Francis Ford Coppola

I'm honestly not super well versed in Coppola, but here's my shot:

The stories are excellent yes, but you are immersed in the world. The Godfather and Apocalypse Now aren't just people and places, it's a world and you're in it.

The scene in Apocalypse Now where they reach the Do Long bridge, and find the now infamous Roach is a perfect example of this.

"Who's in charge here soldier?"
"Ain't you!?"

I don't feel like I'm watching people there, I feel like I am there. I know that's what movies are supposed to do, but I've never felt as immersed as when I'm watching Coppola's work.

But I'm probably wrong, so feel free to call me out on it.

In a nutshell, his films seem to be about timid men being forced to grow up by making horrific decisions. The death of innocence.

Oh. Lets go with that, it's a much better response than mine

I wouldn't call Michael, Harry, or Willard timid (maybe Caul is); or innocent, particularly. I'd characterize them more as outsiders, observers- who are forced to get their hands dirty.

The Godfather is the American Odyssey. Just the scope, that American Dream motif turned on its head...no matter what pitfalls FFC might make, I think there is no more a definitive film than this for him.

I think a lot of it is about family and responsibility as well. Even Apocalypse Now has Willard conflicted between two father figures; Kurtz and the US military. At the end, he obeys one and becomes the other, more or less.

Father figures are everywhere in Coppola's movies, and there seems to be a real fear of not living up to the previous generations. Even when a son does everything he can and sacrifices everything to live up to the previous generations name, he can destroy everything important (Godfather 1 and 2...and in some respects, 3).

There's also an element of control at play with the responsibility that usually manifests itself in modern Greek tragedy. Frequently, his protagonists are struggling with control, sometimes resisting it, sometimes embracing it; but it's almost always their gifts that are their downfall. Michael is incredibly smart. Almost too smart, and his intelligence is what ultimately destroys him. Harry is brilliant at what he does, but one slight misunderstanding and his world is ripped to pieces (quite literally, at the end). Willard looses his soul for his mission, the only thing that matters to him anymore. He's an excellent soldier; almost too good. This covers pretty much all of his films, with the exception of some of the shit in the 90's like Jack and maybe the Rainmaker.

I strongly recommend two of his 80's films that go unnoticed too often: One From the Heart and especially Rumble Fish.

It's like this: he was a member of Corman's stable, he hired the best guys to make his best films, allowing him to flourish, he broke his brain on Apocalypse Now, and has been turning in misfires ever since.

That's the time-saving, generalizing version.

For some reason, I'm really curious to hear what you think of The Outsiders, Patrick.

Apathy to the point I didn't see them. I heard Tetro was good.

To me The Outsiders belongs in some kind of "plastic theater" trilogy which would include Dracula and One From The Heart (or maybe Peggy Sue Got Married), where Coppola loses interest in presenting "realism" and goes unsubtle and stylized. I wish I liked the end results more. Peggy Sue is the best of that bunch, for my money.

Having just recently seen Tucker: The Man And His Dream, as well as The Cotton Club, I have to say that those are both really excellent movies. Especially Tucker. Wouldn't call those misfires.

Outsiders forced to get their hands dirty is a pretty adept conclusion for the basis of most of his films. Just an outsider in general. Like Tucker and the Big 3 not wanting him in business.

If you watch The Outsiders, try to avoid the newer extended one. The new scenes are okay, but they changed the musical score to rock music and it sucks. I couldn't believe how bad it sucked.

On the other hand, you're right about 8th grade. I really love the movie, but I don't know how I'd feel about it now. It's both similar to, and very different from Rumble Fish.

This thread reminds me that I need to watch JACK.

His Dracula is a seminal work.

Visually, Tetro is stunning. It's probably the most personal film Coppola has made in a long, long time, since Rain People at least.

Something that's always been fascinating to me is that he had no interest in doing the Godfather films. They weren't like some ideas he had kicking around in his brain, some grandiose movie series concept he'd wanted to do for ten years straight and finally got the chance. The Godfather was a hired-gun deal that Lucas had to talk him into taking up just so they'd have enough money to pay off all the debt from the editing equipment Coppola had bought on credit in Europe. So he went to do some genre studio movie off of a trashy book like the hundreds of other for-hire directors (in a scenario much like Jaws), and somewhere in deciding that if he was gonna make the movie he was at least try to make it good, he ended up filming arguably the second and third greatest films ever made.

Citizen Kane was the big sweeping masterpiece of an ambitious young man who wanted to show the world how much of a creative genius he was, and presumably every moment of work on that film was bent around the intention of creating the best American movie yet made. Not to mention the grand theme summing up all of the human experience in a great moral parable, etc, etc.

Coppola just went to make himself a studio movie and in simply trying to balance between not getting fired and not making a disaster ended up with an incredible film that somehow has a theme that speaks for all America.

Now that's really somethin'.

Maybe he meant to Branagh's awful Frankenstein.

You haven't seen Franicis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula?!? I can't imagine such an existence. It would be like living in a world without sunlight, not unlike the world Dracula lives in (but not in this movie because he goes out in the sun wearing groovy John Lennon shades).

If you're going to troll, at least try to be funny.

Here's the best way to experience Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Edit: Sebastian isn't trolling. According to Facebook he did indeed bring home Jack to watch tonight. He's a sincere dude.

I still think the 80's featured fairly decent output from Coppola. One From The Heart, Rumble Fish, Peggy Sue Got Married and (to a somewhat lesser extent) The Outsiders. Nothing compared to the 70's, but when you consider what he did in that decade, that almost doesnt seem fair.

The Cotton Club is pretty fucking awful. Coppola even says he got duped into making it by Robert Evans and regretted it ever since.

I like how Dracula was made, but the performances are terrible. It comes at an interesting point in his filmography if you consider that he'd just finished The Godfather Part III. I find some weird similarities in the two. I wonder if Coppola was obsessing over the sudden loss of his son, because both of those movies have patriarchal figures filled with regret and trying to either not die or keep their loved ones from dying, being corrupted, etc.

Jack is AIDS. Avoid at all costs. Coppola talks about how is kind of fond for it, but whatever. I'm sure he had an okay time making it.

I kind of have a soft spot for The Rainmaker, but it's totally a director for hire gig. As those kinds of things go, it's a masterpiece compared to Jack.

Youth Without Youth isn't as bad as people say it is, but it's also not very good. It feels like he's gearing back into the personal film mode again and just hadn't quite found it yet.

Tetro is better. Visually, it's amazing and it features some great, natural performances. The story is predictable and it drags a bit too long, but it seems like he's headed in an interesting direction again. Gallo is amazing in it.

Sheesh, tough crowd. I'll bring my A game next time.

Seriously though, I like Coppola's Dracula warts and all, and as Phil pointed out I'm seriously taking JACK home to watch, thanks to this thread. Why? Because someone has to.

Jack's on Netflix Instant if anyone wonders what retina rape feels like.

Is it really that bad? The thing is, I like movies where adults play children. CLIFFORD is a favorite of mine, for instance. I just find adults playing children endlessly amusing.

Rumble Fish is great. Its fun to watch next to Outsiders which has obvious similarities in story.

It takes a much more experimental approach. I think Mickey Rourke is the key. His Motorcycle Boy becomes transcendent to his neighborhood- creating this otherworldly feel to what could have been another Outsiders.

Conversation is another one of my favorites. The scene where they have the party in his lab is so odd and great. And the soundtrack...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DogQt...eature=related

It's not really a horror movie. I'd call it a monster movie, maybe. A gothic romance might fit it even better. Technically, I think it's incredible, but again, the acting is wretched. Oldman is fun to watch, but he's in super over the top mode. Keanu is at his worst, as is Ryder and Hopkins.

Tom Waits as Reinfeld though. Can't beat that.

Decide for yourself. Can't speak for Clifford, but Jack makes Billy Madison look like a comic masterpiece.

I don't know- Hopkins is pretty great in this scene...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhmVHqpX35s&feature=fvw

Eh, I feel like he's coasting on his "Lecterisms."

Wildly different tones in the performances contribute to the painful acting. While Hopkins is enjoyably over the top in many of his scenes, when contrasted with Reeves and Ryder's overly sincere, high school drama level acting, and Oldman's operatic grandiosity, the movie feels all over the place.

I like CLIFFORD.

And holy shit, that book Phil linked to is expensive. Why'd I have to see that right after Christmas?

I think it goes without saying everyone here has seen Hearts Of Darkness? His wife's published diary and the Biskind book (Easy Riders...) go into far greater detail about how and why Coppola went off the rails, but the documentary, although extremely tame in comparison, is one of the best ever made.

I was watching Apocalypse Now on Blu-ray the other day and pondered the same question as Patrick. Like Kubrick, Coppola at his best has an absolutely magnetic ability to engage viewers into the world he creates. I have no clue why Apocalypse Now is so gripping. It's a series of random ass encounters, but it works and it's almost entirely due to Coppola. I've only seen a dozen or so of his movies, and I've never been overly analytical, so I can't really comment on what sets him apart as a filmmaker. He's just a man who knows/knew how to tell stories.

On some of the movies discussed in this thread:

I'm fond of the Outsiders simply because I liked the book in middle school. The movie itself isn't anything special. It's a very by-the-numbers adaptation. The most interesting aspect is the stagey theatricality Coppola lended to it (characters standing in front of Gone With the Wind type painted backdrops). I prefer the extended cut simply because it's closer to the book. The theatrical cut is far too streamlined and loses pretty much everything that doesn't concern Ponyboy, Johnny, or Dally. I still haven't seen Rumble Fish, which is by all accounts a better and more interesting film (with source material by the same author).

I like Coppola's Dracula. But it's definitely overblown in every way imaginable. It's overstylized, overacted and oversexed. It's got some really cool old school in-camera special effects, great makeup and costumes, and an excellently moody score. It's also inexplicably weird. Coppola takes every opportunity he can manage to get a cheap thrill out of the audience. I was always incredibly fond of Coppola's Dracula, but I rewatched it over the summer and realized the movie itself isn't that good.

I actually saw Jack in theaters. It's not that bad, but incredibly corny.

I watched Youth Without Youth over the summer and liked it. I was surprised at how engagingly Coppola presented its out-there plot.

Not to belittle your experience. But if you had watched Southern Comfort around the same time. You probably would have been swinging from the rafters.

What's the stance on The Rainmaker? Grisham puts me to sleep so I have no clue on this one.

Guys, I may chicken out on JACK. My wife looked at me like I was telling her I had contracted herpes from a hooker when I brought it home. Though she had me bring home JUNIOR, so what does she know.

Ha just watched Apocalypse Now on Blue Ray this past weekend. Beautiful film and I think it's more a pure Coppla film than even Godfather II.

To try and answer the thread's opening question: I think Coppola is one of the few American Directors who both creates a world in their films but also wrestles with issues in the real world. Godfather II & II are just as much meditations on America and the American Dream as they are gangster films. The Conversation is a meditation on the culture of surveillance, how it can affect the watchers, and how they can be manipulated by their own technology. And Apocalypse Now is a deep philosophical exploration of the human spirit.

In terms of pure film technique I don't know that anything marks Coppola apart. Kubrick had his Corridor Shots, Spielberg his "camera rushing up to the character from below , but pointing up". I can't think of anything like that in Coppola's oeuvre.

I would say that, like Lucas, Coppola utilized sound better than almost any other Director, period. As an example, consider the Copters in Apocalypse Now. They act almost like a threatening Greek Chorus, that is when they are not outright embodiments of Man's most destructive tendencies. At different points during Willard's briefing, the sound of the Copters accents the story of Kurtz, gradually rising as Willard is told he is to kill the Colonel. That's just one example. The film is replete with more.

Not to mention the ceiling fan. It's genius.

Let us not overlook the fact that Coppola's regular sound editor/mixer is this dude named Walter Murch.

Ta-dow. And lately I'm itching to revisit Apocalype Now after seeing a bunch of Storaro's cinematography in the early giallo films.

Storato and Tovoli are masters. I'm kinda surprised Hollywood doesn't use them more often. Maybe they just don't want to travel now that they're getting up there age wise.

I can't recommend the Apocalypse Now blu-ray enough. It's one of those sets that has everything you'd ever need related to the movie. I would have ordered if for the lengthy interview Coppola does with John Milius alone. And the transfer is astonishing. The only time I've seen the movie look better was in theaters for the Redux.

This this this and this. Get on it, Phil.

Dracula is an interesting movie for me. The acting is definitely bad (Keanu Reeves should have never been cast), and the movie tends to drag in spots, but I love the over the topness of it all. The costumes, the music, all of Coppola's set pieces, even if the story isn't particularly great, I think there is enough cool moments to keep you interested. There is a certain...grandness to it all. Also, this:

NSFW Bellucci Tit

Actually, seeing it made me think Coppola could have made a really good League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen. The style, the tone, I think he could have done it justice.

It's hard to describe but he is great doing certain lingering with the camera anytime a new scenario is introduced (Dracula's liar, Willard's room, Kurtz's nest) every element in front of the camera is relevant.

Storaro is a genius. I watched some documentary talking about how he used different chromatic moments to emphasize the journey. Later on I saw redux at the theater and my jaw dropped. I didn't know he is the cameraman next to Francis yelling "Don't look at the camera, keep on fighting!" on screen.

Maybe just link the NSFW tittie shot instead of embedding the pic, t3cii. I don't care personally, we're balls deep in hookers and blow over here, but some people got real jobs.