So another movie I didn’t intend to write about this year is Francis Ford Coppola’s passion project “Megalopolis”. There was so little interest in this movie that even a 1 in 3 walkout rate barely got the attention of the media and many critics skipped reviewing the film because they really couldn’t figure out what to say about it. I expect most people will react to this review with: “I didn’t even know that film existed”. But the thing is after I did finally watch the movie, I turned out to have a lot to say about it. So here we are. I’m not going to give you a synopsis for this one because frankly the plot isn’t important. Yes, it’s that kind of film.
This is a movie that Coppola has been trying to get made since the 80’s. I suspect that had he made the movie back then the end result would have been vastly different. Instead this is a movie from an 85 year old likely at the end of his career. The movie ended up far more introspective than anything else. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Megalopolis is written and directed by Coppola, with Mihai Mălaimare Jr. as cinematographer and Osvaldo Golijov providing the score. The impressive cast includes: Adam Driver, Giancarlo Esposito, Nathalie Emmanuel. Aubrey Plaza, Shia LaBeouf, Jon Voight, Laurence Fishburne and Dustin Hoffman. Right let’s get into it!
Making A Movie Inside Out
Megalopolis poses the question of if it is possible to make a film inside out. That is, where the philosophical subtext is on the surface and the plot functioning as a metaphor bubbles subtly underneath it almost unnoticed. The film has more than two layers though, so there is subtext to the subtext. What this film is really about is Francis Ford Coppola and his examination of himself as an artist and the place of art in the world. That lies on top of what appears a somewhat grating examination of society, corruption and hope for the future. But that lies on top of the actual plot which is almost inconsequential to anything. So to examine this film we need to look at each layer separately.
Lets start with the actual plot and get that out of the way. For most of the movie there effectively is none. We spend more time watching characters philosophize and as a result don’t really get to know much about the minor players. We spend more time focusing on Cesar Catilina and Julia Cicero with the rest of the cast just sort of there. The actual plot, based off the “Catilinarian Conspiracy” doesn’t really kick into gear until the last 40 minutes of the film. That is an hour and a half in and it is rushed through. The entire time that plot is in full gear Cesar, Julia and Mayor Cicero are entirely removed from the situation. The plot resolves itself without even requires any of our main characters to be involved. It is treated as unimportant and perhaps that is itself a metaphor.
The Metaphor To The Metaphor
The second layer is the grating sociopolitical one. Which is presented in a pretty obvious and perhaps even childish manner. The Utopian city being presented is built on a magical new substance that was discovered by chance and can basically perform miracles. One tip if you watch the movie, every time someone says “Megalon” replace it in your head with “Rock and Roll”. You’ll be overcome with a desire to listen to Starship in no time. We are shown slums, violence on the streets and in case the audience doesn’t get it a giant slumped over statue of justice, who has apparently given up. This layer tells us we can have a great future made out of magical bullshit. To be a bit kinder to it, the movie doesn’t offer solutions and merely says a conversation is needed. But it’s still childish as it assumes that conversation is not happening.
But this is where the final layer improves things. See, I am not convinced the story is meant to be a preachy sociopolitical one. Instead, I am convinced the film is actually about creativity, specifically the role of the film maker. This is more obvious, before that main plot kicks. It is just that what he is saying, relates to the layer above, but not the actual plot. However, the constant philosophical musings of Cesar, the architect, drops clear hints that he is functioning directly as a mouth piece for Coppola. When he comments about man creating gods but not being able to harness the power of gods, it seems to reflect the frustration of a film maker not able to directly harness the power of his movies.
Creating Conversation
This also re-frames the repeated lines that the goal isn’t to provide solutions but to create a conversation. Coming from a political ideologue it seems a childish naive view, but coming from an artist it makes perfect sense. It is not an artists job to provide solutions to politicians and scientists. This is especially true when tackling difficult social issues and in science fiction. I’ve said many times the difference between old science fiction and what passes for it these days is that the old films and shows were designed to make you think, the new ones try and tell you what to think. That is a horrendous mistake that causes more harm than good. So it is vital for modern film makers to understand this. Coppola I think does.
So, ultimately there is a reason why the political preaching of the film feels superficial, because it too is a metaphor and not important in itself. This is an incredible ambitious piece of film making and it’s worth noting that many great directors end up effectively making a movie about themselves and the art of making films. Invariably it ends up their undoing, though not due to being actually bad. Consider Michael Powell’s “Peeping Tom” or Orson Welles “The Other Side of the Wind”. This movie is almost impossible to like, but still impressive and fascinating in equal measure. That makes it hard to rate, but since this will only appeal harden film scholars (More hardened than myself), I think a 5/10 is fair.
You must be logged in to post a comment.