‘Twixt’ trailer

Posted by · 11:33 am · August 2nd, 2011

Now that Francis Ford Coppola’s experimental film “Twixt” has been announced for a Toronto premiere, the trailer has hit the web (via TIFF’s You Tube page). It’s largely composed of the footage we saw at Comic-Con, which was lived-edited into two different assemblages during the panel there. That’s Tom Waits narrating, by the way. Check out the trailer by clicking hte image below, or watch an embed after the jump.




→ 79 Comments Tags: , , | Filed in: Daily

79 responses so far

  • 1 8-03-2011 at 10:32 am

    Matthew Starr said...

    I’m just wondering who picks the projects for Elle Fanning. Is it mainly her or input from her handlers?

    She turned 13 this year and has already worked with Inarritu, Fincher, Cameron Crowe, JJ Abrams, The Coppola’s (father and daughter). I just wonder if she is a cinephile asking to work with auteurs like this or what.

  • 2 8-03-2011 at 10:36 am

    Matthew Starr said...

    Meanwhile I look at Dakota’s IMDB and all I see is Twilight and a bunch of films about a girl trying to lose her virginity. What happened!

  • 3 8-03-2011 at 11:46 am

    Gioconda said...

    Eheh Val Kilmer looks like Oliver Stone.

  • 4 8-03-2011 at 12:13 pm

    Rashad said...

    Matthew: You forgot Tony Scott!

  • 5 8-03-2011 at 1:06 pm

    Drew said...

    Rashad, the willingness to try something that is way the fuck outside of the box as to what Copola is trying to achieve merrits serious interest that should go beyond what is seen in this trailer. This whole concept sounds like it has the potential to be a great experience for an audience. It’s hard to market something that experiments with the medium. Much like the filmmaker, you have to take a risk as an audience member. And believe me, there is more in stake for the former than the latter.

    As for the trailer, I like the whole David Lynch feel (talk about a filmmaker who has no idea where the box is) and the scene where Kilmer’s attempting to write his next piece was hysterical to me. Anyone who has ever tried to write or create something knows that point in a process.

  • 6 8-03-2011 at 1:23 pm

    Rashad said...

    As someone who’s starting to really hate the copious amounts of extended cuts, and director’s cuts, the idea of a different cut in each city doesn’t appeal to me, and turns me off frankly. I hate having the feeling when watching a Ridley Scott film, and wondering if what I’m seeing is incomplete or not. I’m not in favor of the tour either, if that is the only way to see the film. (I haven’t heard of a release date or even if it has a distributor.)

    Anyone who has ever tried to write or create something knows that point in a process.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLli0ua29dw

  • 7 8-03-2011 at 1:34 pm

    Drew said...

    Completley different scenarios Rashad. As, I’m assuming, not one of the screened versions is the “definitive” cut as dvd releases are often promoted as such. Not sure what you are getting at with the link other than to make some bullshit effort that what I saw in the trailer wasn’t “original.” You sound like you are more interested in safe, easy, and digestible happy comfort food.

    And to say that the end result needs to be “good” is atrocious and frankly just stupid because this artform isn’t as black and white as math or science. There isn’t necessarilly a right and wrong to creating something. If a director told an actor or designer to make something better, or make it good, without any specifics or details it does virtually nothing for what anyone is trying to create.

    Sorry to sound cliche, but the only real artists in the world are the ones with balls who take some risks.

  • 8 8-03-2011 at 1:48 pm

    Rashad said...

    Oh christ:

    I posted the link because it’s humorous, and the same exact scenario. (Which is even more ironic since you accuse me of liking safe things.)

    Ridley’s films are never marketed as the “incomplete” version, which is exactly my point. If I say Kingdom of Heaven is a great movie, why should I have to make the caveat of saying Director’s Cut? Why isn’t his version the one released in theaters? Why are there 5 different cuts of Blade Runner? I hate that sort of thing. And it’s even more annoying he’s talking about preparing both a PG-13 and an R rated cut for Prometheus.

    If you have 2 hours to spare to watch bad movies, go right ahead. I don’t, so spare me what “art” really is, or what it should be, because everything is art and putting a limitation on the definition is even more closeminded. I never said no one should experiment, but don’t throw that word around like it’s supposed to grant carte blanche to anyone who is making a movie. If your movie turns out shit, then your efforts are in vain. We don’t know any of these people, so let’s not act like our connection is any more than the audience at hand. Yes, the end result has to be good. No sets out to make a bad movie – why is this so difficult to comprehend?

    I like when director’s step out of their comfort zones. I like Scorsese is doing a family 3d film, I like Spielberg is stepping into animation, I like Fincher is going to be doing some sci-fi after Dragon Tattoo. Hell, the Wachowskis have pushed the medium each time out, and their last movie did things with camerawork and editing unseen in most movies. Yet where’s the love and adoration for them and what they’re doing?

    There is ZERO in this trailer that hasn’t been done before in other movies like I mentioned. The “revolutionary” appeal of it is the tour.

  • 9 8-03-2011 at 2:16 pm

    Drew said...

    Rashad: The point of numerous cuts is to show parts of that creative process. What could’ve been, and what choices were considered in the making. Something that you’re obfuscating or not comprehending.

    You are also failing to understand what I menat by my comment about taking a risk. You have to be willing to fail to be an artist. This is an enormous risk for an audience to take part in. but an even bigger one for the one creating it. Nowhere did I make the statement that “it’s all art.” What I was saying that your limited comment about making art “good” does not benefit an artist or an audience member. If you’ve ever worked on a show or a film you might undertand this a little better. Even if Twixt is a “shit” film to you, because it tries something you are not familiar with it doesn’t mean that it’s efforts were pointless.

    The examples you mentioned are hardly risks. A director stepping outside of their comfort zone does not compare to someone doing something that has never been tried with this medium before.

  • 10 8-03-2011 at 2:20 pm

    /3rtfu11 said...

    “Eheh Val Kilmer looks like Oliver Stone.”

    No Oliver Stone is still fuckable and doesn’t look like Chaz Bono.

  • 11 8-03-2011 at 3:03 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    “If your movie turns out shit, then your efforts are in vain.”

    Sorry, Rashad, this statement just proves you have no clue what the real conversation is here. Please see comment #19 and finally GET IT.

  • 12 8-03-2011 at 3:21 pm

    Drew said...

    Thank you Kris. Even if this measure falters, it allows for other filmmakers to try their hand at this concept.

  • 13 8-03-2011 at 3:47 pm

    Al said...

    Matthew,

    What is even more interesting is why these big names are working with Fanning in the first place. I’m not saying she’s a bad actress, I just don’t see her doing anything amazing or phenomenal. Its all rather bland, really.

  • 14 8-03-2011 at 4:05 pm

    Rashad said...

    Kris: I have understood that point from the beginning. However that in and of itself doesn’t give the movie a pass. (And in this case, it isn’t so much the film itself, it’s the variations Coppola will be doing with it.) George Lucas was the first director to create a true digital world, but that doesn’t excuse the quality of first two prequels. I’m of the belief the film is above all else. The films we remember that pushed a certain boundary, we do so because they were great (or good) in addition to whatever they were pushing. It’s why we don’t talk about Young Sherlock Holmes, but still revere Jurassic Park. Same for the Star Wars prequels vs Avatar.

  • 15 8-03-2011 at 4:59 pm

    Smokey said...

    Rashad, I think Ridley makes multiple cuts because his movies frequently get f*cked over by the studio. He’s diplomatic enough to make one cut for them (releasable for theaters) and then his own preferred, “director’s cut”. He’s one of the few filmmakers where that phrase actually means something.
    Drew … your arguments come off as rather defensive, irritable and self-righteous … you sound an awful lot like … Drew McWeeney!

  • 16 8-03-2011 at 5:06 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    “I’m of the belief the film is above all else.”

    Then I’m glad you aren’t in charge of the big decisions. I get the naive stance you’re taking, but you’re missing the big picture. And you’re being incredibly unfair to films that opened doors just because you disliked them. Very childish, IMO.

  • 17 8-03-2011 at 5:52 pm

    Al said...

    If I don’t like a film that opened doors how can that be seen as childish? If I didn’t like it am I supposed to pretend I did because its revolutionary? Even though I wasn’t entertained? No no, this doesn’t add up at all.

    I’m completely down with what F.F. is doing, honest I am, but it doesn’t look well made to me. I’ll always look at it as something cool or an interesting step (hell, I may even enjoy the movie) but if, in the end, there is nothing to make me say “Gee, that was a great film” well, I’d like to think the site that always reminds us to stop picking on critics (who destroy a film’s tomato meeter) would respect that.

  • 18 8-03-2011 at 6:03 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    It’s not childish to dislike the film. It’s childish to assume that said film might as well not have existed, which is clearly the vibe Rashad is giving.

    Lots of twisting of words going on, but just own up to what you’re saying, guys. It’s a narrow-minded take on something without getting the bigger picture. You’re free to think the film is shit (or to think that it looks like shit — notice I haven’t had anything to say against Rashad taking issue with this trailer or even having beef with the tour aspect). But when you reach this totalitarian stance of basically saying a filmmaker shouldn’t bother, you’re being, yes, childish.

  • 19 8-03-2011 at 6:03 pm

    Drew said...

    Smokey, when aruing with someone like Rashad, who, as Kris described above, has a fairly childish view of cinemtatic experimentation, it tends to happen. Sorry if the comment about “good” movies sounded self-righteous, but if the note to make it “good” were given to any writer, director, actor, designer etc. it would come off as futile and ridiculous.

  • 20 8-03-2011 at 6:04 pm

    Drew said...

    And no, I am not Drew McSweeney.

  • 21 8-03-2011 at 6:04 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    “I’d like to think the site that always reminds us to stop picking on critics (who destroy a film’s tomato meeter) would respect that.”

    Don’t know what this means. I take critics to task for various things all the time, so…

  • 22 8-03-2011 at 6:33 pm

    Rashad said...

    How am I the one being childish? What difference does it make to me if something exists? It’s going to happen anyway and none of us have control over it. I can only comment on it. Should I applaud the idea of remixing a movie 30 times? Why exactly? What benefit as a viewer does this give us? What is Coppola’s vision for the film? The main point you’ve tried to make is that it might “inspire someone in the future.”

    And you’re being incredibly unfair to films that opened doors just because you disliked them

    No I haven’t. I have acknowledged that the first two SW prequels were revolutionary, but they didn’t amount to much as films, which is why we watch the movies in the first place. What you’re doing is conflating the film and achievement, and trying to use the latter to make up for where the former is lacking.

  • 23 8-03-2011 at 7:35 pm

    DylanS said...

    Kris and Drew: I don’t know what Rashad is meaning, but to me it doesn’t sound like he’s shiting on experimentation in cinema at all, and it seems like his point is being blown out of proportion. He seems to be merely suggesting that we should hold the entire film itself to a certain standard, and not just praise it for what it intends to be (or what we think it intends to be), because frankly, we don’t know what the filmmakers intentions are.

  • 24 8-03-2011 at 7:47 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    I’m not conflating anything, Rashad. I haven’t once said this film will be “good.” I’ve said that even if it ends in a train wreck, the effort should be applauded. But you’re just being stubborn because you don’t like Coppola’s concept (which is fair enough) and refuse (for whatever reason) to admit that it’s valuable to have filmmakers take risks (which is not fair and is detrimental to the form).

    But do as you like, man.

    Dylan: Like I said, I’m not speaking to the quality of the film, which I haven’t seen. I’m speaking to the apparent need to stifle creativity in the womb because it’s not what someone necessarily “wants.” And it’s not blown out of proportion, or Rashad would stop insisting this nonsense of “all that matters is the finished product.” I take serious umbrage with that statement.

    After all, “The Jazz Singer” isn’t a very good film.

  • 25 8-03-2011 at 9:05 pm

    Rashad said...

    I never said I didn’t want filmmakers to take risks. All I said was I wanted Coppola to make good movies again, to which you brought up Apocalypse Now, and I even said he made very good movies after that. And it’s not even like he did cookie-cutter things either. I think Dracula is something very different in the genre and the type of over the top opera you don’t often see.

    I never said I didn’t want him to try new things, but just don’t forget to make the movie worth while. I don’t see how my point of view stifles creativity at its inception. No one thinks they’re making a bad movie until it comes out. So whatever they plan on doing, will happen regardless.

  • 26 8-03-2011 at 9:46 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Ok, Rashad.

  • 27 8-04-2011 at 6:50 am

    The Great Dane said...

    Val Kilmer AND Joanne Whalley in the same film? Interesting… Nice that they can remain friends.

    But this footage shows that this could either be Coppola’s return to form or his ultimate disaster. Doing something weird doesn’t make it great. The ghost thing really looks off and laughable judging from this “trailer”.

  • 28 8-09-2011 at 1:34 pm

    TapleyAss said...

    “In a nutshell: Stop trying to smother creativity in the womb. It’s the worst thing you can do if you really respect this medium.”

    This coming from a pompous douchebag who devotes his life to typing about the Oscars. If creativity and experimentation are so important to you, why are you making the Oscars the be-all and end-all of your site?

    Because they aren’t that important to you: you just have a pathetic need to get the last word, always and forever.

  • 29 8-09-2011 at 1:43 pm

    Dana Jones said...

    ^Troll.