|
|
|
|
|
|
by twirlip
618 days ago
|
|
|
>> "... artists lose their ability to make art when their brain is infected by money and power." I disagree. It's largely age based. Especially for filmmakers as novelty is part of the appeal of movies. As the artist ages, I think Yeats said it best: "What can I but enumerate old themes". Coppola is 85. How many octogenarians are still creatively significant? Yes, they can still put out an album or a film or a book, but their best days are behind them. Coppola paid for "Megalopolis" out of his own pocket. He wrote and directed the story and cast the actors that he wanted. What is art in its purist form but the self-expression on an individual? Previously, Coppola mortgaged his home and went legendarily overtime and overbudget for "Apocalypse Now". That's regarded as a classic and was lauded in its time. "Megalopolis", not so much, though time could add a new perspective, as sometimes art becomes more favorably viewed upon reflection. |
|
|
Can they even be in the eyes of the audience? I saw Megalopolis a few days ago and I think it's more creatively ambitious, weirder and interesting than a lot of the stuff he's made. But people even in principle won't grant this because of the narrative you describe.
People don't judge output by old artists on their own merits, they always project their age and biography on it regardless of the content. The reverse is also true, a lot of "young genius" work often isn't what it's made out to be, but the fact alone that some Wunderkind made it convinces the audience. David Foster Wallace I think is someone who heavily benefited from this. If a young artist made Megalopolis today as their first film I think it'd be framed very differently, but because of how much legacy Coppola and the movie have it's just not going to be treated the same way.