Skip to main content

MEGALOPOLIS IS GOING TO BE A CLASSIC ONE DAY; BUT NOT YET



Probably the most dull thing to do is to discuss a movie that critics have already consigned to the dustheap of critical disapproval, where all the ladders start. Here goes nothing...

The whole Francis Ford Coppola story of Megalopolis has been done to dust by now - we know he spent his own oodles of vineyard cash, to make a movie that all on set felt was lunatics running the asylum level batshit bad, and that the 40-year-gestating rough beast slithered out like a viscous grotesque from The Substance, to near-total disappointment, that worst of all responses, as if a Gladiator's codpiece slipped to reveal a tiny rubber duck. This man, we were reminded, was a Genius with the same capital G as for Godfather (1 and 2), and he also made The Conversation, and Apocalypse Now; then loads of mediocre films, except some were zany and brilliant, like his Dracula.

It is hard to think of any other filmmakers from America, other than say Spielberg, Scorsese, Kubrick, Ford, Welles, Wilder, Lynch, Spike Lee, Oliver Stone, Altman, Huston, Wyler, Capra, Hawks, Woody Allen, Lucas, Cimino, and John Carpenter, as well as Sofia Coppola, well, in short, it is not hard to think of other filmmakers who have made a long list of great films in a decade - for instance, William Friedkin's The French Connection and The Exorcist one-two punch in the early 70s is staggering for genre genius - making the best gritty cop and maybe best Horror film of all time in three years. Hell, Sidney Lumet (remember him?) came out with Serpico, Murder on the Orient Express, Dog Day Afternoon and Network - all seen as basically masterpieces now, in 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1976. But anyway, The Godfather is often seen as the great American picture (with its sequel) - up there with Citizen Kane.

Anyway, Megalopolis is a mega flopolis. Everyone who saw it was embarrassed - the old man had lost his mojo, was out of control, and so forth. So I saw it, and that's not the movie I have seen.

Megalopolis is in fact a pure treat for cinema lovers, for cineastes.  It's one of the most joyous, cultured, generous, weird, eccentric, playful, risky and provocative American pictures, ever. And, it is very very obviously a dizzying, fun ride across all the major Hollywood genres, in an eclectic rush of styles, tropes, themes, costumes, and dialogue - for instance:

1. Sci-fi - most obviously, as the main hero is a mad inventor.

2. Roman-gladiator-epic - we have chariot races, and we have Caesar, etc.

3. Film Noir-gangster - we have shady city officials, murder rumours, investigations.

4. Romance-screwball comedy - we have slapstick, we have swooning on girders.

5. Western - we have a nutcase dressed often as Custer; and the fall of the West.

6. Horror - we have ghosts, we have grotesque holes in faces.

7. Shakespeare-classic - we have To Be Or Not To Be....

8. Experimental - we have moments of pure abstract colour and shapes...

9. Musical - we have a singing Vestal Virgin, and songs.

10. Silent film - we even have a Lumiere Brothers moment with the moon.

11. Erotic/porn - we have Wow Platinum and kink.

The movie is best watched as a true, madcap, wildly-spinning kaleidoscope, almost literally throwing every kind of way of being a movie at us - compelling us to constantly either just laugh and revel, or at least accept, that we have no bearings here - this is cinema as pure jouissance, as deconstructed signs and semiology run amok - creation as chaos, art as artifice, and film as a stage on which ideas jostle with silliness and pathos, insight and idiocy. The film presents a world like ours - marred, flawed, weird, incoherent, jostling, crowded, portentous, rich, varied, wild, strange, and both hopeful and odious. Evil and money align, but talent, vision and love win out. Utopia is built, time is variously stopped and started, and a totally unrealistic "fable" is presented, a tableau vivant of wonderful, stupid, wise, brash and astonishing things - a Big Tent - the American Show.

One day, this will be considered a masterpiece, a crowning achievement. It will be appreciated not by ironing out its wrinkles, its faux pas, but by accepting the gift, and wearing the motley ourselves, to be both fool and king, for a few hours. But not yet. For a few more years it will be a curio at best, a folly, a big waste of megabucks, a fool's errand and a wasted opportunity, plus a rubber crutch in a polaroid war - and suddenly, one day, it will be watched, marvelled at, and enjoyed for the ludicrous excessive romp of giddy utopian glee it is - a World's Fair where all is fair in love, war and urban planning. Get there early and enjoy it now.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se....

Poetry vs. Literature

Poetry is, of course, a part of literature. But, increasingly, over the 20th century, it has become marginalised - and, famously, has less of an audience than "before". I think that, when one considers the sort of criticism levelled against Seamus Heaney and "mainstream poetry", by poet-critics like Jeffrey Side , one ought to see the wider context for poetry in the "Anglo-Saxon" world. This phrase was used by one of the UK's leading literary cultural figures, in a private conversation recently, when they spoke eloquently about the supremacy of "Anglo-Saxon novels" and their impressive command of narrative. My heart sank as I listened, for what became clear to me, in a flash, is that nothing has changed since Victorian England (for some in the literary establishment). Britain (now allied to America) and the English language with its marvellous fiction machine, still rule the waves. I personally find this an uncomfortable position - but when ...

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".