Somewhere from Sofia Coppola

johnny_ultimate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOJHhwHPw7g

Just saw this trailer, and knew nothing about the film before this, but colour me intrigued. I've defended Lost in Translation here many times before, and though I've never got around to watching Marie Antoinette, this looks like a return to the subdued, thoughtful style of LiT / Virgin Suicides. Hopefully another understated, visually stunning work from Coppola! Plus, naturally, a hip but effective soundtrack

MrSir

I find the whole rock star/actor/sports man/celebrity (Choose what you will) and daughter relationship a little cliche but Im still pretty interested in this film from the evidene of this trailer

davenewt

Thanks for the heads-up johnny... duly subscribing to this thread to await more info

Sad Professor

With the exception of Marie Antoinette, I'm a big fan of Coppola's work. Lost in Translation is probably one of my favourite films.

This looks really good. However, for her next project, Coppola really needs to go make a film that isn't about rich people. I know she's only writing what she knows, but she's just making it easier for her critics to wrongly dismiss her work as pretentious crap about spoiled rich kids. And she deserves better than that.

geoffraffe

I'm not sold on that trailer. Looks like a typical; guy has everything but feels empty, finds love in a young child that shows interest in him (his daughter here), realises that everything he has is worthless and that only love matters. Film ends with him being happy for the first time ever.

Should I have used spoilers here

bnt

Well, if Coppola's previous work is any guide, it's not going to be that simple.

The other thing to mention is that her films are not just about the plot arc, they rely on locations, a sense of place. In this case it's the Chateau Marmont Hotel, a LA landmark with quite a history. From Howard Hughes and Greta Garbo to Lindsay Lohan and Red Hot Chilli Peppers, via Led Zeppelin and Hunter S. Thompson. John Belushi died in one of the rooms, while photographer Helmut Newton died when he hit the hotel wall in his car. This history will influence how I view the film - when I see it, which I certainly will.

johnny_ultimate

bnt wrote: »

Well, if Coppola's previous work is any guide, it's not going to be that simple.

The other thing to mention is that her films are not just about the plot arc, they rely on locations, a sense of place. In this case it's the Chateau Marmont Hotel, a LA landmark with quite a history. From Howard Hughes and Greta Garbo to Lindsay Lohan and Red Hot Chilli Peppers, via Led Zeppelin and Hunter S. Thompson. John Belushi died in one of the rooms, while photographer Helmut Newton died when he hit the hotel wall in his car. This history will influence how I view the film - when I see it, which I certainly will.

Her films are never all that original - Lost in Translation isn't all that original. It's all about her delivery and confidence though. She creates an atmosphere, likable characters etc... where you can just get drawn into her world. You're right in the setting is just as important - LiT is about Tokyo and it's atmosphere as well as about these two people lost there. Hopefully this new film will be able to capture a similar sense of place.

AnonoBoy

Have to say Coppola's style is something I love - everything looks, feels and sounds great in her movies.


One thing - should I pronounce her name COPP-ola or Cop-POLA?

Sad Professor

I've always pronounced it COPE-pull-uh. That seems to be how her father pronounces it, anyway.

JP Liz V1

Stephen Dorff in a lead role :eek: I always think he is underrated and he is a talented actor

Hank_Jones

Personally I think that Dorff is dead weight.
He's not a bad actor, but I certainly don't think he has the talent to carry a Sofia Coppola film.
He has been in about 25-30 films, but out of those I doubt he has given more than 3 truly good performances.
The man is a celebrity actor and he'll always be just that.

I really do like Lost in Translation and The Virgin Suicides,
so I will definitely give this a look, but looking at the trailer I'm not particularly excited.
I hope I'm proved wrong though, films are just terrible these days so if Coppola can bring something good to the screen, I'll be eternally grateful.

paddyismaddy

sofia is way overrated all her films are crap

AnonoBoy

paddyismaddy wrote: »

sofia is way overreacted all her films are crap

What's she over-reacting to?

paddyismaddy

AnonoBoy wrote: »

What's she over-reacting to?

edited mispelt

Richard Dower

I also felt Lost In Translation was overrated, i'm not sold on Coppola as a director yet.

fillefatale

I love all Coppola has done so far, but I'm not certain about this one at all.

MagicMarker

Thought Lost in Translation was pretty shít myself.

bnt

Somewhere has just won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival. Head of Jury: Quentin Tarantino. (link)

Renn

Tarantino paused for a moment and seemed to fight back tears when he was about to announce that Coppola had won the Golden Lion. The two, who dated years ago, warmly hugged each other.

Haha.

bnt

Renn wrote: »

Haha.

Now, now. He's just one guy in an interational jury of 7 that included composer Danny Elfman, and their verdict was unanimous.

Renn

I wouldn't have replied with my post if you didn't point out the following: "Head of Jury: Quentin Tarantino."

But anyway, I've got some hope for this one. Marie Antoinette is her best for me so far.

the whole year inn

only half watched LIT and I didnt like it,have to give it a rewatch even its just for Bill Murray.Didnt really like the trailer could surprise me tho.

BTW Stephen Dorff was very good in 'Felon'

AnnyHallsal

The hype has begun ..

Quentin, her ex-boyfriend was nice enough to say: ""From that first enchanted screening it grew and grew in our hearts, in our minds, in our affections," said jury president Quentin Tarantino, Coppola's former boyfriend, as he announced the top prize, adding that the decision had been unanimous."

And the film has a distinctly 'biographical' feel: "Coppola won the Golden Lion at the Venice for "Somewhere", a father-daughter drama set in the lonely world of Hollywood moviemaking."

With Quentin's stamp of approval, I'll definitely be giving it a look. A return to form? We'll have to wait and see.

Renn

A return? Bah! The last was the best.

johnny_ultimate

Actually, I've never watched Marie Antoinette. Feeling in a Coppola mood so will check it out over the next few days. Good to see her win an award, but I wouldn't trust Quentin Tarantino's taste in the slightest! Oh well, still a good sign. Very surprised the release date is still so far off - March or something, which seems a bit far for a film that is apparently finished.

AnnyHallsal

Marie Antoinette was gorgeous to look at and the music was great but I didn't think there was anything else to it. The word thin springs to mind. The subject matter, after Fraser's biography, had so much potential, but it just glided along the surface, style over substance.

Renn

"style over substance"

But was that not the whole point of it all? Looking at it from her perspective only?

AnnyHallsal

Renn wrote: »

"style over substance"

But was that not the whole point of it all? Looking at it from her perspective only?

Marie Antoinette herself was not "style over substance," as the Fraser that inspired Coppola, went to some pains to point out.

Renn

I must check that out. Pity I've about one hundred other things to read before ever reaching that point.

johnny_ultimate

Perhaps it's simply an impulsive reaction coming off the disappointing Tron last night, but I watched this today and I thought it was a glorious return to form for Coppolla (after watching the - admittedly purposefully - vapid and meandering Marie Antoinette).

It's far more down to Earth visually, and like LiT Coppolla is a master of pacing, in no particular rush to get anywhere. The camera lingers lazily, and it creates a great atmosphere while emphasising the main themes of the film. It is far less stylised than even LiT despite some moments of impressive cinematography, and the more natural lighting etc... grounds the film. It does look gorgeous, but in a completely different way than Marie Antoinette, the camera more like a thoughtful observer. The excellent soundtrack by Phoenix is also much more reserved, rarely if ever dominating and reserved for the most important and hypnotic sequences in the film.

Thematically, yeah it's not the most original, but the story is handled with real maturity and warmth. The first scenes in which Dorff engages in empty, repetitive sex and excess are a confident mixture of humour, boredom and depression. Dorff comes across as a younger, more successful version of Bob from Lost in Translation, although even more self-destructive but not yet stooping to Suntory advertisements for cash. The 'redemption' scenes with his daughter are also handled impressively, because in a break from tradition Dorff isn't actually all that bad a father, just an often absent one. Coppolla never rubs these themes in heavy-handidly, scenes of silence and lingering shots of characters saying more than in your face dialogue could. Thematically, it threads similar ground to Lost in Translation for sure, a handful of scenes perhaps purposefully (perhaps not) echoing some of the scenes from her earlier work. But it's a considerably different take on the emptiness of celebrity, although the repetition of press junkets and the like is once again dissected brutally.

The performances are all solid, even from random additions like Chris Pontius from Jackass. But Coppolla has regained top billing, her thoughtful pacing and scrumptious cinematography and atmosphere what sucks you in to this sometimes grim, sometimes optimistic LA story. It's slow paced and often undramatic, but that's what makes it work so damn well. Somewhere is certainly one of my favourite films of the year. Sofia Coppolla has once again done good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auz1hyXpu7E

Richard Dower

Kermode is a smug twat, he blathers on and on.....and on, meh.

Yet a lot of what he says is true.

johnny_ultimate

You know what the great thing about film is? People can have different opinions. So where Mark Kermode sees naval gazing (and a valid interpretation that is, even though he presents it arrogantly) I can happily see cinematic poetry. The atmosphere and tone of this film totally won me over, and if it stirs up a bit of debate amongst people that's wonderful. But definitely one to go and see with an open mind. Kermode's review plants reading of pivotal scenes in your head (and as a reviewer he's far too specific about scenes for my liking). I went in blind and read them totally differently. I thought Somewhere was excellent, and Mr. Kermode ain't persuading me otherwise.

Plus, he's totally wrong about Lost in Translation's final act :pac:

I agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I haven't seen this movie and only posted because I found his review funny. He does have a tendency to go into a little bit too much detail.. there was a bit of a stir caused recently when it was announced that

Dumbledore dies at the end of the last Harry Potter movie

under the misunderstanding that everyone had heard about it - it is now forever known as the "unfortunate event".

bnt

If you read or listen to a reviewer for long enough, and contrast his/her impressions with your own, you get a feel for where your differences are. I probably will go and see Somewhere at the IFI next week, and am not put off by Kermode and other commenters here. I agree with Kermode about The Idiots (Lars von Trier) the film that got him thrown out of a Cannes screening; but I disagreed with him about Uncle Boonmee ... which he thought was dull, and I enjoyed for what it was. I bet he'll hate Malick's The Tree Of Life when it comes out - but then I don't rely on any single reviewer, so I'll also want to see what Ebert says. :cool:

The thing I respect about Mark Kermode is how he has said numerous times that people shouldn't take his word as gospel.

Tomohawk

I liked "The Idiots" a lot more than I liked "Lost In Translation". Where does that leave me?

mikhail

Tomohawk wrote: »

I liked "The Idiots" a lot more than I liked "Lost In Translation". Where does that leave me?

Off Kermode's Christmas card list.

Sad Professor

Not long back from seeing this, and while the person I was with didn't agree, I thought it was brilliant.

It's a very simple film. The dialogue is so sparse, the plot so non-exitant, that the whole thing could almost have been composed from the outtakes of another, lesser film. It's so minimalist. It's like Coppola hung around Chateau Marmont for a few weeks, observed its inhabitants, took notes and wrote a script. The film is really just a collection of moments but all of them feel very authentic.

You get a real sense of what the life of celebrity can be like. Getting shepherded around by publicists, attending nonsensical media junkets, etc. It could easily come across as glamourous, but Coppola depicts it as empty and boring, albeit peppered with moments of bizarreness, such that the scene with the masseur.

I thought the ending was very effective, especially the phone conversation Dorff has near the end.

Oh and I stopped taking Kermode seriously around the time he described Batman Begins as a multimillion dollar art-house film. I mean, Begins is very good and all, but in absolutely no way can it be described that those terms. Kermode's rants are very articulate and very entertaining to listen to, but even when I agree with him, I think he frequently misses the boat completely with his criticisms.

bnt

Just back from seeing this at the IFI. (Kermode would have loved this screening: just four (4) people in the cinema!) I came away highly impressed: the "nothing happening" vibe is deceptive. As with Lost In Translation, sound plays a major role is creating the world these characters inhabit. It's a film that rewards careful viewing, careful listening, and some background history about the Château Marmont.

Example with mild spoilers: early on, Johnny walks past a room where a fashion photo shoot is taking place. Then, later, he drives out and there's a car crashed in to the wall of the hotel. What's the connection?

That's how famous fashion photographer Helmut Newton died: crashed his car in to the wall of the Château Marmont.

Kermode really hated the way we had two pole-dancing scenes, but I thought that told us something important about Johnny:

he felt guilty for falling asleep the first time, and got the girls back in to "do it properly". Kinda old-fashioned, I thought.

About the ending:

the language Johnny uses has a double meaning. "I'm checking out". Welcome to the Hotel California ... you can check out any time you like ..!

johnny_ultimate

Well it's almost a week later and I have a niggling urge to rewatch this, which is a good sign

Glad I'm not alone in liking this, as it truly was an unusually poetic and hypnotic film in my eyes! Whether it will be in the same frequent rotation as Lost in Translation only time will tell, but Somewhere is more than definitely a rewarding, deceptively simple watch!

OutlawPete

While I found this an interesting watch, I still think it is useless.

I should also point out that I thought Lost In Translation was and is one of the most overrated movies of all time.

Sofia has zero talent as far as I'm concerned.

We can always tell what she is going for with movies and get a feel for what she wishes the subtext to be, but you just never get the impression she nails it, or at least - I don't.

For instance, it's clear she wanted the audience to get a feel for what it's like for a star to have to sit around all day and do stuff over and over that they would rather not do. She wants us to get a sense of the monotony that can dominate a movie star's life.

However, there is a big difference from getting an impression of what a movie is trying to say and and a movie actually MAKING you feel it, effortlessly. She does the former, when attempting the latter. There is ZERO depth to the movie and little or no substance.

Yes it is understated but that does not mean the movie has to be this bland and up it's own arse. It's also clear that she expects empathy from the audience at some level. Give me a break.

Rich healthy movie star with a young healthy daughter have the world at their feet, forgive me for only feeling envy for their potential to live very happy and privileged lives.

She should just make go and make music videos or something, as when it comes to film - she has nothing worthwhile to say.

X-Calibre

Saw this the other day and I really enjoyed it. For me, it was one of those films that I could only really judge fully after I had left the theater. There were definitely moments were my patience was tested with some really long plodding shots, and there were times where I was wondering did the film have anything to say at all. But once it was over you could really appreciate the film as a whole piece of work.

You don't really realize how soulless Johnny Marco's existence is until it's contrasted with the final quarter of the film when his daughter has left. The central performance was absolutely note perfect. It was played with such subtlety and naturalness that it almost feels documentary like. His daughter was also fantastic and is one to watch for the future.

Overall, i think it was a great follow up to Lost in Translation and it will be interesting to see if it holds up to repeated viewings in the same way.

Outkast_IRE

Seen it today really enjoyed it, opening scene bugged me a little went on just a tad too long (car going around track) but besides from that loved it , i will be watching again and its safe enough to say if you didnt like lost in translation you prob wont like this.

Rabidlamb

Thanks for the Lost in Translation comparison cause that's 2 hours of my life I'll never get back.
I'm not a philistine but I need some reasoning behind nothing but quiet compilation.
I'll be giving this one a miss I'm afraid.

fisgon

Loved this film. Specifically I loved the way that it didn't have a narrative arc, it didn't set up a situation of conflict and resolution, the usual progression of the story we see in every film. It just showed the life of this guy, in all its fatuousness and in its fun. I read in one review that they would have liked to have seen some conflict in the relationship with his daughter, but this was the high point for me, the sweet, devoted relationship between them was the spine of the film. Sometimes there isn't any conflict in real life, and you don't need to manufacture some to have a film worth watching.

This was the key to this movie, it didn't feel at all manufactured. It just flowed. And it's not as if it didn't have direction, it was mostly leading to the guy's realisation at the end of how futile his life is. Subtle brilliance.

Hank_Jones

Think Kermode's review was perfect tbh.
The film seems to go along with nothing happening, I don't need explosions or anything, but I would at least like the film to connect with me in some manner.
The whole thing with the overly long shots was just awful, needless shot after needless shot.
I could go on forever about it, but I really couldn't be bothered, I care so little about this film I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

One of the worst films I have ever seen and I've seen quite a few.

Hank_Jones

Read the script for this, it's 43 pages long....

With regards to scripts they generally say that 1 page=1 minute, obviously it doesn't work that way all the time, but I think I now know why she had all the overly long shots.

She needed to stretch everything out so much because she had very little to work with.

Sad Professor

That's an extraordinarily short script, alright. But I suspect there was a great deal of improvisation which she was accounting for in advance. Coppola very much makes her films on the set rather than in the writing room. While the film was possibly a bit too sparse for my liking, the wandering, aimless style it was shot in was obviously what she set out to achieve.

I can understand why a lot of people don't like this style of filmmaking though. American feature films put a very strong emphasis on plot and dialogue - two things which Coppola has no interest in. She's mostly interested in using images and music to capture the feeling and mood of her characters. Like Malick, Coppola's films are tone poems. You can't really watch them, you have to feel them.

johnny_ultimate

I still think this is very much a film that isn't about what is said, as much as it is about how it's said. Yeah, it's a short script, but I also thought Coppolla effectively captured plenty of silent moments that told us about the characters without the need for extraneous dialogue.

I know plenty wouldn't agree with this, but the reason I like this - and other films like Funny Ha Ha or Quiet City - is that life isn't usually about something. From day to day we just get on with things, with only rare drama or pauses for vocal reflection. Does this make for compelling cinema? It's extremely debatable, and I would agree that good film-makers should use the inherent unreality of cinema to tell great, incredible stories. But there are a handful of film-makers out there happy to make films about nothing in particular, happier to seek out those moments of insight in the great mundanities of life. That these exist alongside the fantastical majority is something I welcome.