In Praise of 'Megalopolis'

It seems like this review can find little to praise beyond the abstract idea of a benevolent visionary who struggles against a world full of philistines.

I thought Kate Wagner's review was a lot more insightful:

> Even though architecture, being drafted and built by many human hands, has never been a solitary art, writers and filmmakers like Rand and Coppola cling to the image of the sole male architect for a reason beyond mere misunderstanding of how architecture works. Architecture, to them, is public-facing, rooted in space, an art exacted upon the landscape. It can be forced – as Megalopolis is – into existence in spite of or to acculturate an ignorant or philistine public that knows no better. Being in the world, it must be reckoned with, thus eliminating the challenge of cultivating an audience that plagues other artistic endeavors. In other words more fitting to the theme of gender: architecture is the least consensual of all arts. Its power lies in being inescapable, unlike, say, seeing a really bad movie.

Excerpted from https://www.late-review.com/p/megaflopolis

I think most people are unaware that Coppola has also directed the following: Twixt (2011), Tetro (2009), Youth Without Youth (2007), The Rainmaker (1997), Bram Stokers' Dracula (1992), The Godfather Part III (1990), Tucker: The Man and His Dream (1988), Gardens of Stone (1987), The Cotton Club (1984), Rumble Fish (1983), The Outsiders (1983), and One from the Heart (1981).

In other words, Coppola has directed plenty of bad to mediocre films after his incredible run from The Godfather through Apocalypse Now (1972 to 1979). Granted, that run was enough to forever ensconce him in Pantheon of great films directors. I think Megalopis is getting so much (undeserved press) because Coppola says its his last film and it was self financed. The trend line in his movies, however, has been negative for a long time. So, were it not for those two remarkable attributes, Megalopis would probably have come and gone with little notice, much like the rest of his since the 90s.

Original works of art that don't conform to the conventional norms of their time are likely to be panned by critics and ignored by the public at first. Only with the passage of time are we able to reevaluate more objectively those works of art which are truly original. In the cacophony of the moment, it's hard to distinguish genius from folly.

It happens with original music that doesn't conform to the norms of its day: https://www.honest-broker.com/p/why-did-the-beatles-get-so-m...

It happens with original paintings that don't conform to the norms of their day: https://medium.com/@parkwestgallery/park-west-gallery-review...

It happens with original films that don't conform to the norms of their day: https://screenrant.com/great-movies-panned-critics/

By all accounts, "Megalopolis" is an original work of art that doesn't conform to today's conventional norms. Only with the passage of time will we be able to recognize if it is genius or folly.

I liked “Megalopolis” a lot, but admittedly I have a high tolerance for cult movies. (Well-engineered by-the-book storytelling feels increasingly boring. It’s a much greater pleasure to be constantly surprised and occasionally frustrated by an earnest attempt for cinematic poetry.)

I loved the “Jean Cocteau meets Showgirls” overall vibe. The madcap acting and superficial dialogue recalls silent movies and even Guy Maddin’s work. The visuals are like the world’s most expensive B-movie — in a good way.

It seems people have a hard time seeing movies as an artificial composition. Actors and their lines are referential elements within a work, not a reflection of reality.

Everybody understands this in theatre and opera, but somehow cinema audiences seem to have regressed in this regard. (I’m assuming viewers of Cocteau’s “Orpheus” didn’t complain that it’s not actually possible for a man to walk into a mirror. Yet that’s the kind of criticism we hear about elements in “Megalopolis.” The whole architecture thing is a metaphor, not an actual proposition for redesigning cities.)

I’m glad Coppola got to make his film, and I look forward to rewatching it in decades to come.

I saw it early because I was genuinely excited for something "new", not a sequel or remake etc, and it was truly new. I have never seen another film like it.

Was it a great movie? Nah. It was however a visually stunning ride. I was at no point bored, at no point did it drag or seem to overstay its welcome.

The dialog can be pretentious at times, but Adam Driver did an amazing job making you believe he truly meant the things he was saying. He was genuinely fantastic in his role. One of the biggest dings against the movie however is some of the other lead actors seemed to not understand the meaning of the words coming out of their own mouths, which can make it feel at times like a High School Shakespearean production.

The amount of hate it's been receiving is silly. I think if you have a mildly open mind to strange movies, it's well worth your time. It's weeks later and I am still thinking about it. I can say that about very few films these days.

I enjoyed the Pitch Meeting summary at least:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPL7OZF1iI4

Able Gance’s 7 hour epic Napoleon (1927) employed split screen projection, superimposition, location shooting, super-close up…. All unheard of at the time. But the advantage he had was that cinema was not yet ‘invented’. That would not happen till Hollywood streamlined production and (importantly) consumption. This was effectively Fords assembly-line ethos applied to art. In contrast, Gance believed cinema has the same potential for depth as literature.

Coppola has always had a desire to re-invent cinema. He tried and failed with the digital production techniques of ‘One From the Heart’, though much of what he introduced presaged techniques that are common nowadays.

With Megopolis he seems to be trying to re-invent the form. I believe that is a folly. The form of Cinema is now pretty much fixed in stone. Reinventing it would likely be as successful as reinventing the chair. You might produce something that ‘works’. But people would be unlikely to accept it.

I agree with many points in the review. Of course people expect the world from the person who directed Godfather and Apocalypse Now. Megalopolis is a mixed bag, but not a bad movie. Its good moments are actually pretty good. It's like we got the real Copolla for half of the movie.

I saw Megalopolis and loved it. Mind you I went in knowing that it was apparently a $100 million Neil Breen flick. That only made me want to see it more though, since I've sat through all of Neil Breen's movies in awe of how bad they were.

Hard for me to call Megalopolis bad though.

It's operatic and impressionistic. People keep asking what it all means, I've never thought you had to know what a movie means to enjoy it.

Something like Southland Tales, meets Tree of Life, meets Neil Breen.

I have a feeling that Megalopolis is going to end up as one the great cult classics.

The Graeber and Wengrow influence (he cited like six of their books as his primary inspiration multiple times and did an interview with Wengrow) is underrated. It’s the most interesting aspect of the work and no one mentions it (just Rand which misses the point)

too many messages