It’s her birthday today.
Doing these posts is a way to pull up things from my gigantic archives. I might as well find ways to share them. But it’s also a reminder of how much I haven’t written. Topics I should probably explore in print. For example: I haven’t written a word about Somewhere, which I think may very well be Coppola’s best film. I think it’s one of the best films of the last 30 years. A throwback to the Golden Age of 1970s American filmmaking.
I also have never written about Marie Antoinette, which got some VERY weird critiques back in the day … all those ANACHRONISMS (there were anachronisms in Shakespeare, you dolts.) Also, the ever-present criticism of nepotism. In fact, those critiques are SO constant that one could make the argument that Coppola has a VERY difficult battle indeed, to get her work taken seriously IN SPITE of her father. Nicolas Cage changed his damn name to try to make it on his own without the Coppola name. I love Marie Antoinette.
And her wonderful Christmas special – A Very Murray Christmas – which made me happy to be alive. (I’m not exaggerating.) The special is structured like one of those old-fashioned television specials and variety shows, where guests show up and do their thing, tell some jokes, sing a song, “banter”. And Coppola does all this – beautifully – but overlays it with this bittersweet feeling of nostalgia and melancholy and loneliness.
But I have written a couple of things about Coppola’s films:
— a piece on Bill Murray in Lost in Translation for my friend Jeremy Richey’s wonderful blog, Moon in the Gutter (RE-POSTED HERE). That one means a lot to me.
— I reviewed the extremely horny The Beguiled for Ebert.
And finally, here are two eloquent shots from Coppola’s first film, a short called Lick the Star. To say “I feel seen” by this doesn’t even come close to expressing the situation. Maybe it’s the Gen-X-ness of it all that I really respond to.
Thank you so much for stopping by. If you like what I do, and if you feel inclined to support my work, here’s a link to my Venmo account. And I’ve launched a Substack, Sheila Variations 2.0, if you’d like to subscribe.
I love Sofia Coppola, but it seems very few people I know take her very seriously (especially my film buff buddies). I have no idea why not (because her movies are largely about girls and women, maybe?). The hate Marie Antoinette received was pretty baffling to me, as I thought it was such a masterful, creative, and inventive use of the genre. I think her first four movies are absolute perfection, and I agree with you about Somewhere. I also watched with amusement a few years ago as a small campaign to get her canceled over the “racism” in Lost in Translation fizzled out. As with most “cancel campaigns,” I think the perpetrators completely misunderstood the points being made in the film about cross-cultural misunderstandings.
Having said that, I do think the quality of her output after those films declined. For instance I thought both The Bling Ring and The Beguiled were just awful. I haven’t seen Priscilla, but mostly because I just can’t muster up the interest. I haven’t watched the Christmas one, either, though I’ve been meaning to.
Thank you for this little entry, though. She’s always been a filmmaker that has intrigued me, even when I don’t like the movies. I think she has such a distinctive vision that manages to get translated to the screen effectively (as far as I can tell) and without compromise, and that’s saying a lot. Now, if Criterion would just put out a lavish box set!
Ryan – hey! sorry for the delay – I wanted to respond but the last couple days were nuts.
Thanks so much for reading and commenting! I’m not sure if your film buff buddies are male – I don’t want to assume!! But maybe there’s resistance to her stuff because it’s so girl-focused? I don’t know. It’s curious.
// The hate Marie Antoinette received was pretty baffling to me, as I thought it was such a masterful, creative, and inventive use of the genre. //
Totally! The criticisms seemed almost desperate to me – people just unwilling from the jump to go along with the movie and let IT show THEM how to watch it. the complaints about anachronisms were, sorry, stupid. Just plain old dumb. Shakespeare used anachronisms. Baz Luhrmann gets the same stupid critique.
Like, Coppola was going after a MOOD – as a way to show what all that must have felt like to the teenage virgin from Austria.
I think the movie will continue to “age well”.
// I also watched with amusement a few years ago as a small campaign to get her canceled over the “racism” in Lost in Translation fizzled out. As with most “cancel campaigns,” I think the perpetrators completely misunderstood the points being made in the film about cross-cultural misunderstandings.//
Yeah, that didn’t go well. Neither does the whole “nepo baby” thing – please let it end soon. Again, I feel like people make up reasons to discount her. there’s a “who does she think she is” thing that happens – not so much among film critics, who in general take her seriously – but … in general.
I liked The Bling Ring – although it’s not really deep. It’s more about the THINGS. the OBJECTS. which is also Priscilla’s focus – her nail polish, shoes, the decor at Graceland … There’s definitely something about Coppola’s interest in objects – she’s fascinated. they’re maybe like talismans? Magical objects. But sometimes they aren’t talismans or symbolic – they’re just objects. This is what happened in Bling Ring, I think.
// Now, if Criterion would just put out a lavish box set! //
Agreed. I would love it if they would put out Somewhere. I keep meaning to write about that one – to me, it’s a 1970s movie in the 21st century. there’s a void at the center of it – it’s also fascinating since it’s a male character at the center, and I think she views him with compassion and gentleness.
I think Priscilla was pretty boring. I said a little something about it somewhere else – I was of course interested because of the Elvis factor. I guess I have an issue with the project as a whole. Priscilla was in Elvis’ life for a long time – but they were only married for 4 years. Yes, she made him a dad – which was very important – but is she interesting enough to be center stage? Her story is strange, of course. Priscilla basically spent her time waiting around for him. It was a weird situation but a whole movie of her waiting around didn’t really illuminate much in re: what was really interesting, which is Elvis himself. sorry but it’s true. It’s ELVIS, for God’s sake. I appreciated some of it – but the “woman waiting around” thing has to be handled carefully, because she’s done it so many times. Priscilla was like Virgin Suicides at Graceland. Beguiled also was about women waiting around. Lost in Translation is about a woman waiting around. I get it’s a theme for her – as is boredom – and I appreciate it, because it’s her own terrain. Nobody else is really exploring these things. I just feel like it works better in fiction rather than a so-called biopic.
Somewhere stands out in her filmography, don’t you think? It’s avant-garde. and America really doesn’t have any mainstream filmmakers doing avant-garde stuff. and again it was rejected by critics who basically didn’t care to figure out what she was doing. Like, you have to submit to the film. I get that people don’t want to submit – but Coppola is a fascinating filmmaker and whether or not she’s to your taste she deserves to be taken seriously and not just dismissed!
The Christmas special is wonderful! So warm and loving.