final verdict for: "Somewhere" (2010): This movie is probably more dependant on your expectation than any other movie out there.
Let me start off by saying two things: For one, this is one of Sophia Coppola's weaker, if not the weakest movies. That does not mean it is bad per se, the standards for her films are pretty high and having a weak one probably means it's still better than 60% of the other movies out there. It deserves a fair chance. Two, When I first saw the movie in cinema last year, around the same time, it outright bored me to death. the pretentious audience didn't help a tad there.
The story is quickly told, Stephen Dorff is a successful, but basically bored actor, who spends his days in Chateau Marmont in L.A. drinking, watching private strippers and falling asleep in the process, having sex with beautiful women and falling asleep in the process as well, women who go on hating him for what he did or did not do to them. When his daughter, played by Elle Fanning, has to live with him for a while, it first seems like nothing changes for Dorff, but one never knows how big the iceberg is below the surface.
Just by looking at how the movie is made, you quickly realize it's a production technique recycling of "Lost in Translation" (2003), so copying from that can be a good idea, but probably is not. Recycling is good for the environment, not for a movie.
Long shots where seemingly nothing is happening line up here, with little or no dialogue spoken. Oftentimes it feels downright eerie and out of place. Whereas Lost in Translation was plot driven after all and these scenes underlined the feeling of displacement in the unfamiliar environment that Johannson and Murray found themselves in, Somewhere lakes a developed plot. The situation however, is similar here: Even though Dorff is in his familiar environment, due to the lifestyle he leads, he more and more detaches from society and ultimately, life. So there is no problem with including these shots here, but Coppola took it over the top. Half as many or half as long would have been more than enough.
Surely, the acting is really good and Fenning wasn't even the big surprise. No, that was Dorff who I imagined to be unable to play a role like that before. The feelings these two express, feel so real that they grow close to you really quickly. The supportive cast, with the exception of Chris Pontius, who does a great job being himself, is basically without memorable character, but that is unnecessary for the movie anyway.
Not expecting any less, Sofia Coppola proved to have a good taste with her choice of music director here. Phoenix (the band), did a great job in providing music for the movie. Never does it feel out of place and always it perfectly underlines the scenes.
As for the camera and editing done, there is not much to complain about. The colour filters used are very good, they bring across the deceiving California sunshine atmosphere, which this movie is drawing from. As for the editing, it is mostly okay, but sometimes it feels unnatural, almost pretentiously artsy. For example the over-use of cut-to-black-cut-to-scene shots, where you are left with a second of black to consider, was present way too often in the movie to feel natural.
But these are details, what is it that makes this movie so ambiguous? Why is it that some people loved it, like the jury of the Venice film festival, who awarded the movie with the Golden Lion, and other people find it unwatchable?
Not expecting any less, Sofia Coppola proved to have a good taste with her choice of music director here. Phoenix (the band), did a great job in providing music for the movie. Never does it feel out of place and always it perfectly underlines the scenes.
As for the camera and editing done, there is not much to complain about. The colour filters used are very good, they bring across the deceiving California sunshine atmosphere, which this movie is drawing from. As for the editing, it is mostly okay, but sometimes it feels unnatural, almost pretentiously artsy. For example the over-use of cut-to-black-cut-to-scene shots, where you are left with a second of black to consider, was present way too often in the movie to feel natural.
But these are details, what is it that makes this movie so ambiguous? Why is it that some people loved it, like the jury of the Venice film festival, who awarded the movie with the Golden Lion, and other people find it unwatchable?
Here’s what I found troubling when first seeing it: The movie doesn’t really seem to get going until the last 10 minutes, and it is 98 minutes long. It leaves you with a very ambiguous open end that will make you either love or hate Dorff, depending on what you think will happen after the last cut. The over-use of long, boring shots without dialogue. The lack of a clear plot line.
That should be enough, but believe me, there’s more. The thing is, however, that this movie is quite hard to understand, just as Lost in Translation might be hard to understand for someone who has never lived in a foreign culture and/or has trouble imagining it. Understanding Somewhere is even harder, because the culture that Dorff detaches himself from is basically our own. We see what he does and we feel familiar, because we know all this and still we think “What the hell is he doing?” Unfortunately his culture is not ours, even though we think it is. He has achieved what lots of people want to achieve, but little manage to do. He made the American Dream come true for himself, but it has turned into a Californian Nightmare. He goes to parties and award ceremonies with and of people he doesn’t know but who admire him, not as a person, but as a concept. They don’t care about the person Stephen Dorff, they want to have sex with the superstar Stephen Dorff.
That should be enough, but believe me, there’s more. The thing is, however, that this movie is quite hard to understand, just as Lost in Translation might be hard to understand for someone who has never lived in a foreign culture and/or has trouble imagining it. Understanding Somewhere is even harder, because the culture that Dorff detaches himself from is basically our own. We see what he does and we feel familiar, because we know all this and still we think “What the hell is he doing?” Unfortunately his culture is not ours, even though we think it is. He has achieved what lots of people want to achieve, but little manage to do. He made the American Dream come true for himself, but it has turned into a Californian Nightmare. He goes to parties and award ceremonies with and of people he doesn’t know but who admire him, not as a person, but as a concept. They don’t care about the person Stephen Dorff, they want to have sex with the superstar Stephen Dorff.
The long exhibition of the movie, that seemingly shows no development on Dorff’s side serves the purpose of establishing that position he is in and painting a complex portrayal of the person, and nothing else. In order for us to understand what happens in the end and why, we need a complex introduction to the person, although Coppola admittedly overdid it.
Anyone who has read Bret Easton Ellis knows what is happening with Dorff here, that he is a very disillusioned and thus very bored upperclassman, who has nothing better to do than to spend his days like he does. Thus this portrayal of Dorff also becomes a critique of the lifestyle of the top 1%, especially in California, but a pitying critique. Dorff is not greedy or vile, he is a person that is meant to make us reconsider ourselves, just as he does in the end. Money and fame has brought him nowhere. When it comes to the end of the day, the only one who has been able to make him happy, was his daughter and that is where the message of this movie lies. It is very hidden and it takes a lot of background knowledge about the topic, especially in the California landscape, but that it is.
Furthermore, it does not matter what happens next, the open end is no open end. His realization is a clear one, a turn to his daughter, he has undergone a catharsis (that is, by the way, also apparent in him wearing a clean and clear white shirt in the last shot), he leaves behind his Ferrari and for the first time ever, walks on his own. The slight smile on his lips is not the fake and trained smile that he used a million times before, it is a true smile, a smile of realization over the things that really matter in his life.
Bearing all this in mind and considering it, once realizes that the movie goes beyond endless boring shots, lack of plot and dialogue. The message here, matters more than the mode of deliverance, although it is a very carefully chosen one. And sometimes decisions seem to be wrong, until you understand the background to them and especially film is and should be a platform where to experiment with these things, without having to justify oneself for it.
Nonetheless, the movie has its flaws. Without discussing it, or doing some kind of research or having background knowledge, it is hard to really appreciate it and if that is not given, then at best it is an ambient movie that you can put in the player at a party to just accompany the mood of the party with it’s really bright and colourful imagery and well composed soundtrack.
Clearly it is not appealing to the audience it was intended for, with its over the top artsyness that sometimes even feels posh and like it wants to tell you “I am art, and you better appreciate me for that even though you don’t get me, or you will be exposed as a moron.”
Sometimes changing the recipe to fit the need, simply does not do the job. Had Sofia Coppola chosen another way to treat the topic than to go the Lost in Translation approach, this could have been far better.
From a point of view, where the necessary tools and knowledge to get Coppola here are there and given, I would give the movie 8 out of 10. However, she fails to deliver her message in a way that makes it accessible to all audiences and instead bores the average audience with long and, for the audience, pointless sequences, so I will go with a 6 out of 10.
It’s a great movie, if you know what you’re dealing with, but it definitely not if that is not given.
It’s a great movie, if you know what you’re dealing with, but it definitely not if that is not given.
The intention to create great art does seldom lead to the actual creation of it.
