MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Coppola is Finally Getting Back to Work

But do you care? Or is it just me?
From Variety
Francis Ford Coppola will return to directing after an eight-year hiatus with a self-financed, low-budget pic to lense in Bucharest.
The bigscreen adaptation of “Youth Without Youth” is based on the novella by Romanian author and intellectual Mircea Eliade. Coppola penned the screenplay and is producing through his American Zoetrope banner. Fred Roos and Anahid Nazarian exec produce.
Tim Roth, Alexandra Maria Lara, Bruno Ganz and Marcel Iures will star in the pic, skedded to begin production Oct. 3.
Story centers on a professor whose life changes after a cataclysmic incident during the dark years before WWII. Becoming a fugitive, he is pursued through far-flung locations including Romania, Switzerland, Malta and India.

16 Responses to “Coppola is Finally Getting Back to Work”

  1. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Man, whenever discussion turns to FFC, it sorta makes me sad.
    You see, I’m one of those rare people who loves One From The Heart immensely. I saw it last year (without any knowledge of flopdom) and loved it. I dunno why. I’m gonna buy the Special Edition DVD from Amazon soon.
    …but to the current news. I can live with this.

  2. bicycle bob says:

    i thought u meant sophia.

  3. Nicol D says:

    Godafather 1 and 2 and Apocalypse Now are three films that are greater than most filmmakers who are alive on the planet now will ever make. Period.
    That is not hyperbole. Has he made crap? Plenty. But I root for him. The word genius is used in so many who have never touched it (Those two Anderson boys come to mind) that it would be great if Coppola could touch it one last time.
    Even his SE Hinton adaptations and second tier films such as The Cotton Club and Dracula are more creative than most directors best offerings.
    If he makes the film…I’ll see it.
    But please…no one mention the ones with Damon or Williams. Too painful.

  4. Josh Massey says:

    His last great movie was in the ’70s. Can I remind everybody that was nearly THIRTY YEARS AGO?

  5. lazarus says:

    Actually I didn’t mind The Rainmaker. Considering it was 100% hack work, and a John Grisham adaptation, I found it extremely well done. It may be the best Grisham film, up there with The Firm and Altman’s strange Gingerbread Man. There wasn’t anything bad about the film. Good performances, good pacing. The courtroom scenes were nothing original but well done. It would have been a great “reset” film had he followed it up with anything.
    There may not have been any post-70’s masterpieces, but as said above, plenty of worthy films. Bram Stoker’s Dracula, despite the terrible casting of Ryder & Reeves, an iffy screenplay, and embarrassing overacting from Hopkins, it was a visual feast. If you weren’t drooling over the directing and old-fashioned effects you’re just bitter. Plus Gary Oldman put in possibly the best horror film performance I’ve ever seen.
    The Cotton Club, Outsiders, Rumble Fish. All of them worth seeing, engaging films, the man trying something new. Considering it was the 1980’s, the worst film decade ever, that’s not too bad.
    This upcoming film could be his Pianist. You never know.

  6. David Poland says:

    Sophia’s wrapped Marie Antoinette, so we’ll get that soon enough… maybe too soon.

  7. cullen says:

    what happened to MEGALOPOLIS?

  8. Mark Ziegler says:

    The Rainmaker was hack work. Even FFC admits he did it for the money. Nevertheless it wasn’t that bad.

  9. HenryHill says:

    I think it’s time for some re-evaluation of Coppola’s post-’70s triumphs.
    One From the Heart: A compromised yet fascinating movie musical that had the misfortune of being his follow-up to Apocalypse Now.
    The Outsiders: Has anyone noticed that what Coppola was trying to do was what Todd Haynes did with Far From Heaven? He wanted to show waht a ’59s/60s teen drama felt like to an ’80s teen audience. The new DVD version goes a long way to showing what a remarkable piece of direting (and casting) Coppola pulled off. The new rock soundtrack is a major bonus. It too goes a long way of removing the stigma of semtimentality the haunted to movie for so many years.
    Rumble Fish: Everybody knows how cool this movie is. If they don’t then shame on them.
    The Cotton Club: I actually love this movie. I have a real soft spot for both gangster movies and musicals. The Robert Evans scandal did not help this movie when it came out. Viewed today, it proves to be a remarkable piece of stylized direction. And James Remar is the best Dutch Schultz. Hoffman wishes he was this good in Billy Bathgate. (Tim Roth came close to matching Remar in 1997’s underrated Hoodlum.) This is movie I wouldn’t mind Coppola revisiting. I would love to see any deleted Gregory Hines tap numbers.
    Tucker: The MAn and His Dream: A movie that predates Seabiscuit and Cinderella Man. Contains a great Jeff Bridges performance. His closing speech is a real crowd-pleaser. MOre flamboyant direction.
    Godfather III: I think this movie gets poorly treated. I will save my defense for another day. Yes, Sophia’s acting is a little…naive? I think EW’s Owen Gleiberman wrote the best review of the movie when it came out. Read it for yourself.
    Bram Stoker’s Dracula: People who don’t like Keanu Reeves’ performance obviously haven’t read the book. He gets Harker perfectly. The movie is visually stunning. It is probably the best adaptation of the book that can be expected. The book is really not as “cinematic” as one would think. It takes a lot of imagining.
    Jack: The less said about this movie the better. It just didn’t work.
    John Grishan’s The Rainmaker: A solid peice of work-for-hire with some fine performances by a great cast. Danny DeVito should’ve been nominated for this or his equeally great turn in L.A. Confidential. Mickey Rourke was cool. Roy Schieder was properly hateful. Danny Glover was fine. Dean Stcckwell was hilarious. The only performance that called attention to itself was Jon Voight’s. I venr took Grisham adaptations as seriously as most people. There just court transcripts-turned-potboilers. At lest Rainmaker had a sense of humor. It lacked the thudding seriouness of A Time to Kill, a movie that thought it was in the same league as To Kill a Mockingbird.
    Anyway, I look froward to this movie. I’m actually glad Coppola has put aside his Megalopolis script. It sounds like it could be another dream project that he has “worked-out” too much.

  10. Wrecktum says:

    ^ Nice summation of FFC’s post ’70s career. Looking at it like that, it’s clear that his output is far richer than the nay-sayers would have you believe.

  11. Angelus21 says:

    Ever since Apocalypse Now, Coppola has been firing at less than all cylinders. Lets be fair. Te guy did create 4 masterpieces in an 8 yr period.
    2 Godfathers
    Conversation
    Apocalypse Now
    He really didn’t have to do much after 79 anyway. I’ll cut him some slack. Defending movies artistic sensibility because you might like them is not good enough for me. I like Rumble Fish but it wasn’t a classic. Just an enjoyable picture. The facts are that he hasn’t had a great movie in over 2 decades. Which is a shame because he is that good.

  12. Sanchez says:

    Defending Dracula and bringing up Keanu Reeves as the good of it?
    That a joke???

  13. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Well, as somebody up there said, Coppola made three movies that are constantly labeled some of the greatest films of all time – do you REALLY expect him to continue making films of that quality all the time?
    I really loved One From The Heart, didn’t love The Cotton Club – just like HenryHill, i love musicals and films set in Gangster Depression era times but this one didn’t do it for me. Instead, I prefer Bugsy Malone.
    And even if Coppola has said he made The Rainmaker for the money, that still doesn’t mean he didn’t do a decent job with it. It was a fairly taut little court drama. Definitely better than any number of by the numbers thrillers that were released mid 90s onwards.

  14. HenryHill says:

    No, Sanchez, I’m not joking. Read the source material and you’ll realize how right Reeves was for that part.
    P.S. I’ve never seen Garden of Stone. I want to but never got around to it. I remember Kael gave it a “soft” positive review.
    P.P.S. People who complain about certain directors later work “not being as good as their early work” are fools setting themselves up for disappointment. Why is it so hard for people to accept that directors’ sensibilities change as years go by? This is not to say some directors lose what made them so interesting in the first place. Demme is a perfect example. He seemed to lose most of his pop sensibility after winning the Oscar. (The Manchurian Candidate was a step in the right direction of him returning to his ood tricks.)
    Scorsese is the classic example of some people still wishing he would make movies like Mean Streets and Taxi Driver, as if he should try explore his central themes on a larger scale.People are so busy mourning his recent work that no seems to be talking about what an amazing documentarian he’s become over the last decade. (For the record I think his work keeps getting better and better. The Aviator was simply more fun than almost anything that was released last year.)

  15. lazarus says:

    Keanu Reeves may have seemed appropriate casting for you, but many of his line reading were RIDICULOUS. His British accent was WAY off, and that’s going to ruin it for many people. “…blue wolves, chasing me through some blue inFERno!” Fucking laughable.
    That being said, he did turn in a decent performance. It’s just that there are many actors who could have done a better job.
    And I totally forgot about Tucker. Vittorio Storaro+Jeff Bridges=Great film. Not a masterpiece, but it’s tremendously overlooked.

  16. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    HenryHill brings up a point that I continuously brought up during the last Oscar season. Basically all of The Aviator’s detractors (on here!) seemed to think that Scorcese should be making Taxi Driver over and over again. But, that was nearly 30 years ago! People change! Maybe he doesn’t WANT to make another Taxi Driver. Maybe he’s more interested in different people and things than he was then.
    He wasn’t able to make movies like The Aviator back then, so why can’t he now? He’s one of America’s best directors yet some people can’t seem to forget that until they become president of a movie studio and somehow becomes Scorcese’s best friend – he ain’t gonna be working for you.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Ten years ago at Telluride, I said on a panel that theatrical distribution was dying. It seemed obvious to me. I was surprised how many in the audience violently objected: ‘People will always want to go to the movies!’ That’s true, but it’s also true that theatrical cinema as we once knew it has died. Theatrical cinema is now Event Cinema, just as theatrical plays and musical performances are Events. No one just goes to a movie. It’s a planned occasion. Four types of Event Cinema remain.
1. Spectacle (IMAX-style blockbusters)
2. Family (cartoon like features)
3. Horror (teen-driven), and
4. Film Club (formerly arthouse but now anything serious).

There are isolated pockets like black cinema, romcom, girl’s-night-out, seniors, teen gross-outs, but it’s primarily those four. Everything else is TV. Now I have to go back to episode five of ‘Looming Tower.'”
~ Paul Schrader

“Because of my relative candor on Twitter regarding why I quit my day job, my DMs have overflowed with similar stories from colleagues around the globe. These peeks behind the curtains of film festivals, venues, distributors and funding bodies weren’t pretty. Certain dismal patterns recurred (and resonated): Boards who don’t engage with or even understand their organization’s artistic mission and are insensitive to the diverse neighborhood in which their organization’s venue is located; incompetent founders and/or presidents who create only obstacles, never solutions; unduly empowered, Trumpian bean counters who chip away at the taste and experiences that make organizations’ cultural offerings special; expensive PR teams that don’t bring to the table a bare-minimum familiarity with the rich subcultural art form they’re half-heartedly peddling as “product”; nonprofit arts organizations for whom art now ranks as a distant-second goal behind profit.”
~ Eric Allen Hatch