Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis

Tools    





movies can be okay...
This looks a mess.
__________________
"A film has to be a dialogue, not a monologue — a dialogue to provoke in the viewer his own thoughts, his own feelings. And if a film is a dialogue, then it’s a good film; if it’s not a dialogue, it’s a bad film."
- Michael "Gloomy Old Fart" Haneke



Coppola's Megalopolis will be followed (likely in short succession) by perhaps one of the most comprehensive making-of films ever made, directed by Mike Figgis and tentatively titled Megadoc.

Figgis says he has enough material for either a 2-hour documentary or a 6-part series of 30-minute episodes.


Mike Figgis has been shooting a behind-the-scenes documentary for the past 18 months about the making of Francis Ford Coppola’s Megalopolis. It’s called Megadoc.

Figgis told me Monday that it’s been edited but there’s allowance for the fact that the film played in competition here at the Cannes Film Festival. He recorded an interview with the cinema titan the other day.

Figgis, who was introduced into the Coppola clan back in the mid 1990s after directing Nicolas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas, told me that the documentary is “very much a fly-on-the-wall” and also features conversations with various cast members — Adam Driver, Aubrey Plaza, Dustin Hoffman, Shia LaBeouf — and Coppola’s wife Eleanor Coppola, who shot the footage and directed her own study of her husband’s work for the acclaimed Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse, about the making of 1979s Apocalypse Now.

He will go back to Megadoc to include the sad fact that Eleanor died last month at age 87.

It’s a duty he will repeat a second time because Fred Roos, the casting director, producer, executive producer and almost like a consigliere to the Coppola family for more than half a century, died on Sunday, Figgis told me.

“Fred was 89 and was like a teenager. He had become a close friend,” and he was producing the two movies “I’m trying to raise money for here. I emailed him on Saturday night.

“I salute him. I met him obviously on the set of Megalopolis and I interviewed him for the documentary. He was a producer of Megalopolis and also, of course, the casting director,” Figgis explained.

He recalled how he and Roos would have “a regular Monday night conversation and tonight’s the night,” Figgis said as we conversed on the sidewalk late Monday outside Fred L ‘Ecailler’s restaurant, where Charles Finch was hosting A Rabbit’s Foot culture magazine dinner with Lanvin honoring Valeria Golino and Paul Schrader. Other guests included Slow Horses‘ Gary Oldman, who stars in Paolo Sorrentino’s Parthenope which premieres in Cannes tonight; filmmaker Abel Ferrera; Cate Blanchett; producer Gaby Tana; and director Karim Aïnouz, who also has a film in the festival, called Motel Destiny.

“I suddenly got a message saying the meeting was cancelled. That was very sad.”

We both paused a moment to remember Fred.

“And now with Fred just passed, I would want to go back and include Fred a little bit more in the documentary.

“Ellie also passed and I want to go back to that. So two major characters have passed.

“I owe it to honor them in the documentary,” he told me.

Making Megadoc has been “a year and a half crazy ride,” said Figgis.

I asked what the terms of engagement are with Coppola.

“I think Francis accepted the fact that by inviting me in, I’m not doing a behind-the-scenes puff piece, you know? It has to be honest, and finally we arrived at an agreement,” he stated.

I probed further and asked whether there had been interference of any kind; were changes or cuts demanded? Figgis, who also made Stormy Monday and The Browning Version, a heartbreaking adaptation of Terence Rattigan’s play starring Albert Finney and Greta Scacchi, emphatically denied that Coppola had censored the documentary.

“Look, I’m not making a gotcha documentary, and obviously I start from a point of respect. Come on, this is Francis Ford Coppola. My privilege was knowing him through Nicolas Cage 30 years ago.

“He never said, ‘You can’t be there or leave the room.’ And he had a microphone on him at all times.

“There are tense moments where he got rid of certain crew members and his relationship with the Marvel Universe mode of filmmaking. I mean, he got into bed with Marvel and at the end of the day he wants to get back to the things that gets him out of bed in the morning.

“Francis does not want to be at the mercy of an industrial kind of system.”

Figgis noted that Coppola “bankrolled everything because he wanted to have that independence. And I think he wanted me to have that independence too. Our discussions were more discussions about the balance of the film and I persuaded him that the balance was okay. It’s fly on the wall and all that entails,” he said.

Apparently, pretty early on in the documentary, Coppola is shown coming up against technology, “like this is how we shoot it in the Marvel Universe. He wanted physical props as well. At that point it became difficult for everybody because the world has changed.

“The way the Marvel Universe functions is like you pre-plan six months before, you storyboard. Francis is not that kind of a filmmaker,” Figgis explained.

George Lucas was also interviewed by Figgis.

“What fascinated me was that I’m talking to two giants who invented most of this technology themselves and you suddenly get this poetic irony of, ”Ok we invented this stuff but it works for us, we didn’t work for it.” That is the poetic message of my documentary,” he told me.

“I’m pretty much set with my structure and Francis is more or less happy with it and I will now go back and just adjust the dynamic a little bit,” he added.

Figgis said the film’s looking to launch at one of the big fall festivals. “And then I hope it will have a cinematic release and then it will become a platform film and there’s enough material to do a six-part series of 30-minute episodes.

“So there’s a two-hour cut and a series, there’s a lot of material.”



Very plausible this is one of those "the story of how it was made is better than the film itself" situations. Glad they documented the weirdness, one way or another.



Very plausible this is one of those "the story of how it was made is better than the film itself" situations. Glad they documented the weirdness, one way or another.
I think this might be right up there with Eleanor Coppola's documentary on the making of Apocalypse Now. Great film, and a great "making of" documentary, too.

Definitely hoping it will get a theatrical release as well! (Unless they go the "six episodes" route, naturally!)



I actually understood his point of the film. I just didn’t think it worked well. It comes off as a tad too whimsical for my tastes. A little too light hearted at times.
Stop taking this so personal.

Tucker is a fine movie. A perfectly alright, thematically simple, not terribly complicated film. But it's also a film that is completely easy to find underwhelming, even if one somehow understands the very basic ideas at its core.



I think this might be right up there with Eleanor Coppola's documentary on the making of Apocalypse Now. Great film, and a great "making of" documentary, too.
Yep, that's what I was thinking of, too. The gold standard for this kind of thing.



Some people watch The Godfather and see nothing more than a gangster movie; others are acutely aware of what a finely-tuned and well thought-out critique of modern-day capitalism it is; Coppola has often admitted as much, publicly.

What makes Tucker such a unique and profound film is also possibly lost on some folks who maybe don't see all of the narrative layers, motifs and thematic interests. The movie says a whole lot about the American industry and business realities in the 20th century that are even more pertinent today; and as much as the movie has to say, it also says so with some of the best production values of any 80s movie.

Lots of movies about capitalists and innovators are about that. The Aviator, The Social Network, The Founder, The Wolf of Wall Street, and those are just the ones I've seen. This is a much more common theme than you think. If you reinvent consumerism, then you have a shot at a biopic. But if you want a seriously good biopic about reinventing the rules of the game, check out The Aviator. DiCaprio perfectly captures the spirit of a genius rule-breaker with OCD, and of course, the OCD aspect holds something that most movies of its type don't have: special resonance to those with OCD or spectrum diagnoses and confirmation that they can make it in this world.



This is a much more common theme than you think.
Please stop being rude and condescending.

It's obvious you do NOT know what I think, since I never claimed any such thing.

And if that's what you THOUGHT I thought, then clearly you didn't understand what I was saying



Please stop being rude and condescending.

It's obvious you do NOT know what I think, since I never claimed any such thing.

And if that's what you THOUGHT I thought, then clearly you didn't understand what I was saying

Hey. There is literally nothing rude about it. I would've accepted the correction had you been less blunt. This is a movie forum. We treat each other's opinions with respect here. Your problem is that you pressured yourself to reply to every contradiction because unlike me, you can't seem to get out of bed without accepting that people won't love Tucker the way you do. I had every right to say what I thought because you made the themes of Tucker sound unique, like there was some special achievement there.


I'm gonna be blunt. People don't love Tucker the way you do. Stop dictating what people do and don't understand. You're the blunt one for deciding how smart we are in your own head, and I will not accept any contradiction or statement that you haven't been doing that.


I can get out of bed every morning knowing there are people who hate my number 1 movie of all-time: The Godfather, but your attitude up to now indicates that you can't. We will decide if we understand a movie or not, and you won't. I read all of your posts and I'm not impressed with your childish fanboyism and attitude.



you made the themes of Tucker sound unique, like there was some special achievement there.
There you go again... making stuff up because you don't have a valid argument. I've never said this movie was unique in the annals of movie history. I've never even suggested such a thing. What I was driving at (no pun intended) is how it is unique in the context of Coppola's filmography - a point that clearly has eluded you completely.



There you go again... making stuff up because you don't have a valid argument. I've never said this movie was unique in the annals of movie history. I've never even suggested such a thing. What I was driving at (no pun intended) is how it is unique in the context of Coppola's filmography - a point that clearly has eluded you completely.

What makes Tucker such a unique and profound film is also possibly lost on some folks who maybe don't see all of the narrative layers, motifs and thematic interests. The movie says a whole lot about the American industry and business realities in the 20th century that are even more pertinent today; and as much as the movie has to say, it also says so with some of the best production values of any 80s movie.

You literally do not say that it's unique to Coppola's catalog here. You rewrote what you said just now because you didn't take the time to think about what you were saying. And if you don't believe me, guess what? ... I USED TO ACT EXACTLY LIKE YOU TWELVE YEARS AGO, when I started out on forums in general, even before coming to Movieforums. And I grew up and admitted my mistakes. You didn't speak your opinion properly because you're trying to quickly and impatiently defend your case at any angle you can. So at the risk of sounding like a hypocrite, I DO know how you think. Other people said they didn't like the movie as much as you and made points, and you were impatient in your efforts to defend it. I've seen several other users act like you after I grew out of this attitude and I know the signs. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant.


Maybe you DID mean to say it was unique to Coppola, but you didn't. You flat out didn't. On top of that, I don't care if it IS unique to Coppola. I care about if it's unique to cinema, the grander scope.



It's true that nobody here is perfect, and I myself have plenty of attitude flaws concerning other subjects I need to work out. But I NEVER let them get involved in defending a film via subjectivity. I have a literal novel published. I have to accept constructive criticism, and I even encourage it so I can learn and become a better writer. So what kind of dumbass would I be as someone who's trying to get in the media if I can't accept a review of something that I didn't even create to begin with? I go against the grain all the time. Far from Home is my favorite Spidey movie of the MCU. I fell in love with Babylon twice and think it's Chazelle's best. I actually LIKE The Crawling Eye and Doctor Mordrid, both of which got onto MST3K. And you know what? I'm used to the negative views of these opinions.


You can say I don't know anything about you. But you're literally mirroring bad memories that I helped create for myself without realizing it back when I was a stubborn teen. And yes, I was also verbally abused by my first forum, but I still said and did some pretty stupid things anyway. Nobody here actually insulted you. But we have every right to call your attitude childish.



You literally do not say that it's unique to Coppola's catalog here.
There's no reason I should have to say that explicitly when it's very clear this thread is about Coppola's latest film, and, more generally, about his filmography.

If this was a thread about a general topic, then that would be different... but the topic here is Coppola, his latest film, and how it fits in with his filmography and his artistic statements in general.

In that context, then clearly Tucker is a movie that stands out in one particular sense, and that point still seems to elude you.



There's no reason I should have to say that explicitly when it's very clear this thread is about Coppola's latest film, and, more generally, about his filmography.

If this was a thread about a general topic, then that would be different... but the topic here is Coppola, his latest film, and how it fits in with his filmography and his artist statements in general.

That literally doesn't make any sense. People can compare Coppola's new or even past movies to other movies by other directors here on this thread, and it wouldn't be breaking any rules. How did you not think of that?


Nope. Don't answer that. You didn't think of it because all you're thinking about is angrily defending your case.


This is literally why Movieforums exists, to compare various movies to each other in discussion. You don't even believe the excuse you made, do you? Again, something I used to do all the time twelve years ago. Now you're just making any excuse that you can in the hopes that you can shame someone. You lost this argument a long time ago and now you're resorting to shaming.



The trick is not minding
Filmbuff, there are moments where you get unnecessarily too defensive, and rather than consider what’s been brought before you, you get a little condescending yourself.
Sometimes you even tend to overreact to certain posts.



This is literally why Movieforums exists, to compare various movies to each other in discussion.
Yes, but there is also a reason why there are dedicated threads. Otherwise, what is the point of having specific thread topics?

I believe that Tucker is easily the best film Coppola made in the 80s, by a wide margin.

If you feel otherwise, that's cool!



Filmbuff, there are moments where you get unnecessarily too defensive
There is literally nothing here to be defensive about. You like a Coppola film? That's cool. You don't like a Coppola film? That's cool, don't like it then!



Yes, but there is also a reason why there are dedicated threads. Otherwise, what is the point of having specific thread topics?

I believe that Tucker is easily the best film Coppola made in the 80s, by a wide margin.

If you feel otherwise, that's cool!

That still doesn't mean we're being forced not to compare Coppola's films to other directors. Comparing his films to other directors' films still keeps it within the confines of Coppola as long as he's still being discussed. In other words, other directors are encouraged to be mentioned here for the sake of maximizing the study, as opposed to talking about two different directors, which can still be said if it proves a point about Coppola.


If you wanted to say "Only discuss Coppola here" you should've posted a rule on the OP, not that anyone would follow it because that would be limiting the comparisons of other movies to Coppola. We're going to compare Coppola to other directors and that's that. Coppola's my favorite director but I wouldn't go as far as you do for anybody. You gave us no reasonable indication to assume we need to only keep it about Coppola, obviously because either A: You don't fully realize what these forums entail, or B: you're making up pseudo-rules in the hopes that one of them seems reasonable enough to shut the other side up, that way you relieve yourself of the embarrassment you brough upon yourself from your attitude.


You already dug your pit. These people have opinions about you now. If you don't want them expressing them in an effort to help you grow up, then maybe you should mature and stop telling us what we do and don't understand. Saying "It's cool" isn't even convincing at this point.


The bottom line is: mentioning a director's name in the title does not mean we can't compare the director to other directors for the sake of the discussion. If it helps the discussion, it'll be discussed. This happens all the time. I don't even need to list examples. It's simple logistic reasoning at the point, and if you don't believe me, look up other threads.



The bottom line is: mentioning a director's name in the title does not mean we can't compare the director to other directors for the sake of the discussion.
That's cool.

But, by your own logic, if I make a statement about a Coppola film without mentioning any other directors, or other larger trends that include other directors, then it should be fairly obvious I'm talking about something in the context of the thread topic.



That's cool.

But, by your own logic, if I make a statement about a Coppola film without mentioning any other directors, or other larger trends that include other directors, then it should be fairly obvious I'm talking about something in the context of the thread topic.
No it shouldn't. Everyone here compares films by various directors, even on specified threads. You gave us no indication you'd act this way. Once again, you didn't think about what the people here are going to say.

If you don't believe me, look for some director-specific threads by using the search bar and typing their last names and read through them. Maybe reading through these threads will show you how to treat people here.



Everyone here compares films by various directors, even on specified threads.
Yes, but in my case, I wasn't talking about other directors... because clearly I didn't mention any other directors in that post.

If others want to make comparisons, there's no reason not to make them.