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.
Comments
79 responses to “‘Twixt’ trailer”
Strange trailer…but i think i like it…
It struck me as somewhat expository, but it’s intriguing nonetheless. I wonder how will the 3D will play out.
Just a teaser?
^ignore that last comment, wrong post
But this trailer looks like a promo for something that would have aired in reruns on the USA Network fifteen years ago.
Where has my precious Coppola gone?
I really think he should go back to shooting on film at least. The digital stuff looks cheap
Maybe he was never “your precious Coppola.” Maybe he’s always been an experimental film student for life who just happened to get deep on one studio assignment, lost his mind in the jungle on a masterpiece and spent a career taking money jobs to pay off his creative risks along the way.
I think he should be applauded for trying to push the medium, rather than derided for not catering to film-goers who desperately want the “good old days,” which incidentally came before they were even born.
Look forward.
The dreamier bits remind me of Guy Maddin in a way.
Other than that…I’m not sure how interested I am.
Color me intrigued! I’ve been really liking what Coppola’s been doing with his last few pictures. Not always successful, but always interesting.
I’ll be seeing this!
Being “experimental” means nothing if your movie isn’t good. I’ve seen this sort of movie before in Secret Window or 1408, and this doesn’t even look as good as either. How is this pushing the medium? Partial 3D sequence? A tour?
Coppola didn’t lose his touch after Apocalypse Now. Granted he hasn’t made a movie as good, but he made very good ones after that. (Dracula, The Outsiders) This movie just looks cheap and silly. If this weren’t Coppola’s name attached, would you honestly say you’d be interested?
Interesting, not sure how I feel about it. From just this trailer, not sure I like the digital look, sometime digital looks great to me, other times not so much. Hopefully I can catch this one in theaters.
“Being “experimental” means nothing if your movie isn’t good.”
God, that’s the most atrocious thing you could have said.
It’s the live-editing that’s pushing the medium forward, by the way. Attempting to liven things, and it’s refreshing, even if it ends in a train wreck. If people like Coppola were scared impotent by people demanding the gems of their past every time out, they’d never try anything new. And the medium would stagnate.
And yes, I’d be interested if some other filmmaker were interested in live-editing a film and manipulating it in this manner, playing with our ideas of what a movie is. And so should you.
While I like the idea behind this film, I dunno…the trailer looked kinda cheap, almost amateurish. Maybe that’s the aesthetic they’re going for (especially considering that this is supposed to be Coppola’s return to B-movie horror), but I wasn’t particularly impressed.
My hostility towards this movie stems mainly from the fact that I sat through both TETRO and YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH, both of which were cinematic “dead zones”. This one looks to be about the same. Sorry, Kris.
I didn’t like either of those movies either, but I don’t know. I guess I feel like a guy like Coppola has earned the opportunity to do what he wants and perhaps strike something really profound in the process.
I hate to judge a film based on the trailer alone, but god, this is the slowest trailer I’ve seen in a while. Even so, I don’t particularly understand what this film is about. Vampires, disgruntled writer, mass murders, Elle Fanning as a figment of said writer’s imagination? Color me intrigued but anyone care to share a quick synopsis?
“I guess I feel like a guy like Coppola has earned the opportunity to do what he wants and perhaps strike something really profound in the process.”
AMEN.
Kris: How is that atrocious? The end result is all that matters. We don’t credit 2001 for just being experimental, we credit it for being a great movie. The fact that it is so different is a bonus, it doesn’t make it.
The live editing doesn’t appeal to me at all. I hate the idea honestly.I don’t want to pay more to see this, and the lack of uniformity makes discussion of it futile.
For the record, I don’t want Coppola to think he has to make Godfathers and Apocalypse Nows each time. I just want good movies.
“The end result is all that matters.”
Not necessarily. Maybe Coppola stumbles here, but he opens some other filmmaker’s eyes to something fresh within the medium, and that filmmaker expands upon it, etc.
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.
1. Val Kilmer is so fucking fat.
2.Everything else outside of fat Val Kilmer is appealing about this trailer.
“Being “experimental” means nothing if your movie isn’t good”
Bullshit. I’d rather filmmakers not being boring. Scorsese has made boring movies and they weren’t even interesting — they were different for him because they didn’t involve NY or the mob.
So being experimental automatically makes you not boring? That’s silly.
If “The end result is all that matters.” Why don’t you wait until you see the end result before making snap judgments based on a trailer.
^Sometimes it does. there are many things that can make a movie “good” as you say. Movies don’t need to be innovative to be good, but some of us really like it when they are. Maybe this film will turn out to be hilariously bad, but I would still respect coppola at the end of the day for trying something new.
Not a fan of Val Kilmer, ruins my interest here. Always excited about Elle Fanning though, how big is her role here?
Turner: That comment was in relation to something completely different. As for the movie, i think the trailer looks very bad, but I’m still going to watch the movie.
I love how the conversation quickly descends into an argument on the values of experimentation and the desires for a strong finished product above all else…
Kris, I think I agree with your logic in terms of it always being interesting to see an already successful artist push themselves, but I think it’s a bit harsh to dismiss Rashad’s comment as “atrocious.” As watching any number of student films will tell you, it’s far easier to experiment than it is to tell a vibrant story and I’m guessing that Rashad wished Coppola would get something engaging on the page before he tries to alter typical filmmaking procedures. Of course, there’s a hell of a lot of subjectivity when it comes to the subject. I mean, I though The Outsiders was flat and listless despite being adapted from a great novel. But Rumble Fish, with the shadows and greys turned a pretty simple story into something that knocked me on my ass.
Basically, I think to applaud Coppola’s experimentation or deride his subject matter based on a trailer is ill-advised. Otherwise, we get a little too close the the gutless, marketing-heavy, focus-group oriented Hollywood that seems to fall short of almost everything Coppola’s done, good or bad.
Really excited to see what Coppola does with this. Going off on a tangent here though. Kris, when you refer to Apocalypse Now as a masterpiece, I’m wondering if you’re referring to Redux or the original cut.
“So being experimental automatically makes you not boring? That’s silly.”
Where did I say that? Putting words in my mouth. Being experimental certainly puts you above the creative fray by default, though.
Daniel: Frankly, either. But I prefer the original cut.
Jesse: I really do think it’s atrocious to think the ends being a “quality film” is the only way to justify experimental means. It’s borderline fascist.
In any case, I’m applauding Coppola here for what I saw him do in person at Comic-Con. Rashad is dismissing it based on an admittedly stilted trailer that does nothing to reveal that process.
Of course this live editing thing is exciting, but if the film doesn’t come out enjoyable, its a loss. Does it have to be formulaic or a studio film? Certainly not. Does it have to be exactly like the Godfathers/ Apocalypse now? Nope. Just has to be good, interesting, something. And so far, I’m not liking what I’m seeing.
“Where did I say that? Putting words in my mouth. Being experimental certainly puts you above the creative fray by default, though.”
He was responding to me Kris.
Coppola’s career kind of feels like George Lucas’ in a way. Opened with a bang and everything that followed after that brief shining period just never lived up to the promise of what came before. Of course, they ended up in very different places, with Coppola becoming an on-the-cheap indie filmmaker doing experimental art-y films and Lucas just sitting on his giant pile of cash, but they both sadly fall into the same category of filmmakers of the 70s that just couldn’t sustain their brilliance like Scorsese and Spielberg did.
But anyway, can’t say this film interests me much at all.. One comment above put it the best, if Coppola’s name wasn’t attached to this, would you seriously, genuinely be interested in it?
Oh, and speaking of Coppola.. The Conversation will be coming out on Blu-ray in North America on October 25th.
It is hard to tell how this is going to turn out. The 3D makes me nervous, but Coppola has at least been trying to do new things. Given how Scorsese and others are in auto-pilot, at least Coppola gives us something to digest.
“…if Coppola’s name wasn’t attached to this, would you seriously, genuinely be interested in it?”
And I answered, “Yes.” I think it’s lazy to take the “if so and so’s name wasn’t attached.” Same nonsense was applied to “Hugo.” The fact remains, so and so’s name IS attached, so stay off hypothetical world and let’s just talk about what’s in front of us.
I think this looks incredibly cool. I hope I’ll be able to see it in theatres!
This looks stupid.
What does it mean that it’s live-edited? That the movie was edited live at Comic-Con?
I’m not really understanding.
Read the Comic-Con post linked in the copy.
It looks like real art or a great loss of money…
Difficult to say when it’s edited in such a “vlog” way and when the leading actor is not someone you would be interested in…
Well, whatever.
“…and when the leading actor is not someone you would be interested in…”
I don’t get why this is so foregone to everyone. I still dig Val Kilmer.
I still don’t understand what live editing means. I understand how it could work in a tour of the film, but does that mean this won’t get a general release? If it is a limited release on 50 screens or so, wouldn’t it have to be a pre-edited film? What about the home video release?
There’s something both a bit intriguing and a bit terrifying about the completely independent artistic freedom Coppola now has with all his wine money. I haven’t seen “Youth without Youth” or “Tetro”, but I’ve heard mixed things about both.
I do think filmmakers who work with an audience in mind (be it arthouse or mainstream) deserve to have artistic freedom, but I get the impression from this trailer that Coppola honestly doesn’t give a shit if people like his movies anymore, but If I made one of the greatest films (if not THE greatest) in the history of cinema when I was 33, I probably wouldn’t give a shit either. And hell, it’s his money, so who cares if it sucks.
Also, I’ve never seen an actor go from being as photogenic as val Kilmer was to how completely unphotogenic he is now. Having said that, I did like his brief bit in “Bad Lieutenant”, so he can still act.
Coppola’s ideas sure are interesting but I can’t say that any of this footage is.
James: It’s a 30 stop tour. I gather maybe the film itself will be edited into some defined form and generally released.
I’m with Kris here. It’s cool to se an old master mixing it up in his 70s. I also like that Coppola clearly doesn’t care what anyone says, he’s earned the right, finally, to make what he wants the way he wants it.
I don’t care what anyone says, films such as Rumble Fish, The Outsiders, Gardens of Stone, Tucker, Dracula, The Godfather Part III and even The Rainmaker are all interesting in one way or another. Though not Jack, i’ll give you that.
It’s a fascinating career. It’s incredible that the studio assignment he desperately didn’t want to do ended up providing him with the three most personal pictures he would ever make. Every time I see the operatic climax of Godfather III, with Michael cradling his dead daughter in his arms, I can see only Coppola sitting there cradling his dead son Gio.
PS. Tetro was excellent too, despite a disappointing final 10 minutes.
“The 3D makes me nervous, but Coppola has at least been trying to do new things. Given how Scorsese and others are in auto-pilot, at least Coppola gives us something to digest.”
What makes you think Scorsese and others (whoever they are) on auto-pilot and what does it even mean? Can you honestly claim to get all the intentions of filmmaker of just a trailer.
“Coppola’s career kind of feels like George Lucas’ in a way. Opened with a bang and everything that followed after that brief shining period just never lived up to the promise of what came before.”
I resent that “never” statement and I think it demonstrates both forgetfulness and lack of taste. Coppola has sporadically delivered truly great work that came after what you call a brief shining period (many directors could wish they made a film as great as Peggy Sue Got Married). Also, your use of the word “opened” is representative since you seem to forget that Coppola has made many fims before “Godfather”.
Same goes for Lucas. I don’t care what anybody says, his directorial work on the prequels (and the third film, in particular) is quite great.
I’m sure Coppola knows exactly what he is doing. I only hope that he doesn’t substitute experimentaion for nostalgia. But even if he does, Twixt may end up being a unique anti-Super 8. That film ends with a faux-student film to show where everything started, wheres here a student film may ultimately be the destination.
P.S. The b&w shots on the bike reminded me of Sin City.
I think it’s safe to say that Coppola has been pioneer icon in filmmaking… And with this experimental film, he continues to prove that…
And I think it doesn’t really matter if he does mixed reviewed films lately, he exerts efforts to push the boundaries of filmmaking is enough… This trailer is unflattering but I find some clips really interesting… But I think it wouldn’t be great in 3D…
And the fact that this is an experimental film makes this interesting, Francis Ford Coppola is just a bonus foe me…
I wonder what will be the comments if this was an experimental film with “David Fincher” in it? Bet everyone will be hyping it? No?