MovieChat Forums > Twixt (2012) Discussion > I almost didnt watch this film, BUT ... ...

I almost didnt watch this film, BUT ... *major spoilers ahead

posted 11 years ago by alithre
5 replies | jump to latest

I am so glad I did. MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD.

After reading the poor reviews, especially from Coppola fans, I thought for certain I would be watching some terribly cut and misunderstood script. Nothing could be further from the truth. Granted, the rushed ending leaves much to be desired, I agree. Not the first time we have seen that in film, that is for sure. But for those who claim to be Coppola fans then "dis" the film, lets me know how little you actually know of Coppola's angle, even his personal life, which he put pen to paper in Twixt.

In all likelihood, Twixt may be as close to filmography as we are going to get from FFC.

As a personal favor of kinship, I would ask all the REAL WRITERS of this board to give the film a chance, be you a playwright, novelist, student, novice, even a reporter such as myself. Apocalypse Now it is not. Nor The Godfather. Not even an Outsiders circa 1980s made to look like a James Dean film from another era. This is Coppola's work that HE funded, therefore can do any damn thing he wants, including writing a storyline that parallels his OWN personal life, the tragic death of his son, Gian-Carlo Coppola, and in all likelihood the drink and medication it took for the character Hall Baltimore, and Coppola himself, to sleep at night after such an horrific ordeal still haunting him (them) today.

They are haunted in their dreams, Coppola and Baltimore. This, after taking a multitude of pills and drink to get to sleep, only to jolt awake like they've been unconscious for a thousand years and takes a bit to get their bearings. Just in time for that reality check however, to smack you a good one upon awakening. Literally. After such tragedy as Baltimore and Coppola, sleep is often times the only break you will get from this walking nightmare, only to be haunted in your dreams by the very things that keep you awake. Looming overhead all the while is a major deadline that your paycheck and living depends on, and somehow must take these haunting images and bring them into reality. That's your job as a writer. You see this in Baltimore talking to his editor. Unless you feel good about what you're writing, unless its something you know deep down in your soul and can relate to, more than likely it will read bland, unattached, and worst of all boring. Lest we forget, just about every writer I know uses some drink, or substance, to let the words flow more freely; creatively. Even the master, Edgar Poe, infamous for this though not all of us drink ourselves into a paupers grave. This is what we writers do, it's what we know. We have ALL been there at least once. Even me.

Godfather and Apocalypse fans may not "get" this film, and I'm fine with that. But if you're a writer you WILL relate to Kilmer's character. That's a guarantee. Ours must be the stories that are the best of the best so people will read them, and YOU will still have a job at the end of the day. You will understand everything Hall is going through-- even if we do not encounter teenaged vampires at the lake very often. You will understand these men, Baltimore and Coppola, searching themselves, their judgments and choices, after personal tragedy but knowing there is work still to be done, contracts to be meet, yet feeling like the walking dead throughout it all, this catastrophe. Blaming yourself for choices that, in truth, could not be helped.

More than anything, you will relate to Coppola himself after the anguish he's been through in his personal life, as a man, a dad. He has put this into film, albeit briefly, in Twixt. The parallels are unmistakable.

[–] dyahrmarkt 11 years ago

"Twixt may be as close to filmography as we are going to get from FFC."

**You mean "autobiography"? But anyways, you lay out an impassioned argument, with one major flaw - Coppola didn't apply the "bulletproof" nature of writing to this story of the nature of writing bulletproof writing. You follow?

The Coens' "Barton Fink" is about, amongst other things, writer's block, and remains an amazing piece of cinema because whatever's going on in the protagonist's head against the rest of the film is carefully fed and exquisitely detailed and nurtured by filmmakers who really do care about the film they're crafting around the amusing creation of their own quirky central character. I get no such feeling from "Twixt".

If this is a personal, thinly-veiled confessional of Coppola's, his problem is neglecting the *film* that must exist outside of his own Catholic broodings. The facts of Gian-Carlo's boating-accident death are mere trivia facts, truth be told, because only to "insiders" on the Coppola aristocracy "juice" column really would know, or care. For all we know Joel Coen was once given a box by his crazy nextdoor neighbor that might contain a severed head. But it's all irrelevant, because THAT film made that stuff its own, and I could care less what went on in the director's personal life.

If we need to unlock this film by a) being a writer, or at least fully empathizing with the torturous creative process, or b) **know** what Coppola means with this autobiographical references (clearly it couldn't have been anything but a boating accident, right?), then there's no wonder the film tanked and no one cared. He didn't keep his end of the bargain.

Normally I wouldn't go for such exposition, but if, let's say, Coppola opened this film with a card that read "This film is dedicated to my son, Gian-Carlo, who died in a boating accident in 1986," THEN WE'D BE ON BOARD. The same film could play out, but we'd have the necessary footnote to filter all of this through. It would then be Coppola's deeply personal confession of guilt to anyone out there who cares about the man's work and wants to be close to his muse. It would certainly be a small audience for such a raw confrontation (Scorsese, similarly, didn't want to release "Raging Bull", as he thought it too personal). As said, I normally wouldn't go for such exposition, but without it WE JUST DON'T CARE about Hall Baltimore's drunken, big-guy-passed-out-at-the-table-for-the-entire-movie thing.

But by not being able to commit on taking these elements and making them either a worthwhile story OUTSIDE of what is otherwise an interesting, tragic footnote in Coppola's life, or else a deeply personal lamentation on those exact elements, without a veil (name the lead character "Francis", or something) we have a bunch of incoherent dreck that no one cared about. Copploa here has one hand on the confessional lever, the other on the "make the film stand on its own" lever, and the man can't make a decision. No, that indecision isn't "deliberate", or "subtlety-as-art" nonsense; it's just a colossal misjudgment of why an audience respects a director. If you're going to invite us in, DO IT. If you're going to dissolve what you NEED to say in something all to its own (ala "Raging Bull"), DO IT. But he's on the pot and, well, you know...

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] anna_velasquez 11 years ago

Well, I did watch this - I think it was a year ago at Filmfest München. And even though I was wearing ooooold glasses (I'd broken my new ones that very day) and thus, couldn't see the movie properly (old glasses being waaaaaay old) and though there was no card about the film being dedicated to whomever, I could relate to both, the movie and the main character.

I'm writing myself, both professionally and for fun. Maybe that's why. Maybe it's also me being a huge fan of Edgar Allan Poe. I usually don't like this kind of "artsy" or "weird" movie - I'm more one for genre movies. I still found "Twixt" quite intriguing, though. I liked the atmosphere, I liked Poe and I really liked how, at the end, I was all like "Ok, so what happened? Did he make it all up? Did he dream it? What the heck?"

It's definitely not a movie for the masses, that's quite obvious. But I agree with the original poster - writers might actually find it easier to relate to this movie than non-writers. (Kinda like I found it really easy to like "Midnight in Paris" even though, usually, I just can't stand Woody Allen's movies ...)

Needless to say that I bought the DVD as soon as it was released. :)

[–] movieman-232 11 years ago

You could consider me a writer, unpublished; I haven't tried yet. I've gotten 9 stories, all in their 1st drafts, and I think that they are all pretty good, much better than Stephen King, if I might be arrogant enough to allow. Many other stories floating about my head, written down in many note books, and on my computer. I am into depth, and this movie lacked a lot of that. I enjoyed bits and pieces, the already mentioned part where Kilmer is trying to write a 1st sentence. That was pretty comical, but it really didn't do anything to save it. There was no direction. No actual plot that has any kind of effort to tell you what's actually going on. Just a flow of nothingness that is telling you that if you like style over substance, and over narrative, this still isn't very good. Sorry.

[–] anna_velasquez 11 years ago

Well, seems to be a typical case of "I like it - you don't", then. Not much that can be done about it. :)

[–] jgrge3 11 years ago

I have to agree that this was a terrific movie, although unlike you I tend to favor visual movies like this one over more mainstream films. Many on here do not seem to care for the ending, but I thought that the ambiguity fit the film very well. It could be that the girl really was a vampire, or it could have been that she wasn't. There is not enough evidence to make an absolute case for either version. It reminds me of the drowning scene in Bergman's Hour of The Wolf in that regard.

"When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."