I spend a lot of time thinking about what I'm going to call, The Artist-Audience relationship.
It's a tricky thing to pin down, but you can easily recognize it at a live music concert. That direct connection between the Star on stage, and you in the audience. At a really good concert it elevates both parties, both the Artist, and the audience. Taylor Swift might not be my first choice personally, but someone I respect went to her Eras Tour concert here in L.A. and could only describe it as the best concert she'd ever seen. Taylor Swift has that Artist-Audience relationship.
It is more subtle when the event is not live; a director or movie star waiting months, up to a year, for their new movie to come out.
Even trickier to pin down, is how to define this Artist-Audience dynamic when it is complicated; the classic Artist who barely has any (financial) success in his or her lifetime, but becomes influential to other artists, or maybe (Van Gogh, anyone?) becomes super famous AFTER passing away.
On the flip side are 'famous' people who feel trapped in their fame. Maybe they are an actor who broke through playing one particular type of character, a character audiences love, but then that actor struggles to express themselves through alternate, more diverse types of roles (Jim Carrey comes to mind).
Hollywood is not in the business of Art. I'm not new in saying this (Coppola's new film coming later). Hollywood is The Entertainment Industrial Complex. That's why so many superhero movies get made. They are a 'safe' choice to bring in many millions of dollars at the box office. This is not news. Many, both deep inside the industry and (maybe where I am) on the fringes of Hollywood, recognize this as simple truth.
I credit an old friend of mine for helping open my eyes to some alternate ways of viewing this whole world of fame, art, audiences, and The Entertainment Industrial Complex. That old friend of mine is Mark Arm, of the band Mudhoney. He doesn't know I'm writing this, so I hope he takes it as a compliment.
In the 1990s, 'Grunge' music seemed to come from nowhere and stamp itself on the public zeitgeist with no warning. Record executives were lost. They did not know what to do with this new movement. All they knew was that Nirvana and Pearl Jam were suddenly selling millions of albums, so, well, let's get some more of that!
Mudhoney signed with a major label, but they were always going to be the fly in the ointment. I know first hand that Mark did not care one bit about fame. He laughed at the very idea. Mudhoney was never going to do what a record executive wanted them to do. They were going be themselves, and make their own music, without regard to how 'famous' it made them. The result, predictably, was that it made them sort of moderately famous, exactly the amount of fame that was right for them. What a concept; wanting AN AUDIENCE, but not going after the big FAME.
You may or may not have heard of Mudhoney before reading this, but along with their old friends, Pearl Jam, they are just about the last two grunge bands standing. Mudhoney might not be as "Famous" as Pearl Jam, in the narrowest definition of the term, but they have an audience. I emailed Mark once when they were in Barcelona, Spain. People come to their shows. Mark sometimes refers to some their current audience with the amusing phrase 'Grunge curious.' I consider their level of 'fame' to be healthy. They are Artists, grungey, sometimes abrasive artists (Mark is the nicest guy you'll ever meet in person, though), so there it is. they have a healthy Artist-Audience relationship.
Now...let's talk about famous people and their egos. And, yes, this is where Kevin Costner comes into the conversation. For something like 35 years, Costner has been planning, developing, abandoning, and then re-surfacing this "epic" 4 part movie series, Horizon. I put "epic" in quotes, because that was supposed to be the idea. The entire project seems to have been an ego-driven folly from the start. We've seen this before from Costner (The Postman, back in the 90s); super expensive, self-indulgent epics, that land with a quiet thud at the box office. I have actually liked previous westerns from Costner. I really did like Dances With Wolves, but even more, I loved Open Range. When Horizon: Chapter One, flopped, and I had not seen it yet, I wanted to give it a chance. Maybe it's just misunderstood, I thought. But no, it is folly. It has nothing new to say. It tries to be 'epic' while rehashing all the old western tropes.
Kevin Costner, absurdly, may even consider himself an 'Indie" Artist, because he financed the film himself, without the involvement of the Hollywood studios. This is where the Artist-Audience relationship becomes twisted. It becomes a one-sided, mirror-staring love affair with oneself. Costner has probably convinced himself that he did it 'his way,' the 'right way.' This is a cautionary tale for any of us who have egos (yes, I said 'us').
And finally we come to Francis Ford Coppola. It is sometimes (remember that word 'sometimes') exciting when a great Artist does something ground-breaking. There is a very fine line between greatness, accompanied by soaring imagination and ground-breaking vision, one the one hand, and misguided ego-driven self-indulgence, on the other hand. As I write this, Coppola's Megalopolis has not yet been released to theaters. I write about it based the trailer that is now available, and all the write-ups and reactions from those screenings the film has had.
Francis Ford Coppola has made two - no, let's say three - films that rank among the greatest films of all time. The list might have to be expanded to top 30, top 40, maybe top 50 of all time, but in that group will be three films by Coppola, The Godfather, The Godfather II, and Apocalypse Now.
Coppola believes in Art. I remember watching an interview he did several years ago. Someone asked him what advice he had for younger, up and coming filmmakers. "Change the world through Art," he said.
He is a believer.
He also financed his film himself, and he knew exactly why he was financing it himself. Studios wouldn't touch this film. Too weird, too experimental, too 'Artsy.'
But I say all this with a sinking dread that Megalopolis might be the 85 year-old Coppola's own ego-driven folly. Again, I haven't seen it yet.
I worry, though.
Keep in mind (and this is NOT a common Hollywood mind set) it's ok if it flops at the box office. A great work of art does not have to make its money back. It only has to find its audience, and find some consensus regarding its relevance.
So, the jury is out.
Has the richest indie filmmaker of them all done something visionary and ground-breaking? Or...has he given in to self indulgence, and paid for his project himself, because everyone else was right to stay miles away from it?
I am hopeful that he did the first thing. I have a sinking feeling, though, that he has done the second thing.
We will soon find out...
Peter Wick
September 9, 2024
