Review: Sofia Coppola's 'Somewhere' puts parental guilt under a microscope

Stephen Dorff and Elle Fanning take their father/daughter act on the road in style

<p>Stephen&nbsp;Dorff and Elle Fanning star as father and daughter in Sofia Coppola's new film 'Somewhere'</p>

Stephen Dorff and Elle Fanning star as father and daughter in Sofia Coppola's new film 'Somewhere'

Credit: Focus Features

Sofia Coppola seems to exist to enrage people to an unreasonable degree.

When "The Godfather Part III" opened in 1990, I was managing a movie theater, and I heard the open hostility that some audiences had for her, hostility that they walked into the theater with because of the way the press treated her.  It was such a big media story, with Winona Ryder dropping out and Coppola stepping in, and people were so incredibly unkind to her before the film even opened that it felt almost pre-determined.  I like her work in that film.  I think she's a very unaffected, natural Mary, and her inexperience in front of the camera actually made it more piercing at the end of the film.

1999 was an amazing year of film, and I would rank "The Virgin Suicides" among the very best of the movies that came out that year.  In it, Coppola established a voice as a filmmaker that, upon reflection, seems to have already been firmly established with "Life Without Zoe," the segment of "New York Stories" that she wrote, and "Lick The Star," a great little short film about a bunch of mean girls.  For her first feature,  Coppola tackled a difficult piece of source material, the Jefrey Eugenides novel, and found a way to make a film that felt like broadcasts from inside these characters.  Her use of music and perspective and her refusal to fill in the narrative around the dreamlike structure she built made "Virgin Suicides" a sensory experience that lingered.  

For many people, "Lost In Translation" was the introduction to her work, and it's still the film she is best known for.  Bill Murray will most likely never make a film like this again, a movie that perfectly harnessed his sad clown persona to reveal a romantic subcurrent that he's never quite played this perfectly anywhere else.  Scarlett Johansson, who I frequently think is a bit of a gorgeous blank onscreen, was perfectly suited to play against Bill, and he seemed to tease an inner life out of her that we don't see in other roles.  Coppola continued to refine her ability at casting a mood more than telling a story, and it was surprising to see how the film was embraced by the mainstream.  Coppola's movies, as much as the films of anyone working right now, are personal and without apology about that.

I'm guessing it was precisely because the tiny, tender "Lost In Translation" became much bigger than expected that there was so much attention on her follow-up, 2006's "Marie Antoinette."  I'm not a fan of the film, but the way people tore into it and the personal way they tore into Coppola felt like "The Godfather Part III" all over again.  I can't imagine she reads anything written about herself, because there's so much zeal behind the venom towards her that there's nothing for her to learn from it.  It's not constructive.  It's sport for her detractors at this point.  I'm amazed how there are people who still seem actively angry at her simply because of who her father is, and how little they seem to actually look at what it is she does as a filmmaker because of that bias.

Perhaps it is appropriate, then, that dealing with a famous father is the starting point for her new film, "Somewhere," which stars Stephen Dorff and Elle Fanning.  He's a movie star named Johnny Marco, hollowed out from years of indulgence, and she is Cleo, his 11-year-old daughter, dumped on his doorstep by a mother in meltdown.  Johnny's given a vague deadline about getting her to camp, but there's no real urgency to it.  And I've ready a few descriptions of how the film deals with Marco learning how to be a better father, but I wouldn't really say that's accurate.  Johnny and Cleo don't have any giant fake epiphanies, but they don't stay unchanged by their time together, either.  It's another mood movie for Coppola, capturing the world of hotels and constant air travel and lovely diversions, and what I find most interesting is the way the film never quite lands as being either Johnny's story or Cleo's, but instead exists as the tension between these two strangers bound only by blood and, once in a long while, geography.  And both actors do what Coppola needs of them, even though I'm not sure it's enough.

Cleo is not played as a bruised little victim, all alone because of famous daddy, but she's also not a preternaturally poised miniature adult, all one-liners and self-confidence.  She basically just feels like any modern 11-year-old.  She enjoys the perks of traveling first class like swimming in your own personal pool in your hotel suite, but she just enjoys it the way any kid would.  There's no entitlement, and there's not even much in the way of expectation.  Cleo's just sort of blown through life by the twin forces of her parents, landing wherever she lands.  This particular moment with Johnny is a good one, a new set of treasured memories, but there's no real indication at the end of the film that Johnny's any better at the real work of parenting, and Cleo seems well aware of just how low she should pitch her standards when it comes to her parents.

Dorff spends much of the movie floating along on a cloud of pain pills and booze, idly chasing whatever tail happens to cross his path, and more than anything, he seems to be insulating himself from self-awareness.  In his moments of clarity, he's almost embarrassed about his success, his money, people's interest in him.  The only genuine glimpses we get of him are the unguarded moments where he and Cleo get past all the bullshit, all the resentment, all the fear, and just enjoy playing with each other, father and daughter finally speaking that secret language we have with our kids.

Yes… Johnny Marco is very rich.  But that basic fundamental desire to do right by our kids and that equally fundamental fear that we are getting every single important thing wrong… that's not something that is related to money in any way.  That's something that keeps me up nights, something I've had a lot of time to consider this year while spending time away from my own kids because of work.  I am tired of hearing movies reflexively dismissed because a character has money.  Money doesn't solve every problem; it just introduces different ones.  No matter what Coppola's subject, what she demonstrates in "Somewhere," as with her earlier films, is an ability to bottle these moments, to create these tiny little pockets of memory and mood that you can dip into, each one a full sensory experience.  "Somewhere" is slight, and I think even for the type of storytelling that she's obviously fond of, it's a bit unfocused, but it has a real voice.  The photography by Harris Savides (whose work on films like "Zodiac," "Birth," and "The Game" mark him as a ferocious talent) is gorgeous, and it's very evocative.  He knows how to give equal weight to the crushing hotel boredom of a movie junket and the momentary freedom of time spent swimming with your kids.  And Phoenix contributes a lovely score to the film, a perfect complement to the feeling she's trying to capture.

"Somewhere" is not a major step forward for Sofia Coppola, but if you like her work, you'll recognize her particular vision once again.  She may never be a blockbuster director, but as long as she stays true to her interests and her point of view, I'll stay interested.

Get Instant Alerts - Motion Captured
By subscribing to this e-alert, you agree to HitFix Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and to occasionally receive promotional emails from HitFix.

Follow Drew McWeeny and Motion Captured on

RSS Facebook Twitter
 


"Somewhere" opens today in theaters. 

 

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    DefRef

    On the night of the Academy Awards when she won for Lost In Translation, there was a snarky thread on a now-deserted industry forum with live responses to the show. After her win - and I'm repeating this as someone who liked LIT - one poster remarked, "That crashing sound you just heard was 20,000 laptops in L.A. being hurled across living rooms."

    If there is a legitimate complaint fueling the animus against her it's that if her name was Sofia Smith, she wouldn't have been (or continue) afforded the opportunities she's had; even more so than most nepotism in Hollywood evokes. Other than perhaps Terrence Malick, I can think of many filmmakers who can get greenlit on movies that will be so dependent on mood vs. narrative.

    December 22, 2010 at 6:21AM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew My response to "she never would have had that opportunity if her dad wasn't FFC" is "she probably wouldn't have had the INTEREST if her dad wasn't FFC, either." She is who she was raised to be, and what's wrong with that? I love Roman Coppola's first film "CQ" as well. Just like I think Joe Hill is a heck of a good novelist, and I'm sure that's due in no small part to being Stephen King's son.

      I guess I don't get why I'm supposed to hate her for having a father who encouraged and helped her. Wow. What a sin.

      I think nepotism is a really boring and petty thing to get upset by. It's a given. It is like oxygen or the sun. Rail against it if you must, but you're not changing a thing, and you're missing the point.

      I'm sure she wishes she had the last name Smith sometimes herself, so people could watch her work with clearer eyes.

      December 22, 2010 at 6:31AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Chrissy I also wonder what she should have done, given her obvious interest in filmmaking. Not been a filmmaker? I suppose she could have submitted scripts under a fake name, but she certainly couldn't have directed that way, at least not for long.

      December 22, 2010 at 10:02AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Kris Love ya drew but I think you missed the first posters point. His problem wasn't that she chose to make movies or that nepotism allowed her to make these films. I believe his point was about it allowing her to continue making her particular type of film. Personally I disagree with the point but that doesn't mean there is no merit or truth to it. I also
      Agree that nepotism isn't necessarily a bad thing but I think it is when the person's talent does not back up said opportunities. In this instance I believe it does but if she were truely lacking in talent then wouldn't it be fair to point that out since there are plenty of talented people who never get a shot? Nepotism is a fact of life as is the need to rail against it when the opportunity it provides is wasted. Personally, if I were in her position I'd gladly accept the venom in exchange for her opportunities. Wouldn't you?

      December 22, 2010 at 12:35PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew I got the point, Kris. And I agree... the opportunity was there because of her name and her upbringing. I just wanted to introduce the idea that the desire was there because of that upbringing, too.

      And as far as the difficulty in getting her types of movies made? That's still a very real thing, even being named Coppola. Take a look at how long goes by between movies for her. It's still a battle to get this type of film made, no matter what your track record, no matter what your name. She's stayed true to a personal vision when she easily could sign up a career of making one big studio comedy a year if she wanted, and I'm sure she'd be way more financially secure. I think she's making the movies she wants to make, and at this point, it's her name getting them made, not her father's.

      December 22, 2010 at 9:38PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Kris We see eye to eye on this one no doubt. I think a vocal minority disagrees with us and really it's their loss. I just wanted to make sure we weren't getting too hyperbolic the other way. There is a place where criticizing nepotism is important....it just isn't here. I also agree on how tough it is to get these types of films made and the industry is much more interesting with her in it;-). Thanks for taking the time to respond, your opinion is the only one online that I care enough about to discuss. Keep up the good work;-)

      December 23, 2010 at 1:01AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    JoeK

    I agree with Drew. The notion that she was somehow obligated to seek another line of work or interest apparently to ward off charges of nepotism (which would have followed her into virtually ANY field, guaranteed) is beyond silly...and also has the nasty side effect of willfully ignoring that she does have obvious affinity, if not talent, for what she is doing.

    December 22, 2010 at 9:23AM EST Reply to Comment


  • Drew, you are my single favorite critic. Thank you for your commitment to quality. Thank you for doing the hard work of weighing and considering all of these things in front of us, on a high wire, before an often cynical & judgmental tribe. You bring a humanity and perspective that is refreshing. Merry Christmas to you, my friend. May you be blessed this holiday season with some great family time.

    December 22, 2010 at 9:41AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Dryden

    "The Virgin Suicides" was probably my second favorite film of 98 after "The Thin Red Line." That book would be difficult for anyone to adapt, so it was thrilling to see a first time director nail it. "Lost in Translation" is another lovely film.

    But I can't blame anyone who can't get behind her films. The characters in her films can come off like spoiled brats. I found it unbearable in "Marie Antoinette," but it's there in all her work. I don't think it's dismissing a movie because the character has money, but rather not being engaged by the problems her characters with money are going through. She's obviously writing from personal experience, and she has a good eye and ear. Like I said, I like her work, but I understand those who don't.

    December 22, 2010 at 10:19AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    amy

    I'm a big fan of both The Virgin Suicides and Lost In Translation, but I think that both Marie Antoinette and Somewhere have represented a big step backward for Coppola. I saw Somewhere in the theater last week and honestly, I was just bored. The film was too self-indulgent by half - the long, slow pans and the extended sequences - I'm thinking of Elle Fanning's character ice-stakng to the entirety of Gwen Stefani's Cool. It wasn't dramatic, insightful, funny or satirical and there was great scope for all of that. The character of Johnny Marco was severely underwritten and I didn't feel like I got a sense of who he was or why I should care about him or his predicament.
    Great kudos to Harry Savides whose photography is stunning, but aside from the visuals, this film really goes nowhere.

    December 22, 2010 at 12:13PM EST Reply to Comment


  • Well Drew it looks like you nailed exactly why she is so divisive. I admit that I don't enjoy her movies because of who she populates them with. That's not to say that I dislike the actors in her movies; I dislike the characters and don't feel any reason to watch them. But she does represent a very specific type of film director and I respect her ability to continue to use her own voice. Thanks for yet another honest review and I hope that getting your family back at home will relieve some of your stress.

    December 22, 2010 at 2:52PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    chris

    for what it's worth,
    i really liked lost in translation, but don't really feel the need to check out anything else she's done. i think it's because her movies tend to kind of ooze narcissism, they're all about rich disaffected rich people who are misunderstood. sounds a lot like her. there's a sort of cold mean vibe that comes out of stories about people who'v had every break and life and are still unhappy you know? i was fine with it once in Lost, but her perspective doesn't seem to have deepened or changed since then, and since i'm not interested in that story more than once, i don't feel the need to go back. does that make sense? also, people tend to hate poor little rich kid stories in general. i think that's why people get so worked up about her. it's not really too complicated.

    December 22, 2010 at 6:42PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    MM

    I absolutely adore her movies. Strangely, "Marie Antoinette" is my favorite movie from her (and it definitely has its cult following). I love the way she assembles her movies - from the casting, to direction, to music, to the mood. Her films are definitely not for everyone, but those who love them, really REALLY love them. I can't wait to see "Somewhere" this weekend.

    December 22, 2010 at 10:17PM EST Reply to Comment
  • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

    drew

    Sorry... there's a branch of this conversation that's been removed. The person leaving comments was evidently incapable of disagreeing about art without using base insults and profanity that simply isn't allowed in these forums.

    Debate is always welcome. Blatant hostile abuse is not.

    December 22, 2010 at 11:53PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Around the Web