Twixt (Francis Ford Coppola, 2012)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Twixt (Francis Ford Coppola, 2012)

#26 Post by domino harvey » Thu May 16, 2013 5:39 pm

User avatar
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Twixt (Francis Ford Coppola, 2012)

#27 Post by MoonlitKnight » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:01 am

I finally saw this the other night, and I'm still not quite sure what to make of it. :? Some parts felt kind off, others were oddly fascinating.

User avatar
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Twixt (Francis Ford Coppola, 2012)

#28 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Oct 28, 2020 12:30 am

After an uncertain first viewing followed by a couple years of it swimming around in my head, I'm finally on board with this film's greatness now that I've given it a second go. Right from the start the narration is tonally unpredictable, eerie and hilarious, and the 'logical' reason for a seven-sided clock with different times is bluntly stated as.. that there simply must be evil lurking in this town. For all the wild ideas floating around in this bold, alienating work of genius, the theme of 'seeing what you want to see' stands at the front of the line and weaves itself throughout its many waves of content. Alcohol colors in illogical thinking, trauma is externalized into VR-fantasy, idols are exhumed for guidance, ego-boosting, and closure. Is this a satire or parody, a comedy-horror jarringly-bifurcated self-reflexive ghost story, or the desperate attempts of a broken man using his only dependable skill in constructing narratives to find peace? I think it can be and is all of these things, as well as a commentary on how we can find what we need in the ubiquitous possibilities of life, including dreams, imitated here in art.

The real horrors are deeply tragic to the point of drawing tears, but not in the ways one might expect- instead hitting on the relatability of horror in Kilmer's, and our, real lives and daily news stories through subtle gestures embedded in the louder iconography. The modern social contexts of human existence are farced-up as ludicrous in objective terms, but individual experiences are also afforded maximized, dignified empathy for the pain that Coppola maturely treats with respect around the humor. Mostly this is just creative filmmaking actualized against the rules we've come to expect from ordered, limpid genre pics. I agree that this is one of Coppola's best films (and domino's observation of the Rumble Fish nods), but it's also one of his most ambitious, which is hyperbolic when talking about the man behind Apocalypse Now, but for me this is nearly as audacious as filmmaking gets.
The ambiguous reading of whether the film is an examination of a solipsistic alcoholic's world turning inside out as he goes insane haunted by his past, or narcissistically capitalizing on self-pity to sublimate into superficial success, is exceptionally well-played. While the ending may 'clarify' this for some in absolute terms, I believe it must be both- for human beings are complex, cope through cycles of conscious reflective therapy and avoidant disengagement, and if anything the ending can be seen as equally ambiguous: either a win in returning to a stable, ironic world on the impermanent wheel that will inevitably spin back around to horror, or another layer of now-far gone fantasy, which too may be optimistic depending how you look at it. Even the final title cards don't mean anything since it's impossible to tell what has been objective all along- with the other omnipotent-narrator prime bookend's declaration on seven-sided clocks=evil making as much sense as the happy endings delved out in spades over type.

Post Reply