This review reminds me of Overnight, the doc about Troy Duffy and the making of The Boondock Saints. In both cases the documtary filmmaker starts out in the director's corner only to pushed away by ego and general jackassory.
It's wonderful that they didn't say screw it and walk away, instead thinking, "OK, we're going to watch you flame out, and show the world what you're really like." I believe Nathan said on one of his other posts, "Troy Duffy is so horrible that Harvey Weinstein comes off as the good guy. (paraphrase)" I vastly enjoyed Overnight.
I still do not want to spend any of my time watching Megalopolis itself, but this film sounds like a must-see. How fortunate are we that Mike Figgis was there to document this disaster?!
I still say MEGALOPOLIS is a lot better than Nabin, that asshole over at Indiewire David Ehrlich...and nearly everybody else makes it sound.
It is absolutely a mess, and it is absolutely a monument to Coppola's monumental ego, but it's also oddly compelling in its madness, with a number of fascinating images and ideas—and in Coppola's compulsion to expand American moviemaking by creating a big-budget spectacular using Alexandre Astruc's concept of *caméra-stylo* ("the camera as a pen", or writing a movie as you would write words on a page). Unfortunately, in his second attempt at deeply personal, improvisational filmmaking (as in his first, ONE FROM THE HEART), Coppola proves that either *camera-stylo* isn't any way to make a major motion picture...or if it is, that's he's not the man to do it.
Even so? I'd recommend watching it at least once to see if you find it oddly compelling like I and my best friend do...or just think it's garbage. It's still not out on streaming or available on disc, but I'm sure that's just a matter of time. For the record, we saw it at Alamo Drafthouse, and we have monthly passes, so it only cost us $1.99...plus dinner.
Generally speaking, I am quite willing to spend time watching an impressive mess (I loved Southland Tales for cryin' out loud), but I just do not want to spend any time or mindshare on Objectivism, because I feel that it does not deserve even that minimal amount of attention or support.
I would make an exception for a well-done takedown of that worthless worldview, such as the original Bioshock game. But not an impassioned tribute to it.
::I just do not want to spend any time or mindshare on Objectivism, because I feel that it does not deserve even that minimal amount of attention or support.::
IS it Objectivism?
Or is it just Coppola's ego, filtered through some weirdass notion of what Rome would look like plopped down in the 21st Century?
I mean, there WAS a time when I was a fan of Ayn Rand, but this plays less like Howard Roark or John Galt, and more like a guy who's been told he was a "genius" one too many times, and is now trying to deliver on his Magnum Opus. Objectivism considers itself a philosophy, or at least a method towards a global vision of some kind—in this case, to quote Captain Willard in APOCALYPSE NOW, "I don't see any method at all, Sir."
The irony is that I think the most successful thing about this movie is that it proves Coppola is NOT an Objectivist, or a Randian, or any form of Libertarian other than an emo teenager with a cameraphone muttering, "I'll show 'em all what a genius I am!"* He didn't even manage to build a coherent New York City as Imperial Rome metaphor, unlike the short-lived television series KINGS (the one where Ian McShane didn't use "cocksucker!" as an everyday descriptor).
It sounds from my comments above like I hate this movie, but I ended up liking it for all its considerable flaws. Partly, I enjoy it for showing that the gap between Francis Ford Coppola and Neil Breen is a LOT narrower than Coppola would like to admit....
____
* While I did wear black t-shirts as a teenager, was emotionally febrile, and ran around with a movie camera—because the very idea of a "professional quality" camera in a phone you carried on your person that was the size of a pack of cigarettes was STAR TREK levels of Science Fiction? I don't think I ever confused myself with being a "genius"....
Which shows how far back we're going that I'd know the rough dimensions of a pack of cigarettes!
This review reminds me of Overnight, the doc about Troy Duffy and the making of The Boondock Saints. In both cases the documtary filmmaker starts out in the director's corner only to pushed away by ego and general jackassory.
It's wonderful that they didn't say screw it and walk away, instead thinking, "OK, we're going to watch you flame out, and show the world what you're really like." I believe Nathan said on one of his other posts, "Troy Duffy is so horrible that Harvey Weinstein comes off as the good guy. (paraphrase)" I vastly enjoyed Overnight.
I have not seen Megalopolis, but I believe the parallels are to ancient Rome, not Greece.
I came to say the same thing!
He's subsequently fixed it.
I still do not want to spend any of my time watching Megalopolis itself, but this film sounds like a must-see. How fortunate are we that Mike Figgis was there to document this disaster?!
I still say MEGALOPOLIS is a lot better than Nabin, that asshole over at Indiewire David Ehrlich...and nearly everybody else makes it sound.
It is absolutely a mess, and it is absolutely a monument to Coppola's monumental ego, but it's also oddly compelling in its madness, with a number of fascinating images and ideas—and in Coppola's compulsion to expand American moviemaking by creating a big-budget spectacular using Alexandre Astruc's concept of *caméra-stylo* ("the camera as a pen", or writing a movie as you would write words on a page). Unfortunately, in his second attempt at deeply personal, improvisational filmmaking (as in his first, ONE FROM THE HEART), Coppola proves that either *camera-stylo* isn't any way to make a major motion picture...or if it is, that's he's not the man to do it.
Even so? I'd recommend watching it at least once to see if you find it oddly compelling like I and my best friend do...or just think it's garbage. It's still not out on streaming or available on disc, but I'm sure that's just a matter of time. For the record, we saw it at Alamo Drafthouse, and we have monthly passes, so it only cost us $1.99...plus dinner.
Generally speaking, I am quite willing to spend time watching an impressive mess (I loved Southland Tales for cryin' out loud), but I just do not want to spend any time or mindshare on Objectivism, because I feel that it does not deserve even that minimal amount of attention or support.
I would make an exception for a well-done takedown of that worthless worldview, such as the original Bioshock game. But not an impassioned tribute to it.
::I just do not want to spend any time or mindshare on Objectivism, because I feel that it does not deserve even that minimal amount of attention or support.::
IS it Objectivism?
Or is it just Coppola's ego, filtered through some weirdass notion of what Rome would look like plopped down in the 21st Century?
I mean, there WAS a time when I was a fan of Ayn Rand, but this plays less like Howard Roark or John Galt, and more like a guy who's been told he was a "genius" one too many times, and is now trying to deliver on his Magnum Opus. Objectivism considers itself a philosophy, or at least a method towards a global vision of some kind—in this case, to quote Captain Willard in APOCALYPSE NOW, "I don't see any method at all, Sir."
The irony is that I think the most successful thing about this movie is that it proves Coppola is NOT an Objectivist, or a Randian, or any form of Libertarian other than an emo teenager with a cameraphone muttering, "I'll show 'em all what a genius I am!"* He didn't even manage to build a coherent New York City as Imperial Rome metaphor, unlike the short-lived television series KINGS (the one where Ian McShane didn't use "cocksucker!" as an everyday descriptor).
It sounds from my comments above like I hate this movie, but I ended up liking it for all its considerable flaws. Partly, I enjoy it for showing that the gap between Francis Ford Coppola and Neil Breen is a LOT narrower than Coppola would like to admit....
____
* While I did wear black t-shirts as a teenager, was emotionally febrile, and ran around with a movie camera—because the very idea of a "professional quality" camera in a phone you carried on your person that was the size of a pack of cigarettes was STAR TREK levels of Science Fiction? I don't think I ever confused myself with being a "genius"....
Which shows how far back we're going that I'd know the rough dimensions of a pack of cigarettes!
CGI Dopey is conspicuous by his absence here.
" love documentaries about famously disastrous film productions."
At the risk of slowing down The Fractured Mirror's production even more, do you follow the podcast "What Went Wrong?" because you definitely should.