Megalopolis will no doubt be among the most polarising films of this year. Loosely inspired by the Ancient Roman Catilinarian conspiracy, it tells the story of an architect seeking to rebuild a metropolis, New Rome, according to a utopian plan while coming up against a corrupt mayor who wants to conserve the status quo.
More, pertinent, though, is the man behind the film. Francis Ford Coppola reportedly poured $120 million of his own money into this science-fiction epic, a passion project that was 40 years in the making. At the Cannes Film Festival this week, Megalopolis received the customary several-minute-long applause, but was also subject to significant booing. Critical reviews have been similarly divisive: the Guardian called it “a bloated, boring and bafflingly shallow film”, while IndieWire hailed it as a “transcendently sincere manifesto about the role of an artist at the end of an empire”.
Megalopolis can be fully judged by the masses when it has a wider release, yet the root of critics’ early disdain seems to be that it is too eccentric and too expensive. After all, it’s easier to call a mega-budget movie self-indulgent or ill-disciplined.
Yet if one should know anything about Coppola’s career, it is that he is a gambler. He took a chance on Marlon Brando when the actor’s stock was falling, and cast an unknown Al Pacino against the wishes of his Paramount bosses. The result was The Godfather. After a torturous, years-long production process, he produced no less a film than Apocalypse Now.
Megalopolis is another big roll of the dice. As with any gambler, the odds aren’t always in Coppola’s favour, and it’s entirely possible that he’ll endure further heavy losses. Forty years ago, One From the Heart managed to be both a commercial catastrophe and a critical punching bag, yet its artistic standing has risen since.
Coppola came of age professionally during the “New Hollywood” wave of the Seventies, alongside other visionary directors such as Martin Scorsese, Sam Peckinpah and Terrence Malick. Compared to previous filmmakers, they all had more creative control over productions, and therefore more licence to push the envelope in portraying sex and violence in contravention of the stuffy censorship of the Hays Code. Coppola reached his peak within this climate of freedom, producing arguably the greatest four-film run of anyone who’s ever done it: The Godfather I and II, The Conversation, and Apocalypse Now.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI’m all in favour of helping progress cinema as an art form – but I am glad that there is no call for my money or taxes to be used for the ‘project’. That would lead to runaway budgets and elongated production.
The reason France’s egghead cinema is so lousy is it is almost entirely subsidized by the government. Even the French give them a wide berth.
If by “sincerity” the writer means “reflective of our humanity” as any great film must be, then bring it on (to a screen near me).
Anyone else bored to death with VFX/SFX and shape-shifting androids? They had their moment, now they’re just a waste of cinematic time in the absence of a human story.
Agreed.
I, too, think that a film whose key descriptor is ‘sincerity’ is worth seeing even just for this reason alone.
Incidentally, while reading the article, I realised that I haven’t seen/heard this word for quite a while, which is really sad…
Thank you to the author for this interesting and enlightening article.
As a more general comment, I am very happy that Unherd publishes articles on cinema.
Indeed, the crisis in cinema is obvious. Nonetheless, there are still interesting and original films that appear from time to time.
Reading good articles about them is also a pleasure in itself.
Looking forward to it.
It does look to all intents and purposes that Coppola’s attempted to adapt “Atlas Shrugged”, for which he should be wholeheartedly applauded. However, despite admiring Aubrey Plaza in “Emily the Criminal”, I have little time for Mr Driver.
Maybe The Fountainhead?
Yes, this does sound more like The Fountainhead.
Film making is in a mature phase where the low hanging fruit has been picked long ago. So how should film makers respond? Dress up the old stories in new clothes? More sex and violence? Go woke? Distract viewers attention by fast cut editing, different soundscapes?
Suggestions welcome.
Artistic safetyism is an oxymoron. No guts, no glory.
Can we please stop using “fight back” as a noun. It’s a verb: “to fight Back”. The noun you’re looking for is “counter-attack”.
Speaking of sincerity, Sam Goldwyn is reputed to have said of Hollywood: “Once you can fake sincerity you’ve got it made.”