"Youth Without Youth"

email this story
read comments (66)
post a comment

A Pathe Pictures sales rep for Francis Coppola's Youth Without Youth asked me this morning to take down that negative assessment of the film that was received from a trusted buyer yesterday and posted soon after. The Pathe guy said he was horrified and that airing this view would be damaging, etc. I told him I was torn between feeling that it was fair to post the comment and at the same time feeling a little bit badly about it. But I finally decided to pull it and wait for reactions from some fair-game screening down the road.

I told the rep that I thought the posted comments sounded too rough, as I said in the item, but also that Youth Without Youth is going to have to face the music sooner or later. Coppola has been keeping it under wraps for months and months, and saying all along that it's a student film, an experimental film, a personal artsy film, etc. Everyone knows that these are code phrases that mean "not that commercial." I also said I'm in business with distributors all over (I depend on advertising support) and that I don't want to be an asshole about this. But given my knowing and trusting the source, I explained again that it seemed fair to air the opinion, especially for a film that was shot in Romania and Bulgaria in late '05 and early '06, and has been shuffling and re-shuffling the deck ever since.

I said I suspected that Youth Without Youth might be in trouble when it was announced last May that it would have its world premiere at the RomeFilmFest, which is not a serious film festival, is renowned for being a softball venue, and so far has not been frequented by top-level critics (trade and otherwise) or buyers. I expected way back that it would go to Venice or Toronto first. It may go to Telluride (a prestigious but unofficial venue) but I guess we'll find out soon enough.

In the end I decided I don't want to cause pain just for the sake of causing pain or asserting stubbornness. I'd like to see Francis Coppola back in the game and plugging away for the next two or three decades, and I don't want to preemptively interfere with that scenario. And yet I've been asking myself if I'm being a pushover. Is anything on HE ripe for removal providing the person requesting such is sufficiently horrified and believes that the item/story will be damaging enough?

Guardian vs. Ain't It Cool<< previous | next >>Return of Dergarabedian

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 12, 2007 at 6:14 PM

comment #1

JD says ...

I also sympathized with Coppola when I read this but, then, I'm a sucker for self-indulgent films/filmmakers. Ever since Apocalypse Now, a sizable percentage of filmgoers have dismissed various Coppola films as laughable, but many of these films are actually quite good... or great even (ie. Rumble Fish, One From the Heart, Gardens of Stone, The Rainmaker, etc.). I'm gonna wait to see it for myself.

In any case, it's worth noting that Coppola decided to make the transition to low budget, personal filmmaking for this precise reasons: he wants to allow himself the luxury of alienating 90% of his audience. When you work this cheap, you can get away with that.

Posted by JD at July 12, 2007 6:29 PM

comment #2

PhilContrino says ...

At this point in his career it doesn't matter how good this is...he doesn't really have anything to prove. If he made a very self-indulgent movie that satifies him a great to deal to have done, then good for him. He deserves it.

Posted by PhilContrino at July 12, 2007 6:35 PM

comment #3

D.Z. says ...

"The narrative is borderline incomprehensible, heavy handed, laughable at times. Even the most dedicated festival audiences are likely to be bored stupid."

Like father, like daughter?

Posted by D.Z. at July 12, 2007 6:53 PM

comment #4

alynch says ...

I dislike it when a reviewer describes a film as self-indulgent. It always struck me as a phrase people use instead of engaging the film on a critical level.

Posted by alynch at July 12, 2007 6:55 PM

comment #5

corey3rd says ...

can't Lucas buy the film and put it out?

Posted by corey3rd at July 12, 2007 7:10 PM

comment #6

MiraJeffAICN says ...

D.Z., I couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by MiraJeffAICN at July 12, 2007 7:15 PM

comment #7

BurmaShave says ...

DZ and MiraJeff (and Jeff) are all insane. THE VIRGIN SUICIDES was a fine first film, LOST IN TRANSLATION is a masterpiece, and I've yet to actually meet a real person who hates MARIE ANTOINETTE as much as you twats say you do. Myself, I thought it was all right. Heads and shoulders above MIAMI VICE, I'll say that for starters.

By the way Mira, when you "attaboy" DZ, he only becomes crazed and confused, even encouraged. You shouldn't give them hope Oskar! Now that's cruel!

"Do Not Feed the Animals"

Posted by BurmaShave at July 12, 2007 7:29 PM

comment #8

James Leer says ...

Even if you don't like Sofia Coppola, she's obviously not heavy-handed or incomprehensible. If there's something in the narrative of "Lost in Translation" that you couldn't figure out, you are retarded.

Posted by James Leer at July 12, 2007 7:39 PM

comment #9

JD says ...

Marie Antoinette was one of the best films of 2006. If you need your hand held through a movie, it's not gonna appeal to you... but that's why it's great. Coppola believes that there's an audience out there who's more perceptive than people like DZ. Thankfully, she's right.

Posted by JD at July 12, 2007 7:39 PM

comment #10

malibugigolo says ...

Any true filmmaker is that. You are the viewer.
Deal with it.

Posted by malibugigolo at July 12, 2007 7:54 PM

comment #11

malibugigolo says ...

And:

DZ=scuzzbucket

Posted by malibugigolo at July 12, 2007 7:55 PM

comment #12

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Burma, I liked Suicides just fine. But Lost in Translation is pretentious nonsense, utter over-hyped garbage, while Antoinette, beautiful as it looked, was atrocious. Boring. About absolutely nothing. I was excited to see it too. Didn't wanna listen to all the bad pre-release buzz. Turned out to be true. How you call Translation a masterpiece. Be very careful with that word. Have you ever seen a real masterpiece? Jesus, if there was ever a movie undeserving of that word it's Lost in a Boring-Ass Translation. Sofia sucks. Someone take her credit card away. She doesn't know how to tell a story. It doesn't take an NYU grad to recognize this. A monkey could tell me a more exciting story than her. I felt like Jason Schwartzman's character while I watched Antoinette. All I wanted to do was go to sleep.

Posted by MiraJeffAICN at July 12, 2007 8:02 PM

comment #13

source188 says ...

I don't buy it. Coppola has been in hibernation mode for nearly a decade now and with complete freedom over the film self-indulgence is just right.... afterall this if the filmmaker behind three or four of the greatest films ever made (one of which is arguably the absolute greatest).

Past his prime, sure, but he's had the time to go away and become something else and now is the right time to return with something different and challenging.... if only to meet his own needs, that's good enough for me.

Posted by source188 at July 12, 2007 8:13 PM

comment #14

corey3rd says ...

My wife bitched that the end of Marie Antoinette didn't have her head chopped off. It's like seeing Passion of the Christ without the cross action

Posted by corey3rd at July 12, 2007 8:51 PM

comment #15

Pinko Punko says ...

Lost in Translation was incredibly well crafted and deeply, deeply shallow.

Posted by Pinko Punko at July 12, 2007 8:58 PM

comment #16

The Hoyk says ...

By "buyers," Jeff was referring to film buyers, bookers for theatres across the country. YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH is getting released by Sony Pictures Classics late this year, and they generally screen movies for exhibitors five to six months ahead of the release date in order to lock down bookings as far in advance as possible.

Posted by The Hoyk at July 12, 2007 9:09 PM

comment #17

source188 says ...

corey3rd: you mean like a sudden cut to black?

Posted by source188 at July 12, 2007 9:26 PM

comment #18

JD says ...

You're right, MiraJeffAICN. 95% of critics were wrong about Lost in Translation ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lost_in_translation ), as were the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, BAFTAS, Independent Spirit Awards, WGA, DGA, various film critics' groups (including your peeps, the Online Film Critics), and the population at large, who lead this $4 million film to a worldwide box office take of $120 million. Or maybe you're just a twit who didn't get it.

Posted by JD at July 12, 2007 9:26 PM

comment #19

Ari says ...

"how you call Translation a masterpiece. Be very careful with that word. Have you ever seen a real masterpiece?"

poor form, mirajeff

But really, do tell us all what a real masterpiece is. It's not often we get to be enlightened by an informed fellow such as yourself.

please....

Posted by Ari at July 12, 2007 9:33 PM

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

JD: Critics can be dumbass fanboys, too. Look at how many times QT got a free ride.

Posted by D.Z. at July 12, 2007 9:56 PM

comment #21

JD says ...

So when you think fanboy, you think Lost in Translation? Very strange.

Posted by JD at July 12, 2007 10:00 PM

comment #22

corey3rd says ...

lost in translation is worth watching for 2 reasons: Bill Murray basically doing a "reality show' about him visiting Japan (from all reports LIT is less scripted than Gene Simmons Family Jewels) and Scarlett's ass.

Posted by corey3rd at July 12, 2007 10:03 PM

comment #23

JD says ...

Some of the dialogue is unscripted, but everything else (ie. the structure, the characters, the locations, the themes, the story, etc.) is in the script.

Posted by JD at July 12, 2007 10:22 PM

comment #24

BurmaShave says ...

MiraJeff, you actually review films for a living? Or is it just a side gig? Jesus fucking Christ.

LOST IN TRANSLATION is one of the strangest and most melancholy mood pieces I've ever seen, and it gets more affecting with each viewing. I've idtentified with few characters as completely as I have with Murray's Bob. This obsession with "story" is exactly what other's on this thread were talking about, some of you guys want your hands held way too much.

If there's room in this world for a Michael Bay, there's certainly room for Sofia Coppola. And we can all agree, we don't want her acting again, right?

Posted by BurmaShave at July 12, 2007 10:23 PM

comment #25

thatrader says ...

Who here's read the script for Lost In Translation? It's Ethiopian thin. Murray should've gotten a co-writer credit and that OScar because of how much he contributed.

That said, "LIT" was the best film of its year thanks to Murray and Johansson. It's a film that gets better with every viewing. But it's due more to good casting and editing than directing.

For proof of this, one need only look at "Marie Antoinette," one of the worst films of last year.

Posted by thatrader at July 12, 2007 10:32 PM

comment #26

BurmaShave says ...

There you go again.

Posted by BurmaShave at July 12, 2007 10:36 PM

comment #27

Reedyb says ...

I've traveled overseas alone on business and Lost in Translation nails it.

As for the original thread about it being indulgent Coppola, I would take that Coppola (One From the Heart, Rumblefish, Tucker, The Outsiders) over dull studio Coppola (Jack, The Rainmaker) anyday.

Anyday.

Posted by Reedyb at July 12, 2007 10:42 PM

comment #28

JD says ...

I've read the Lost in Translation script, thatrader, and it's very similar to the movie. What people like you can't grasp is that the art of screenwriting does not revolve around dialogue. In many great movies, dialogue avoids the real issues and exists almost as a distraction from the film's underlying concerns. The greatest screenwriters aren't great because of snappy dialogue -- as this board demonstrates, anyone can write snappy dialogue -- they're great because of all those invisible things that exist between the lines. Coppola's great gift is that she tells her stories, develops her characters, etc. but makes it look completely effortless (to the point that some people don't even believe they're there). She told Marie Antoinette's whole story with almost no exposition and it's all deeply felt and authentic. That's an extraordinary skill.

Posted by JD at July 12, 2007 10:49 PM

comment #29

lazarus says ...

Wow, so some buyers and exhibitors (read: soulless suits) didn't like it? Sounds like good news to me. I don't give a shit if Wells knows one of them personally. These guys are looking at stuff through one prism only: how much money it's going to make for them. If they see something that's not cookie cutter or lowest common denominator, it probably leaves a bad taste in their mouths.

If Apocalypse Now is Coppola also at his most self-indulgent, then I say sign me up. It may not be perfect but it's a grand, ambitious mess that contains some of the greatest images, moments, and scenes in cinema history. We could use more self-indulgent filmmakers than the hacks that are currently littering the theatres.

Also, Coppola really only has one film that isn't worth watching and that's Jack. The Rainmaker is hackwork but it's entertaining and very well done. The Cotton Club, Tucker, Gardens of Stone, Rumble Fish, One From the Heart, Peggy Sue Got Married--all these films have something to offer and are far from someone going through the motions.

Posted by lazarus at July 12, 2007 11:20 PM

comment #30

malibugigolo says ...

JD is correct.

Posted by malibugigolo at July 12, 2007 11:21 PM

comment #31

malibugigolo says ...

But JD you must know that this is the board that I was told "fuck visuals".

Stay strong.

Posted by malibugigolo at July 12, 2007 11:22 PM

comment #32

JapAdapters says ...

Lost in Translation was incredibly well crafted and deeply, deeply shallow.

Posted by: Pinko Punko

Well said. It's also fairly brilliant in a strangely mesmerizing way.

Posted by JapAdapters at July 12, 2007 11:29 PM

comment #33

frankbooth says ...

For the many Mirajeff fans out there:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.12/ragingboll_pr.html

And I bet you never thought you'd have reason to appreciate Uwe Boll.

Posted by frankbooth at July 12, 2007 11:37 PM

comment #34

malibugigolo says ...

Frank what are you doing?

Posted by malibugigolo at July 12, 2007 11:48 PM

comment #35

Dan Revill says ...

There's video online too frank. Or was.

Posted by Dan Revill at July 13, 2007 1:35 AM

comment #36

MiraJeffAICN says ...

you're right guys, i was the only one who didn't like lost in translation, my apologies, 95% of critics is hard to argue with. please continue to use the coppola name to make movies like marie antoinette. that's what we all want deep down inside... and congratulations frank booth, you know how to use a search engine, where should i send your cookie... no honestly, i think lost in translation is just not my kind of movie, i didn't like eternal sunshine or punch-drunk as much as most people either. i think i can only stand such much cutesy dialogue and precious pretension. sure murray was good but it's not like it was rushmore, or even broken flowers level. i'd call it ho-hum. and is translation even watchable a second time? i can't imagine having to sit through the slow-as-molasses shit again. ScarJo, you're still my girl though. Cuz LIT still wasn't as bad as Dahlia.

Posted by MiraJeffAICN at July 13, 2007 2:13 AM

comment #37

BurmaShave says ...

Uwe, boma ye!

Posted by BurmaShave at July 13, 2007 2:27 AM

comment #38

Rob says ...

There's a certain kind of person that resorts to using the adjective "pretentious" when they really don't know have a strong argument against it. We have a couple of them commenting here.

I love how no one can criticize a Sofia Coppola film without criticizing her upbringing/character/privilege. Grow the fuck up, guys.

Posted by Rob at July 13, 2007 5:29 AM

comment #39

Josh Massey says ...

The Virgin Suicides was much better than Lost In Translation.

Lost in Translation was a smidge better than Marie Antoinette.

Marie Antionette was a hell of a lot better than anything daddy Francis has done in almost two decades. Except Jack, of course. That was the bomb, yo.

Posted by Josh Massey at July 13, 2007 7:20 AM

comment #40

JD says ...

MiraJeff was born in the 80s. Therefore, he has no taste. It's a pretty unscientific rule, but it's completely irrefutable. Shitty movies have been thriving for years because of the children of the 80s. The guy just took down three of the best American films of the decade (Lost in Translation, Punch-Drunk Love, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), due to "cutesy dialogue and precious pretension." Face it, man, you're an entertainment-only guy who can't handle the idea of cinema as an art form. If you understood even a fraction of what's going on in those movies, there's no way you'd dismiss them for such half-baked, bleary-eyed reasons.

Posted by JD at July 13, 2007 7:21 AM

comment #41

York "Budd" Durden says ...

There are plenty of folks older than mirajeff who share the above mentioned qualities, too. I've had people scoff in my face at the intimation that films, even Hollywood films, can and should be perceived as "art". These were ordinary, dunderheaded polecats and red-state gorillas, not film studies professors, of course.

Posted by York "Budd" Durden at July 13, 2007 8:47 AM

comment #42

le corbeau says ...

"I love how no one can criticize a Sofia Coppola film without criticizing her upbringing/character/privilege. Grow the fuck up, guys."

Well, it's because she stands out in Hollywood for having gotten where she is based on family connections and money.

Posted by le corbeau at July 13, 2007 9:25 AM

comment #43

alynch says ...

"Pretentious" and "Self-indulgent" are words that hacky critics use as crutches so they don't have to actually engage the film on a critical level.

Posted by alynch at July 13, 2007 9:31 AM

comment #44

sardine says ...

i adore Sofia's movies and I adore a lot of her Dad's. Having known Jean Renoir and Pauline Kael, I KNOW BOTH WOULD HAVE LOVED SOFIA'S MOVIES; we know what what Kael thought of her Dad's....

Posted by sardine at July 13, 2007 9:44 AM

comment #45

George Prager says ...

"i adore Sofia's movies and I adore a lot of her Dad's. Having known Jean Renoir and Pauline Kael, I KNOW BOTH WOULD HAVE LOVED SOFIA'S MOVIES; we know what what Kael thought of her Dad's...."

I'm waiting for D.Z. to post that RULES OF THE GAME was a box office disappointment and that Jean Gabin was box office poison.

Posted by George Prager at July 13, 2007 10:11 AM

comment #46

nemo says ...

Well, that Uwe Boll link was pretty hilarious. Best lines:

"It was boxing," he deadpans. "Not chess."

"Jean-Claude Van Damme is next. He's a poseur."

Posted by nemo at July 13, 2007 10:14 AM

comment #47

JD says ...

Mgmax, there's nepotism everywhere in Hollywood, but Sofia Coppola's the least of it. She's a real auteur who writes and directs her own (small, cheap, personal) films: she doesn't need someone else to hand her opportunities, she makes them herself. Plus, her films are popular, critically accalimed, and award-winning. What you fail to understand is that making a great movie is not something that just anyone can pull off, if given the opportunity. I've seen enough well-financed projects fail miserably to know that. And anyway, why don't you pick on the hundreds of people who have REALLY succeeded on the basis of nepotism, people with little discernible talent like Breck Eisner, who got $130 million to make Sahara.

Posted by JD at July 13, 2007 10:19 AM

comment #48

T. S. Idiot says ...

Being daddy's girl got Sofia in the door, but she's gone on to show that she has real talent. Her brother's career stalled after one film. No one keeps bankrolling him just because he's FFC's boy. Much of the hostility toward Sofia results from jealousy, the fact that she's a woman, and that self-satisfied, smug expression she always wears. And she's truly awful in Godfather III.

Posted by T. S. Idiot at July 13, 2007 10:37 AM

comment #49

Rob says ...

"And anyway, why don't you pick on the hundreds of people who have REALLY succeeded on the basis of nepotism, people with little discernible talent like Breck Eisner, who got $130 million to make Sahara."

T.S. Idiot nails it: Eisner a) didn't alienate everyone with an awful performance in a high-profile disappointment of a film and b) is a man.

Posted by Rob at July 13, 2007 11:13 AM

comment #50

Derby says ...

To this interesting discussion I am compelled to add that I thought Marie Antionette was one of the worst films I had seen in a long time. Maybe I was being a tad over-critical when I watched it, but essentially it was boring Ã¢â‚¬â€œ utterly boring.

Posted by Derby at July 13, 2007 11:25 AM

comment #51

le corbeau says ...

"Mgmax, there's nepotism everywhere in Hollywood, but Sofia Coppola's the least of it."

I was being sarcastic. I agree, she may not ever prove to be the second coming of Coppola but she's shown an interesting sensibility with diverse material and tone so far, I don't get the hate.

Posted by le corbeau at July 13, 2007 11:29 AM

comment #52

le corbeau says ...

As far as the issue of whether Jeff should have pulled the comments goes:

I'm sympathetic as hell to not wanting to torpedo Coppola's chances, but you just invited 5,000 more such requests from the studios.

Posted by le corbeau at July 13, 2007 11:35 AM

comment #53

sardine says ...

Rules of the Game is one of the greatest movies ever made. Grand Illusion is also. Kael always said she could never figure out how Jean Renoir "got his effects." Anna Magnani's performance in THE GOLDEN COACH is a glory. She was having a love affair and would come on set hung-over, exhausted and depressed. However,when the camera rolled....well, see for yourselves.

I thought Roman's movie was a good one. Of course, it did not make ANY money.

my thanks to Rob, T. S. Idiot (not!) & JD.

Posted by sardine at July 13, 2007 11:51 AM

comment #54

mutinyco says ...

The important thing about Coppola's reputation, or, I should say, people's expectations of him, is that his least favorite movie is considered his gold standard: The Godfather. Everybody is always expecting/hoping that's what he'll deliver. And when he doesn't, he gets his knuckles rapped.

It's best to approach anything he does from this point on from this perspective: his favorite movie that he's directed was Rumble Fish.

Posted by mutinyco at July 13, 2007 12:40 PM

comment #55

jjgittes says ...

Well, so much to catch up on..... :

Francis Coppola made 4 masterpieces in a row in the 70s (The Conversation is my fave) and a bunch of good movies since. I'll be there to see YWY on opening day, just out of freaking respect, and it sounds like my kind of movie anyway.

Sofia Coppola is not truly awful in GF III , she comes off as clueless and over her head and she's playing a charcter who has those qualities. Is she good in it? Nope, but she's nowhere near as awful as some claim. I see worse performances every week (you people ever see Meg Ryan in "Proof of Life"?!?)

"Lost in Translation" is a lovely film. It's like that Sautet film "Vincent, Francois, Paul & the Others" or something where the tone is so specific and sustained you watch and wonder why all movies can't do that.

Posted by jjgittes at July 13, 2007 1:35 PM

comment #56

George Prager says ...

Am I the only one who remembers that Sofia C. took the role at the very last minute after Winona Ryder dropped out? And hers was a lousy performance in a movie full of sucky performances. Old man Eli Wallach (75 at the time) playing an old man failed to convince me that he was an old man (I thought he was Corey Haim with make-up).

Posted by George Prager at July 13, 2007 2:19 PM

comment #57

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Let me get this straight. A dude named Rob who runs a site called pen15 club (get it?) told me to grow the fuck up. That's a good one. And JD, are you saying that no one 27 years old or younger has any taste? You just shot yourself in the foot, old man. And if you can't use the word pretentious to describe a pretentious film, what word should I use, or should pretension just be outlawed from the dictionary. Let me tell you something. If you really think that Translation, Eternal Sunshine and Punch-Drunk are three of the best films of the last decade, I sincerely feel bad for you. They aren't even their directors' best films of the last decade. Ever heard of Adaptation or Magnolia? Or is your idea of a good film watching some loser mope around and try to find love with some oddball chick? Both of those movies were quirky and boring. And Translation was the worst of the three.

Posted by MiraJeffAICN at July 13, 2007 2:25 PM

comment #58

George Prager says ...

MiraJeffAICN: your website is down. All I'm seeing on the site right now is nonsensical gibberish. It's unreadable. Oh wait...that is your website. Never mind.

Posted by George Prager at July 13, 2007 2:33 PM

comment #59

Nate West says ...

//Or is your idea of a good film watching some loser mope around and try to find love with some oddball chick?//

Well, yes. Absolutely. At least sixty-five percent of Western culture is based on this premise. Maybe more.

Posted by Nate West at July 13, 2007 3:30 PM

comment #60

BurmaShave says ...

MiraJeff, you keep digging yourself a bigger and bigger hole. You really should be more articulate in defending your opinions. Enough with this "I feel bad for you!" shit. Fuck the fuck off.

That said, I was born in the '80s.

MiraJeff, get the fuck away from us, or I'll sick my dog on you:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=467985&in_page_id=1770

Posted by BurmaShave at July 13, 2007 3:41 PM

comment #61

BurmaShave says ...

Oh also, Spike Jonze didn't directed ETERNAL SUNSHINE, Michelle Gondry did. Also MAGNOLIA didn't come out in this decade. But then you knew that, because you review films for a living, and have a degree in Dramatic Writing.

Posted by BurmaShave at July 13, 2007 3:45 PM

comment #62

MiraJeffAICN says ...

oh i know magnolia was 99, but a decade is 10 years, and i believe 99 was 8 years ago
way to go mathematician
and science of sleep was everything eternal sunshine tried but failed to accomplish
but way to catch that error, i erred and lumped all kaufman films together

Posted by MiraJeffAICN at July 13, 2007 5:29 PM

comment #63

D.Z. says ...

MiraJEFF: "i think lost in translation is just not my kind of movie, i didn't like eternal sunshine or punch-drunk as much as most people either."

Eternal Sunshine is another rom-com which happens to swipe psychedelic film styles from the 60s and 70s, so I don't blame you for disliking it. I haven't seen Punch-Drunk Love, but Sandler's enough of a ham when he's doing comedy.

Rob: "I love how no one can criticize a Sofia Coppola film without criticizing her upbringing/character/privilege. Grow the fuck up, guys."

You do know that Bill Murray's character is supposed to represent her dad, right? (I.E. him sleeping around and doing Suntory ads.)

JD: "MiraJeff was born in the 80s. Therefore, he has no taste."

Yes, Blade Runner, Brazil, Platoon and Do the Right Thing are utter trash. Oh, and Bobby's performance in that boxing movie from Marty is shit compared to that other boxing flick with that chick who was in Karate Kid 4, which, I might add, was so much better than all the others, because Swank really knows how to emote. What was Jeff thinking?!

"Shitty movies have been thriving for years because of the children of the 80s."

Yes, you can't beat classics like Plan 9, Barbarella and Smokey and the Bandit.

"Face it, man, you're an entertainment-only guy who can't handle the idea of cinema as an art form."

Yes, being bored=quality.

"If you understood even a fraction of what's going on in those movies, there's no way you'd dismiss them for such half-baked, bleary-eyed reasons."

Yeah, writing something with a story is overrated.

"Mgmax, there's nepotism everywhere in Hollywood, but Sofia Coppola's the least of it."

Yeah, Godfather III was just a fluke.

"She's a real auteur who writes and directs her own (small, cheap, personal) films: she doesn't need someone else to hand her opportunities, she makes them herself."

That's bs, and you know it. She sure as hell wouldn't have won a screen-writing award, if it wasn't for her last name.

"Plus, her films are popular,"

She's only had one hit.

"critically accalimed,"

Critics will jerk off to anything which reeks of a European art film, just like people who like things "blowing up" good flock to Michael Bay films.

"What you fail to understand is that making a great movie is not something that just anyone can pull off, if given the opportunity."

But if they have connections, they can pre-sell a film without actually having to put any effort into the final product.

Sahara was probably going to be crap, no matter who directed it. The studio threw money around without thinking, which is why Lansing got the boot. Coppola, on the other hand, didn't have anything to risk, because she was just the daughter of the director, so the expectations for her were lower.

alynch: ""Pretentious" and "Self-indulgent" are words that hacky critics use as crutches so they don't have to actually engage the film on a critical level."

How can you engage something which has no substance? Unless you consider xenophobia to be subtantive...

George: "I'm waiting for D.Z. to post that RULES OF THE GAME was a box office disappointment and that Jean Gabin was box office poison."

Don't see her(him?) credited for that...

T.S.: "Much of the hostility toward Sofia results from jealousy, the fact that she's a woman, and that self-satisfied, smug expression she always wears."

Why would I be jealous of a one-hit wonder? And I don't really care about the fact that she's a woman, just that she's a daddy's girl like Gwyneth.

Posted by D.Z. at July 13, 2007 5:39 PM

comment #64