie. We were hypnotized by the artistry of these two films. The fact that this woman sat with me for six and a half hours without a break only cemented my certainty that she was the woman I should spend my life with. So there's that story again, hope you enjoyed it.

TCM/Fathom Events: 45th Anniversary of The Godfather

Sometimes you just have to sit in awe of what great film makers are able to achieve in the hot spot of their careers. For the ten years between 1969 and 1979, Francis Ford Coppola was the undisputed king of American Cinema. Four of his films were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture, two of them won the award, and a third film that he wrote also was named Best Picture. This evening I celebrated in 45 years of basking in his masterpiece, "The Godfather". I surreptitiously read the book when I was fourteen years old. I know my parents would not have approved but it was something everybody was talking about so I took a paperback copy with me around the corner from our apartment building and sat on a curb, devouring it for several days. Sure I memorized the racy bits, I was 14, but I also could tell this was a tremendous story and it should make a heck of a film. I'm not sure how I managed to talk my Dad into taking me to see it, but I know we went that Spring, when the lines were long and saw it in the Alhambra Theater. I was maybe a little self conscious sitting next to my old man when the nude scene showed up, but the rest of the film was so powerful that such discomfort never detracted from the experience. That was 1972.

I'm sure I saw the film a couple more times in the following two years as I awaited the sequel, a concept that up to that point was largely the realm of genre films.  One of the first dates I had with my future bride involved dragging her to a double feature of the two Godfather films, one where it turned out they decided to skip an intermission between movies. So my girlfriend and I sat there for six and a half hours straight, and she still married me a few years later. The film was one of the first acquisitions I made when VHS tapes came along. Before the price points dropped in the mid-80s to create a sell through market, most films were only available for $70 or $80 bucks, and this was more than thirty years ago. I pulled that trigger as soon at I could. It was a substantial commitment for a young married couple, and I was trying to get by on part time teaching. That's how important as a piece of art and culture it was and is to me.

I've seen it several more times over the years, on the big screen. The last time was two years ago when it was accompanied by a live orchestra performing the score for three hours as the film played for nearly six thousand people in what was at the time the Nokia Theater in Los Angeles. Tonight's screening was nothing so fancy. It was a 4K projection at a Chain Complex on a Wednesday night. There were maybe twenty people there, but when it was all over several of us spoke to one another about what a wonderful experience it was. There was applause at the end of the movie, and the somber silence that always comes when that door gets closed on Kay's face.

I tried to watch things that I did not always focus on in prior screenings. There are two exceptional moments when the camera slowly takes in what is happening in front of us and lets the anticipation occur without fanfare. The reveal of exactly what it is that Jack Woltz has in his bed is horrifying enough. We watch as he turns in his sleep ever so slightly, then the satin sheet gets pulled down from his face fairly slowly. He feels the dampness but hesitates just a moment, the right amount of time before he throws down the bedclothes past his waist, and then, there is the quick reveal of Khartoum and the lingering horrified cry of fear and anguish from the movie producer, which extends in a echo as the scene shifts to Don Corleone with just the slightest of smiles on his face. The whole scene is iconic but watch how the pacing builds it so well. The second spot I distinctly remembered is in the restaurant before Solozzo and Captain McClusky make their exits from the story. We know what the plan is, we can see tension on Michael's broken face but we have to sit still as the waiter, brings a bottle of wine, shows it opens it with an old fashioned corkscrew that takes some time, and then pours a small amount into a glass that Solozo then extends to Michael. Waiting for the waiter to go through that whole ritual, without any dialogue, just the characters sitting there waiting themselves, it is something you don't see in movies anymore. 

There are a hundred other moments that deserve some attention, but that will have to wait for another time. Everyone reading this has almost certainly seen this film and if you haven't what the hell is going on? Make an effort to share this experience with a group of strangers in a dark theater. Be prepared to try and catch your breath as it is stolen from you by the brutal poetry of this story and film. There is a reason that many consider it the greatest film ever, it is visual and emotional perfection.

TCM FF: The Conversation

OK, I'm going to out myself as an old man right now. As Steven Spielberg is to my kids and most of the movie going generation after, Francis Ford Coppola was to my generation. He was the inspiration for my movie mania in the 1970s. He is responsible in whole or part for five Best Picture nominees including three winners in that category. Getting a chance to hear him speak was number one on my list of "must dos" for the Festival. We were not at the front of the line but we were there almost two hours early to insure that we did get in. Mr. Coppola did not disappoint.

There was an elaborate description of the opening scene that reoccurs as the movie plays out. The idea that more is revealed or that the comments being made are interpreted in a different way as we get some more context is an early version of a technique used by later films like "Memento"and "Crash ". That Walter Murch had to be given a title that did not exist before [Sound Designer] because he technically could not work as an editor is a testament to the clash between the old ways that studios worked and the new styles that film makers like Coppola wanted to employ. The innovative use of sound in this film was the start of a specialized field. I wonder how Ben Burtt feels about this and if he would agree.

Gene Hackman is my favorite actor, and this was a terrific part that required him to be very different than in other roles. He is introspective and something of a schlep in his plastic raincoat and black rimmed glasses. He still has the volatility of Popeye Doyle, but it is tempered by a meekness that is surprising. When he tosses away his valise in frustration, that's a moment you expect, but when he turns around to go back and get it, that is not the performance choice that is typical, but it is reflective of the character. His passive-aggressive manner with his girlfriend is another indicator of Harry Caul's tentative ability to connect with others. We know that he is in over his head when he gets bested by a professional rival in a joke, but even more so when he falls into a honeypot that is designed to get access to materials he has held back from the assistant to his contracted employer. Robert Duvall is barely in the movie, in fact I think he is uncredited, but it is nice to see the two of them occupying the same film. 

The timeliness of this kind of surveillance is odd. The movie is more than forty years old but it is still relevant with the privacy invasions that we see today in politics, social media and National Security issues. Harry's paranoia is just a precursor to the kinds of intrusions that all of us are subject to today.