R | 2h 18m | Drama, Mystery, Fantasy, Sci-Fi | 2024
In development in some form or fashion since 1977, filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola’s latest effort, “Megalopolis,” finally saw its domestic release.
Some have called the movie Coppola’s “magnum opus.” In terms of scale and ambition, that’s an accurate description. However, three of Coppola’s previous efforts (the first two installments of “The Godfather” franchise and “Apocalypse Now”) have also been labeled as such.
“Megalopolis” isn’t Coppola’s finest film, which isn’t to say that it’s at all wanting. The movie is never uninteresting, lacking in entertainment value, or bereft of intellectual stimulation. It’s a sprawling epic on the grandest scale that holds back nothing and never plays it safe.
An Art-House Harbinger
For the record, I love the movie. I believe it to be one of Coppola’s most ambitious works. It takes more chances than any other film he’s ever made. It swings for the fences and doesn’t fully reach them all of the time, but does so enough to fully warrant its existence and praise. It’s an art-house film acting as a harbinger of what could happen, not just in the United States but also in the entire world if the status quo remains unchecked. Consider it a well-appointed warning.When the movie debuted at the Cannes Film Festival in May, it received an extended standing ovation. Yet the subsequent reviews from critics at the event were lukewarm at best, with an initial rottentomatoes.com average score of 50 percent.
Since the wide release, the critics’ score had dropped a point to 49 and the audience rating is an even more disappointing 41 percent.
Usually when a movie shares roughly the same critic and audience score (good or bad), that’s a strong indicator of quality and likability, but in this case it’s not. After reading reviews from both sides, something occurred to me: This is a movie you'll either love or hate. There’s little to no middle ground.
Indifference Is Deadly
The worst thing that could happen to a movie, or any work of art for that matter, isn’t bad word of mouth but rather indifference. Love and hate both require passion. Although Coppola would likely disagree with me on this, sparking passion in the viewer, even if it’s bad, means he succeeded in his mission. A movie fails if it can’t get a viewer’s blood going.I’m not going to get into particulars regarding plot and character motives now (see explanation below) but can provide a general overview.
Not Always an Empire
My take is that in this story (which Coppola subtitled “A Fable”), the United States wasn’t settled by the English. Instead, it was set up as a Roman satellite nation. As ancient Rome was, in theory, a representative democracy and England certainly was not, this makes sense and is more than plausible. I say “was” because the democracy eventually collapsed and was replaced by what we now know as the Roman Empire in 27 B.C.New Rome is overseen by Mayor Franklin Cicero (Giancarlo Esposito) who, like most politicians then and now, wields great power and is deathly afraid of losing it. This fear becomes reality with the rise in popularity of Cesar Catalina (Adam Driver). Catalina is an architect and the chairman of the Design Authority, a branch of the local government in charge of infrastructure.
Needless to say, the substance is a threat to a lot of people, not just politicians but to various unions and those in the medical field.
Like most geniuses, Cesar has an oversized ego and isn’t afraid to ruffle feathers. This is bolstered and reinforced by his skyrocketing popularity among the masses. Add to that, his near constant media praise, mostly from an unscrupulous tabloid reporter named Wow Platinum (Aubrey Plaza).
These names—Cicero, Cesar, Catalina, and those of many other characters—weren’t chosen at random or by accident. The reasons will be explained in an upcoming essay on the film.
See you soon!
