MEGALOPOLIS: What's It All About, Francis?

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly."
--Leo Tolstoy

When someone spends more than $140 million of their own cash to create a film they had been noodling for more than a quarter of a century, it stirs one's curiosity. When that person is Francis Ford Coppola, who created the Godfather films--according to many critics two of the greatest movies in film history--one can't be blamed for having expectations raised.

So what happened?

Many reviewers--professional film critics and the public-at-large--describe the final result as a trainwreck. Here's one from imdb.com: "Megalopolis is a mess brimming with ambition but utterly devoid of direction and cohesion. It isn't just agonizing, it is an excruciating test of patience. At best, it's mind-numbing, at worst, a total trainwreck I painfully endured."

The project has certainly generated buzz, though not for all the reasons a director would like. Even so,  there are some who give the film a 10/10. So, when NPR was dissecting it last week I made a mental decision to see it and decide for myself.

Whereas on one level the film appears tone "a confusing mess" as others have declared, there is clarity about certain recurring themes including the echoes of Rome, bread and circuses and the overarching decadence, a central theme in the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, underscored in several of his books including The Birth of Tragedy, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, The Genealogy of Morals, and The Twilight of the Idols. For Nietzsche, decadence was not merely about cultural decline but also about the decline of life’s vitality and strength, which he sees as manifesting in various aspects of society, morality, and even the individual spirit. Is this what Coppola was getting at to some degree?

From the very start of the film we see manifestations of a decadent culture. Underneath, however, we also see serious issues being discussed. "When does an empire die? Does it collapse in one terrible moment? No, no... But there comes a time when its people no longer believe in it." (Fundi Romaine)

and

"Mr. Catalina, you said that as we jump into the future, we should do so unafraid. But what if when we do jump into the future there is something to be afraid of?" (journalist)

* * * 

One reviewer asks: "But still, since decadence is one of our great problems, is it something admirable to see it dramatized and critiqued so explicitly, however cumbersome the writing and bizarre the plot mechanics are?" 

And finally, the inability of all this to cohere fully — the fact that Catilina’s vision of urban utopia looks a bit like what you’d get from plugging prompts into an artificial intelligence image generator, the fact that Coppola intuited his way to a story that’s genuinely timely and shot through with complex political resonances but then just couldn’t quite make it work as cinematic art — well, that itself is a signifier of our times.

Besides, in all honesty, how many movies do we really need highlighting our pervasive decadence? It's almost a Hollywood passion. 

* * *

Despite the gauntlet of negative reviews, there are some standouts bucking the herd. Here is one of the positive reviews from imdb.com plus two more that shed light on the final product.

Francis Ford Coppola is the master!

hoomanzenouz19 August 2024

I was absolutely captivated by Megalopolis. Contrary to the mixed reviews it has been receiving, I found this film to be a monumental achievement, deserving of nothing less than a 10/10. The critics are wrong, this movie is an audacious blend of visionary storytelling and breathtaking visual design that left me in awe.

A Glorious Trainwreck

cutie725 September 2024

Full disclosure: This film is a disaster of epic proportions-an absolute train wreck that careens off the tracks, crashes, and then somehow sets itself on fire. It's so bad, it's almost brilliant, the kind of so-awful-it's-genius nightmare that future cult fans will rave about. And you know what? I respect the hell out of Coppola for it. The guy is a cinematic legend who just decided to throw all caution (and coherence) to the wind and go full mad scientist on this. It's a glorious, unfiltered mess from the mind of a genius who clearly stopped caring about what anyone thinks. Bravo, you magnificent lunatic! 👏🏻

An aged and nonsensical interpretation of modernism

I really admire the story and purpose but the interpretation of the younger generation was almost unbearable that I had to laugh. The acting is done very well but at the behest of a pathless plot and lack of an environment. Some scenes were simply bizarre; actors walking to different parts of the room for no reason as if I was watching a Cirque Du Soleil show without the art house beauty, the gaudy and exaggerated portrayal of the wealthy as if they are dumb pigs and just the overall delivery of direction was strange and not fun to watch. I really feel like Coppola had no one to tell him; "Hey that's stupid."  

* * *

For me the use of Roman-era names--Cesar, Cicero, Crassus--came across as silly. I also had a hard time with how the narrator was inserted here and there to stitch the narrative together. I know that it's a technique that is sometimes effective, as in Shawshank Redemption. In this instance, it didn't work for me.

Don't take my word for it. Draw your own conclusions. I never fully grasped the storyline, but there are clues that there's something more here, even if it is only illusory.  

PostScript: After seeing Adam Driver last year in Ferrari and as the lead in Megalopolis, I am impressed with his diversity. 

PS2: I would be most curious to hear what all these actors felt and thought about working on this film, and what they learned.