I will stand up and say it…
There are mysterious moments at Variety when critics who are almost never used to write studio reviews suddenly turn up to write reviews that seem to have more agenda than reality behind them. This is no direct reflection on these writers. Amy Dawes is a good and very smart person. But her out-of-nowhere positive reviews of Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle and Gigli were truly shocking. The immediate question was,
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
how does a paper let anyone write positive reviews of charlie angels 2 and gigli? is that a joke? they had to be screwing with people.
What I find most objectionable about this review–as I do with almost every review in Variety–is how poorly written it is. To borrow a phrase, review “Chim[es] faintly with current counterculture vibe” but ultimately “feels flat as a storyboard.”
If you even pay minimal attention you will know that V is very Left leaning. But that’s not going to mean much if it’s not a good film. If it is good, it’ll do alright. I can deal with the Leftist views it has if its an entertaining movie. I loved the graphic novel and I think Moore is one of the best writers out there. Not to mention Natalie Portman.
Why didn’t the Wachowski Bro’s direct this themselves?
Why is Variety assigning a big time review to a rookie reviewer? She may be great for all I know but she has no track record. 80 indie films doesn’t cut it. And Variety isn’t some local yokel paper.
The review is clearly about the film. I don’t get the discussion falling toward Felperin’s opinion of the politics, as it also does in Jeffrey Wells’ recent response.
V For Vendetta is an incredibly shallow representation of Moore’s words. Anyone who has read the graphic novel (that’s not a dirty word, is it?) would gather as much, and he did well in disassociating himself from the project.
There again, I think a knowledge of the source material would read insight into Felperin’s review and keep this “the review is about the politics” stuff out of the picture, because that’s clearly not the case, given points like:
“Simplified movie version, penned by the Wachowski brothers, gamely tries to retain key plot points that will serve as mass market entertainment, while half-heartedly updating Moore’s allegorical digs at Thatcher’s Britain in the ’80s…
“Brit auds, however, may feel pic has missed a trick by not taking a sharper swipe at Tony Blair’s regime.”
No, I’d say Felperin is attacking the mishandling (directorially) of the piece and the blatant syphoning of the material through a Hollywood sifter.
I disagree with many of the points made, however. I think there was plenty of chemistry between V and Evey, but Felperin’s main observation is that the filmmakers did not find an artistically potent way of lifting Moore’s work off the page and onto the screen, thusly the transition was made as a flat actioner.
It’s a valid point to say the least.
You just can’t translate Moore’s work to the big screen. It has too much depth and there is too much going on to condense it. That’s why I dread a Watchmen movie. It would be better off a 10 part miniseries on HBO.
Indeed, that was Terry Gilliam’s plpan for the film when he was circling it. A twelve part series at that, one for each book.
The only truly well-adapted graphic novel films of recent note are Road to Perdition, which was made in the direction and still missed a major plot point that would have lended weight to the story, and A history of Violence, which too many are quick to consider more original than adapted, but creativity springs from somewhere, after all, and Olsen did a hell of a job translating the tale into his own.
Obviously I have not seen V, but here’s a question: if it’s so ‘Left’ in its politics, what does that mean? Does the Right now openly favor totalitarian governments and police states? Help me out here.
Let me clarify: I want to know what people would find so objectionable about the movie. Not interested in a broad, pointless argument about politics.
I don’t think the Right wants Facist gov’ts and no freedoms for people. I think that’s a pretty safe bet. That’s just my conclusion of things.
The best graphic novel adapted has been “History of Violence”. “Road to Perdition” was an almost, I’d say. They softened the lead character which just killed the movie. Maybe they should have casted someone besides Tom Hanks. The man was a killer. Why hide that?
First off…I actually do not think V for Vendetta is considered a ‘major movie’. It’s release date was shifted twice and now it is opening in March. It won’t do Matrix business and has no stars who can open.
Giving this review to an ‘irregular’ critic does not seem odd to me.
As to the movie itself…obviously I have not seen it. Based on all I can dicern, those that like it are saying that it is a metaphor for rising up against a fascist government, talking about the production quality but giving few details.
Those who do not like it are calling it paranoid propaganda.
For it to be a metaphor, it must not traffic in modern day symbols or iconography. Star Wars is a metaphor for rising up against tyranny and fascism because Darth Vader does not wear a swastika on his forehead. Hence any allusions to real governments is subtext.
Based on what I can discern this uses real imagery if the real world. The villains are explicitly Christian with likeness of crosses adorning their flags. They are one-dimensional. They persecute homosexuals. The Washowskis juxtapose images of the American flag and British flag with that of the Nazi’s. A priest is a pedophile/pervert.
The hero keeps a banned copy of the Quran because it is poetic.
Now, again, I do not know if all of this is in the film but I have read and cross checked some reviews that do seem to confirm this. If it is true than the film is not metaphor with allegorical text. It is text and yes…propaganda. Just like Red Dawn in the eighties.
Again, like it if you will. But if this references are explicit in the film (and I again state I do not know 100%) then the film would seem to be little more than a simple minded tale of paranoia and fear that engages exactly the type of fearmongering that it preaches against; even if well produced.
Given the childish and hysterical juxtopostion of Bush/Hitler imagery in The Matrix Reloaded (a film I otherwise liked) I would not be surprised if this were true.
If this imagery is not in the film…it could be a classic. If it is…it will be little more than a paranoid fantasy for conspiracy theorists.
From Hell wasn’t ‘critically panned’ at all. In Premiere’s annual critics poll it came in very respectably in the top 40. Excellent film that doesn’t really get the props it deserves, the Victorian period was evoked so richly you can almost taste the atmosphere.
Alan Moore disassociates himself from EVERY one of his works on screen. Nothing new there.
Do you blame him after what they did to his past works???? I don’t.
Here’s the thing with this one.
If it’s like “Matrix” 1. It will be on my top list.
If it’s anything like 2 and 3. I will be royally pissed til the cows come home.
Variety doesn’t determine ‘major movie’ based on quality, they determine it based on how big the movie is based on budget, marketing, expected grosses, etc. Let me put it this way: any movie that can be expected fo be #1 its opening weekend is, by Variety’s standards, a major movie and therefore one deserving of not getting shuffled off to a second-string critic.
Apparantly, I am one of the few who thought From Hell was a good movie. Fine, Heather Graham as a cockney hooker was miscasting, but it looked great, actually utilized the gothic atmosphere as more than simple asthetics, had a decent, if somewhat predictable story, and had a good turn by Johnny Depp even if he was “too pretty” for the role. It’s not as great as it could’ve been considering the subject matter (Well, unless you’re Owen Gleiberman), but if it’s on cable, I’ll watch it and enjoy it.
Oh, and Red Dawn’s a hoot. Right up there with The Core and Plan 9 From Outer Space as some of the most enjoyable movies for all the wrong reasons.
Let me also say that I was a big fan of FROM HELL. It merely scraped the surface of the actual work, but it by no means raped the subtext as V FOR VENDETTA does.
RED DAWN is one of the funniest movies ever. Always brings a laugh when it’s on.
I don’t see how V FOR VENDETTA is a big movie. Expecting Portman to open it? Pretty big leap of faith for a girl who’s never opened even a romantic comedy before.
The subject matter isn’t exactly huge box office material. How does this catch on? Who sees it besides comic book fans and action junkies?
“RED DAWN is one of the funniest movies ever. Always brings a laugh when it’s on.”
I agree. Now I’m gettin’ giddy. I think I’ll arrange an opening night get together for V. Lot’s o’ popcorn. Lot’s o’ fun. Lot’s o’ laughs.
I think Warner’s has high hopes for this film. They’re releasing it on IMAX screens using the very expensive DMR process. Normally they reserve IMAX reformatting for their top titles.
(Of course, they released Catwoman in IMAX, so maybe I’m wrong).
Sincere question: Does a Variety review matter much? The positive review they had for Costner’s The Postman, along with the ones mentioned for Gigli and Charlie’s Angles didn’t help those films much. I can’t off hand think of a bad review of theirs that was atypical of a films later reception. I know that the NY Times has had the power to kill art films and smaller indie films: they really put the skids on Charles Burnett’s career and on Antonioni’s post “Passenger” career with dismissive reviews of “My Brother’s Wedding” and “Identification of a Woman” respectively, but I can’t imagine a single publication being able to harm a big studio juggernaut.
Or is Dave’s point more about “Variety” reluctant to endorse a film that’s really critical of Bush, etc?
I’ll get ripped for this but why does everyone crap on “From Hell”, Heather Graham was weak as the prettiest hooker in the world but I liked the movie, I’m sure it wasn’t terribly faithful to the words on the page of Moore’s novel but I think, based on what I’ve seen of it, is faithful to the spirit of it. No one was going to make a movie from the point of view of the killer. I’ve worked in the media and you can better believe this kinda thing happens, they dusted her off as a hitwoman.
Heather Graham was miscasting at it’s epic right there. Her accent made Kevin Costners look good in Robin Hood. Depp came through though. As he usually does playing off beat characters.
Haven’t seen or heard from either of the directors, the Hughes Brothers, since that movie.
Variety and THR should always be taken with a grain of salt. When they aren’t shilling for a studio, they’re shilling for their friends or shooting darts at enemies. Anyone who reads those rags for valid opinion or “news” is deluded,,,
I hope they’re not serious over there at Variety.
GIGLI???
Who can give that even a semi rave? I watched 5 minutes of it once and I almost puked.
I agree that much of what THR and Variety do is not really real journalism. They are merely regurgitating a press release or some insider information (often with little factchecking) for readers within the industry. But as “trades,” that is their purpose. Their reviews are far less of consequence than reviews that appear in mainstream papers.
Variety reviews stopped being relevant with the advent of ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY and all the New Media online sites that sprung up over 13 years ago.
“Expect a strong opening followed by midlevel grosses and a quick exit from screens” – thats the only reason why someone would read a Variety review, to get a approximation of the b.o. but since now we have the Dave Polands, b.o. Mojos, and b.o. Gurus of the world who needs Variety to even give a b.o. approximation?
Nobody reads Variety except industry insiders. It has little impact on how a movie is perceived by the public, but it’s basically a sort of ‘official voice’ for the Hollywood community and for them to send V to a second stringer means, as Dave P. says, that they’re trying to walk a political tightrope.
To Nicol: I forgot there are crosses in the political emblems of the movie. I’m sure that’s intentional, but I also suspect that the religion aspect is meant to be implicit and not explicit. Even if it is propaganda, it won’t be on the same level as that Valley of the Wolves movie from Turkey.
Unless something bizarre happens, V for Vendetta will be #1 at the box-office its opening week. It’s only wide competition is She’s the Man, and the second weekends of The Hills Have Eyes, Failure to Launch, and (the only real competition) The Shaggy Dog.
I wouldn’t count out The Hills Have Eyes. It is a horror movie and, unlike Hostel and that ilk, it actually looks interesting.
Man, what the hell did happen to The Hughes Brothers? Not the biggest fan of From Hell, but Menace II Society and Dead Presidents were really good. IMDb says the last things they’ve done are some Korn videos and an A&E chess movie starring Ted Danson. That’s not right.
Hills Have Eyes will almost certainly open well, just like every other horror movie so far this year, but it’s entire audience will then go to see V for Vendetta the next weekend.
Just remember it’s from the director of High Tension, which was not good.
I couldn’t even begin to respond to this one without coming across as snarky… but I do think that this thread has one of the most ironic subject lines ever.
“Red Dawn” — wasn’t that Timothy McVeigh’s favorite movie?
What average person reads Variety? I assume they’re all on someones payroll out there because they need the film industry to survive. But I would think they would have some sort of ethics and integrity.
But I agree with their BO assessment. Strong opening. Quick fall off. Disappearance.
Didn’t the Hughes Brothers break up? Wasn’t one of them supposed to direct Hide & Seek at one point? I thought they weren’t directing together anymore. I’m also a From Hell fan. Other than Graham the cast is fantastic. Some great supporting work there to go with Depp.
“Brit auds, however, may feel pic has missed a trick by not taking a sharper swipe at Tony Blair’s regime.”
So according to Felperin, this film isn’t propagandic enough?
“In the end, competent but bland craft contributions ensure pic looks less like sci-fi stalwarts “A Clockwork Orange” and “Fahrenheit 451” and more like “Batman Begins” or “Van Helsing.”
So the key to making a great sci-fi film is that it has to look like classics from the 70s? And she throws Batman Begins a swipe to boot.
Not the ideal reviewer for this type of film. Maybe there’s a simpler explanation…perhaps Felperin is being groomed to start doing bigger studio releases and this review amounts to a training wheel.
Fahrenheit 451…1966. Sorry about the error, but my comment still stands.
I think what she is saying here is that the film aspires to being a serious commentary based sci-fi a la Clockwork Orange or Fahreheit 911, but has more in common with pop fantasy films like Batman or Van Helsing, right through to the art direction.
You may not agree with her but it is valid.
Will those critical of her be equally condemning of those knee-jerk critics who love the film and give it four stars only for its politics?
And what is A-list for a critic anyway? A.O. Scott at the New York Times was originally a literary critic and even Ebert was highly critical of that selection. I have yet to take him seriously and have yet to see him prove that he has the knowledge of film history to do that job.
BUT…because it is the NYT, we ‘have’ to take it seriously.
I am not familiar enough with this critic to say if she is a hack or not. But just singling her out because she did not like V is not enough to say that she is. I suspect with this film she will actually be bucking a trend.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Anyone who writes for Variety, even Todd McCarthy, is not an A-list critic. There is no strong critical opinion in this review, just some industry forecasting.
Her comparison to Van Helsing and Batman Begins seems more like the statement “it’s a modern Hollywood spectacle movie” than anything else which is obvious to anyone who’s seen the trailer.
I think that A.O. Scott has actually turned into quite a good critic.
By the way, good call, EDouglas.
If V is anything like The Matrix or Batman Begins, then I’ll likely be seeing it.
A dozen times.
Have heard nothing but good things for Hufo and Natalie from this one.
It better be as good as THE MATRIX. Nuff said’
Joe! What about Ghost World?
Although, I haven’t seen A History of Violence (out here on March 9), so…
Jeff, also remember that The Hills Have Eyes is a remake of a classic (or, well-regarded) horror thriller from the ’70s.
Plus, it has a killer trailer (riffing on Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s but whatever) and one of the best taglines ever, which is recycled from the original, but when you got the goods, use ’em – I am speaking of “The lucky ones died first” of course.
The reason I am not mentioning V For Vendetta is because I haven’t seen it, barely anyone else and it’s still weeks away from release.
Craven’s Hills Have Eyes is great.
If Aja has a good script to work with, his version will be fine, because the stupid script was the worst thing about High Tension.
I just mustered up the courage to watch the trailer for Marie Antoinette.
Dear…God.
New Order.
Dear…God.
I still can’t believe Ghost World was a graphic novel. Why and what was it about? I liked the movie but I don’t think it’s a graphic novel. When you say graphic novel I think Sin City, Watchmen, Batman. Not two young college age girls who flirt with Steve Buscemi types.
The Marie Antoinette trailer rocks. It’s so bold and unusual and says that this isn’t your father’s period film. Would you have preferred a piece by Bach or Handel?
“It’s so bold and unusual and says that this isn’t your father’s period film.”
That’s exactly what it did say. It IS your father’s period film. Remember, the elders of our society ARE the aging boomer, hippies who smoke pot and flount tradition.
Yes I would have preferred Bach or Handel. It would have, in this infotainment culture seemed fresh and daring.
This is just more pop drivel aimed at teenage girls who have worn out their tapes of Romeo and Juliette.
It will be worth the price of admission however if we see Marie meet a very grisly fate at the end. Perhaps as her head falls into the basket we can hear the cords of something from Coldplay’s “A Rush of Blood to the Head”.
American Splendor was in the same vein as Ghost World. They’re not all young-male-demographic action stories.
Nicol, I totally agree with you re: the end of Marie Antoinette. I wanna see Sophia Coppola surprise me.
Apparently “Marie-Antoinette” ends well before her execution.
Now, if Sofia Coppola has M-A say “Let them eat cake,” she’ll be the one who should be executed.
yes, well it would be mighty annoying Blackcloud esp since M-A never said that and what she apparently said was quite different and in a different tone (showing her ignorance rather than disdainful hate as she has become to be portrayed).
I thought the M-A trailer was awful. More anti-history with bubbleheaded broads in modern makeup.
Also if the trailer had demonstrated any kind of visual wit or cleverness, or any kind of style to match the music, it would have helped. Instead the music just felt plastered on top of Generic Period Movie.
Using New Order is not standard pop drivel…hardly something teenage girls today would even recognize. In fact, it doesn’t reflect hippie culture to me so much as the John Hughes teenage comedies (during the Reagan Administration). That juxtaposition is interesting…as much as I love Bach and Handel (and I do).
1) Dave – It’s not British tabloids citing Moore’s dissassociation – it’s Moore himself. This discussion was had in detail on the last MCN V thread. Just go to Comic Book Resources, search “Alan Moore” and the first-hand interview will come up.
2) The “curent countercoulture vibe” Felperin is referring to is the terrorism-as-boogeyman belief that has taken hold. Adam Curtis’ “Power of Nightmares” is pretty much the lefites bible on the subject.
3) I’d say V qualifies as a big release in WB’s eyes simply because they bought a Superbowl spot.
I’m also interested to see which side Coppola takes in the Axel von Fersen debate, viz. did they or didn’t they? And I’m curious to see which explanation she chooses for Louis XVI’s apparent inability to consummate their marriage in its first seven years.
Bach and Handel would be anachronistic, too, just not as much as New Order. For a movie taking place in the 1770s and 1780s, something by Haydn or Mozart would be most appropriate. Or, if you want something more French, maybe Rameau or Gluck, although the former died in 1764 and the latter was Viennese and spent only a few years in the 1770s in France.
Good call, Blackcloud. We could definitely use more obscure references like French composers Philidor or Gossec. But even for the sake of argument, if the trailer used the exact same music that would have been heard by Marie Antoinette, I still don’t think it’s necessarily as interesting as doing something strange but that will connect with Gen Xers. And it kind of proves the point too that just to have some classical-sounding music would by virtue of its non-popularity be more dignified than one of great bands of the 80s…aside from the occasional Malick or Kubrick, classical music choices in film are generally not very inspired.
Actually, palmtree, I like the trailer quite a bit. I have no idea if the movie will be any good, but the trailer works very well, and I think a lot of that has to do with the juxtaposition of sound and image. I suspect that not just any modern pop song would have worked, either. I don’t think it’d be appropriate in the movie itself, but I am willing to be proved wrong.
Malick used Wagner and Mozart well in “New World.” As for Kubrick, I’m one of those people who isn’t enamored by the score of “2001.” I love the film otherwise, but the music just strikes me as off somehow. On the other hand, I love John Boorman’s choice (or whoever made it) to use “Siegfried’s Funeral March” as the theme of “Excalibur.” That was inspired.
And by the way, major props for digging up Philidor and Gossec. I was looking for names of “obscure” French composers of the period, but didn’t find any. I know a lot (too much?) about eighteenth-century France, but obviously the era’s music isn’t one of my strong suits.
Yeah, Blackcloud, not being able to find French composers from that time is strange but it’s interesting how old music would have value just for being old even though back then it was probably just the equivalent of a top 40 hit. I loved Malick’s use of Wagner in the opening as we come up from the water, which was relatively close to how Wagner actually uses it to begin his Ring cycle. I just hope nobody thinks that James Horner wrote it. 2001 is something I can see from both sides…the use of Ligeti is truly inspired but Alex North’s original score (which Kubrick threw out) might have worked better and wouldn’t carry the same cultural baggage as say the Blue Danube Waltz.
I think that for a lot of people, when they hear the Blue Danube, 2001 is what they think of.
I prefer the classical music in that movie _because_ of its cultural referents. Alex North’s score could never have lived up to the rest of what was going on in that film.
Music is perhaps the single biggest factor in dating a film and determining whether a picture will last 50 years or be through by the time the next Billboard is out.
This is part of the reason why Kubricks films (along with his classisist style) age so well.
It is also why Spielberg’s films age well and same with Hitchcock’s.
By putting obvious ‘pop’ music in a film, it leaves it rooted in the era in which it was made. Of course there are some exceptions to this rule and certainly teen films should use pop songs to connect with their audience, but if someone is trying to make a film for the ages…pop song=kiss of death.
With Marie Antoinette, I have no idea if the actual film will have pop songs or this is only for the trailer. But if it does have songs in it, it will mean that those seeing it will not connect to the period of history except for through their modern realtion to pop culture. It will be a false connection mediated by the age of infotainment. It will also be a disconnect for further generations who see it.
I thought Lost in Translation was very overrated but very much made for the generation it spoke too. A generation rooted in aimlessness, with no direction. Valid if you can relate to it, tedious if you can’t.
I suspect MA will be a similar dirge.
I can agree with those sentiments. I may be annoyed if Marie Antoinette is filled with 80s pop though the trailer worked for me on that level. Herrmann and Williams have definitely added much to the film world that is lasting. Yes, Nicol, it’s definitely a generational thing, but it’s quite possible that it could skip a generation and have new meanings for the next one.
I’d be more reluctant to make pronouncements about making a “film for the ages.” When the Beatles and Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones first came out, did we think that their music would still reverberate 40 years down the road? And even New Order is over 20 years old (with Joy Divison coming before that). This is the beginning of a new musical canon, and it was this way in the past as well. Bach was not very famous during his life but came to be recognized through revivals of his work in the mid 1800s (over 50 years after his death). During his life, Beethoven’s later masterworks were overshadowed by the attention given to more “frivolous” music such as that of Rossini.
I don’t expect MA to be a dirge, considering all the comic actors Coppola has cast. I mean, the main cast is eclectic as hell (Steve Coogan, Judy Davis, Asia Argento, Molly Shannon (!), Rip Torn, Marianne Faithfull) but even the smaller parts have been filled expertly…good to see Mathieu Amalric here after his turn in Munich, and good character actors like Danny Huston and Tom Hardy.
And you know that if the trailer had been scored with your typical period orchestra tune, we wouldn’t be discussing it at all, so that’s a savvy move right there.
Marie-Antionette is one of my second most anticipated title of 2006. Cannot wait for that one. Already a lock for at least one oscar, too (er, costume – but ‘tev). It’s obviously a completely different can of worms than Lost in Translation or Virgin Suicides and could end up being bad, but i suspect I’ll like it very much.
And I also won’t be able to tell whether the use of ’80s songs will be good or bad (if it does indeed end up using that). Could it be she is trying to draw parallels between the story of Marie-Antionette (one of, essentially, greed) and the ’80s (which is called the ‘greed is good’ generation after all) and then again to the current political climate of greed. Perhaps perhaps perhaps.
New Order = One of the greatest groups of my life-time. God, how much do I love New Order? A whole freakin’ lot, that’s how much. And I was only 2 when their “Substance 1987” album was released. Crazy.
“Could it be she is trying to draw parallels between the story of Marie-Antionette (one of, essentially, greed) and the ’80s (which is called the ‘greed is good’ generation after all) and then again to the current political climate of greed.”
That would be a false parallel, since her story is not one of greed, essentially or otherwise.
BTW, the more I watch the trailer, the more I think the movie should be called “Lost in Revolution.”
I thought her story wasn’t greed as much as it was ignorance and complacency…but I’m no expert on that era.
Greed used to be M-A’s story, but there’s been a significant reappraisal of the French Revolution and the last years of the ancien regime in the last thirty years. One consequence is that M-A’s story is now seen as one, as jeffmcm put it so well, of ignorance and complacency. Which is a good way to describe much of the milieu of Versailles in the last years of the Old Regime.
M-A was popularly (read: in Paris) known as L’Autrichienne. (I’ll leave it to someone else to translate.) And that was mild. You should read the libelles, as they were known, which were written against her. Out and out pornography, much of it. M-A fanned the flames on occasion, but a strong case could be made that she was in a no-win situation.
Late eighteenth-century France is a fascinating place. As long as Sofia Coppola give some impression that she’s aware of what was going on, I’ll be happy.