The Bling Ring (Sofia Coppola, 2013)

[zedz]

the easy/obvious/boring after school special psychologizing that detractors here seem to think this one needs more of.

I don't know who you're arguing with here, but it's clearly not domino or me, since neither of us suggested anything of the sort.

It was up to Coppola to come up with an interesting angle on this material, and she blew her chance. It's not our job to reimagine the film in a more compelling way.

[Black Hat]

Like I've said above and below, the why is all there for those with the eyes to see it. That they real-life why doesn't happen to be particularly interesting or deep isn't the fault of the film.

Call me crazy but things like this and this are pretty interesting.

Domino, zedz, and black hat among others keep asserting that there's got to be something deeper going on here, but I'll be damned if any one of you -- self-identified celebrity/trash culture laypersons, non-expert experts or whathaveyou -- can even begin to speculate about what that something deeper might be.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from and I can't speak for the other two, but I don't need to have some kind of social commentary. However, if a film's not going to express something it can at the very least be entertaining. The idea that this story of a bunch of teenager's breaking in to rob celebrity homes was as you suggest boring and impossible to make an interesting film out of is just funny to me.

So I'll ask again: Given what's publicly known about what actually happened and the kids who really did it, how would you create a better docudrama?

I find this to be an odd way to mount a defense of a film. How are the ways that Domino or anybody else would make this film differently relevant to how Sofia Coppola made hers?

[warren oates]

It was up to Coppola to come up with an interesting angle on this material, and she blew her chance. It's not our job to reimagine the film in a more compelling way.

If you assert that there's a more compelling take to be had on the material, then you ought to give us some idea of what you think that might be. That seems pretty standard practice around here. I've certainly heard much the same from the likes of you and domino in other threads.

So I'll ask again: Given what's publicly known about what actually happened and the kids who really did it, how would you create a better docudrama?

I find this to be an odd way to mount a defense of a film. How are the ways that Domino or anybody else would make this film differently relevant to how Sofia Coppola made hers?

Simply this: Because I've been arguing that it seems to me that many of the most vocal detractors have much more of a problem with the true events than with their depiction. So, given the constraints of what happened and who did it, what film should Coppola have made instead?

The idea that this story of a bunch of teenager's breaking in to rob celebrity homes was as you suggest boring and impossible to make an interesting film out of is just funny to me.?

I'm not the one calling it boring. More like not psychologically complex in the way some of the above seem to need it to be. And I know I can't win with this, given the detractors' desire to simultaneously exclaim that this film stinks because it doesn't do X,Y, Z while declaring "How dare you ask us what it should be doing instead!" But here goes one last time. From any of the people who dislike this film enough to keep discussing it in detail: let's hear the thumbnail sketch of your new and improved version.

[Black Hat]

Dude I don't know where you keep getting this we're proclaiming this or proclaiming that business from but I for one am tired of being force-fed words in my mouth.

[zedz]

It was up to Coppola to come up with an interesting angle on this material, and she blew her chance. It's not our job to reimagine the film in a more compelling way.

If you assert that there's a more compelling take to be had on the material, then you ought to give us some idea of what you think that might be. That seems pretty standard practice around here. I've certainly heard much the same from the likes of you and domino in other threads.

Uh, why don't you actually read what we've posted? There are lots of potential avenues to explore that we've both alluded to, but we're not going to rewrite the film for you.

There's the option of actually looking at the specific psychology of the specific kids (mentioned in passing by me); there's the option of exploring the phenomenon of celebrity worship that the film just blandly accepts, and what that says about society (mentioned by both of us); there's the full-on satirical approach (mentioned by nobody but an obvious - and probably terrible - idea). Personally I'd like to see the film domino hinted at that actually gets into the nitty gritty about the mechanics of identification - a film that addresses the phenomenon in some kind of sociological detail. For me, Coppola's frothy approach is like an "all AND nothing" option. There are feints at all of the above (and you can throw in a few other approaches as well, like the procedural), but nothing in particular that sticks, and so the sociology, psychology and satire are all pretty shallow (the 'vision board' gag and the one-dimensional Mom figure it attaches to count as psychological insight nowadays?). It just comes off as a beautifully shot episode on 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous', on downers.

[swo17]

so the sociology, psychology and satire are all pretty shallow (the 'vision board' gag and the one-dimensional Mom figure it attaches to count as psychological insight nowadays?)

For what it's worth, that was a pretty straight reenactment of the actual moment captured here.

[warren oates]

I do appreciate the time zedz took to spell out his alternatives. At least we both agree that a full-on satire would be a bad idea. A few responses to some of the other approaches:

The procedural -- Since the real life crimes weren't planned all that elaborately, or much dependent on skill, it would be hard to go in a much more procedural direction. Finding an open sliding door isn't exactly the stuff of a Michael Mann or Melville set piece.

The specific psychology of the specific kids -- We've disagreed plenty about this. From everything that's known publicly, plumbing the depths of the real kids' motivations wouldn't get you much further than what Coppola already shows us. Of course, you could always invent deeper characters with more complex motivations, but then you'd also probably have to retool the crimes themselves to the point where they'd no longer be much like what actually happened. Because deeper kids wouldn't commit such shallow crimes so poorly.

The phenomenon of celebrity worship -- Since these characters don't worship the celebrities so much as covet the accessories of their lifestyle, since they aren't obsessed "number one fans" or stalker types, that would be a completely different film about totally different characters. It sounds more like a teenage take on The King of Comedy. The ringleader Rebecca comes the closest to this sort of motivation. She knows them from fashion mags and gossip sites. But even she is much more interested in the celebrities' stuff than in their work, their personalities/personas or their public profile/platform or any particular qualities of their fame. And as such, she imagines herself on equal footing with the celebrities once she's got some of their stuff. Never mind that she lacks any of their credentials, achievements or charisma.

Personally I'd like to see the film domino hinted at that actually gets into the nitty gritty about the mechanics of identification - a film that addresses the phenomenon in some kind of sociological detail.

Not sure how that would be different from the proposed celebrity worship idea. But it does sound different enough that Coppola would likely have to jettison the true story and start over with a new fiction. Nothing wrong with doing that or with many of the detractors' being bored with what's probably the best that anyone could have done given the constraints of The Bling Ring's true story. But pretending that Coppola could magically have made a much better film without junking the main reason she wanted to make it -- the details of the way it really happened -- seems unfair.

[zedz]

Well gee, I guess you've just scientifically proven that this is a perfect movie then!

Actually, I haven't seen any of these hypothetical movies that you asked me to identify, so I'll just have to take your word for it that they're all really lame. Personally, I find it hard to believe that every single one would have less to say than Coppola's film, but I'll leave it up to you to construct the straw man arguments about that this time around.

Like, whatEVuh.

[domino harvey]

I'm eagerly awaiting line by line quote-responses explaining how Beverly Hills Chihuahua was the best film that could have been made of the material, or how Radio is as great as could be expected considering it was based on a true story

[warren oates]

If only domino had said Beverly Hills Ninja instead. Though he'd probably confound me by actually liking that movie.

I find it hard to believe that every single one would have less to say than Coppola's film, but I'll leave it up to you to construct the straw man arguments about that this time around.

Never said they'd have less to say, only that whatever they would be saying would very likely require characters and a narrative so different from the film as it is that it would no longer be the docudrama the director set out to make.

[matrixschmatrix]

Maybe setting out to make that movie just wasn't a good idea, then? Like, I buy the argument 'your objections are not so much reasons this doesn't work as expressions of desire for a different movie', but I don't think that applies here; I think zedz and domino are both presenting reasons why the movie, as presented, doesn't work for them, and you're responding with ways in which the things that don't work are true to the source material. That doesn't strike me as being germane.

[warren oates]

That's a fair argument, but not really the one that's been made until now.

But your point on "these things aren't working for us" vs. "yeah, but they are true to the source material" I'm not following. How are the inherent limitations that real-life details of a true story impose on a film that the director intends to be a docudrama not relevant?

[matrixschmatrix]

Because if she makes a decision that leads to things not working- viz., to stay true to the real life events- than that's a thing that's totally open to criticism, and staying faithful to that decision doesn't really answer that criticism. It's essentially like defending the Twilight movies by saying how true to the books they were.

[warren oates]

Or is what's been happening in this thread more like criticizing the Twilight movies for doing exactly what they set out to do simply because they aren't Let the Right One In, which you'd rather be watching instead?

Docudramas deserve no special exemption from criticism. But if you've got enough big problems with the character and story details of one that's taken some care to be accurate, then perhaps your real problem is with the events themselves and the fact that they've been filmed at all (see the Zero Dark Thirty thread for a much more deservedly contentious example, where the truth of the story itself is also admittedly much harder to pin down). Which is fair, too, but very different from an argument that a better docudrama could be made while staying similarly faithful to the details of the same true story.

[knives]

Plan 9 is exactly what it wants to be. Is it wrong to criticise it? Don't you see the flaws in your argument?

[warren oates]

But it's certainly not what Ed Wood intended it to be, which is more what we're talking about -- the gap between what Ed Wood thought he was making and the end result.

[knives]

I don't know if we can ascribe that to Wood anymore than Coppola and in the case of this film if the plan was to make a great docudrama without altering details and shooting on the actual locations than by Zedz and Dom's measures of that (let's say compared to Zodiac the movie failed. You're ascribing it a power that makes it critique proof which is a bad thing.

[zedz]

Never said they'd have less to say, only that whatever they would be saying would very likely require characters and a narrative so different from the film as it is that it would no longer be the docudrama the director set out to make.

Well, for that matter, why not make a different movie if the movie you've decided to make is predestined to be mediocre?

This is not something I believe for a minute about the subject matter of The Bling Ring, but it seems to be where your argument ultimately settles.

[Michael Kerpan]

Films based on real events have a real big problem -- too many times film makers assume that the mere "trueness" of the events somehow makes the depiction of those events automatically believable (and compelling). In fact, true stories have to be cinematically re-imagined (at least) as thoroughly and as ruthlessly as fictional ones.

For instance -- Ounie LEE, depicting her childhood (put in orphanage after her mother died and her father remarried a woman who had no interest in keeping her around) in "A Brand New Life", got this right. So Yong KIM (whose single mother essentially abandoned her kids to an aunt, who then passed them on to rural grandparents), on the other hand, was not nearly so successful in her "Treeless Mountain" (despite numerous good points, including the performance of the children, lots of aspects, particularly the plotting, seemed arbitrary).

[dustybooks]

This conversation is leaning dangerously close to this.

[Mr Sausage]

If anyone wants to understand the above argument without actually having to read through all of it, here's a helpful summary:

A. This movie came out exactly as intended.
B. Yeah? Still sucks.

[Ibnezra]

Just watched this so I could take part in the discussion, but I think Senor Sausage has nailed it. Perhaps the real question is "Should Sofia Coppola have chosen a more compelling event to base her next film on?" There's also the question of: Has it been done before? Gus Van Zant has certainly explored similar territory, though I hardly think this precludes further examination.

[warren oates]

Sausage is right if he's talking about the exchange with matrix, not so much if he's describing the bulk of the back and forth before which was more like:

A. This fact-based docudrama came out as intended.
B. Could have been much, much better, like a metaphor for the decay of our culture and a probing examination of the psyches of our youth.
A. Yeah, but then it would be a totally different film, no longer a docudrama.
B. Could have been much, much better.
A. Without turning into something else?
B. Yeah.
A. How?
B. Could have been much, much better.

A lot of folks keep mentioning Elephant. A brilliant film about high school kids and a horrible crime, but one with an entirely different agenda. Still, imagine if Van Sant had done something closer to his original intentions and made a quickie TV movie that was much more faithful to the intimate details of the Columbine shooting, more journalistic and less poetic. I'm glad he didn't, but such a film would certainly be fair game for any of the debates going on here. And frankly, the degree of difficulty on that early version would have been much higher. That's part of what I find missing in the positions of the detractors. It's one thing to say that you don't like the film or to argue that it's bad. Or to say this film, as it was conceived, just isn't interesting enough and shouldn't have been made. Quite another to imply -- without really making a case -- that there were oh so many other ways Coppola could have made a better film without substantially altering the true life characters/details/story that made her want to make it. Once she committed to making this film in this way she set for herself a more difficult task than many above seem comfortable acknowledging and one that couldn't have been so readily improved by most of the thumbnail rewrites on offer.

Knives mentions Zodiac, a great film by a great director, but also one with an inherently more compelling true story. A f̶a̶r̶ ̶ lesser director than Fincher could still have made a pretty good picture out of it, if nowhere near the masterpiece we've got.

Michael Kerpan's point about memory based personal art films is interesting. But it immediately puts me in mind of Tarkovsky who asserted the exact opposite: That artists filming true memories brought with them a special kind of emotional authority that was grounded in the specificity of what actually happened (and perhaps more important, the way they remembered it). For the record, I quite liked Treeless Mountain.

[swo17]

Knives mentions Zodiac, a great film by a great director, but also one with an inherently more compelling true story. A far lesser director than Fincher could still have made a pretty good picture out of it, if nowhere near the masterpiece we've got.

False.

[Michael Kerpan]

> For the record, I quite liked Treeless Mountain.

Possibly this needs its own thread -- if it needs pursuing....