criterionforum.org

Andre Jurieu wrote:I'm not understanding how having Reitzell bring Coppola a bunch of different music selections somehow negates Coppola specific choices of what dressing she decides to hang in her movies. This sounds like the same process used by most filmmakers. Reitzell might be more forceful and vocal during their Pitchfork interview, but I assume that's also a function of the fact that Coppola is fairly timid and coy during interviews and Reitzell seems (unsurprisingly) passionate about music and the process of having their musical choices for the film blessed by the artists that perform these songs (considering the number of raps songs used in the film, it's an impressive accomplishment considering the film production has no real solid ties to the hip-hop community). Coppola has chosen to collaborate with Reitzell, and that's a specific and deliberate decision she made as the director of this film.

I also fail to see how Coppola does not have a clear aesthetic ownership over her films that is her own, or how Reitzell's contribution (whether or not it is significant and impressive) to her film somehow negates her aesthetic ownership of the film. While you can certainly argue whether or not you enjoy her projects, I think Coppola's signature on any of her films so far is fairly distinctive and obvious. Why is Wes Anderson the clear aesthetic owner of his film when his films are so heavily influenced by Randall Poster's contributions to the music that accompanies the images that Robert Yeoman has been tasked to film and Dylan Tichenor has edited together in some coherent fashion?

Okay, I don't want to overstate my expertise on Sofia's filmmaking process because I'm just using a singular interview, as a view into her creative decisions regarding music, but yes, she seem incredibly coy. Coy to the point where I start to question her authorial involvement in her own work. I had agreed with earlier posters that she seems to be mostly a film stylist and now I'm doubting even that level of involvement. I can accept that I am simply wrong. I used Anderson as a counterpoint because I read an interview with HIS music supervisor, and it is a decidedly different read, with him proving his worth to Anderson by clearing unclearable tracks, as a pathway to actually being allowed some creative input into the musical components of the films.

Andre Jurieu wrote:

colinr0380 wrote:I also wonder about the use of the boy in the group – hopefully someone will tell me if this happens but I’m curious as to whether much is made of his gender? That he will be treated differently for that – used by the girls, perhaps semi-consciously as the fall guy for when they inevitably get caught, and probably treated differently by the authorities for that?

Well, they focus a considerable amount of attention on him, since he's basically the protagonist of the film. They make it obvious that he's the only male to maintain a consistent position within the group as he is basically one of their two founders. He is allowed more of a sympathetic portrayal than the rest of the ring, but they are also quite explicit with the fact that he's pretty much just as clueless about the shallow-nature of his perceptions. The only real difference is that he's far more cognizant that they could be caught for their crimes (though he shares a lack of comprehension about security cameras with his female cohorts).

It's also worth noting that he comes from a lower-income household than the rest of the characters. This isn't anything that Coppola emphasizes in order to draw our sympathy, but it is clearly communicated in the differences between, for instance, his bedroom and those of the girls. In fact, it also seems relevant that no other character steps foot in his house until late in the second act, once he is full-fledged member of the group.

I also think that the actor did a good job of conveying a slight affectation in his interactions with the others, especially in the early part of the movie. There is a definite sense that he's never dipped into a luxury-brand car before invited to by the Rachel (the first of the girls her befriends).

It is almost as if this group of girls is to him what the celebrities are to those girls. He is in awe of the lives of these girls, who, though the same age as him, have access to far more (money, luxury items, nightclubs, etc.). His motivation for committing the robberies has more to do with maintaing his position in this group that he so admires, more-so than the pursuit of anything material (though that still plays a role).

Brian C wrote:

sighkingu wrote:I think Ms. Coppola is kind of copping out in her stance of these kids. She ought to just fully glamorize or criticize. I don't mind a film taking an outsider's view of a crime but this one wants to have its cake and eat it too.

I'm having trouble making sense of this series of statements. You don't mind a film taking an outsider's view, but this one is copping out by doing so, because...?

Sorry for not elaborating. I feel the film glamorizes these kids while at the same time laughing at them. I don't find that exactly fair.

sighkingu wrote:Sorry for not elaborating. I feel the film glamorizes these kids while at the same time laughing at them. I don't find that exactly fair.

That's interesting, because I don't think she's really doing either one. I don't think it's accurate to say that she's presenting these characters without comment, because I think the film takes a firm stand on the characters' utter vapidness. But I don't see how she's laughing at them, with the possible exception of Leslie Mann's character. And I certainly don't see how she's glamorizing them, unless I were to say that the very presence of glamour = glamorization, because again, these characters come across as jaw-droppingly empty. There's a very clear difference, for example, between the way Coppola treats her characters and the way Korine does in Spring Breakers.

Brian C wrote:

sighkingu wrote:Sorry for not elaborating. I feel the film glamorizes these kids while at the same time laughing at them. I don't find that exactly fair.

That's interesting, because I don't think she's really doing either one. I don't think it's accurate to say that she's presenting these characters without comment, because I think the film takes a firm stand on the characters' utter vapidness. But I don't see how she's laughing at them, with the possible exception of Leslie Mann's character. And I certainly don't see how she's glamorizing them, unless I were to say that the very presence of glamour = glamorization, because again, these characters come across as jaw-droppingly empty. There's a very clear difference, for example, between the way Coppola treats her characters and the way Korine does in Spring Breakers.

I haven't seen Spring Breakers so I can't comment on that one.

But as for this one, are we not supposed to mock the Emma Watson character when she speaks to the media in the bookends of the film? I don't know how close this is to the source material and the real life characters but I found those scenes shockingly crass, a bit like shooting fish in the barrel.

Also the mere presence of glamour does often equal glamorization. The actors cast, the music, the cars and clothes. All are these are impeccably chosen, to look cool, which would be fine if it was a fashion magazine but not if it's a critique of culture.

I had a similar visceral reaction when I saw Lost in Translation. It's hard to be alone overseas but I mean who doesn't want to feel isolated at the Park Hyatt Tokyo?

sighkingu wrote:But as for this one, are we not supposed to mock the Emma Watson character when she speaks to the media in the bookends of the film? I don't know how close this is to the source material and the real life characters but I found those scenes shockingly crass, a bit like shooting fish in the barrel.

Are we "supposed" to? I don't know, but regardless of how close these scenes are to the real-life character (I don't know either and am a little apprehensive about finding out!), they seem all-too-plausible to me. I didn't get the feeling that Coppola was constructing a grotesquerie just to knock it down.

Also the mere presence of glamour does often equal glamorization. The actors cast, the music, the cars and clothes. All are these are impeccably chosen, to look cool, which would be fine if it was a fashion magazine but not if it's a critique of culture.

I don't understand this at all. Is it even possible to tell the story of these characters without glamorizing them, in your view? Naturally the clothes and cars and music are all chosen to look cool - the characters pursued these material objects for precisely the reason that they were cool!

As a criticism this seems meaningless, like saying that Rules of the Game was too concerned about rich people.

I had a similar visceral reaction when I saw Lost in Translation. It's hard to be alone overseas but I mean who doesn't want to feel isolated at the Park Hyatt Tokyo?

People who like to share their experiences with other people?

I'm a little unsure how exactly to respond to this film. Thinking back there doesn't seem to be a lot of interaction between the characters. There's some tension about them being caught, Marc gets nervous and is pressured into continuing, they comment on each others' outfits, rinse and repeat with a few occasional changes in scenery.

I'm not sure the film needed more drama, in fact most of the time I was strung right along with the plot pretty contentedly. Thinking back now though, I have a strong idea of all the character's personalities, but I don't feel like I went through very much with them.

They did something they shouldn't, it caused some fairly minor ripples through the group, but nothing really changed, then they get caught and it's all over.

YnEoS wrote:I'm a little unsure how exactly to respond to this film. Thinking back there doesn't seem to be a lot of interaction between the characters. There's some tension about them being caught, Marc gets nervous and is pressured into continuing, they comment on each others' outfits, rinse and repeat with a few occasional changes in scenery.

I'm not sure the film needed more drama, in fact most of the time I was strung right along with the plot pretty contentedly. Thinking back now though, I have a strong idea of all the character's personalities, but I don't feel like I went through very much with them.

They did something they shouldn't, it caused some fairly minor ripples through the group, but nothing really changed, then they get caught and it's all over.

Yeah, a few weeks removed from my viewing, I have a similarly empty feeling, as I have with the other two Coppolas I've attempted (Lost in Translation and Virgin Suicides). I've chocked it up to male gaze, given that I have female friends who seem to really find resonance in the latter film I mentioned, but this director does little besides titillate the loathsome part of me that kinda wishes I could be in that passenger seat or that club or whatever. I think that might be the most interesting part of Coppola's films - how much they create fairly despicable or at least slightly off-putting characters that we still want to be. Perhaps if she were a more politically aware director she could make some serious statements about the way the spectacle conditions us to desire the lives of the most spectacular, but now I'm just rambling.

Ultimately, I saw The Bling Ring as a feature-length version of its trailer - something that never lost my attention but never did anything with it that a music video couldn't, which I know a lot of posters alluded to before. To offer an opinion, I think the big problem with the film was Coppola's willingness to fairly stiffly inject this easy theme of "celebrity culture" into a movie about "vapid Millenials" without really analyzing the humanity and real motivations of the characters. She unfairly and broadly dismisses the clearly complicated psyches of real people in order to cash in on some trendy themes, and it feels dishonest to grab the themes closest at hand to give the illusion of having something to say with admittedly well-executed aesthetics.

Spoiler

Also, that gun scene was very alarming for me, too, which makes for an interesting point of intersection with Spring Breakers. besides the previously mentioned greater empathy and respect Korine seems to give his characters (never thought I'd say that!!!), he handles this fairly timely subject in an altogether subversive way, using cinema to elevate a tense, real situation into this weird, erotic... thing, exploring the complexity of the American (particularly, the disenfranchised, poor American) perception of firearms. It shows greater maturity, I think, ironically, to show James Franco sucking on the end of a gun than to just show off how dumb these kids are with these very serious objects and such.

Hopefully this wasn't too awful and circular of a post. It's pretty late here!

So watching this reminded my wife of one of her favorite clips from The Soup, depicting the aftermath of the Vanity Fair interview depicted in the film. Because yes, the character Emma Watson plays in this movie in real life had her own reality TV show a few years back. Of course she did.

Vulture/New York Magazine has a compilation of all the best clips from that show. It's just weird to watch and think about, but maybe that's because I don't watch much Reality TV.

Like a lot of others, I was left adrift by this one. Coppola's presentational style, a methodology that lightly mocks its characters while still mostly being in their corner, leaves the final result rudderless. The true life story's not particularly interesting, and the principals' celebrity obsession and fashion-conscious lifestyles are not really chided by the film (and don't necessarily need to be) nor explored with any real curiosity (which they do kind of need to be for a film on this material to work). I think I've had/have more exposure/proximity to the types of characters depicted in this film (and Spring Breakers) than most, so for me there's not even that pleasurable visiting the zoo effect of seeing an alien culture presented. All I'm left with is indifference

This will sound loftier than I intend it to, but my emotional reaction to this movie made me think of Rear Window -- if Stewart had been the criminal, Raymond Burr a law-abiding but highly fashion conscious citizen. Obviously the film is observant about celebrity culture, but I think its clearer subject is voyeurism and how something that's intrinsic to human nature has been made easier by the modern tools at our disposal. We go and see the film because we want to be participants in their adventures, but we also want to see them get caught, and the third act -- which I initially found a little anemic -- turns this around on us by

Spoiler

- showing at least one of the kids suffering, displaying the degree to which he is finally just a frightened kid
- more importantly, through Emma Watson's character, demonstrating how this very empathy and fascination play into the hands of the "idea" of the Bling Ring. Like in All About Eve -- another too-lofty comparison, I realize -- the obsessed become "the stars," at least for a moment. So the film sort of indicts itself, which I find interesting. I hope that makes sense.

I liked it a lot, but I can see how it would be extremely annoying to some folks -- and I think it's a step down from Coppola's last three, all of which I found extraordinary. It's aesthetically a very beautiful film, though, not surprisingly.

domino harvey wrote:Like a lot of others, I was left adrift by this one. Coppola's presentational style, a methodology that lightly mocks its characters while still mostly being in their corner, leaves the final result rudderless. The true life story's not particularly interesting, and the principals' celebrity obsession and fashion-conscious lifestyles are not really chided by the film (and don't necessarily need to be) nor explored with any real curiosity (which they do kind of need to be for a film on this material to work). I think I've had/have more exposure/proximity to the types of characters depicted in this film (and Spring Breakers) than most, so for me there's not even that pleasurable visiting the zoo effect of seeing an alien culture presented. All I'm left with is indifference

Hey, we sort of agree! I think the problem with the film is that it fundamentally has nothing to say. There's no real insight into the psychology of the characters (which isn't essential to a good film, but it's one less peg to hang this film's value on), or on the phenomenon they embody. The film is vaguely critical of the characters' celebrity obsession, but also totally in thrall of the very same thing. There's no way Coppola would have made this film if the disaffected kids had been burgling the McMansions of 'nobodies' in Dallas. But you can't even call the film out for being hypocritical, because its satire / criticism is so half-hearted. You just end up with a vapid, self-regarding film about vapid, self-regarding characters. It's nicely shot and all, but there's nothing to get your teeth into. You just have to shrug as it wafts away.

zedz wrote:The film is vaguely critical of the characters' celebrity obsession, but also totally in thrall of the very same thing. There's no way Coppola would have made this film if the disaffected kids had been burgling the McMansions of 'nobodies' in Dallas. But you can't even call the film out for being hypocritical, because its satire / criticism is so half-hearted. You just end up with a vapid, self-regarding film about vapid, self-regarding characters.

What's the difference between Coppola being interested in what these kids actually did and being in thrall to it? Of accurately portraying vapid, self-regarding characters and partaking of their vapidity? Of course she wouldn't have made the hypothetical film about Dallas -- because, for starters, she doesn't know that city like she knows L.A. She doesn't happen to be friendly enough with anyone in that imaginary Dallas to ask if she can shoot in their house, the actual site of one of the burglaries. And most important of all is that it's the celebrity factor that makes the crimes interesting -- both for the kids' motivations (the voyeurism suggested above, etc.) and for their m.o. (using gossip sites like TMZ to know when they're away, for instance). I guess I'd just be curious to hear what a domino and/or zedz approved version of this film would look like. You're both coming awfully close to saying either: 1) This can't be all there is to it, so Coppola's film must be facile; or 2) If this is all there is to it, then the film just wasn't worth making period.

warren oates wrote:You're both coming awfully close to saying either: 1) This can't be all there is to it, so Coppola's film must be facile; or 2) If this is all there is to it, then the film just wasn't worth making period.

More like there was nothing to it and thus the film was facile. As for the latter that was precisely what I wrote on page one. My question for you is what made this film of value, gave it worth and how?

Black Hat wrote: More like there was nothing to it and thus the film was facile. As for the latter that was precisely what I wrote on page one. My question for you is what made this film of value, gave it worth and how?

It's not like I haven't already engaged your specific points earlier in the thread. But I'll rephrase it again slightly just because you asked: I don't love this film or Coppola. For me, she's neither the sensitive genius behind such "excellent" Indies as Lost in Translation, nor the spoiled scion of a truly talented father merely indulging her privileged whims. I think she's not bad and that this is maybe her best work to date. Why? Because it's hard to imagine a better film being made about the true story on which it's based. It's that simple. I don't think inventing deep motivating psychology for characters who in actuality didn't seem to have any would have made a better film. I don't think a more obvious, savage or high-volume critique of celebrity worship, materiality or trash TV/Internet culture was called for either (which is not to say there isn't all this in the film; it's perhaps just not as loud as others seem to think it should be).

warren oates wrote:What's the difference between Coppola being interested in what these kids actually did and being in thrall to it? Of accurately portraying vapid, self-regarding characters and partaking of their vapidity? Of course she wouldn't have made the hypothetical film about Dallas -- because, for starters, she doesn't know that city like she knows L.A. She doesn't happen to be friendly enough with anyone in that imaginary Dallas to ask if she can shoot in their house, the actual site of one of the burglaries.

You don't see any irony here? Seriously? OMG, look at these poor shallow victims of the cult of celebrity, and O!M!G! we're actually filming this inside Britney Spears' (or whoever's) actual house! I don't know about the audience you saw this with, but there were a lot of clones of the film's characters oohing and aahing over that shit when I saw it.

Rather than interrogating the phenomenon of celebrity obsession in any meaningful way, Coppola is just replicating it, touching the hem of the garment along with the kids she's making a film about. It's presented as the most natural thing in the world: "Of course these kids are obsessed with celebrities - we're absolutely fascinating!"

And most important of all is that it's the celebrity factor that makes the crimes interesting -- both for the kids' motivations (the voyeurism suggested above, etc.) and for their m.o. (using gossip sites like TMZ to know when they're away, for instance).

Well, I agree with this to an extent, but that should be a jumping off point, not a smug conclusion. I guess Coppola tackled the 'how' (dumb luck, for the most part), but the film seemed to have no interest in the 'why' (unless the answer is "because they could," which is a circular avoidance of the question).

Um, did you even watch the movie? Britney Spears has nothing to do with it. Parts of it are filmed in Paris Hilton's actual house, who incidentally had no idea of the extent of what these kids had done until Coppola told her during pre-production.

Zedz almost surely knows it wasn't filmed in Britney Spears' house, he's just equating the starlets the crew did target with the interchangeability of a certain "type" of celebrity. Speaking as someone who knows full well who each of the targets were, the distinction hardly matters within the world of the film-- though I think it does matter in a larger sense little explored here by Coppola. The celebs hit were all young, pretty, and fashionable, and that's what mattered to the kids. Britney Spears has never been accused of being ONTD-able at the same level as, say, Rachel Bilson in terms of style iconography (though certainly in matters of personal drama), so it's a bit of an unfair generalization on zedz' part, but I think it also shows how the film doesn't exactly explore the differences enough for a layperson not inundated with this lifestyle to be able to make the distinction. Anything I got out of this film was because I brought it to it in the first place-- I didn't learn anything new or see anything novel and had to do all the heavy lifting myself. I'm hardly an expert but the point stands: you don't take a neurologist to see a medical thriller because all they see are the flaws. If you know nothing about young people like this or have limited exposure, then perhaps this is like totes eye-opening, especially since it reaffirms existent negative perceptions more than it explores with any curiosity the impetuses behind their acts. This film has no intelligent commentary to offer to a situation other than presentational aspects anyone could have provided. Coppola is fully capable of exploring the vapidity of celebrity, as seen wonderfully in Somewhere. This could be called Nowhere.

domino harvey wrote:Coppola is fully capable of exploring the vapidity of celebrity, as seen wonderfully in Somewhere. This could be called Nowhere.

Gregg Araki got there first!

How would The Bling Ring compare to Coppola's other portrait of vapid celebrity, Marie Antoinette?

Marie Antoinette has its own share of problems but I think it's a far more interesting film if just by virtue that Coppola does engage her subject with a sense of novelty sorely lacking here

zedz wrote:You don't see any irony here? Seriously? OMG, look at these poor shallow victims of the cult of celebrity, and O!M!G! we're actually filming this inside Britney Spears' (or whoever's) actual house! I don't know about the audience you saw this with, but there were a lot of clones of the film's characters oohing and aahing over that shit when I saw it.

You do realize that this is very much like a standard censor's dismissal of extremely violent films. If Taxi Driver, A Clockwork Orange etc. had to be preconceived with the notion that some part of the audience might misunderstand their conflicted, ambivalent critiques of their own violence, then films like that could never be released. I don't suppose you're saying that Coppola should have pandered to the lowest common denominator and double underlined the meaning of every frame of her film? Or that she ought to have made an essay film instead, where she verbalized her commentary explicitly?

zedz wrote:Rather than interrogating the phenomenon of celebrity obsession in any meaningful way, Coppola is just replicating it, touching the hem of the garment along with the kids she's making a film about. It's presented as the most natural thing in the world: "Of course these kids are obsessed with celebrities - we're absolutely fascinating!"

You'll have to say more about this claim. First, because the film itself isn't about celebrity obsession per se -- most of the kids have little interest in the actual personalities and/or work lives of their targets as such -- but an obsession with the perks and accoutrements of a certain kind of celebrity lifestyle. But the bigger issue I have with this statement is that your assumption about Coppola's attitude just seems wrong. Her film does its best to capture the excitement the kids themselves feel in the houses, and to document what's there, but where's the evidence that she's actually, as you've put it above, "in thrall" to, say, Paris Hilton's glitz? If you don't find the way she's shot Paris Hilton's place a clear comment on its ludicrous excesses (rather than an empty-headed celebration or earnest endorsement thereof), then I guess we'll have to agree that we've seen totally different movies.

zedz wrote: I guess Coppola tackled the 'how' (dumb luck, for the most part), but the film seemed to have no interest in the 'why' (unless the answer is "because they could," which is a circular avoidance of the question).

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. And if the filmmaker, after delving into the story, found the why to be lacking and chose to focus more on the who and the how, isn't that just smart? Or should she not have made the film at all? Or thrown away her characters' real motivations and created a more complex fiction, and by necessity an entirely different story?

domino harvey wrote:Speaking as someone who knows full well who each of the targets were, the distinction hardly matters within the world of the film-- though I think it does matter in a larger sense little explored here by Coppola. The celebs hit were all young, pretty, and fashionable, and that's what mattered to the kids.

Huh. This was all crystal clear to me from the film. But you're touching on a couple of interesting points. On the one hand, the celebrities are all sort of the same for the kids -- the famous for being famous heiress Hilton, the reality TV sublebrities from The Hills and blockbuster actors like Orlando Bloom (who for the kids is really more about his live-in girlfriend, whose clothes they want). The kids don't make any distinction about how their targets got famous, whether to any degree their wealth is more or less earned. You're right that all that matters to the Bling Ringers is that they're all young, pretty and fashionable -- like you say, they have the stuff the kids want. And they're all people on the party circuit, whose latest outing will be telegraphed on TMZ -- they have the visibility the kids need for their modest preplanning. So, I guess I'm asking, if the kids didn't make a distinction between their targets, why should the film (which certainly supplies enough information for the audience to do so, but also doesn't choose to underline it)?

The more telling details about their targets are some of the things that make them easiest to hit. How they all have large relatively remote homes in the hills, with lots of indoor/outdoor openings (at least one of which is usually left open), how few of them have any kind of security system (or turn it on), how all of them have so much stuff -- Paris Hilton being the poster child here -- that it takes a while to even notice that any of it has gone missing.

I think there's more of a critical edge to simply documenting some of these details than most of the other posters here have mentioned. Many of the wealthy celebrities can't imagine they should even have to set their alarms or lock all their doors because they can't conceive of any commoners who might find their way up the hill to threaten their persons or property. Orlando Bloom doesn't need his dozen Rolexes, but at least he notices them missing and has some security camera footage to offer the cops. Paris Hilton was still cluelessly leaving her keys under the doormat, not even noticing the absence of wads of cash, piles of clothes/accessories and liters of booze. It shouldn't take an Eisenstein montage for the film to make it's point about the compounded wrongness of what the kids are aspiring to here or the irony of why they're able to get away with their crimes for so long -- these people have way too much stuff.

domino harvey wrote:If you know nothing about young people like this or have limited exposure, then perhaps this is like totes eye-opening, especially since it reaffirms existent negative perceptions more than it explores with any curiosity the impetuses behind their acts.

So, in your mind, what would be the positive perceptions that Coppola's ignoring? The impetus that she's glossing over? It's not that the kids -- who worship fashion and celebrity in the shallowest way, without ever aspiring even to fantasies of the hard and tenuous creative work behind it, say, for example acting or making clothes/building a business -- want what they want and take it, in the absence of any real need (the ones who use the money for drugs later aren't even addicts), to both steal and buy high end clothes that will be out of style next year and to party at clubs that won't last much longer. 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. That Marc's gay and he's not out to his family? That Rebecca's high achieving yet emotionally cold Asian mom neglects her? That Laurie teaches her kids that getting what they want is as simple as making a vision board and deploying the magical powers of The Secret? That even from her adult perspective mom Laurie seems entirely incapable of creating the smallest teachable moment, like when her kids declare Angelina Jolie's greatest achievements in life are maintaining a hot bod and snaring Brad Pitt? All of that's in the film already, dispatched with quite economically, btw. So there are plenty of fact-based whys on offer, but perhaps not the ones you want to hear?

domino harvey wrote:This film has no intelligent commentary to offer to a situation other than presentational aspects anyone could have provided.

I hereby dare you to see the Lifetime movie I link to above and then try and say that again. Both because that version, which came out first, traffics heavily in the easy/obvious/boring after school special psychologizing that detractors here seem to think this one needs more of. And because it will become painfully obvious that, for this film especially, the so-called presentational aspects aren't exactly things that just anyone could have captured. And I'm not just talking about mere access to locations, including the film's much discussed coup of shooting at Paris Hilton's house. I'm talking about Coppola's feeling for the seductiveness of the lifestyle that the kids idealize and her cultivated taste for at least some of the high fashion items they covet.

domino harvey wrote:Coppola is fully capable of exploring the vapidity of celebrity, as seen wonderfully in Somewhere.

A comparatively easy job, what with the adorable authenticity of Dorff and daughter set against the vapidity of all their hangers-on and wannabes. Still, even the strippers in that film had more of a work ethic and less of a sense of entitlement than the kids in the real life Bling Ring. 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 didn't see that the lack of authorial comment regarding the kids was a flaw, or that there was any evidence that Coppola condoned the kids actions at all. I think an authorial voice openly criticizing what is blatantly ridiculous and obviously criminal behavior would have been like taking pot shots at a ten times oversized quadreplegic that was already dead.

I thought the film's problem in terms of substance wasn't the lack of any heavy insight into the psychology of the characters--the film did indeed slightly suffer from being a bit 'lite'--but rather that you have a relatively restricted, already fully known-by-the-public tale devoid of any rhythmic plotting and narrative tempo. There just wasn't a lot leading up to much--there wasn't much of a story beyond what we all already knew. We all knew they were going to get busted in the end, we all knew what they were going to do on their way to the can. All the traditional hooks that keep a mind occupied during the unfolding of a Hollywood film pretty much are neutralized because of this. She didn't tell us all we didn't know, give us any inside story, or a fascinating, highly stylized ELEPHANT-like re-imagining of a traumatizing cultural event. Just a sometimes funny rendering of an absurd cultural blip with few whistles and bells. It was just in a certain sense drab.

I don't know that the filmmaker was at all in the characters' corner, not even one iota. I think she simply took the stance of a cultural observer presenting this clearly absurd story of youthful idol worship gone awry and thought the high volume nature of the screwball behavior would be enough to fill the minds and the screen sufficiently from start to finish. But there was nothing new here... nothing hooked us . . . no suspense created in what was essentially a crime drama masquerading as a pop cultural youth scan (or vice versa).

Thus what we had was a lightly reimagined, illustrated version of what we all already knew about this silly little tale. Ultimately, a pathetic little story of pilfering by some little kids leeching off of the most vapid celebrities imagineable. After hearing Coppola's youthful almost embarassing thanks to All The Great Geniuses when she won her oscar, I doubt she really is in thrall to the mindless worship of Zsa Zsa/Paris types like her subjects.

I thought the film not bad, not great, not particularly manipulative (excessive manipulation is my primary gripe with the sort of filmmaking that comes out of the studios nowadays); matter of fact what I considered to be one of its biggest strengths was its authorial quietude vs the lunacy of the kids' mindset and obsessions. It would have been too easy,almost a pathetic potshot-- so easy that there would I'm sure have been commentators damning that sort of critique as misguided-- a misfired critique of innocent youthful subjects of a larger, highly powerful consumer pop culture that these kids are smothered with from birth, a media that has lost its compass, and thus (they would say), like so many in Tinseltown, Coppola is afraid to criticize the larger machine that she herself is a part of.

I just don't think that there was enough there to make this film "great," but I don't think that the answer lies in a character study of the kids via pushing a couple of them further to the fore for psychological exploration. I think these kids were merely vehicles to present the larger absurdity that the film and the audience itself is sitting there existing within. How you walk out of the film and discuss the film pretty much will reflect your position vis a vis many of the other titles in the multiplex that housed the screen onto which BLING was presented. I think she's taking the pulse of the audience, rather than the kids who burglarized those silly silly Hollywood pads.

Problem being-- of COURSE everyone walking out of the cinema will think the behavior absurd. It was all just a bit lite. But still, to me, overall, not bad.

Well, at least I feel like HerrSchreck has seen the same movie. That's one of the better responses in this thread.

HerrSchreck wrote: She didn't tell us all we didn't know, give us any inside story, or a fascinating, highly stylized ELEPHANT-like re-imagining of a traumatizing cultural event. Just a sometimes funny rendering of an absurd cultural blip with few whistles and bells. It was just in a certain sense drab.

Once again, though, the problem seems to be more with that actual real-life events than their depiction. And with whether, given the lite-ness inherent in the subject matter, Coppola's version of this film should have been made. I think we do get an inside story, but I agree that it's not especially illuminating -- certainly not if you're looking for depth in the characters' motivations or their crimes that was never there to begin with. Still, I'm happy to see this solid take on material that would otherwise be relegated to shitty TV movies. And I think you'd agree that comparisons to Van Sant's Elephant can only go so far, since, unlike Columbine, it's not like the Bling Ring's run traumatized anyone other than its immediate victims or became a template for copycat crimes nationwide or the focus of massive amounts of years-long press coverage and speculation, such that a definitive account would only emerge over a decade later. The nature of the crimes is so different. Columbine and any stories told about it are inherently dense and thematically overdetermined. An honest depiction of The Bling Ring's shallow kids can't compare.

Oh of course, I didn't mean to draw a parallel between the cultural events of Columbine and these theiving kids-- not at all. The comparison was between ways of presenting nonfictional narratives and the potential liberties one can take. . . not to suggest an impact equivelancy between a mass shooting and a couple of stolen pink pumps.