The Films of Sofia Coppola

[Phuel]

^^^ She was a farce to be reckoned with in The Godfather lll. The hate is justified.

Sofia was also a handmaiden in Star Wars' The Phantom Menace. Her appearance in the movie was unintentionally funny for me because, for those not familiar with the point of Natalie Portman's Queen's cadre of handmaidens is that they're meant resemble her. Keira Knightly also played a handmaiden, and the rest were beautiful girls as well. I think Sofia is a beautiful woman-- in her own way, but she's not Portman and Knightly "beautiful". So she definitely stood out as part of the entourage of "Portman" lookalikes...

I like her style of filmmaking. I really liked The Virgin Suicides and Marie Antionette. Never saw Lost In Translation since I cannot stand Bill Murray. I loved that her films have a slowburn attitude that takes time to seep in. I don't get the "hipster" label because Sofia is so much cooler and more intelligent than that, and her films never comes off contrived or ironic. Her characters have a modern realness about them that's instantly likable, approachable and authentic about them to me. Her direction gives a sense of improvisation to the characters that I appreciate-- they never come across like they're hamming it up: I like their aloofness.

I'm not well-versed in films, I just enjoy what I like. And as much of a non-event Sofia's style is, I appreciate them even more for that.

 

[sobriquet87]

She's one of my favorites. I can't wait to see The Bling Ring. It's an interesting project for her and I'm eager to see how she chose to tell the story.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[wild roses]

I haven't seen it, but I know her performance in The Godfather Part III induced a widespread puke-fest among critics. I don't know if she ever acted after that.

As for her films, I go back and forth. Of her work, I've seen The Virgin Suicides (which is so depressing I've only ever watched it 1 1/2 times), Marie Antoinette and Somewhere. They're always aesthetically pleasing, but--and I'm rehashing the old tired argument--her stories always seem lacking for me in some way, particularly emotionally. I mean, I don't mind stories that don't have a conventional plot, stories that are quiet or that are more concept-driven--I'm an avid lover of the King: Terrance Malick. But for some reason, Sofia's films don't resonate with me. Not on a level deeper than eye candy anyway. If she deserves credit for anything, it's creating breathtaking imagery, and she's at her best in Marie Antoinette. I could watch that film on mute all day long. The problem is, I never feel anything for the protagonist, not to mention the mosaic of accents on display, which took me out of the film. It's pretty, that's all I can really say about it. Otherwise, I have no stake in any of the characters over the course of two hours or however long the film was. We're meant to root for this girl who is minimally relatable. She's nice and she's scared, but soon enough she gets the hang of things and slips comfortably into her role as princess and then queen. What we see of her life, except for when she's in the countryside, is mostly shallow and hedonistic--which is the point, but doesn't necessarily make a good story or a watchable one. The closest I felt to anything during the scenes where she's playing with her daughter. And even then I think it was just the utter cuteness of the child actress. Otherwise, zelch.

Aside from Elle Fanning's transcendent performance, Somewhere was utterly forgettable. Once again, I commend her on the imagery, though, particularly when they're in the swimming pool and when he's watching her ice skate.

You totally nailed what's wrong with MA. What's funny is that her MA was supposed to redeem the character, but instead it doesn't because it basks in the 'let them eat cake' stereotype of MA. We don't get a 3-dimensional queen who is concerned about herself, King, and country. Instead, it's parties! games! fashion! food!

The only instance 'country' is addressed that conversation about getting ridding of diamonds to help out the peasants. (When we know MA wrote a letter expressing concerns over the poverty her people were living in.) The only time 'King' is addressed is marriage and motherhood. Even though Queens back in those days were important to diplomacy (well, it is address in MA but very scantily).

I think that's why the second half the film falls apart, because Sofia doesn't know how to address anything outside of the frivoulities of court life. Yes, the frivoulities were important, but they were only ONE aspect of court life which included diplomacy within the country and without, keeping the hierarchies in line (from the royal family to the nobles to commoners), to juggling economy, religion, and political intrigue.

Her characters have a modern realness about them that's instantly likable, approachable and authentic about them to me. Her direction gives a sense of improvisation to the characters that I appreciate-- they never come across like they're hamming it up: I like their aloofness.

Well, you know I hate her films, but I do agree about the 'modern realness' and 'direction gives a sense of improvisation' parts. I think that's why I watch her films despite disliking them.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

I like her style of filmmaking. I really liked The Virgin Suicides and Marie Antionette. Never saw Lost In Translation since I cannot stand Bill Murray. I loved that her films have a slowburn attitude that takes time to seep in. I don't get the "hipster" label because Sofia is so much cooler and more intelligent than that, and her films never comes off contrived or ironic. Her characters have a modern realness about them that's instantly likable, approachable and authentic about them to me. Her direction gives a sense of improvisation to the characters that I appreciate-- they never come across like they're hamming it up: I like their aloofness.

Nicely put - totally agree with your perspective.

The phrasing "slowburn" is a cool way to describe the slow pacing of her films.

 

[LagerfeldBoy]

Every time I see this thread updated, I keep thinking someone has posted the trailer for The Bling Ring LOL

 

[Phuel]

What's funny is that her MA was supposed to redeem the character, but instead it doesn't because it basks in the 'let them eat cake' stereotype of MA. We don't get a 3-dimensional queen who is concerned about herself, King, and country. Instead, it's parties! games! fashion! food!

You're absolutely right about Sofia's shallowness, superficiality and lack of a perspective that's sympathetic to the everyman-- or everywoman, in this case. But that's not what she's about; that sense of aloofness, frivolity and exclusive to a certain world-- mainly the privileges of a charmed life, which she surely has much experience with, as an alternate perspective to the everyman's version, is just as interesting, to me at least. I never expected her Marie Antoinette to be the definitive-version of the person. I just don't think Sofia's capable of making a film like Shekhar Kapur's Elizabeth, nor would she attempt it, so it's not an insult. I mean, it starred Kirsten Dunst-- with Jamie Dornan...

I sense she really works from a genuine and completely authentic place, and most of the time, it's the perspective of a rich, privileged woman having grown up around famous directors, her father being one of them. But what I find interesting, and endearing about Sofia, is she's the rich, but introspective, introverted and awkward type. Hers is not the entitled, loud, Brett Easton Ellis-type of the privileged youth. And this is clearly seen in her characters. She puts herself into these characters. Same with the score; It's music Sofia grew up to, so it seems natural that she would include Bow Wow Wow and New Order-- even for the soundtrack to Marie Antoinette. When she was a contributing photographer and writer for Interview magazine in the early to mid 90s, she revealed that her and her friends would try on clothes in her room while listening to Siouxsie & the Banshees. And now as a director, she's included the music that inspired her youth, as well as new music that she liked-- like Air, in her films. It's all very post-modern from a critical point of view, and maybe that's translated to hipster for some, but it's very honest to me.

 

[wild roses]

In the case of MA, I think she should --and could have-- addressed the 'let theme eat cake!!!!' stereotype simply because MA is one of the most misunderstood, and most maligned, queens in history.

I also think you missed the point of my dislikes against her, cuz I enjoy the films of Woody Allen (and god knows all his characters, including the bohemians, are rich, well-off, and very privileged). Many of the women I admire also come from wealth: Katharine Hepburn, Princess Grace, Jacqueline Kennedy. The different between Sofia and Woody, the difference between Sofia and those women, is that Sofia is so consumed with her little corner that she can't even see the diversity and limitless wonder even within her own wealthy world. Woody can. The other 3 women could. Contrast how he treats ditzy characters compared to Sofia (Woody films celebrate all types of women, Sofia tells us if someone is a ditz, they aren't good enough to be in her company and we should laugh at them too).

rich, but introspective, introverted and awkward type

.

That I do like about her films, cuz this character type is under-appreciated. BUT she doesn't need to diss other types of women to prove her point. I disagree about her characters not being 'entitled' though. (Tried 3 times to write out what I mean, but my thoughts aren't ordered yet, so I have to hold off writing out what I mean regarding entitlement in her films.)

I have no problem with her including autobiographical bits on her works, and I like the authenticity that brings to her characters. I would like to point out it's not something unique to her though. Lots of actors/writers/directors do it. I do have a problem with her viewpoint being so narrow that she doesn't realize how her cultural stereotyping and shaming of things that don't fit her viewpoint is problematic.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Phuel, I get the same sense of authenticity as you from the films. I also really agree with this:

But what I find interesting, and endearing about Sofia, is she's the rich, but introspective, introverted and awkward type.

In fact, that's why she related to Antonia Fraser's biography of Marie Antoinette because it considers the fact that she was an isolated Queen and so so young. I don't think Sofia could do a genuinely political film, so she did it from an insider's view. And how that insularity shapes a person. She really explores that theme a lot (Virgin Suicides, the cloistered girls; Somewhere, the Chateau Marmont bubble of fame, etc) and I assume it's because she's writing about what she knows about - that she sees the flaws in being isolated within a culture. But she sees those flaws from the protagonist's inner perspective: existential, not social or political. I think people want her to broaden her horizons, but there is something to be said for sticking to what you know.

wild roses, I am a huge Woody Allen fan too. For the movie challenge last year, I made it my purpose to fill in all the missing Woody films I hadn't seen, and I did it! Very fun. For you, here's a cool link

http://www.everywoodyallenmovie.com/

 

[wild roses]

But she sees those flaws from the protagonist's inner perspective: existential, not social or political. I think people want her to broaden her horizons, but there is something to be said for sticking to what you know.

But...I don't think she neccessarily has to be political or social in her POV. She just has be...non-judgmental and open-minded, neither of which she is.

Besides, it's quite possible to be existential and write with depth. Take Czech New Wave films. Many were political protests made against the government. They were also made to reassert Czech identity in worldwide cinema. However, they use a very non-political, particularly existential viewpoint to explore their themes and make their points. (The existentialism was actually necessary given that anything political would be banned.) Yet they still manage to be very non-judgmental of their characters and still challenge the viewer, and they don't stereotype. Renoir and Bergman also dealt mostly with well-to-do, leisured people, but they manage to cover humanity.

I do think you're getting at something about how she writes about the flaws of being isolated, but I feel that she props her hero/ines too much up to do it. Like, at least, admit your hero/ines are flawed too. Instead Zoe is presented as an Upper East Side Saint (who saves her parents marriage, returns a stolen jewel, doesn't get killed when a robbery occurs...and more ridiculousness), Marie A as this Darling Wunderkund (who is just misunderstood by the French Court) Party Princess, blanking on Scarlett's character's name but she's this Super Intellectual who Understands and Probes More Deeply.

Like No. How about Marie A try to understand the French Court and respect its customs, which she doesn't until she is guilted into doing so (and even then we're supposed to take MA's side). How about ScarJo's character realize that she can do stuff while her hubby is gone. That there is a Tokyo and Japan that exists outside of the American stereotypes. That you don't always NEED to feel something. And you shouldn't complain about having no feelings about life when you basically stay in room all day staring outside your window waiting for life (re: your hubby) to come to you. Yet, because she is 'philosopher,' we're supposed to side with her. That we're supposed to side with her when she doesn't even TRY to step outside her comfort zone. She's in this amazing country, but all she ever does is the tourist stuff. REALLY? So much for someone who supposed to sooooooo deep and insightful.

And this where my biggest problem with the cultural stereotyping is. With both NYS and LIT, other cultures are presented as these alien, unrelatable places where the character doesn't possess the key to unlock it. Until, the "Magical Person of Colour" appears. Who instantly opens all the doors and suddenly Sofia's white characters Get It. And are Wise. And can Save the Day. But the white characters NEVER leave their comfort zone. Which is why this is a big NO. Sofia's idea of Japan is Godzilla and short people who make weird food. When that doesn't even begin to cover Japan. It's not even shorthand. Ever watched any Japanese cinema? True, there are the cheesy monster flicks, but many are serious insightful movies about class, westernization, war, poverty, family, etc. In fact, it's actually the easiest of non-English foreign cinema to watch because Hollywood and Japan have so influenced each other over the past 50 years. But if one goes by LIT, Japanese people are strange beings with nothing in common with Bill or Scarlett. When, actually, Japanese people aren't that different in reality. But they are treated as an exotic species to be laughed at or punned about because their language, their food, their culture, isn't something that Sofia is informed about. (NYS is even more offensive cuz she basically uses Princess Jasmine royalty stereotypes for her Middle Eastern characters.) But do the LIT characters ever admit to being close-minded and ignorant about Japan? No, instead we're invited to basically join in their mocking.

I have nothing against characters who feel they are misunderstood. Which I do think her characters DO feel genuinely misunderstood. But I don't like the Holden Caulfielding that always come in play: Well I'm so special cuz I'm so misunderstood and because I'm special that means I'm above critique. Therefore, let me do damage how I will. My damage is my way of expressing myself and it doesn't matter if it hurts other people because I'm more special because I'm so misunderstood.

Thanks for that link! I'm slowly working my way through Woody Allen's filmography.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Just a couple things about Lost in Translation.

IMO, the Charlotte character does explore and admire the culture by herself. Quite a lot actually. But she's understandably lonely. If I were in a completely different place, i'd like someone to explore it with too.

There's the scene where she is kindly invited to try flower display in the hotel, and the ladies around her are portrayed respectfully, with a kind of grace; there's the scene when she sees the Japanese wedding and goes into the temple, after which she phones her friend crying; there's the scene when she goes to the Japanese arcade and looks on in wonder and seems to feel a kind of awe towards the kids in there. So while she is in her hotel room "wondering" about her life at times, that is juxtaposed with scenes of her out-and-about "wandering" around various places in Japan.

There are a couple of "caricature" scenes, most of which feature the Bob / Bill Murray character, and which are played for humour. Largely, critics liked these scenes and the film itself, but one critic thought there were negative cultural stereotypes, in these scenes especially, so when I taught the film (twice now), I asked students (college level) what they thought. I was kind of surprised to find out that basically none of them found it problematic; I really thought it might engender some debate, but even the Japanese and Chinese students thought the film and its cultural depictions were fine because they felt most of the humour was played due to language barriers and cultural differences that exist, and there was an equal amount of love for the place and people of Japan: like when Bob and Charlotte go out with local people and have a blast.

It's funny, but I see lots of similarities between Woody and Sofia, perhaps because I love both of their films. Woody often plays on stereotypes and makes fun of "shallow" or "unintellectual" people (e.g., throughout Annie Hall the people in L.A. are depicted as ridiculous). He also plays on cultural stereotypes in recent films like Vicky Christina Barcelona and To Rome with Love. But he does it with humour, love, and authenticity as well, which I feel that Sofia manages, too. I think the humour in her films is usually tongue in cheek, but with warm admiration too.

As for Marie Antoinette, probably I "get" Sofia's approach because I've read the book; Fraser writes a pretty sympathetic portrayal of the Queen. Given that Marie was 14 years old when she was taken from her home, stripped naked, and handed over to completely unknown people in an unknown country, it's perhaps relatable as to why she might feel alienated and see things around her as awkward. A 14 year old girl in this sort of estranged situation is unlikely to try to understand customs. Fraser's book is quite excellent, actually; the vocabulary is amazing and seeing things from a personal perspective - as opposed to a more traditionally historical one - was interesting, at least to me anyhow.

 

[MulletProof]

(Woody films celebrate all types of women, Sofia tells us if someone is a ditz, they aren't good enough to be in her company and we should laugh at them too).

I'm so special cuz I'm so misunderstood and because I'm special that means I'm above critique. Therefore, let me do damage how I will. My damage is my way of expressing myself and it doesn't matter if it hurts other people because I'm more special because I'm so misunderstood.

Not that you need any support but you summed up perfectly what irritates me the most about the way she envisions characters..


Great discussion guys, regardless of sides.. good read.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Just to add, re: LIT, it doesn't bother me that she is an introspective character (i.e., studied philosophy) who feels a sense of alienation from the people around her, who are mainly talking about photography and films and modelling. Especially when she is grappling with the issues of what she wants to do with her life and whether or not she married the right person. Add to that the fact that she's in a foreign country with no friend to talk to etc., and I can see why she's sad and feels separated from the people in the bar (when she's down there with her husband). I don't find it that much different than how Alvie Singer feels most people around him are superficial and lack empathy (ref to Woody/Annie Hall of course).

 

[wild roses]

Those of you who like her keep putting forth positive reasons as to why one should like her. I do see those things in her films, but to me, the negatives far outweigh the positives.

Not Plain Jane, have you considered that maybe the reason students aren't offended is because they don't know that much about Japanese culture themselves? On IMDB, there are a few people who wrote about not being offended by the film's portrayal of Japan, but then they moved there, or started watching Japanese cinema, and now that they've been enlightened, they admire the film less. Like they appreciate LIT as a 'gateway,' but they critique it for its stereotyping. Also, when the film came out, it got a bad reception from Japanese people because they felt they were being mocked by her 'Valentine to Tokyo.' (I do Charlotte comes off better than Bob in regards to the cultural exchange, but both never try to explore the culture outside of the American stereotypes of Japan. To them, Japan is just Godzilla, and flower-making, and weird food.)

I don't think one needs to read Frasier's biography to understand the film. Feminists have long tackled history from an unconventional, non-traditional bound angle. So that's nothing new to me. And if you're saying that one should read the biography to better understand the film, then it's a failure on Sofia's part, because one shouldn't neccessarily have to read the resources to 'get' her vision. (I'm all for books and reading, but film is an art medium in itself. If I go outside the medium to 'get' Sofia's POV, then she's not doing an awesome job.)

I am going to finish watching her other films before TBR comes out, but so far, the worst to me is NYS. (Francis actually directed it, but she co-wrote, co-produced, and had a hand in the fashion and music for it, so I consider it a Sofia film. You can see all her trademarks there even if she didn't direct it.)

 

[Phuel]

...I assume it's because she's writing about what she knows about - that she sees the flaws in being isolated within a culture. But she sees those flaws from the protagonist's inner perspective: existential, not social or political. I think people want her to broaden her horizons, but there is something to be said for sticking to what you know.

Exactly.

That's why I like and am drawn to her style-- it's purely visceral with me. The films I've seen of hers all comes across effortlessly authentic, endearing without the sappiness, and honest without the manipulations and contrivances. Sofia doesn't cross the lines into "poor little rich girl" for me.

I can understand how you would be turned off wild roses by her characters' faults in their lack of a larger and more inclusive perspective, and I think I understand that you'd feel her characters are entitled: From an outsider's perspective, they aren't exactly living hardknock lives and they're not exactly busting their chops to make things easier for themselves in their isolation. We as viewers, aren't given huge visual and emotional cues to sympathize or relate to them in their loneliness. But, that is exactly the reason I'm drawn to them; they come across more authentic because they're not well-rounded, or even rounded people, or even fighters. I get the impression Sofia's women aren't out to beg for the viewers' sympathy or comraderie. If some aren't able to get pass the superficial aspect of her characters; mainly privileged and beautiful-- then I can understand how some would be turned off by their portrayal. However, once you give them that chance and open up to them, Sofia's ability to build an authentic and real person can draw you in, it has for me. And often times, it's her very subtle direction that does it for me; the simple but awkward unspoken moments, pause, silence between her characters are what I adore about her them. It's a genuine vulnerability that I can relate to, and those instances win me over.

It really comes down to personal taste and perspective. As for Lost In Translation, I will get around to watching that. I've lived in most of Asia, particularly Hong Kong and Japan, and I can say from personal observation that some Chinese and Japanese do view the West in much the same way that you guys described the characters less than favourable reactions/attitude to japanese culture. I can see that as simply the characters' lack of experience integrating into a different country.

 

[wild roses]

If some aren't able to get pass the superficial aspect of her characters; mainly privileged and beautiful-- then I can understand how some would be turned off by their portrayal.

This is the most amusing defense I've read so far. Seriously. This is a fashion forum, and waht do we know about fashion? Most of the people in it are privileged and beautiful. What's the story of Hollywood through the years? Privileged and beautiful people who feel isolated. What's the story of many high society women through the centuries? Privileged and beautiful women who feel isolated.

I'm very fascinated with stories of privileged and beautiful people who feel lonely and isolated from Hollywood and high society. There are scores of stories to be found everywhere. It's not new. It was old when high society was at its height in America. It was old when Hollywood was being birthed. Sofia just doesn't tell it in a compelling way to me. And it has nothing to do with the wealth of her characters or their looks. (Again, Woody Allen's films take place in the same universe. Do I like dislike them? No. So please dearest defenders, stop implying I dislike her films because her characters are wealthy.)

 

[Phuel]

^^^ I'm not defending Sofia nor would I attempt to change your mind or undermine your perspective-- just sharing my opinion. I agree the subject matter is not original. I just don't care for the others style of storytelling or filmmaking on the subject of the beautiful and privileged but isolated characters in films/literature, and happened to enjoyed Sofia's take. She's able to strike such a personal and raw chord with me that I didn't expect on a subject matter that is all too common that I had no interest in.

 

[Phuel]

^^^Ooops! Couldn't edit; I meant undermind!

 

[wild roses]

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. (The next 2 paragraphs aren't directed at you Phuel, just my further thoughts on the topic.)

I'm confused though why so many people are focusing on Sofia's wealth/family connections and her characters wealth when it comes to defending her or her films. Like, rereading this topic, those of us who dislike her have barely focused on class issues. What we have focused on is storytelling, both character and arc, in why we dislike her films. Which has nothing to do with Sofia's family connections or her characters' wealth. But Sofia wealth and her characters' wealth keeps being brought up again and again and again and again and again by those defending her. Why????

George Lucas came from a humble background and revolutionized cinema, but he's a piss-poor storyteller. When he lets other people handle his storytelling ideas, his films are wonderful; not deep art but certainly good. When he writes the screenplays for his films, they are horrendous. I don't care how many insider connections George Lucas has, or how much money he has now. His humble background has nothing to do with his bad screenwriting ability. His revolutionizing cinema has nothing to do with the eyesore that is Jar Jar Binks. You can be a bad storyteller whether you are Hollywood insider or scrappy outsider.

 

[crimsonlakes]

I recently read The Bling Ring script and Sofia's creative influence is derived from the environment she grew up in. Basically, it's writers 101 " Write What You Know". She stays in her comfort zone, but she frequently provokes the audience to reflect upon the privilege individuals who she tends to centralize her theme on. You aren't supposed to like every character, but consider how their environment creates people who project themselves as unlikeable, even in most cases they are incredibly dissatisfied with their life. The films of hers I appreciate the most are The Virgin Suicides and Lost In Translation. Sofia is talented, but her films are languid and are specific to a certain type of lifestyle, which can perhaps dissuade some people. I'm excited to see the trailer of The Bling Ring even if I know it's based on modern Hollywood which is saturated with gluttony.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

wild roses

Not Plain Jane, have you considered that maybe the reason students aren't offended is because they don't know that much about Japanese culture themselves?

Totally! The college where I teach is loaded with a number of international students, most of whom are from Asian countries (Japan, China, Korea and Taiwan) and some from Eastern Europe, Middle East and so on. That's why I was surprised that they weren't more open to debate. It could be a cultural thing, because they might not feel it's appropriate. But I find a lot of the Japanese students very "open" to different views and maybe that's why they didn't mind? Anyhow, just thought it was kind of interesting. I know that LIT has been critiqued for its portrayal of stereotypes.

Re: Fraser's bio - not suggesting one should have to read the book; just suggesting that it could be one reason why I feel like I get where she was coming from because it kind of mirrors the book's sympathetic portrayal, so no doubt that's what Sofia was trying to capture. Sometimes that's the problem with adaptations - it's difficult to "say" in 2 hrs what a book has 500 pages to say!

crimsonlakes

You aren't supposed to like every character, but consider how their environment creates people who project themselves as unlikeable, even in most cases they are incredibly dissatisfied with their life. The films of hers I appreciate the most are The Virgin Suicides and Lost In Translation.

Agree about the "environment" and how it shapes people; and I also think it's true she doesn't necessarily want us to fully identify with one character in all of her films - that's especially true in Somewhere, perhaps, where the protagonist is a jerk. But then his daughter shows up and the "slowburn", to quote Phuel, begins.

Agree, too, about her strongest work being in those 2 films, although visually Marie Antoinette is pure scopophillia! Lust of the eyes It's almost eye candy for me on the level of a Bollywood film.

BTW, how'd you get your hands on a copy of Bling Ring? If you can't share, that's fine, but just curious.