3 ms·

Coppola has demonstrated a pattern of success in this vein so it's reasonable to believe this film will, at some point, be recognized in the same way.

by 23B1 2y ago

fullshark 2y ago
I think it will be recognized because auteur theorists will consider it a meaningful (likely last) work by Coppola, who will be canonized. Basically it will be recognzied for things outside the actual text, and things outside the text is all everyone seems to be talking about with this film (namely what it says about the economics of film these days, and auteur driven projects largely being nonexistant.)
- 23B1 2y ago
  Recognizing a work as a valuable part of an artist's oeuvre, even if it's not a seminal work, is a legitimate form of appreciation - and it doesn't have to meet cultural norms in order to be praised. "The end of the auteur" is a headline as old as art criticism, and one of its most forgettable. Contrast that with the naysayers who decried Pollock or Kubrick – I don't remember their critics' names, do you?
InsideOutSanta 2y ago
"Coppola has demonstrated a pattern of success in this vein" Is this true? Apocalypse Now got relatively poor reviews when it originally came out, but I think most of his other movies are still largely seen in a similar light as when they came out.
- 23B1 2y ago
  Oh yes, Coppola has been accused of all manner of experimentation orthagonal to the zeigeist. I remember Tucker being panned for being kitcsh, then being complimented later for the same reasons. I mean look at his filmography its all over the place, and he had to literally kill Michael Corleone so the studios would stop harassing him for sequels. I understand looking at a film 'in situ' by itself of course but it's more fun to see a coppola or a scorsese or even a james cameron. It's a whole arc for him, and anyone who can't see Metropolis through that lens... is missing out on a cool and dramatic history of filmmaking.

Coppola has demonstrated a pattern of success in this vein so it's reasonable to believe this film will, at some point, be recognized in the same way.

by 23B1 2y ago

Coppola has demonstrated a pattern of success in this vein so it's reasonable to believe this film will, at some point, be recognized in the same way.

fullshark 2y ago

I think it will be recognized because auteur theorists will consider it a meaningful (likely last) work by Coppola, who will be canonized. Basically it will be recognzied for things outside the actual text, and things outside the text is all everyone seems to be talking about with this film (namely what it says about the economics of film these days, and auteur driven projects largely being nonexistant.)

23B1 2y ago
Recognizing a work as a valuable part of an artist's oeuvre, even if it's not a seminal work, is a legitimate form of appreciation - and it doesn't have to meet cultural norms in order to be praised. "The end of the auteur" is a headline as old as art criticism, and one of its most forgettable. Contrast that with the naysayers who decried Pollock or Kubrick – I don't remember their critics' names, do you?

InsideOutSanta 2y ago

"Coppola has demonstrated a pattern of success in this vein" Is this true? Apocalypse Now got relatively poor reviews when it originally came out, but I think most of his other movies are still largely seen in a similar light as when they came out.

23B1 2y ago
Oh yes, Coppola has been accused of all manner of experimentation orthagonal to the zeigeist. I remember Tucker being panned for being kitcsh, then being complimented later for the same reasons. I mean look at his filmography its all over the place, and he had to literally kill Michael Corleone so the studios would stop harassing him for sequels. I understand looking at a film 'in situ' by itself of course but it's more fun to see a coppola or a scorsese or even a james cameron. It's a whole arc for him, and anyone who can't see Metropolis through that lens... is missing out on a cool and dramatic history of filmmaking.