T99 wrote:So, it looks like a box office disaster then. Sad, even though I'm sure Coppola can survive it.
Not only can he survive it, but he mentioned during a recent interview on The Howard Stern Show that these self-funded and self-distributed films basically could make zero dollars and he wouldn't even notice, that they're essentially funded with a very small portion of his profits from his lucrative winery and hotel business. So I wouldn't shed a tear for Coppola money-wise.
Although it is a shame that more people didn't go out to see this film, because he is definately stretching his legs creatively for the first time in decades. The first half of the movie rolls along splendidly, it's visually spectacular (minus the fact that a few select close-ups seem to be shot in some sort of higher definition, it reminded me of those hand-painted close-up drawings during the course of a Ren and Stimpy episode to highlight some sort of grotesque visual) and the story is set up masterfully. The film is never boring through the first act and a half, or so, until we begin to learn Tetro's backstory, and this is where it really goes off the rails. Coppola takes his time in revealing the most awful and dispicable misdeed imaginable committed upon Gallo's character by his father, and he instead decides to give us scenes of "there's only room for one genius in this family!" and some other minor snubs by his father first to butter us up, to the point where I was rolling my eyes at what passes for lousy fathering in this thinly-veiled Coppola family empire. By the time the whole story comes out as to why Tetro has detached himself so bitterly from his family, the audience ceases to care one bit, and has already written him off as a whiny loser stuck in a state of arrested development, much like his character in the infinately more interesting
Buffalo '66.
The real story here isn't even Gallo, despite Coppola's love affair with his face throughout the film (and to be fair, he gives a great performance, but it isn't much of a stretch for him or anything.) The other two leads, played by Maribel Verdú and Alden Ehrenreich are the real story here - their performances are richly and fully realized, even when the film goes off the rails in the third act. Ehrenreich, especially, is a foregone conclusion - he'll be the next DiCaprio or Damon in no time flat. No one with those looks and that talent just disappears after doing such a great job with his debut - especially when that debut is in a Coppola film opposite Vincent Gallo, who never manages to upstage his young costar even when he's screaming at him and scrambling his hands at him in anger. It's a shame that the film begins like it was directed by the man who made
The Godfather, and ends like it was directed by the man who made
Jack. It becomes melodramatic, flabby, and completely knocks down the house of cards it so carefully set up. But it's still hard not to recommend this film, if only for the stunning visuals and its plentiful touching and humorous moments. It's deeply flawed, but it has several flashes of greatness.
All that being said: It's just great to see a filmmaker going back to his roots becuase he's financially able to do so. Guys like Spielberg, Lucas and Zemeckis seem lost in the studio system forever, to the point that it's begun to compromise the quality of their films, but Coppola seems to be thrilled to be rid of it all. After seeing Sam Raimi's
Drag Me to Hell earlier this year, I already had a warm spot in my heart for this kind of scrappiness (despite the fact that the latter is not self-funded, it's still a filmmaker playing in the sandbox again after being confined by huge money and huge expectations). Coppola has rediscovered why he started making films in the first place. It certainly shows when a director is enjoying himself, and I'm glad he has found that groove.
