I read some stuff about Coppola's career that puts this film in perspective...after making the two Godfather flicks and APOCALYPSE NOW, he wanted to focus on small, experimental films but his studio, American Zoetrope, fell on hard times and his romantic film ONE FROM THE HEART was such an overbudgeted flop that he had to declare bankruptcy. He's said in interviews that the movies he made afterward were to pay of OFTH's debts. He flailed for a while, having some success (THE OUTSIDERS, PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED) and some very expensive flops (RUMBLE FISH, THE COTTON CLUB, GARDENS OF STONE, TUCKER: THE MAN AND HIS DREAM, THE GODFATHER PART III), but finally got in the black with DRACULA. He directed two blah mainstream features after that, the Robin Williams comedy JACK and the thriller THE RAINMAKER but then didn't direct any more movies until 2007 when he came out with a string of those small experimental films, YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH, TETRO, TWIXT, and DISTANT VISION. He still produces mainstream films but when it comes to directing he's very careful now and does more experimental stuff.
At any rate, when you realize this flick was made largely to pay off his creditors, it makes you look at it with a different viewpoint.
"Value your education. It's something nobody can ever take away from you." My mom.
reply
share
gilbert_gumphrey
8 years ago
First off, no movie should have an excuse for being bad, regardless of how or why it was made (not saying I think Dracula is bad, because I kinda love it, but I can see why others wouldn't, and knowing it was essentially made to pay off debts probably won't convery any haters).
Secondly...Godfather Part 3 wasn't really a flop. Might've underperformed and certainly didn't get the audience reaction they were hoping for, but it made 136 million worldwide on a budget of 60, and got 7 Oscar noms including Best Picture to boot. Maybe a slight disappointment, but surely Zoetrope made a bit of money from it at least...? (I'm asking here, cause I always assumed they did, but if you know different info than I do than that's very interesting).
Otherwise, pretty much everything else you said I agree with :P
reply
share
kmags84
8 years ago
FFC was never interested in making films that were considered anything BUT experimental. He wanted to push the envelope from Day 1 and while The Godfather had its moments, especially with subtext, Apocalypse Now was without a doubt the type of Cinema he was interested in being a part of. While he obviously wanted to get Zoetrope on track, he didn't budge on style. So he used Reeves, Ryder and Oldman as a way to make the film appealing to audiences on the surface and then just did the rest EXACTLY how he wanted to. Firing who couldn't get the job done and seeing through all the Practical Effects he wished to use as a way of making the film as a Homage to the Traditional Horror Genre but experimenting with those effects along the way. I've also grown to love this film and it's because of all that trickery and camera work. FFC took a bold step with this film and while profiting is always the idea, I don't think he ever truly gave a crap. With Apocalypse Now, I think it was different because he had his entire life's savings on the line... Here, it was just the Studio. It wasn't his home and winery etc. He wasn't suicidal, he didn't lose 100lbs and have a Mental Breakdown. I say this all because I agree, no excuse should be made and FFC didn't make any. He did what he wanted
reply
share