Some films become legendary not because of their great quality but due to the incredible difficulties overcome in their making.  Waterworld, for instance, is better known for being supremely expensive due to disruptions by two hurricanes and disagreements between its star and director, when in fact it is a crackling good futuristic fable.  Megalopolis, which is written and directed by legendary director Francis Ford Coppola, describes itself as a fable, yet it is more notorious because Mr. Coppola has self-financed this epic to the tune of $120 million, and it is has been in development for nearly fifty years.  Whether it is worth the wait depends on one’s own tolerances.

Mr. Coppola’s film frames New York City as New Rome, with Roman leader Cicero (Giancarlo Esposito) trying to keep order and Design Authority leader Cesar (Adam Driver) from transforming the city according to his own vision.  Other characters include Crassus (Jon Voight), Clodio (Shia LeBeouf) and Clodia (Chloe Fineman), Fundi Romaine (Laurence Fishburne), Vesta and others, all of whom remind me that I failed to retain much of anything about Ancient Rome, or all of these machinations might be more meaningful to me.  I can certainly appreciate Wow Platinum (Aubrey Plaza), but don’t recall Shakespeare using that moniker.  The key character is Julia Cicero (Nathalie Emmanuel), the Mayor’s sexy daughter who finds his rival much more interesting.  She bridges the ever-widening gap between the two men, helping to make the kooky designer more palatable to the audience.

This is necessary because Cesar Catilina is pretty offbeat.  He may be a genius (may being the operative word) but his greatness isn’t apparent to me.  As played by Adam Driver, Cesar is arrogant, aloof, enigmatic and even self-destructive.  I was giving him the benefit of the doubt for about two hours, until his vision for the city of the future is finally unfurled, which is when I came to the conclusion that he is insane.  Coppola seems to be saying that city structure and function for the future needs to become radically different and more organic, but as depicted I found Cesar’s city-within-a-city to be rather hideous.  It was quite a letdown once it was revealed, from my perspective, and the speech that Cesar makes to prevent the angry populace from tearing it all down is preposterous.

There are elements of science fiction that make little sense, and the dialogue is sometimes straight from the Bard and other times our more common patois of today.  The film’s look tries to evoke the 1970s, I think, but like most other elements, from costuming to the selection of automobiles on the streets, it’s all over the place.  The film is certainly cinematic, reminding me of the virtuoso photography and editing of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, which Coppola made in the early 1990s.  The last half hour is especially vibrant as the director channels the spirit of Abel Gance, forming a triptych of images which sometimes show three separate images concurrently, sometimes two (one larger than the other) and then sometimes just one which fills the screen.  So yes, the film is certainly interesting visually.  But what is it really about?

Not remembering my Roman history I cannot recall an overriding theme, such as needing to remember the past so it is not repeated.  Frankly I’m not sure what the hell Coppola is saying with this drama.  Embrace change because it is inevitable?  Turn back to nature?  Perhaps.  But I fail to sense the defining moral of the story, if there is one.  New Rome doesn’t burn, even when it is struck by a falling Russian satellite.  The man who can stop time cannot prevent himself from disaster.  Characters talk and plot and argue but life seems to go on just the same despite all the agita.  As Shakespeare once said, or admitted, it seems to be much ado about nothing.  ☆ ☆.  31 September 2024.