I think...

This message has been deleted by an administrator

This message has been deleted by an administrator

I agree and I think this results from Coppola's view of film as an artistic expression. Just look at Marie Antoinette and compare her intentions to how it was perceived/misunderstood by the majority of viewers.

That being said, I don't think there are enough faults in her filmaking to constitute your second paragraph. I mean she won an Oscar for best screenplay and works with very talented/knowledgeable producers, cinematographers, etc.

Everybody wants to be found.

Yes, you're on the money there, I agree with you 100 percent; there aren't enough faults at all, she's a fine filmmaker in every aspect, a lot better than countless others out there I'm sure.

However, looking at this board, it seems that a large amount of people would disagree with us. I am just estimating here that perhaps that is why they dislike her; they don't appreciate her creativity and end up focusing on her faults (or rather, I should have said what they perceive as faults, e.g. the pair of Converse in shot during Marie Antoinette), marking them out as reasons why she is not talented.

I know several people like this and I find it impossible to even argue with them that I do truly enjoy Sofia's work and consider her my favourite filmmaker, because it is just so abundantly clear that they do not understand her work in the first place.

To each their own, I guess.

When it comes to your thoughts on the technical viewer I would also have to disagree with you, and point out that the general opinion on a film often don`t reflect the academic one. Although Hiroshima mon Amour is considered a masterpiece, it would probably not be a hit on the average Wednesday movienight. And your technical viewer seems more interested to point out deviation from a standard cause-and-effect narrative, than to consider possible motives for juxtaposing a pair of converse shoes with the overwhelming vanity portrayed in Marie Antoinette.

I am an BF&TV student, and I think very highly of Sofia Coppola. She have in general received high critical acclaim not only for the ability to tell a story, but also for her technical finesse. I believe Coppola to be an arthouse director whith the ability to appeal even to the general audience. She has a unique ability to create a mood in her films and to give debth to her characters without being to explicit.

My guess is that most people who do not apreciate her as a director have a problem with the slow pacing and lack of a clear dramatic plot in her films. When thinking of Lost in Translation the french new wave and the film Cleo 5 a 7 comes to mind as a clear influence. It seems obvious to me that she is a highly skilled director with more knowledge of the medium than most, and that she uses this skill to tell simple personal stories with the power to move an audience while also giving them a very aesteticly pleasing experience.

I concider her one of my favourite modern auteurs, and can`t wait to be overwhelmed by the sweet, slow, melancolistic beauty that i hope Somewhere to be, when it reaches a cinema near me.

Just a different perspective.

YOu say "she has a unique ability to create a mood in her films and to give depth to her characters without being explicit".

I would say that if any given director wants to give ACTUAL depth to their characters they pretty much HAVE to be "explicit". Movies aren't days long. They need to be somewhat explicit if they don't want to be ridiculous. Otherwise your left with ungrounded projection abounding and the movie literally means nothing other than what one projects. I certainly would not apply the term "depth" to any of the characterizations in any of her films. She forces the audience to pretend something meaningful is happening. Her films completely lack 'character' in every regard. Her style isn't even hers.

And I see it is realistic, reflecting the Modernist literature movement, where dialogue is shortened in order to mirror real-life conversation in which meaning is not spelled out.

Everybody wants to be found.

Actually, I don't think many people who watch her films at all, are prone to being Michael Bay fans. The fact is that "most people who don't like her films" are down to earth film buffs who aren't afraid of calling a spade a spade. They are generally film lovers who aren't afraid of disagreeing with Roger Ebert when he gives 500 Days of Summer 4 stars when it doesn't deserve a half of one. Critics of her films tend to be folks who, when they see Vanity posing as Art, call it out as just that. I would point you to any of the nearly infinite threads in which fans of hers use lots of words to say the absolute nothing there is to say about any one of her atrocious vanity pieces as the proof in the pudding. ("I love that we can't hear the most important part", or "I love that she is so deliberately subtle" (an oxymoron), or "I love that it is intentionally slow for no good reason", or "I love that she is a huge deuche and I am too, so the fact that another deuche is a 'successful' film maker is cool", and on and on . . .)

Her films are completely uninteresting technical exercises in utter vanity. Her insularity is palpable. "Woe is me, I'm rich" is the undeniable theme that connects her films to one another. Nobody with a shred of dignity gives a *beep* what she has to say about anything at all, and most particularly what she has to say about Art and Film. The woman puts her living room on display in fashion magazines in hopes of what . . . NOT being seen as a vain *beep* She is a 'designer' feigning to be a film maker. In other words; she is a terrible film maker.