adamredwoods
16 hours ago
>> “That is a determinant of what makes a good investment,” Brody added. “It is not a determinant of what makes a good film.”
Coppola is no Fellini, nor a Michael Bay. I feel film artists lose their ability to make art when their brain is infected by money and power. This happened to Spielberg and Lucas. It's okay. It's how Hollywood unfolds. Coppola should have restricted his budget and hired someone who is brave enough to tell him when he's wrong.
Creativity blossoms under constraint.
Animats
15 hours ago
That happened to Spike Lee, with his "Malcolm X" movie. The big problem was length. The completion bond company pulled the plug at one point. Lee found enough rich black people to bail out the production, and eventually released the 202 minute version. It was a critical success, but just too long to make money in theaters.
With the notable exception of "Gone with the Wind", few Hollywood films over 3 hours made money.[1] This is less of a problem today, because there are alternatives to theatrical distribution. Long-form mini-series are a thing, and home screens are good enough for epic movies.
IMdb says of Megalopolis, "It's 138 minutes long, but feels like it exceeds the three hour mark." The worst of both worlds.
[1] https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/the-longest-hollywood-m...
mrbombastic
6 hours ago
Titanic another notable exception, but to be honest I don’t really believe this as a rule and think it has more to do with pacing then runtime. There are long films that don’t feel like they are dragging and short films that do.
woleium
5 hours ago
JFK was 3:20ish and made 200mm in its first run (international)
twirlip
15 hours ago
>> "... artists lose their ability to make art when their brain is infected by money and power."
I disagree. It's largely age based. Especially for filmmakers as novelty is part of the appeal of movies. As the artist ages, I think Yeats said it best: "What can I but enumerate old themes".
Coppola is 85. How many octogenarians are still creatively significant? Yes, they can still put out an album or a film or a book, but their best days are behind them.
Coppola paid for "Megalopolis" out of his own pocket. He wrote and directed the story and cast the actors that he wanted. What is art in its purist form but the self-expression on an individual?
Previously, Coppola mortgaged his home and went legendarily overtime and overbudget for "Apocalypse Now". That's regarded as a classic and was lauded in its time. "Megalopolis", not so much, though time could add a new perspective, as sometimes art becomes more favorably viewed upon reflection.
disparate_dan
14 hours ago
It’s not just age. Martin Scorsese is still making exceptional films. So is Clint Eastwood.
Barrin92
11 hours ago
>Coppola is 85. How many octogenarians are still creatively significant?
Can they even be in the eyes of the audience? I saw Megalopolis a few days ago and I think it's more creatively ambitious, weirder and interesting than a lot of the stuff he's made. But people even in principle won't grant this because of the narrative you describe.
People don't judge output by old artists on their own merits, they always project their age and biography on it regardless of the content. The reverse is also true, a lot of "young genius" work often isn't what it's made out to be, but the fact alone that some Wunderkind made it convinces the audience. David Foster Wallace I think is someone who heavily benefited from this. If a young artist made Megalopolis today as their first film I think it'd be framed very differently, but because of how much legacy Coppola and the movie have it's just not going to be treated the same way.
mrbombastic
6 hours ago
I think the more relevant constraint that you are touching on is ego, big directors with big budgets can and do make great films often, so I don’t think a limited budget is really the necessary factor. I do think losing the ability to self criticize is one of the things we see over and over again in big artists but some do seem to manage it despite massive success.
lancesells
14 hours ago
I don't think Spielberg ever lost it. He's made a lot of exceptional films since E.T. or Raiders of the Lost Ark or whenever you could say he had power and money. Saving Pricate Ryan, Schindler's List, Jurrassic Park, etc. Even clunkers like Ready Player One show how great a director he really is.
glimshe
3 minutes ago
I loved ready player one. It's not a classic, but it's a fun movie. I think a lot of the hatred comes from the people who have read the book (I haven't).