Is "Megalopolis" a "Megaflopolis?"

Title: Megalopolis Director: Francis Ford Coppola  Starring: Adam Driver, Giancarlo Esposito, Nathalie Emmanuel, Aubrey Plaza, Shia LaBeouf, Jon Voight, Laurence Fishburne, Kathryn Hunter, Dustin Hoffman Studio: Lionsgate Genre(s): Drama/Science Fiction Rated: R (For sexual content, nudity, drug use, language and some violence)

Francis Ford Coppola is a man who has always lived dangerously in Hollywood. A director whose unique methods of making movies once got him fired from directing "Patton" (he would rebound with "The Godfather"), his films have often been as ambitious as the making of them. There is a reason the man has had multiple documentaries made about troubled productions he has been a part of, and most young filmmakers would do well to watch these movies and seriously consider if they are making the kind of effort he has when it comes to directing their own films.

Coppola is also a man who has worked outside the studio a few times, and it has gotten him into trouble. He famously filed for bankruptcy when directing "One from the Heart," in which he took jobs for years just trying to pay back the losses (it may explain why he decided to direct "Jack" despite the script being objectively poor). He was wise enough to diversify his portfolio, and thus he had a second career as a winemaker (my wife is particularly fond of Sophia Rose). For years though he had one particular project in mind that he wanted to make: an epic fable known simply as "Megalopolis."

What "Megalopolis" would be about was always a well-guarded secret, and Coppola seemed to revel in the fact that it would be this long, complicated project. He would not go to the movie studios for financing though, as he would cash in all his chips (which included selling one of his prized wineries) and fund the movie himself. Not only was Hollywood no longer interested in visions from directors like him, he didn't want anyone telling him what to do on this particular project. "Megalopolis" would be his vision and his alone. Finally, after production started in 1986, we have - in 2024 - the end result of that vision. Is "Megalopolis" a good movie? A bad one? This is not a typical movie, and thus a typical review this will not be.

The movie may, in fact, be too big and ambitious for someone like me to review. Watching it was confusing at times, yes, but it was also beautiful and profound. Like "Apocalypse Now" and "One from the Heart," he eschews traditional storytelling tropes to find deeper meaning in situations that are messy and not as self-explanatory as we would like them to be. The title card even claims that "Megalopolis" is 'A Fable,' and thus we can be assured that like other fables, some parts of the story may be exaggerated to make a deeper point about human existence. Even the opening shot - a scene in which our main protagonist Cesar (Adam Driver) stands over a city while he practices controlling time - symbolizes a man who will risk everything to have complete control over his world.

Can the world be controlled so easily though? Cesar believes so. He is a brilliant architect who envisions a Utopia called Megalopolis, which will be the highest form of living in all of the world. With his vision, everyone will live like kings and no one will have reason to be unhappy. His political rival Mayor Franklyn Cisero (Giancarlo Esposito) is opposed to changing the world for the vision of one man and feels that Cesar is blind to the destruction his ideas will foist upon the world. In the most chilling statement of the movie, he says "Empires die when people stop believing in them." While this movie may have been in production for almost three decades, that line of dialogue may cut deepest with virtually everyone who decides to see this.

Here in America, we are coming up to a divisive election, one in which people fear political violence from the other side if their candidate loses. In Europe, there is also political unrest, with many believing that their old institutions should be torn down and replaced with new ones (and I'm not even going to touch upon the messes in Russia and the Middle East). Could it be that Coppola was worried about where democracy was headed that long ago, and now, with how bad the state of the world is, he felt that he had to make this movie regardless of the personal cost? Is "Megalopolis" more of a personal warning than a mere movie?

I wondered that myself, as Cesar see's visions of statues crumbling before his eyes. His vision for a futuristic city is great if you can afford it, but those who lack stable finances find themselves disenfranchised and in the gutter. When these people have no hope, a young man with no business being in politics (Shia LeBeouf) reaches out to them and promises that he will save them from their oppressors, even though all he brings is chaos (his followers all wear red caps, least you think Coppola is playing both sides of the fence a little too much). What is fascinating about this scenario though is that neither side is right or wrong.

Both sides want to be heard and the best for them, and the problems aren't so much the ideas so much as it is the people who obtain power and then compromise everyone else's lives in order to keep said power. This is a problem most would agree is a problem, and if it persists even Megalopolis will fall despite the technical wonder of the city. Will anyone think about any of this in a film where characters are unlikable and the story progression is confusing? I'm not going to lie and say that there is an "aha" moment where everything suddenly makes sense to the average viewer; there isn't.

"Megalopolis" is one of those visions that requires you to get on board and make the effort yourself to receive what it is delivering. For many, this will be unacceptable, and I would not be surprised if many in the audience simply leave in frustration. There are times when the production is so messy some may mistake the movie for being aimless and without purpose. There's even a scene (in select screenings) where someone in the theater asks Cesar a question, literally breaking the fourth wall. To the average viewer, these are all the showings of a madman. To me, these are all the signs of a man who sees the world and its ill-conceived attempts to be pure as madness, and he is presenting it exactly in that fashion.

I did see one critic review (whose opinion I typically respect) say that this movie is such a mess, that it would have been better if Coppola had made the film and then locked it away in a vault so that we could speculate what his final film would have been like rather than experience it. With all due respect to this individual, I wholeheartedly disagree. Art is not meant to be locked in a vault, and though the movie is not perfect it is more of an artful experience than a typical film. Why would Coppola put his heart and soul into a project where he feels he has something important to say only to hide it away and never have anyone experience it? This isn't a personal journal or diary.

This is a work of love that is meant to be shared with the world. The fact that Coppola went all-in on it knowing that it likely would be the last movie he ever made speaks volumes about how important it was to him. You don't have to like it (and there were times I struggled), but this whole mentality that older people shouldn't make movies anymore or just lock them away is disgusting. "Megalopolis" is far from perfect, but it is ambitious, concerning, and has much to say when you cut through the noise and look deeper. It is a remarkable achievement, and it will likely be re-evaluated as one of Francis Ford Coppola's best films. A triumphant end to a stellar career.