Take,
1) The structure and expressionistic approach to the gangland world of West Side Story,
2) the serious youth angst of Rebel without a Cause,
3) An art film aesthetic,
4) Juvenile, teen-gang subject matter,
5) An 80's-esque electronica soundtrack.
And you've got a sort of tacky-classy, strange neo-art film for early 80's teens.
Its look is so serious, you'd imagine its more important than Citizen Kane or Lawrence of Arabia, but its narrative content is rather juvenile gang-warfare. Who can take seriously, for example, someone who everyone calls "The Motorcycle Boy." Or a main character who talks like Vinnie Barbarino?
To call it a bad film would be an absolute travesty, considering what an accomplished film it is: every single frame is absolutely gorgeous, and every scene well-done.
The strangest element of it is the soundtrack - wheareas its look is the classical beauty of The Godfather, its electronica soundtrack matches the early-80's teen angst of its characters.
Coppola is a hard-working and talented filmmaker, there's no doubt about it. And he really loves film. Rumble Fish is a beautiful film as a result - it looks absolutely stunning.
Why is it not a great film, though?
1) The "story" is next to nothing - unless its subtextual. Narrative drive is not high.
2) And it has the feel of somebody who over-intellectualises every moment of the script during production: which you may realise Coppola does if you've seen the documentary on the Godfather box set: but when you describe the emotion an actor must achieve in a scene so much, it ends up sounding so complex the actor clearly feels they fail to achieve it, and the moment ends up false.
So it comes off as very self-conscious and studied.
3.5/5 - It would be insulting to 5 star films like The Godfather to give this four stars, but i urge you, its an experience to have. A definite thing to see.
1) The structure and expressionistic approach to the gangland world of West Side Story,
2) the serious youth angst of Rebel without a Cause,
3) An art film aesthetic,
4) Juvenile, teen-gang subject matter,
5) An 80's-esque electronica soundtrack.
And you've got a sort of tacky-classy, strange neo-art film for early 80's teens.
Its look is so serious, you'd imagine its more important than Citizen Kane or Lawrence of Arabia, but its narrative content is rather juvenile gang-warfare. Who can take seriously, for example, someone who everyone calls "The Motorcycle Boy." Or a main character who talks like Vinnie Barbarino?
To call it a bad film would be an absolute travesty, considering what an accomplished film it is: every single frame is absolutely gorgeous, and every scene well-done.
The strangest element of it is the soundtrack - wheareas its look is the classical beauty of The Godfather, its electronica soundtrack matches the early-80's teen angst of its characters.
Coppola is a hard-working and talented filmmaker, there's no doubt about it. And he really loves film. Rumble Fish is a beautiful film as a result - it looks absolutely stunning.
Why is it not a great film, though?
1) The "story" is next to nothing - unless its subtextual. Narrative drive is not high.
2) And it has the feel of somebody who over-intellectualises every moment of the script during production: which you may realise Coppola does if you've seen the documentary on the Godfather box set: but when you describe the emotion an actor must achieve in a scene so much, it ends up sounding so complex the actor clearly feels they fail to achieve it, and the moment ends up false.
So it comes off as very self-conscious and studied.
3.5/5 - It would be insulting to 5 star films like The Godfather to give this four stars, but i urge you, its an experience to have. A definite thing to see.