CQIt's not always easy to live your dream, but for aspiring filmmaker and editor, Paul Ballard (Jeremy Davies), it comes whether he intends it or not. CQ is a sci-fi/fantasy drama about the aforementioned Paul and his work on a campy sci-fi movie called "Codename: Dragonfly" in 1969 France, starring a revolutionary turned ingenue named Valentine (Angela Lindvall). After the first director, Andrezej (Gérard Depardieu), is fired over a deflated ending, and his replacement--a conceited ham named Felix DeMarco (Jason Schwartzman)--also drops out due to a car accident, Paul finds himself at the helm of this cinematic starship with no map to guide him.
|
|
Written and directed by Roman Coppola, CQ feels both like a very personal story about an aspiring filmmaker and also one that is terribly self-aware. Although made in 2001, the film is set on the cusp of the 1970s, a changeover from one decade to another, one that speaks to the transformation which Paul experiences over the course of the film. Paul is a mild-mannered everyman if a bit distracted and off. (Davies feels right at home with this type of character.) He films himself and his girlfriend, Marlene (Elodie Bouchez), in their cozy Parisian apartment, often at the expense of their intimacy. Marlene's patience with Paul continues to wane as he fantasizes over the sexy footage of Dragonfly that he is editing together for Andrezej. Paul's fantasies often come without warning, and he often stares off into space in the process. Paul is missing something crucial in his life, but he is poor at explaining this to Marlene in a way that doesn't make her feel like she isn't being taken for granted. At times, CQ is very much a "film within a film", with full scenes from "Codename: Dragonfly", which is clearly inspired by the likes of cornball sci-fi flicks that favor skin over plot, like Barbarella. The story of this flesh fantasy is that Dragonfly is tasked by some vague government entity to stop a revolutionary--coyly named "Mr. E" (Billy Zane)--who has taken possession of some kind of "super weapon", which until Paul gets involved is just a glorified space laser. Paul is torn between his personal passion project--his film diary, often recorded while he sits on the toilet--and this space opera extravaganza. He seems to be pulled in many different directions, unclear who he should satisfy and how. His producer, Enzo (Giancarlo Giannini), gives him vague advice and demands a punchy ending for his film, giving first-time director Paul a scant couple of days to come up with something. Meanwhile, Paul feels that he should not arbitrarily discard everything that Andrezej was trying to say in his film, since this man at least gave him his start and supported him at this formative time in his career. And to top it off, Paul feels this blossoming affection for Valentine/Dragonfly, even if his infatuation isn't much more than surface level.
Films about filmmaking have been a fixture in cinema--especially auteur cinema--for a long time. One of the most cited examples of these is Federico Fellini's 8 1/2, which has more than a few similarities with CQ, and not just a predilection for titles that are a code for something else. In both cases, the male protagonist is at a crucial turning point in his life, and "the next film" becomes emblematic of how the protagonist will develop as a person...how that creation will reflect the rest of his life. Both movies tend to objectify women, as both protagonists see in pretty women a "muse" who takes their creativity and life journey to the next level, even while ignoring others that are actually there for them. And since CQ has the benefit of being set in the past--and even in Rome in one act--both films feel like a testament to that critical moment in these men's respective career arcs. And despite being unabashedly egocentric chronicles, both films are really a love letter not just to film, but also to the fans of their films, giving insight into the filmmaker which adds a new dimension to their prior and subsequent works. Although Roman Coppola is not as prolific of a filmmaker as Fellini was, he has contributed to many other films, including a personal favorite of mine, The Darjeeling Limited, directed by Wes Anderson. Seeing CQ adds a new facet to this film, seeing the world through the eyes of one of its co-writers by way of his vision in CQ. Of course it is especially true to say that of the Hollywood families of filmmakers, the Coppolas reign as some of the most prolific and influential of all time. So this also lends some insight into the films that also make up this "family" of movies, ranging in diversity from The Godfather to The Virgin Suicides. CQ is a brief entry into this body of work, with a runtime of around an hour and a half, but is filled with nods to some iconic moments in movies and trailers. For example, when Paul is tasked with putting together a trailer for "Codename: Dragonfly", his result bears an eerie resemblance to the trailer for A Clockwork Orange. There is some irony in CQ being a personal story--or at least it appears to be--and the fact that it isn't terribly original. It is cute, quirky, quaint, and ultimately a bit silly and self-indulgent. I believe, however, that this is a part of its identity by design, rather than by accident. Take for example one daydream where Paul imagines a series of critics panning him for his home movie; in a sense, it is a commentary meant to be about CQ itself...a self-aware wink that suggests that the movie is "critic-proofing" itself by making the same criticisms that could apply to this movie rendered moot by way of being delivered by a bunch of pretentious blowhards. And yet "pretentiousness" is one of those things that one is rarely aware of in their own work until it is pointed out to them, meaning that artists and critics invariably must endure one another, kind of keeping each other in check.
Recommended for: Fans of an effervescent mix of self-aware filmmaking and sci-fi/fantasy. CQ is often silly and rarely digs deep into Paul's psyche--despite his multitudinous daydreams--and feels a bit more like a footnote about that transformative moment instead of an outpouring of the soul.
Films about filmmaking have been a fixture in cinema--especially auteur cinema--for a long time. One of the most cited examples of these is Federico Fellini's 8 1/2, which has more than a few similarities with CQ, and not just a predilection for titles that are a code for something else. In both cases, the male protagonist is at a crucial turning point in his life, and "the next film" becomes emblematic of how the protagonist will develop as a person...how that creation will reflect the rest of his life. Both movies tend to objectify women, as both protagonists see in pretty women a "muse" who takes their creativity and life journey to the next level, even while ignoring others that are actually there for them. And since CQ has the benefit of being set in the past--and even in Rome in one act--both films feel like a testament to that critical moment in these men's respective career arcs. And despite being unabashedly egocentric chronicles, both films are really a love letter not just to film, but also to the fans of their films, giving insight into the filmmaker which adds a new dimension to their prior and subsequent works. Although Roman Coppola is not as prolific of a filmmaker as Fellini was, he has contributed to many other films, including a personal favorite of mine, The Darjeeling Limited, directed by Wes Anderson. Seeing CQ adds a new facet to this film, seeing the world through the eyes of one of its co-writers by way of his vision in CQ. Of course it is especially true to say that of the Hollywood families of filmmakers, the Coppolas reign as some of the most prolific and influential of all time. So this also lends some insight into the films that also make up this "family" of movies, ranging in diversity from The Godfather to The Virgin Suicides. CQ is a brief entry into this body of work, with a runtime of around an hour and a half, but is filled with nods to some iconic moments in movies and trailers. For example, when Paul is tasked with putting together a trailer for "Codename: Dragonfly", his result bears an eerie resemblance to the trailer for A Clockwork Orange. There is some irony in CQ being a personal story--or at least it appears to be--and the fact that it isn't terribly original. It is cute, quirky, quaint, and ultimately a bit silly and self-indulgent. I believe, however, that this is a part of its identity by design, rather than by accident. Take for example one daydream where Paul imagines a series of critics panning him for his home movie; in a sense, it is a commentary meant to be about CQ itself...a self-aware wink that suggests that the movie is "critic-proofing" itself by making the same criticisms that could apply to this movie rendered moot by way of being delivered by a bunch of pretentious blowhards. And yet "pretentiousness" is one of those things that one is rarely aware of in their own work until it is pointed out to them, meaning that artists and critics invariably must endure one another, kind of keeping each other in check.
Recommended for: Fans of an effervescent mix of self-aware filmmaking and sci-fi/fantasy. CQ is often silly and rarely digs deep into Paul's psyche--despite his multitudinous daydreams--and feels a bit more like a footnote about that transformative moment instead of an outpouring of the soul.