Francis Ford Coppola on the set of Megalopolis in Megadoc
Megalopolis’s reputation preceded the film itself long before its première iat last year’s Cannes Film Festival. As Francis Ford Coppola’s long-gestating opus about the folly of men and the collapse of the fictional city of New Rome edged closer to completion, it became embroiled in a flurry of speculation and controversy, kickstarted by a striking exposé in The Hollywood Reporter about rising tensions on set between director, cast and crew. Self-funded by Coppola, who funneled over $100 million of his vineyard profits into the film, the Adam Driver-starring film ultimately represents two things at once: a historic landmark of independent cinema on an unprecedented scale and a piece of critically derided outsider art by a megalomaniac auteur who doesn’t take no for an answer.
If you look at it with Jean-Luc Godard’s observation that every fictional film is a documentary of its actors in mind, the baffled critical reception to Megalopolis hinted at a confused film by a director who had essentially lost the plot. In that sense, Mike Figgis’ Megadoc functions as an essential companion piece, as the director of Leaving Las Vegas (1995) shadowed Coppola’s set as a fly on the wall, giving unprecedented insight in a film production previously shrouded in gossip. With a clear-headed and highly receptive approach, Figgis captures the gradual unfolding of and mounting pressures on Megalopolis in real-time, revealing the highly unusual—yet often admirable—working process of one of the greatest living directors of film history while figuring out most of Megalopolis’ creative decisions in real-time.
Megadoc also fits neatly within Figgis’s oeuvre, as he’s become increasingly more interested in process-based cinema andmade numerous films about artists working in other disciplines, including the Ronnie Wood documentary Somebody Up There Likes Me (2019) and Ann Van den Broek’s dance performance registration The Co(te)lette Film (2010). By inviting 19 filmmakers to conceive, shoot and complete a 90 minute feature film in seven days, his omnibus film Co/Ma (2004) had Megalopolis-esque features of its own, allowing directors to conceive of new films through the act of filming them. Additionally, the director of curiosities like Timecode (2000) and Hotel (2001) is known for his own outré sensibilities, making him the ideal candidate to pick Coppola’s brain and shed light on Megalopolis’ fascinating creation.
I sat down with Figgis at the Venice Film Festival to unpack his behind-the-scenes doc, which premiered in the Classics section there, discuss the rapport he developed with actors like Shia LaBeouf and Aubrey Plaza, and explore his newfound fascination with small-scale indie films in the face of generic studio behemoths.
Filmmaker: Being a fly on the wall while Francis Ford Coppola is making his megalomaniac passion project sounds quite daunting. What was it like for you to jump on that set?
Figgis: I wouldn’t call it daunting per se. I was rather intrigued by it all when I got a very late call from him, asking if I could be on set within a mere week. My most immediate concerns were of a technical nature, as I didn’t want to have a huge footprint on set with a big camera team and all that. I put together a flight case with some cameras, mics and other gear. Moving forward, I’m using the experience on Megadoc as a template for how I’d like to continue working as a filmmaker. For me, intimate cinema is the way to go now. Besides all that, I wasn’t scared of Francis at all. I’ve met him enough times in my life to know him.
Filmmaker: What’s the background there? How did you get familiar with him?
Figgis: The truth is, I got really familiar with him by working on this film. Up until then, our encounters have been solely on a social basis. He was always very affable and full of anecdotes—he’s a real talker. In the first weeks, while I was observing and filming him, I started to get a sense of how he works, which was kind of puzzling to me as well. The thing is, I have no idea how directors work, as I’ve never been on set to witness another director making a film. So, you have all of these naive assumptions, because you make films in a certain way, but that’s solely how you make them. There’s this moment in the film where Dustin Hoffman says he was puzzled when he read the script for the first time, and now that the film is done, he still doesn’t know if he understands anything more than he did before. I would echo that statement in a sense.
Filmmaker: So what is it like to pick up on the mass confusion and rising tensions on set and finding a way to reflect on that within Megadoc?
Figgis: It’s great! It’s also very reassuring. I’m making a film now, based on what I’ve learned from making Megadoc, which is: what if I just take a camera and a couple of actors, without knowing what the film is about yet, and discover the content of the film during the process of making it? Watching Francis do that on such a huge scale—it’s just like, wow. And I really don’t care what people might think of the film. The fact that a director of such stature is still trying to work like this is very reassuring, especially in a world where the commodification of film produces so many bland results.
Filmmaker: This connects neatly to your filmography, as you have experimented a lot with finding the right cinematic form to reflect on the changing media landscape. The split-screen cinematography of Timecode immediately comes to mind.
Figgis: Absolutely! Just like Hotel, which I shot here in Venice and in a way is much more experimental than Timecode. It’s quite interesting for me to be back on the Lido with Megadoc now, revisiting the location I used for Hotel and remembering that massive production process. It recently made me think of a quote by the American conceptualist painter Ad Reinhardt, who famously made black, or as he called them “ultimate,” paintings. In one of his manifestos, he stated: “Art is art. Everything else is everything else.” I also want to approach filmmaking as a pure and isolated process, which is why bringing that philosophy to bear on Francis became so fascinating to me.
Filmmaker: You could also argue that your projects in the last decades have been increasingly smaller, and, with their process-based interests, have often been in service of other artists. Doesn’t it make you envious to see a director like Coppola having such a vast amount of resources at his disposal to make literally anything he wants?
Figgis: Godard once mentioned in an interview that he wanted to get rid of narrative entirely. Of course, narrative automatically emerges, even in what starts out as a non-narrative project. I, however, share his sentiment. I don’t mind whether my film is about another filmmaker, a musician, a dancer or something more narrative-based. I am still making my own film. And when I saw Francis at work, I often experienced the opposite of envy. I sometimes wanted to grab him and say: “Look at my camera. It’s a Z-series Nikon. The quality is unbelievably good, it’s so small and it only costs $600. That’s all you really need. All of the things you are doing are just slowing you down.” What would give me so much joy is to see someone like Francis say “For my next one, I will do it for one million dollars.” He would still be able to cast anyone he wants, because Francis is Francis. He arrived at a place where he can do anything. However, in my opinion, the best thing for Francis would be to have zero budget for his next film.
Filmmaker: But then again, you have historically shown to be more comfortable in this underdog position.
Figgis: That brings me back to Leaving Las Vegas, which was shot on 16mm. After the film premiered, I got a phone call from Stanley Kubrick. He said: “I saw your film. It’s fantastic. Now tell me everything about 16mm.” We had a one-hour conversation about 16mm, and at the end, he said: “I’m fascinated, but you are Mike Figgis and I’m Stanley Kubrick, and there’s no way I could go back to 16.” He also asked me what my shooting schedule was, which was three weeks. He just laughed and said, “That’s a coffee break for me.”
Filmmaker: That makes me curious about your conversation with George Lucas in Megadoc, as he’s quite critical about Coppola’s megalomaniac undertakings while obviously being one of his friends and peers. The irony is that Lucas was an architect of the massive studio apparatus that a filmmaker like Coppola tries to break out of with Megalopolis.
Figgis: It was fascinating. I’d never met Lucas before and I’m far from a Star Wars disciple. I’m with Godard when he framed all of that as a wrong direction for cinema. But I was fascinated by Lucas. His love for 16mm runs deep, and he’s more of a pragmatist compared to Coppola, maybe because Lucas is more honest with himself. He’s saying, “I block shots, I plan things out and I don’t run against the wall [of self-created obstacles].” I learned so much from that conversation.
Filmmaker: You referred to filmmaking as an isolated process, but I’d argue you have to emotionally be very receptive, as filmmaking often requires a lot of human effort in front and behind the camera. In general, you strike me as a people person, something you show with Megadoc, especially when you find your way through this constellation of actors and crew members rotating around Coppola’s gravitational field. What was it like for you to navigate this emotional chaos?
Figgis: The initial response when I showed up was: “Who the fuck is this guy with the camera?” Francis never introduced me, so nobody knew who I was. I had this bizarre initial conversation with Shia LaBeouf who came up to me and asked, “So how do you know Francis?” “Through Nic,” I responded. “Nic who?”, he replied. I said, “Nic Cage.” “And how do you know Nic Cage?” And I said through Leaving Las Vegas. “What did you do on that?” “Oh, well, I wrote it, directed it and did the music.” “Holy fuck! What are you doing here with this little camera?” As it turned out, Shia became of great value for Megadoc, as he could talk. Just like Aubrey Plaza was fantastic, because she could perform for me. So, without planning it, I got myself a little film inside the film, with a cast that was incredibly user-friendly to me. As actors sit around and wait for long times in between takes, it was so easy to just grab Shia or Aubrey and have them come by my little room to have a chat about the progress of Megalopolis. So, I developed these relationships that I thought would be interesting for the film as a kind of commentary about what’s going on.
Filmmaker: Meanwhile, Adam Driver is almost completely inaccessible to you. As he’s the lead actor of Megalopolis, I was wondering when he’d show up in Megadoc.
Figgis: Yeah, because I was told not to shoot him.
Filmmaker: But at the end, you manage to sit down with him for a bit, which is a fascinating moment, as it shows how Megadoc is also a meta-film about how you have to navigate this insane cinema machinery that Coppola has built around himself. In the end, you do manage to fetch him, and you make that challenge to film him part of the narrative as well.
Figgis: That was also interesting to me, as I essentially see filmmaking as a series of problems. That’s literally all it is. While watching Megadoc at its premiere, I was thinking about how Adam didn’t turn up for the rehearsal period, meaning he wasn’t part of that initial bonding process between all the actors. Despite, or maybe because of all these bizarre theater games Francis initiated in that period, he had managed to create a unique bond between all his actors. Adam, however, only shows up on the first day of the shoot, because he’s having a baby and his schedule is very rigid. In general, he doesn’t really bond with others on set, as he has evolved a certain acting style of his own—the Adam Driver style, which postulates he wants to be isolated. Even on the call sheet, it stated: “Please don’t interact with Adam Driver. Don’t try to talk to him. He wants to be in his own world.” So, my challenge was to turn that into a narrative as well.
Filmmaker: Almost instantaneously, tensions arise on set, and you are there to capture most of it. I thought the conflict between LaBeouf and Coppola was particularly fascinating because it shows what happens when you stand up against the director. What was it like for you to be part of those more contentious moments?
Figgis: When I started out, I had no idea what the film was going to be about. Halfway through, however, we get this major conflict with the art department. Additionally, Shia finds the courage to challenge Francis, indicating he’s not the type of actor that performs in short bursts. He needs whole and long takes. This would have also been true for Marlon Brando, as it would be true for many great actors. Francis, however, is clearly annoyed by being challenged like that. I’m spectating all that and just thinking that I’m definitely not videoing paint drying. There is suddenly tension, and I am starting to see the contours of my own movie. The thing about these little cameras is that they allowed me to constantly look around while filming and pick up on things as they happened in real time. The process for me mostly meant being completely awake and aware of what was going on. And the great news is that Francis is also waiting around the set all the time, so I know he is going to talk to me when I need him to. Within my technical limitations, I found a certain freedom to navigate the set as I pleased.
Filmmaker: You also stick around for the reception of Megalopolis in Cannes, which is a strange moment because you can discern some palpable disappointment in Coppola’s reaction to the generally unfavorable reviews. How did you process the aftermath of Megalopolis?
Figgis: Being there till the very end was quite intense for me. After Megalopolis’ shoot wrapped, I went back to America to interview George Lucas. Then I went to Napa Valley to interview Francis during post-production. His wife was already very sick at that moment. The day I arrived, he came to me and said that he was afraid she was actually going to pass away the night before. So, there’s this heavy atmosphere surrounding the project. I’m also hearing reports from the edit room about Adam Driver coming in with lots of feedback and notes. Meanwhile, Francis is making strong decisions in the post-production with all these digital video effects. The first time I actually see the film is in Cannes, while I’m literally filming Francis. Of course, every filmmaker wants for their film to work, and for it to be a success. As a seasoned practitioner, though, Francis is fully aware that many of his films got bad initial reception: One from the Heart, Apocalypse Now and even the first cut of The Godfather were met with skepticism. He’s used to that by now and, in a sense, has already armed himself to the idea of negative critical responses, saying that maybe in ten or twenty years time, people will perhaps understand what he was trying to do. They did a first screening in LA, and I heard the audience there was also baffled and that it was very quiet after the credits rolled. Of course, he did get a standing ovation in Cannes, because it’s Cannes. But then there’s this awkward tension between Megalopolis and Francis Ford Coppola himself, who is a mega legend. There’s this appreciation of him, while the film garnered some horrible reviews. Afterwards, in the edit of Megadoc, I kept thinking that this initial response would die down, as it’s a knee-jerk response. Historically, we know these kinds of responses can’t be trusted — we can go back to Michael Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate and see how that worked out. I’m talking to you now, over a year since the Cannes premiere, and I can feel the dust is already settling. What emerges now is Francis himself. He’s still Francis Ford Coppola. Megalopolis hasn’t crippled him. He’s already talking about making another film. He has weathered this storm and people are starting to perceive the film in a different way. I feel that Megadoc has added something to that narrative.
Filmmaker: Ultimately, your film demystifies some aspects of Megalopolis, while also contributing to its myth as this megalomaniac opus.
Figgis: I hope I have done two things with Megadoc: made a good film and added something important about how we think about cinema today.
