[Film] Francis Ford Coppola’s Megalopolis

[Lenny Rider]

The film event of the year?

Hats off to the old boy still doing it at 85

 

[Superphil]

I'm all over that, once it comes out on Netflix/Prime

 

[Dr. No]

The film event of the year?

No.

 

[Withdean South Stand]

Is this the film that intentionally cast actors who have been "cancelled"?

I imagine it's going to be a mess.

 

[Lenny Rider]

No.

So what is?

 

[US Seagull]

Everything I've heard about Megalopolis makes it sound like a hugely self-indulgent bunch of artsy nonsense.

 

[StonehamPark]

Really looking forward to this in a morbid sense.

Expecting an epic self-funded and self-indulgent mess that may be talked about in a ‘how tf was that made?!’ sense for years to come.

…or it’s going to be awesome.

 

[Zeberdi]

Everything I've heard about Megalopolis makes it sound like a hugely self-indulgent bunch of artsy nonsense.

Yep.

Perhaps a bit of a rip off in production design from Fritz Lang’s Metropolis which was genuinely artistic and embraced everything from Expressionism, Art Deco to Bauhaus.

I like FFC’s films but let’s be honest, he’s a pastiche, Hollywood film director compared with Lang when it comes to raw artist expression but perhaps Adam Driver (César) as Coppala’s alter ego might lay to rest the idea of Coppala as a misunderstood artistic genius and the film will be well received.

Megalopolis has a great cast and the production looks ‘big picture’ excellent despite the annoying design similarities with Metropolis but I feel it won’t develop anything like the iconic stature of the 1927 sci fi, or even the Godfather or Apocalypse Now.

The dystopian ‘message ’ as a film topic is also not new and as old at least as Planet of the Apes in 1968 (interestingly/coincidently, the lead ‘character’ also called Caesar), Radford’s dramatisation of Orwell’s 1984 and Kubrick’s dramatisation of Burgess’s 1962 novel, Clockwork Orange.

 

[Anger]

So what is?

 

[studio150]

Looks good, and one that should be seen at the cinema, I will be going.

 

[keaton]

Everything I've heard about Megalopolis makes it sound like a hugely self-indulgent bunch of artsy nonsense.

I saw the trailer at the cinema the other day and most of the near me giggled throughout.

 

[Doc Lynam]

Slightly off topic this was brilliant. Watched it with my son yesterday.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yep.

Perhaps a bit of a rip off in production design from Fritz Lang’s Metropolis which was genuinely artistic and embraced everything from Expressionism, Art Deco to Bauhaus.

I like FFC’s films but let’s be honest, he’s a pastiche, Hollywood film director compared with Lang when it comes to raw artist expression but perhaps Adam Driver (César) as Coppala’s alter ego might lay to rest the idea of Coppala as a misunderstood artistic genius and the film will be well received.

Megalopolis has a great cast and the production looks ‘big picture’ excellent despite the annoying design similarities with Metropolis but I feel it won’t develop anything like the iconic stature of the 1927 sci fi, or even the Godfather or Apocalypse Now.

The dystopian ‘message ’ as a film topic is also not new and as old at least as Planet of the Apes in 1968 (interestingly/coincidently, the lead ‘character’ also called Caesar), Radford’s dramatisation of Orwell’s 1984 and Kubrick’s dramatisation of Burgess’s 1962 novel, Clockwork Orange.

Not sure I understand your final point about dystopian meaaage in film not being new? Planet of the Apes was a decade after On The Beach, 8 years after The Time Machine, and 6 years after Welles’s adaption of The Trial. Micheal Anderson’s adaption of 1984 was released in 1956.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying say in referencing these films in particular?

Huge fan of dystopian fiction btw. When I was handed Yevgeny Zamyatin’s ‘We’ think it started my love of the genre right through to contemporary novels like Neuromancer, Snow Crash, Station Eleven etc. (although showing my age calling Neuromancer contemporary, celebrating its 40th anniversary since its release!).

 

[US Seagull]

This was the video I watched about it a while back

 

[Zeberdi]

Not sure I understand your final point about dystopian meaaage in film not being new? Planet of the Apes was a decade after On The Beach, 8 years after The Time Machine, and 6 years after Welles’s adaption of The Trial. Micheal Anderson’s adaption of 1984 was released in 1956.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying say in referencing these films in particular?

Huge fan of dystopian fiction btw. When I was handed Yevgeny Zamyatin’s ‘We’ think it started my love of the genre right through to contemporary novels like Neuromancer, Snow Crash, Station Eleven etc. (although showing my age calling Neuromancer contemporary, celebrating its 40th anniversary since its release!).

The point I made about dystopian films ’not being new’ is that as a film genre, dystopian films aren’t new. I literally meant the dystopian message in Megalopolis is not novel or groundbreaking in any way. A point I think fairly made in the context of Coppola presenting this work as an artistic endeavour.

I listed some cult, dystopian films, in a deliberately unpretentious way - films that the average filmgoer/reader would have heard of rather than reference my point with a list of more obscure films that only aspiring film buffs would have heard of (or even be interested in).

I am aware of the tendency for many folk that get involved in discussions about art to come across as pretentious and self-indulgent to those who prefer a more pedestrian engagement with film/literary works - being an ex-art college student and lover of classic literature and arthouse films for many years in my youth, I used to get very bored with ‘critics’ who often sounded as pretentious and self-indulgent as some of the works they were critiquing - still do.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The point I made about dystopian films ’not being new’ is that as a film genre, dystopian films aren’t new. I literally meant the dystopian message in Megalopolis is not novel or groundbreaking in any way. A point I think fairly made in the context of Coppola presenting this work as an artistic endeavour.

I listed some cult, dystopian films, in a deliberately unpretentious way - films that the average filmgoer/reader would have heard of rather than reference my point with a list of more obscure films that only aspiring film buffs would have heard of (or even be interested in).

I am aware of the tendency for many folk that get involved in discussions about art to come across as pretentious and self-indulgent to those who prefer a more pedestrian engagement with film/literary works - being an ex-art college student and lover of classic literature and arthouse films for many years in my youth, I used to get very bored with ‘critics’ who often sounded as pretentious and self-indulgent as some of the works they were critiquing - still do.

But you are critiquing a film you’ve not yet seen, I’ve just asked a question given Coppola has been completely unambiguous in his reference point to Lang by calling it Megalopolis, and leaving no one in much doubt he’s revisiting an endeavour some 90 odd years later. I was just asking why you thought Coppola was presenting this as being new, or that anyone would think it is as a genre or whatever else?

You offered your critique, I’m not sure why you’re being sensitive about being asked a question about it?

 

[Zeberdi]

But you are critiquing a film you’ve not yet seen, I’ve just asked a question given Coppola has been completely unambiguous in his reference point to Lang by calling it Megalopolis, and leaving no one in much doubt he’s revisiting an endeavour some 90 odd years later. I was just asking why you thought Coppola was presenting this as being new, or that anyone would think it is as a genre or whatever else?

You offered your critique, I’m not sure why you’re being sensitive about being asked a question about it?

Odd response. I answered both your questions about my post, you just didn’t like my answer..and everyone one on this thread are critiquing/commenting on a film we haven’t seen, since it’s not been released yet. If you read my first post again, you would see that I was largely critiquing Coppola rather than the film itself.

I’m not being “sensitive“ btw (another odd comment) I just can’t be bothered to get into a protracted exchange with other posters over one lighthearted post I wrote on a thread about a film tbh - especially when my post was specifically in response to one particular poster’s view that the film come across as ‘ artsy fartsy’. Nor do I have time to get into a protracted exchange as I need to get ready to leave for work - so apologies If I sound blunt, just trying to ward off an argument.

 

[Fignon's Ponytail]

Looks shit

 

[Pevenseagull]

Nearly 100X the budget of, 'Hundreds Of Beavers'.

Will it be half as good?

 

[Simster]

Looks absolutely gash, this.