NEW SOFIA COPPOLA TRAILER SPEAKS TO THE DISAFFECTED RICH

I wonder how the US/World economy shitting itself will effect any feelings on this. Not that it matters for me, because I was tired of that bullshit since 5 min into Lost in Translation.

I understand what you mean about "Oh, White wealthy people problems AGAIN" but I just adore her movies. Though I would love to see her try some sort of scifi flick. That'd be amusing as hell.

Though I really thing Marie Antoniette was sort of the pinnacle for those moody, atmospheric character studies of hers. I don't see how you could richer, or more disaffected than Versailles. Then again, you could say all her films so far have been "Upperclass folk with problems." They certainly weren't slumming it in Virgin Suicides.

...But at least she's approaching this disaffected rich schtick from different angles?


On a different note, it is nice to see more flicks directed by women. Especially high profile pieces like this one.

No mention of Stephen Dorff's rebirth here from DTV obscurity? Where'd that come from? Left field.

Tell Sofia that Kilmer's in need as well.

Marie Antoniette: character study? Lazing around being mildly sad/bored is not a character.
Coppola makes handsome films; gorgeously shot, and perfectly soundtracked, but I really can't get over the content, especially when it mirrors her own life. I'd love to see more films directed by women who aren't the daughters of Hollywood royalty.

Your mileage may vary, Ryan, but that was sort of the point. I know that it was not a typical film with the requisite three acts and felt as if it meandered around, but then again I think it captured the spirit of such an existence. Y'know, the sense of isolation and alienation from what was going on. So yes, character study. The more anachronistic elements added to the sense of the surreal and decadent existence. I think it was brilliant.

While the claims of nepotism are valid, I don't think she'd still be making films if she didn't have the skills to back it up. Cause, y'know, her acting career was certainly going somewhere. But if we want to argue about the content mirroring her life, perhaps we could argue that all of Tarantino's films all revolve around his interest in cinema, how all of Jackson's films involve some aspect of fantasy, how all if not most of DelToro's films are concerned with family relationships and often borrow from his cultural background, etc.

I've never understood this issue with movies that deal with "the problems of rich people." It seems to me that your bank account is no indication of your emotional health or well-being.

Granted there's a lot of wealth-porn out there (Gossip Girl and the like) but all of Coppola's films have felt emotionally real and affecting to varying degrees, regardless of the characters' financial states.

Someone want to explain this to me without some variation on "people with money don't have real problems"? Because I'm genuinely bewildered by it.

Because being rich and sad is obviously a better state of being than poor and sad. And it's hard for poor and sad people to look at rich and sad people and feel that bad about them.

I'm sure some kid in Darfur isn't going to really get the pain at the center of LUCAS, you know? Being a heartbroke 14 year old probably doesn't feel that immediate to them.

The difference is, all those things are interesting, as opposed to "All of Coppola's films involve her personal experience with being a spoiled brat weilding pampered ennui."
She communicates her points/themes very well, I just think they're bullshit and horrible.

imho, of course.

eta: Jesse: part of what Devin said (though I'm not sure kids in Darfur care about film). But also, at least to me, her films never get beyond "I'm melancholy." You're absolutely correct to say that a bank account is no indication of happiness, but at least show us WHY. LiT and MA seem to just meander about, content with telling us these people are vaguely unhappy because.. uh... they are... all the while being waited on hand and foot.

I think Devin kind of hit it on the head in the article: at least give the rich people something more to be affected by (AIDS, dead kids, etc.). I like Sofia Coppala's movies too, but it does get tiresome watching rich people drifting in a state of ennui just because...

I mean, there's that shot in this trailer of the two hot strippers dancing in front of Dorff while he watches looking so dissatisfied. Yeah...fuck you.

Anyway, this could be good, but it kinda just looks like Lost In Translation, but with more chances to be cloying (father/daughter reconnection). Also, one of the reasons LIT worked so well was that it had Bill Murray in the lead as the disaffected rich white guy. Though Dorff staring in an art film is interesting, he's doesn't exactly come with the cache that Murray has.

You see I always kind of liked Marie-Antoinette because, even though it was using Antonia Fraser's book as inspiration, it attempted to make these vilified characters kind of relatable. You think about Marie-Antoniette and the French Aristocracy and you kind of think of a decadent society about to be punished for the sin of not paying heed to their people.

Marie-Antoinette sort of offers this insight into just how cloistered most of the aristocracy was from the 'real world'. The court of Versaille is literally their entire world and nothing of importance exists beyond it, and this is something not only created by their ignorance but encouraged by the traditions and societies of the time. As such you get an idea for how claustrophobic and self centred that entire system is, and by doing stuff like mixing classical music into a piece of 80s pop she sort of allows us to relate to them on a level we can conceptualise, they're no longer historical figures, but a teenage girl/woman in her early twenties.

New trailer looks fantastic though. I'd love her to try and go back to something a little more visually etheral like The Virgin Suicides was, but it's hard to argue with how amazing Marie and Lost in Translation are.

Also, not to derail, but considering the talk of women directors, Winter's Bone, which has a rave review up here and other places, and is based off a fantastic book, and rolls out to more cities this Friday, is directed by a woman. So, we should all see that.

He was excellent in Orphan.

He wasn't in Orphan. Do you mean Felon?

Nepotism does not bother me. That's just sour grapes. Fuck, I wish my dad was Stephen Spielberg. I would've made some kick ass films by now. I think there is a very palpable difference between someone like Sophia Coppola or Jake Kasdan or Jason Reitman, versus say, Breck Eisner. If you have something great to offer the world, then I am frankly glad that your career started earlier than it otherwise would've.

That said, my problem with Coppola at this point (barring SOMEWHERE being secretly brilliant) is the narrow scope of her output. I know they say "write what you know" but if she doesn't "know" anything else about humanity aside from upper-class ennui then that is an artistic problem in the long run.

Money's phenomenal to have, no doubt. I wish I had a lot more of it (then I could hire Coppola to make a film about me). But how does money ease the human cost of, say, drug addiction? Or suicide? Or betrayal? Or any emotional upheaval?

To take one recent "film about rich people's problems" as example, how does the arguable wealth of the family in Rachel Getting Married dilute her father's pain in the dishwasher-loading scene? Or their collective struggle to cope with the human tornado that is a recovering addict?

I'm pretty sure that a poor kid in Darfur isn't going to relate especially well to 90-something% of Hollywood films in general. That's not meant to be snarky, just matter-of-fact.

You seemed able to relate to/appreciate George's character in Funny People. How is that portrayal of insane wealth different than this kind of portrayal? Not at all looking to troll or pick a fight, I'm just interested in your thoughts.

Dorff is a puzzling choice. Is the budget only 3 million dollars or something? I can't believe she couldn't get a bigger name with her rep. Elle Fanning is probably more well-known at this point.

Both excellent points. Marie Antoinette is definitely my least-favorite of her films, for pretty much all of these reasons. Should I ever affect dissatisfaction ala Dorff you have permission to slap me about the face.

Devin's point about giving people something to be affected by is a good one, I just don't get the larger "rich people's problems aren't relatable" thing.

...And Winter's Bone is legitimately PHENOMENAL. Devin's review was terrific, and dead-on. If you want to see a truly special film (and one directed by a woman) GO SEE THAT MOVIE.

I find this issue of Unhappy Rich People very interesting. Haven't really had such a convo before.

I'm closer to the Devin side. I think the problem isn't simply whether or not characters have lots of money that causes the separation of relatability. It goes deeper to tone and approach, at least for me. RACHEL GETTING MARRIED was very raw and very sad and intimate. While the film took place in a very nice home, aside from its overall largeness it felt lived in and real. I think there is a level of detachment that pervades the kind of Unhappy Rich movies we're talking about. RACHEL GETTING MARRIED didn't have scenes of Rachel riding around in a helicopter across her palatial estate with a "What is the point of it all?" look on her face while twee indie rock plays on the soundtrack.

I think that mentioned Dorff stripper moment kinda sums up what I mean. Coppola is generally showing us things that likely any audience member would rather be doing at that exact moment than watching the movie. There was no part of RACHEL GETTING MARRIED where I thought, "Boy I wish I was there!" Well, aside from the fucking.

That's a really concise way of putting it, MW.

Thanks for that.

These kinds of conversations are a large part of the reason that I frequent the boards. They're inherently interesting to me.

As I said in the article, I don't mind Rich People Problem Movies if there are real problems in there. RACHEL GETTING MARRIED is a film where the rich folk have a real problem. Rich or poor, losing a child is a problem most people can, on a base level, get. Same with FUNNY PEOPLE, which is about facing your life and not liking what you see. It's a movie about regrets, which we all have.

But these Coppola movies are about being bored and disconnected, which in and of itself is tougher to identify with for many people. But beyond that, these people are bored and disconnected BECAUSE of their wealth. That's even tougher to identify with. This is why I try to complain less about my international travel headaches - they're good problems to have. Being stuck in Japan is kind of a good problem to have. Being rich at Chateau Marmont is a good problem to have.

I could go on and on about LiT and MA and this whole rich ennui thing. I'm just happy I can vent somewhere heh.

Also, Jesse if you ever turn into Stephen Dorff I'm not sure what my reaction would be. I suppose slapping could make it onto the list.

This sums it up very well.

Yup. It does. Thanks for the thoughts, Ryan, Devin, Z. Vasquez and MW. I appreciate it.

Outside of a Lost Highway-esque cranial-change, I don't see it happening. Still, one never knows. Keep that list handy.

Basically agree. Yeah Lost in Translation was about privileged people with comfortable lives. But it can still resonate because it deals with universal stuff in an honest way, and her new one seems to be aiming to do something similar. 'Once' was a movie with quite similar subject matter, only focussed on working class characters living very modest lives, but I found I could relate to all of these characters because the social context wasn't as important to these movies as the characters' basic humanity.

LOST IN TRANSLATION is about feeling lonely in an unfamiliar place and the excitement of making a connection. SOMEWHERE is seemingly about the pain of divorce and having a child caught in the middle. That's stuff people can identify with. I think my problem with MARIE ANTOINETTE is it has all the style and atmosphere and mood and no reason to connect with the headspace of the lead character.

"Why do Japanese people switch their R's and L's?" universal stuff. :P

Well, Charlotte was as in awe of her surroundings as she was overwhelmed by them. And Marie Antoinette struck me as an extended metaphor about being young and life making choices for you that are beyond your control, rather than a look at how shitty it is to be royalty. Whereas this trailer kind of makes it look like it's so stifling to be living in the Chateau Marmont. Obviously it's just the trailer, but I'm just addressing how it plays.

Chris Pontius is in this movie.

That's all.

Bet that kid in Darfur would shit himself over Transformers, amiright?

And I'd even argue that MA makes the links between that cloistered, narcissistic society of the 18th century and our own society today. Face it, even most lower middle class folk in the US and UK have it a hell of a lot better than that kid in Darfur or a rural community in China. And we are just as self centered and clueless as those wacky French folk back in the day

I think it looks great. I loved Marie Antoinette, too. The more I thought about it the more I realized how ambitious and fully realized it was. Most of the way people criticized the movie seemed like they were bringing their sense of history to it, clinging to what they learned about these characters from text books. Coppola seemed more interested in telling the story from the inside out, and I thought that was refreshing. We were so isolated in that world that at the end, when the people are calling for blood, I was frankly a little shocked. That's powerful, bold film making. And yeah, there can be nobody richer than the King and Queen of France. But they definitely had some problems. Interesting problems.

Also, I know Scarlet Johanson's character is newly married to a photographer in Lost in Translation. Does that really qualify her as rich?

Sheesh, some of the comments seem particularly harsh.

Just a touch misogynistic.

ETA: Backhanded misogyny?

Not just rich and bored: World Famous, rich and bored. Bill Murray is a (former) Hollywood Star: Marie Antoinette is a queen! They live in a fishbowl, not able to really connect with other people precisely because everyone recognizes them. It's not like they are Billionaires who can walk about unrecognized.

She makes Disaffected Rich People movies, but she does them well. I'm never going to complain about a filmmaker making good movies. Not every filmmaker has to be capable of a wide variety of films.

I was personally connecting with this trailer more from a production standpoint as a dad who spends long hours away (let alone one day probably having to spend weeks away) from his kid and keeping a marriage together.

Apparently Coppola's next film after this is about a famous, attractive, and massively talented woman who has to deal with the tremendous pressure and deep personal strife of misogynistic internet commentators calling her out on being famous, attractive, and massively talented.

Marie Antoinette is among the most underrated films of the past decade. It's GREAT.

It is kind of way-too-fitting that the trailer would feature the Strokes, though.

For all the talk this discussion has had of her being pigeonholed by the rich ennui theme (and in this thread at least no one's really come too hard against her overall), we should acknowledge that her first movie isn't really about that stuff, and IMHO is her best film.

Aren't they staying in pretty much the nicest hotel in Tokyo? Not to mention all she does all movie is spend money while wondering what she's going to do with her life.

As for MA... as much as I dislike the film, I think Coppola succeeded in what she tried to do. I just think what she tried to do is dumb and kind of terrible. It's certainly a unique approach to the subject matter... and I wasn't looking for it to pass judgment or preach to me. But it's kind of hard to ignore the ugly reality of Antoinette's story in favor of her feeling slightly detached because she has everything she could ever want or need.
I'm sure Paris Hilton gets a little mopey and sad sometimes (just cuz), but I don't want to watch a movie about it.

Anyways, massive derail etc

Sofia makes honest, personal films. Lost in Translation is a masterpiece. If her movies happen to be about rich, disconnected people so be it. No one ever said Woody Allen was a crappy filmmaker for spending decades making movies about upper class Jews.

Well, actually people have....but they were wrong then just like they're wrong now. I'm happy Sofia makes movies that are personal to her.

I'm dreading that this is a "The Girl that Changes Everything" movie far more than it's a rich-white-people-problems movie.

Again, I'm not commenting on the film without actually having seen it, but Woody Allen's films, for as much neurosis and dissatisfaction as they're filled with, do not make you feel like being rich and famous is a prison*. That's kind of how this trailer plays.

* They're more about relationships and intellectualism.

I dunno. Stardust Memories is as much a "being rich and famous is a prison" movie as anything Sofia is likely to do.

Lost in Translation isn't really about money, at all. The characters may be rich, but none of their problems in the film have anything to do with money. Their problems have to do with disconnected relationships, loss of direction, and the inability to relate with their surroundings.

Those are pretty much universal problems that people go through at one time or another.

As for this one, we've seen a trailer. I'm sure there will be plenty of universal themes in it. As long as you are OPEN to relating to a rich, bored girl. I guess some people just don't like leaving their bubble.

Just FYI, I don't think this criticism could be leveled at any of Sofia's films thus far. It's solely a reaction to the trailer.

That part wasn't directed at you as much. It just seems that some people in this thread have been lumping all of Sofia's movies as being about "rich, bored, shallow people", and I just think that's a very superficial reading of her films.

Exactly. People have different skills, nothing wrong with that.

Or is it that the characters in LiT and MA are just very superficial themselves?
Ok I'll stop

I get into SO MANY fights about Lost in Translation with people saying things similar to what you've been saying. It's one of those constant "movie" fights I get into.

Maybe it makes me sound like an asshole if I say that the majority of people who didn't like Lost in Translation didn't "get" it. That's an awful argument, and one that I don't like to make. But I never understand any of the arguments people make at it when they say they don't like it. It often seems like they watched a different movie, or just didn't pay attention.

On a surface level, you might be right. But I think there's a lot more going on in that movie. Not a lot of it is in the dialogue, but it's all in the acting. The way Murray and Johanssen look at each other. When Murray and Johanssen go out for a night on the town in Japan, it's barely recognizable as a scripted film. It seems like Sofia just took a camera out and hung out with them in Japan. Just about every moment in the film feels real. Genuine. The karaoke scene is cinematic magic. I think their performances add so much depth to that movie and is what seperates it from her other films more than anything else.

Someone once told me that they didn't like the characters because they're on a beautiful vacation but they're depressed. That made them shallow, that they should be getting out of the hotel room and enjoying themselves.

We're talking about two characters in loveless marriages going through an existential crisis - and people think they should be having a blast sight seeing? Now who's the shallow one?

Well, again, I understand what Coppola is trying to say through the characters in LiT. I "get it". It's hard to connect with people. And I do think it's pretty genuine. I just think it's genuinely selfish and ultimately shallow. You can't understand why someone would prefer to watch Rourke in The Wrestler have trouble connecting with people as opposed to Murray in LiT? If I'm going to sympathize and empathize with a down on their luck character in a film, I expect to be shown why, not just to be told "feel bad for ____. the end." Some ok acting (read: longing looks) doesn't really do the trick.

This may be a different can of worms, but: Frame all of this with the fact that Coppola uses damn near the entire Japanese race as a narrative device to enhance the inability-to-connect-with-others theme. We get it. They can't fit in. I would be impresed if Coppola could pull that off while surrounding her characters with seemingly mundane or familiar things... but to overwhelm them with fish out of water stereotypes seems cheap. Murray wades through the endless sea of silly little Japanese charicatures, slightly bemused by their wacky customs and funny language. It's like he's wandering a zoo. Notice how he never once attempts even a single word in Japanese. You're probably going to say I'm missing the forest for the trees, but I'm not really ok with racial stereotypes lazily used to enhance theme.

Unless we're supposed to come away from the film with a primary impression being: Bob Harris is pretty much a douche bag.

To be honest the fact you seem to believe Lost In Translation is about making the audience feel bad for the characters does kind of suggest you don't 'get it'. I love The Wrestler as well, but that movie is entirely about milking the pathos of a washed up guy at his lowest ebb. LIT isn't melodramatic at all, in fact it's barely even dramatic, it's just presenting a bittersweet little incident in two people's lives. Again, I'd point to Once as a better working class equivalent, if it's that important to have one.

I guess Bob Harris would fit your definition of a douche bag if douche bag means that he's burnt out from doing unfulfilling acting work, does not want to be in Japan, and has no desire to interact with any of the people there. Him trying to talk in Japanese with them would be really out of character. He doesn't want to be there, and he's giving none of them a fair shake. (Besides he actually does try and speak Japanese to Charlotte's friend Charlie Brown when they go out to party. This is when Bob starts to reconnect with the world again. Through Charlotte. He is then able to connect with other people. I just used your flaw against you.)

We see the people of Japan through their eyes. I'm not sure if the characters they run into are necessarily STEREOTYPES, and I think it is a fair depiction of how an outsider might view Japan while visiting.

On a sidenote, why do movies have to be about likable characters? I hear people say this again and again and it makes no sense to me. Jake LaMotta and Daniel Plainview are examples of two terrible human beings whose stories I enjoy watching.

The idea that you need a "likable" protagonist seems severely limiting to film as an art form. I know you want the audience to connect with characters, empathize blah blah blah, I'm a grown up now. Most people have flaws. I'm okay with characters in movies having them too, even if it makes them people I wouldn't associate with in real life.

I don't think it's about that. But I also don't think it was Coppola's intention to have the audience bored and irritated by the lead characters' woes (or really most things about them). Obviously this is just my opinion/interpretation, and I'm probably in the minority when all's said and done.

noooo *melts*
I forgot about that part!
I'm not suggesting lead characters have to be likeable. Not at all. Raging Bull & There Will Be Blood are two of my favorite films, but the characters in them had motivations, depth and pathos; things I think that were missing from Scarlett & Murray. I'm perfectly okay with films being about fascinating or engaging bastards, but I thought LiT was just about boring annoying ones.
pre-empt:...and NO I don't think every film should be about larger than life characters that huge things happen to. I just want things to be interesting, dammit.

And to my surprise, he was great in it.

One of the bright spots. Which weren't many. So he's the biggest star in the world, gets laid all the time, travels around the world and has a good week with his 11 year old daughter.

I honestly don't see the point of this movie. Was i supposed to feel sorry for the guy because he had to wear a casket on his face for 40 minutes for a special FX scene? Why is this story interesting?

Dorff is very good, Fanning is great.

The ending is one of the worst things i've seen