Sofia Coppola - Essay

Vanessa Quincey of 22

Sofia in Translation: Examining the Auteur Qualities Embedded in the

Films of Sofia Coppola

(image source: honeymoonbabybriulotta.blogspot.com, by Blogspot user: mamma claud)

COMM 2342 Research in Contextual Studies

Vanessa Quincey

S3197785


RESEARCH STATEMENT

WORKING TITLE:

Sofia in Translation: Examining the Auteur Qualities Embedded in the Films of Sofia

Coppola

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

My project was undertaken with an aim to achieve the following goals:

- to contribute to contribute to literature on Sofia Coppola, by examining her work in

the context of auteurship

- to redefine and reevaluate the auteur theory

- to contribute to literature on female auteurs and young auteurs, which is still

underdeveloped when compared to existing material on male auteurs.

CONTACT DETAILS

Vanessa Quincey

s3197785

0433 397 168

[email protected]

SUPERVISOR

Glen Donnar

Cinema Studies Supervisor

WORD COUNT

Current word count: 6, 538

PROJECT ABSTRACT

Since it was first coined in the 1950's, the auteur theory has been debated and

reinterpreted several times and subsequently presents itself as a somewhat muddied

term. One of the fundamental consistencies, and indeed, weakness, within the auteur

theory (that has been sustained throughout the decades), is that 'auteur' is a term used

to glorify the work of predominantly male directors. This isolation of auteurship


towards male directors is, of course, somewhat narrow-minded given that in recent

times, female directors (eg: Kathryn Bigalow, Jane Campion, Sally Potter etc) have

shown the same unique, personalized vision in their works to reflect their own

auteurship. This project attempts to explore the films of one particular female

director, Sofia Coppola, and determine whether or not she can be considered an

auteur. The project will examine each of her three films and extract evidence to both

support and challenge the idea of her being an auteur. It also attempts to revaluate and

redefine the auteur theory, based on past debates and arguments about defining auteur

theory, as well as bring to light the increasing prominence of female auteurs in today's

film industry.

RESEARCH COMMUNITY

My nice community is, undoubtedly, the cinema studies community. However, whilst

I do not by any means profess my work to be of the same academic or intellectual

standard, synonymous with say, a cinema journal, I do on the contrary, believe that I

have identified a legitimate gap in research concerning auteur theory. On a broad

scale, the trend in recognizing female directors as auteurs is a fairly recent one and in

addition, on a more specific note, given that Sofia Coppola's career is still developing,

my research, on both counts, in relatively incomplete.

Therefore, my goal for my research community is to contribute to encouraging

discussion on the progress and emergence of female directors and auteurs and perhaps

see others take up this idea in the future. My essay does, however, largely focus on

the work of Sofia Coppola, which would appeal to readers who are familiar and

partial to her films. With that being said, I also feel that my project may engage the

interest of feminist film scholars who perhaps seek to help abolish the notion of

Hollywood and cinema being a typically male-dominated industry.

REFLECTION ON THE RESEARCH PROCESS

Initially, one of the biggest challenges I faced was narrowing down my broader area

of interest: women in the film industry, into a succinct research topic that dealt with a

relevant gap in current research. However, whilst several journalists have labeled

Sofia Coppola an “auteur”, none of them had actually investigated the evidence to

support this title. This allowed me to build a research project based on the evidence of


the key auteur qualities embedded in the films of Sofia Coppola. In doing so, I was

forced to also examine the auteur theory itself to determine what it is that warrants a

director’s status as an auteur. One of the hardest parts of the research process for me

was narrowing down my information. I essentially had to fight the urge not to write

too much about auteur theory and to keep my project balanced in my focus on

Coppola’s work in particular. I believe I have succeeded in this because I have only

included the important information on auteur theory and discarded many of the finite

details and opinions, which surround it, but do not necessarily develop, to my

argument.

In addition, I also struggled with pertaining to the word limit set for this essay. There

was so much information to include both on Coppola’s work and auteur theory that it

was very hard for me to decide what to include and what to leave out. One of the

ways I dealt with this was to focus only on Coppola’s feature-length films and did not

mention her short film: Like the Star (1998), her screenplay Life Without Zoe (1989)

nor did I explore the various music videos and commercials she has directed. I also

strategically chose not to include reference to Coppola’s most recent film Somewhere

(2010) given the fact that it has not been released in Australia, despite the plethora of

material analyzing the film, which is currently available.

In researching my project, I sought to include the largest number of possible sources

and I was successful in my methods of research as I obtained almost all of the

material in the AFI Library. My research project is ultimately comprised of both a

textual analysis and qualitative analysis. In order to define whether or not Sofia is an

auteur, I had to first examine the auteur theory itself and the debates and approaches

associated with the original definition. This formed the basis for my qualitative

analysis, which I then combined with a close textual analysis of Sofia's films. In

addition, I drew upon various resources to build up a coherent and well-supported

case study on both Sofia's work and the concept of auteurism as a process, rather than

a quantitative idea.


Sofia in Translation:

Examining the Auteur Qualities Embedded in the Films of Sofia Coppola

Throughout history, despite several female directors having displayed characteristics

of auteurship within their films, the term ‘auteur’ continues to remain synonymous

with male directors. In particular, Sofia Coppola’s burgeoning status as an auteur is

one that is ripe for contention. Her three feature length films, The Virgin Suicides

(1999), Lost in Translation (2003) and Marie Antoinette (2006), harbor a shared set of

aesthetic, stylistic and narrative traits, which in turn have contributed to a greater

sense of consistency and familiarity in her work. Critics have similarly picked up on

Coppola’s “recognizable visual approach” and the “self-conscious beauty of her

films” (Rogers, 2006: p.1). They have dubbed her an “artist” (Bunbury, 2000: p. 2),

“the most powerful woman director in Hollywood” (O’Hagan, 2006: p. 4) and drawn

attention to the specific “formula” for her work, which seems to be “repeated

throughout Coppola’s filmography” (Saccarelli, 2006: p.3). Ostensibly, Coppola

possesses a distinct identity and personalized vision as a director, which she imprints

unto each of her films. However, whether or not this personalized vision earns her the

title of auteur remains unclear.

Marred by critical debate and several counter-interpretations, the auteur theory has

transformed into somewhat of a muddied term. In this context, the ambiguous tie

between Coppola the director and Coppola the auteur can perhaps be best understood

as a reflection upon the fallibly, multi-faceted definition of the auteur theory itself.

Hence why, in determining whether or not Sofia Coppola can be considered an auteur,

this essay will explore the evolution and changeability of the auteur theory throughout

history, with particular consideration towards the defining qualities that validate

directors as auteurs today. In doing so, this essay will also examine Sofia Coppola’s

work as a director through a close textual analysis of her three in order to ultimately

evaluate her legitimacy as an auteur.

The Evolution of Auteur Theory: Origins

There are no qualitative measures for auteurship, thereby making it less a coherent

theory than a variable set of critical practices that over time have been appropriated,


attacked and reformulated in many different ways. Essentially, auteur theory is

founded on the romantic belief, as advocated through Alexandre Astruc’s notion of

the “caméra-stylo”, that the director is able to use the commercial apparatus of

filmmaking much in the same way as an artist uses a paintbrush or a writer uses a pen

(Hillier: 1985). This line of thinking thereby qualifies film as ‘art’ and the director as

the ‘artist’, or in the case of cinema, auteur. Fraçois Truffault first coined the term

auteur in his 1954 essay, Une certaine tendance du cinéma français, arguing that film

is a great medium for which a director can express his own personalized, creative

vision (Naremore: 1999). Hence, the director is ascribed as the ultimate creative force

or impetus behind the film. Truffault, alongside his fellow Cahier du Cinéma peers,

thereby dismiss film as being a co-operative, industrial product, which was further

insinuated in his provocative allegation that “there are no good and bad movies, only

good and bad directors” (Hillier, 1985: p.127).

Evidence of auteurship is translated in films through a director’s distinctive visual

style, originality and particular emphasis on mis-en-scene. The director’s personal

vision is also articulated through the repetition of narrative themes and motifs as well

as the self-consciousness of convention, whereby as Andre Bazin points out, once the

auteur realizes his particular ‘signature’ convention, he will continue to employ it

throughout his films (Dudley: 1978). Historically, auteur theory was very much

designed as an attack on the big, commercial productions common in post-war

France, which were considered to be less viable as an art form by Truffault and his

peers. Alas, auteur theory is seen as a celebration of a director’s triumph in achieving

a distinctive, personalized vision throughout their films in the face of industrial

constraints and other forms of studio interference. Nowadays however, these shackles

of industrial and studio constrain have undoubtedly been lifted and directors are

generally given more time, greater flexibility, increased control and a larger budget to

work with.

To an extent, Sofia Coppola has similarly been encumbered by constrains within her

own working environment in Hollywood. Unlike the political and industrial

constraints depicted in the Cahier writings, Coppola has had to cope with social

constraints and the expectations inherent in being the daughter of an already

canonized auteur, Francis Ford Coppola. As a testament to these constraints, Francis


Ford commented in an interview with Premier magazine, “she’s [had] pressure from

every side” (Spines, 2000: p.92). Coppola herself similarly admitted in an interview

with Empire magazine: “everybody has to go outside their family – you have to try to

figure out your own identity on your own… I had to [make films] in my own style”

(Collis, 2000: p.82). In establishing her own creative vision and identity through her

work, pertained to the ‘triumph of auteurship against constrains’ as depicted in the

Cahiers.

Furthermore, another defining quality of auteurship is the tendency for a director to

work within a particular genre of films. As Graeme Turner noted, auteur studies

meant, “genre films were now deemed interesting” (Turner, 1999: p. 133). Likewise,

the films of Sofia Coppola similarly pertain to a specific film genre, belonging the

“indie”/arthouse category. Coppola’s consistency in creating these types of films,

demonstrates her creative control over her work. She has a clear vision for the types

of films she wishes to direct and in doing so, her personality and creative presence

becomes an identifiable aspect of her work.

In addition, American film critic Andrew Sarris helped popularize auteur theory for

American critics and audiences. Intrinsic to Sarris’ work is his notion of ‘the great

director’, which is still very much revered as an important aspect in film criticism

today (Sarris: 1973). According to Sarris, an auteur’s body of work is characterized

by technical flair, recurring characteristics of style which serve as the filmmaker’s

“signature” as well as the filmmaker’s “interior meaning” (vision of the world)

(Sarris: 1973).

The Evolution of Auteur Theory: Critical Debate

Highly persuasive in nature, auteur theory is often intricately woven throughout

popular discourse on films and is habitually articulated through critical opinions and

reviews. For the most part, scholarship debates about auteurship occupied a privileged

position in film studies during the 1950-80s, however auteur theory is nevertheless

still relevant to cinema analysis and discussion today. From the 1960’s onwards,

several film critics began to challenge the legitimacy of auteur theory and

undoubtedly, one must take these criticisms into account in order to develop a


coherent understanding of auteur theory. The predominant fallibility critics have

identified with auteur theory is that it “participates in the cult of personality and

celebrity at the expense of examining the collaborative dimensions of filmmaking”

(University of Queensland, 2010, p. 13). In particular, Pauline Kael deplored Sarris’

articulation of auteur theory on several counts. She denounced Sarris’ notion of

auteurship as “a rigid formula” and further rejected Sarris’ supposed desire to view

directors “in a pristine state”, stating, “it is an insult to an artist to praise his bad work

along with his good” (Kael, 1965: p. 298). Of course, Sofia Coppola’s films have

engendered both praise and criticism from film critics. In particular, Lost in

Translation was hailed as “intelligent, calm, filmmaking brilliance” (Dawson, 2003:

p. 1) meanwhile Marie Antoinette was considered by many to have “missed the point”

(Scott, 2006: p. 13). Yet whether or not a film gains popularity amongst its audience

is irrelevant to auteur theory, which is far more concerned with the presence of a

director’s consistent personal vision innate in each film, no matter how it is received

by the public.

Nevertheless, like several other critics, Kael’s primary concern with Sarris’ dealings

with auteur theory is that it privileged the role of the director at the expense of other

poignant collaborators in the filmmaking process. Kael has been joined by notable

screenwriters such as Ernest Lehman and William Goldman, among others, who

similarly baulked the idea that directors are more authorial than screenwriters. David

Kippen even went as far as to coin the phrase “Schreiber theory”, a term used to credit

the screenwriter as the principal auteur of a film (Kippen: 2006). Meanwhile, film

historian Aljean Harmetz championed the creative input and auteurship of producers

and studio executives in Hollywood, arguing that auteur theory “collapses against the

reality of the studio system” (Harmetz, 1992: p.29).

To examine the auteurship in one stand-alone film, then of course, credit is owed to

the screenwriter and other collaborators on the film as well as the director. Whilst the

screenwriter is responsible for writing the script and thereby determining the narrative

of the film, it is the director who ultimately chooses to use the script. Therefore,

auteur qualities in a director can be found through the patterns in the types of films he

directs based on the individual scripts and screenplays he uses. Moreover, this

particular criticism on auteur theory falls short of Sofia Coppola, who plays the dual


role of director and screenwriter in each of her three films. Indeed, whilst this doesn’t

necessarily prove that Coppola is in fact an auteur per se, it does show that her

personalized creative vision is executed through both the subject matter (screenplay)

and the overall aesthetic and stylistic realization of her films (directing). Adding

further strings to her bow, Coppola also co-produced Lost in Translation and Marie

Antoinette.

In addition, Timothy Corrigan argues that film directors market themselves as

‘auteurs’ on purpose to create their own star image. Corrigan asserts that rather than

being a category with any influence on the way his/her products are read, the auteur is

simply seen as “a commercial strategy for organizing audience reception, as a critical

concept bound to distribution and marketing aims that identity and address the

potential cult status of an auteur” (Corrigan, 2008: p.221). In some ways, Corrigan

has a point. Certainly, after the success of The Virgin Suicides and Lost in

Translation, Sofia Coppola’s subsequent films each specifically name her as the

director for branding purposes. Although these commercial strategies are present

within his theory, Corrigan does not, however, account for the complexities of the

way in which films are read by the spectator; nor does it acknowledge the myriad of

influences that must be taken into consideration through the production of meaning.

Alas, through analyzing the definition of auteur theory and it’s evolution through

critical debate, it is clear that Sofia Coppola’s role as a director, in many ways,

mirrors the image of an auteur as painted by the original auteur theorists. She has

triumphed against social constraints within the industry, maximized her creative input

through her dual role as screenwriter and director and further demonstrated a

consistency in the directing genre-specific films. However, with this being said,

whilst these factors do not necessarily qualify Coppola as an auteur in the absolute

sense of the word, they do, nevertheless, contribute to evidence supporting her

possession of auteur qualities. Ostensibly, Coppola inhabits an authorial persona, yet

it is only with close textual analysis of her films that we can fully understand the

strengths and limitations of her presupposed auteur status. Similarly, New Critics

(from the ‘New Criticism’ school of literary criticism) contend that many critics have

made an “intentional fallacy” by trying to interpret works of art by speculating what


the author meant based on his personality or life experiences (Wimsatt & Monroe,

1954: p.19). This is the approach I will be taking in analyzing Sofia Coppola’s status

as an auteur, whereby I will be focusing on the stylistic, aesthetic, narrative, thematic

aspects as well as her use of mis-en-scene in order to evaluate her authorial role. I will

not, therefore, be taking into account the external information or speculation about her

intention as this falls outside of the scope of my research.

The Female Auteur

Many feminist writers have argued that the auteur theory has no value or relevance to

female filmmakers. Despite acknowledging the significance of auteur theory being

“extremely important work” within the broader context of filmmaking, Angela Martin

insists “the work of women filmmakers remains of marginal interest to [auteur theory

and auteur theorists]” (Marks, 1984: p. 18). In saying this, Martin appears to uphold a

similar view to several the feminist critics, which is that auteur approaches are not

able to interrogate women’s work. According to Marks, this is due to the fact that

films directed by women are either “outside the auteur cannon” or “indescribable

within it” (Marks, 1984: p. 23). Similarly, this perceived masculinity of auteurism has

been frequently chastised by feminist critics such as Pauline Kael who expressed her

view that “[auteurs] are so enthralled with their narcissistic male fantasies” staged

within “the small range of experience of their boyhood and adolescence” (Kael, 1996:

p. 72).

However, Lisa French professes that “it may well be that the masculinity celebrated

by the Cahiers du cinema was a recognition of a particular masculine perspective”

(French, 2007: p. 105). Likewise, French’s notion of the “masculine perspective” can

be transcended into the study of female auteurship, through the recognition of the

‘female’ and a feminine point of view in women’s cinema. In many ways, this

‘feminine perspective’, echoes Sarris’ projection of ‘interior meaning’ as one of the

fundamental building blocks to auteurship (French: 2007).

This projection of femininity and a female point of view, which French and Martin

have linked to female auteurship, is very much apparent throughout Sofia Coppola’s

films. However, on the contrary, this theory ignores the formal, stylistic attributes of


auteurship and it is altogether too literal in translating a film’s characters and narrative

as a direct representation of the director. Thus, my focus for this essay is to evaluate

the extent to which Sofia Coppola can be considered an auteur based on a close

textual analysis of her films. Personally, I tend to disagree with critics such as Kaja

Silverman, who contends, “it might not be possible to locate a female authorial voice

using the same strategies as locating the male authorial voice” (Silverman, 1988: p.

67). I believe auteurship should be defined in cinema using the same rules and

practices no matter the gender of the director. Therefore, to apply different strategies

for evaluating female versus male auteurs, is to invite further prejudice and inequality

between the sexes. Hence, my approach to appraising the auteur status of Sofia

Coppola will fall inline with the original criteria for auteurship – which is largely

based on stylistic, narrative, aesthetic and thematic consistencies – as dictated by the

Cahiers writers and supporting critics and film theorists.

Sofia Coppola and Auteurship

Sofia Coppola is a self-proclaimed “visual” and “creative” person (Spines, 2000: p.

92). Undoubtedly, her background in painting, photography, fashion and acting have

all largely contributed to her aesthetic sensitivity and creative style. Coppola

describes making a film as “a personal thing” and indeed, her personality and

personal style has underpinned each of her three feature length films (O’Hagan, 2006:

p. 1). As Sean O’Hagan asserts, “no other young female film director possesses her

clout in Hollywood” (O’Hagan, 2006: p. 1). Incidentally, growing up Sofia Coppola

cites muses in Jean-Luc Godard, Fraçois Truffault and the French New Wave, of

which she affirms, “I’ve always been drawn to individuals really, people with their

own distinctive but identifiable style that no one else has” (O’Hagan, 2006: p. 4).

Surely, Coppola’s admiration of these auteurs’ sense of individuality can ultimately

translate to an admiration, and perhaps, aspiration towards auteurship in general.

Thus, the question of Coppola’s own auteurship subsequently emerges. In addressing

this, I will examine Coppola’s use of characters, narrative and themes; style; and mis-

en-scene throughout her three feature length films in order to evaluate her status as an

auteur.


Sofia Coppola’s Use of Characters, Narrative & Themes

Although her films are vastly different in time, setting and plot (The Virgin Suicides:

Michigan, mid 1970s; Lost in Translation: Tokyo, early 2000s; Marie Antoinette:

France, late 1700s), they each uphold similarities in characters and themes. The

trajectory of Coppola’s films is often unpredictable and lacking in solid, narrative

arcs. On this point, Coppola contends that she is more concerned for the stylistic

realization of her films as opposed to the narrative or storyline (O’Hagan: 2006).

Coppola admits to a personal interest in “a search for identity and trying to develop,

and the choices you have” (Hauser, 2006: p. 65). These common narrative leads and

themes have been woven throughout each of her three films. Interestingly, upon

retrospect, Coppola has stated that she can see a definite “link” between each of the

three films, “how each film starts where the other one leaves off in a way” (Hauser,

2006: p. 65). As film critic, Jen Johans puts it; Coppola’s films can be viewed as “an

unlikely thematic trilogy of isolated young women coming of age in three very

different time periods” (Johans, 2006: p. 1).

Coppola’s films demonstrate an interest in liminal situations, rites of passage and

marginal groups of people (Rogers, 2008: p. 1). The protagonists in her films are

unformed characters facing a moment of transition or life-crisis, they feel lost,

alienated and overwhelmed or incapacitated by the situation, environment or world in

which they have been thrust. The key message in The Virgin Suicides is “the violence

of the adolescent rite of passage and finally, the refusal to progress into the adult

world” (Rogers, 2008: p. 8). Similarly, as Coppola described, “In Lost in Translation,

[Scarlett Johansson’s character] is trying to understand that stage in her life and is on

the verge of figuring it out. In Marie Antoinette, it’s the full evolution of someone

transforming from a girl to a woman and growing up in a really extreme setting. To

me, it feels like the next chapter” (Hauser, 2006: p. 65). In saying this, Coppola’s

films seem to possess a European sensibility about them, whereby her sense of

“ennui” parallels that of many of Italian director, Michelangelo Antonioni’s,

characters. This, in part, may be owing to Coppola’s self-proclaimed admiration for

the cinema of the French New Wave and in particular, the work of Antonioni (Rogers:

2008).


One of the ways in which Coppola deals with the seemingly melancholic nature of her

subject matter, is through her characteristic observation of various forms of ritual

within her films. Coppola focuses on different types of ritual in each film, yet these

rituals are all depicted as social or cultural weaknesses, failures or sites of disaster and

in doing so, serve to further alienate the protagonists from their environment. The

Virgin Suicides portrays rituals associated with established institutions (eg: The

Church and medical profession) as well as various American high school and

adolescent rituals (eg: homecoming dance, losing one’s virginity, first kiss, first house

party). Lost in Translation includes cultural rituals associated with Japanese customs

such as the welcome ceremony Bob receives at the hotel, whilst Marie Antoinette

presents an abundance of rituals associated with the routine of waking and dressing

the queen as well as scenes of worship and commensality. From this, we can ascertain

that Sofia Coppola’s consistent use of ritual conveys a greater, human concern in the

search for identity and is not just exclusive to the female concerns of her film’s

protagonists.

Furthermore, Coppola also demonstrates a fondness for depicting the empty moments

in human lives, which she conveys through her characters who constantly expose the

void within themselves. This is exemplified in The Virgin Suicides by the young boys

who are besotted with the mythical beauty of the Lisbon girls and in Lost in

Translation as the protagonist Charlotte is constantly shown looking out her hotel

window in awe of the landscape below her. In Marie Antoinette, the void and

loneliness within the young queen is expressed through her desire for excess and lust

for all things aesthetically gratifying.

Intrinsic to Coppola’s narrative approach is perhaps her favored use of the indefinite

or open-ended conclusion in her films. This technique allies her strongly with the

tradition of European filmmakers who have favored the “inchoate reality of the world

over the fabricated, tidy endings of Hollywood” (Rogers, 2008: p. 3). The Virgin

Suicides is narrated from the present day yet the action is rooted firmly in the past as

the boys’ characters try to understand the Lisbon girls and the incidents of their

untimely deaths. The film concludes with the boys being unable to make sense of the

mystery which the girls embody, which as Rogers notes, results in a profound

inability to fully integrate with the present, modern-day world” and ultimately


contributes to a lack of resolution within the narrative (Rogers, 2008: p. 8). The final

scene in Lost in Translation shows the character Bob whispering something to

Charlotte, which is unclear to audiences. All we see is her reaction: she cries, then

smiles and the two protagonists walk their separate ways. This ambiguous ending

leaves the audience wondering what it was that Bob said to Charlotte and what will

become of the characters lives afterwards. Likewise, Marie Antoinette concludes with

the King and Queen and their children trying to flee Antoinette’s home of Prussia. By

not concluding the film with the anticipated (according to history) beheading of the

King and Queen, Coppola seemingly ‘re-writes history’ and infiltrates the film with a

sense of vague uncertainty.

Sofia Coppola’s Technical and Visual Style:

Coppola’s cinematic style is characteristically visual and observational and

throughout her three films, she demonstrates an amazing facility for capturing

ephemera. In many of her films, Coppola’s camera remains focused on a shot while

very little action unfolds. This, in a way, contributes to a sense of voyeurism or

documentary-type feel to her films and the aesthetic and mis-en-scene in her films

often takes precedence over dialogue and narrative. On this level, Coppola’s

distinctive visual approach, which typically involves a wandering and restless camera-

eye, liminal images and use of dead time, conjures a Deleuzean interpretation of the

‘time image’ (Deleuze, 2005: p.29). Essentially, Coppola’s use of ‘time image’ is

reflected upon her preference to show rather than tell the crises and liminal moments

that repeatedly surface in her narrative. A Gothic sensibility seems to underpin each

of Coppola’s three films. This is revealed through her patently fraught subjectivities

and visual – rather than scripted or narrative – expression, as well as the construction

of a poignant ambiance that evokes a strong sense of alienation. For the most part,

Coppola’s films are comparable to classic European art cinema, owing to her specific

interest in stillness rather than action. In this sense, Coppola’s films, emulate a similar

“impressionistic resonance” that was initially established by filmmakers like Carl

Dreyer (Haslem, 2004: p. 1).

Sofia Coppola’s cinematography is characterized in her films through her use of

minimalist, static shots coupled with her partiality to framed and handheld shots. This


particular style of shooting helps underscore the themes of entrapment, isolation,

alienation and suffocation in The Virgin Suicides. Meanwhile, the static camera is

used to represent the rigidity of Bob’s character in Lost in Translation, who is

portrayed as being unimpressed and unimpressionable during the bar scene in Tokyo.

Coppola uses a handheld camera to shoot the dance scene in The Virgin Suicides in

order to visually express the increased level of happiness and freedom of the scene.

On the contrary, Coppola opts for handheld shots when following the Charlotte’s

travels throughout Tokyo in Lost in Translation, in order to infiltrate her character’s

sense of alienation and seduction by the Japanese culture. Where as Marie Antoinette

is concerned, Coppola’s cinematography perpetuates a perfect balance of

unconventionally framed and handheld shots, poised with static shots, which can be

likened to Stanley Kubrick’s cinematography in Barry Lyndon (1975). In doing so,

Coppola is able to articulate the formality associated with the French aristocracy, the

tranquil beauty of the Versailles setting as well as the private emotional upheavals

endured by Marie Antoinette’s character.

Another pertinent, stylistic trait her three films share in common is the use of point-

of-view shots in order to portray whimsical, dreamlike state. Essentially, The Virgin

Suicides is predominantly shot from the point of view of the boys and the narrative

that unfolds in the film has been recreated through their memories. Thus, throughout

the film, the girls are shown as merely fantastic images of the boys’ imaginations and

when shot through the point of view of the boys, the film is given a phantasmagorical

ambiance, assisted also by the soft use of mis-en-scene. The shots taken from

Charlotte’s point of view in Lost in Translation, show her wandering through Tokyo

and are depicted through “drowsy eyes” and a “hazy perspective”; enabling a picture

that is impressionistic, fluid and mobile (Haslem, 2004: p. 1). This, in turn, produces a

nostalgic, dreamlike aesthetic, whereby the dizzy quality of Charlotte’s point of view

amplifies her surreal experience of Tokyo and personal sense of estrangement.

Concurrently, the careful mixture of point-of-view shots and intimate close-ups in

Marie Antoinette work to capture the protagonist’s sense of fragility, awe and

trepidation. This is most pronounced in the scenes where Antoinette is addressing the

crowd and looking out at the grimacing faces that stare back at her. On the contrary,

Coppola’s use of point-of-view shots during Antoinette’s introduction to her rooms at


Versailles, create another meaning altogether. Alternatively, the point-of-view shots

used in this scene provide a dreamlike, sensual approach, aided by the close ups of

crystalline chandeliers, plethora of plush, pastel fabrics and accompanying music of

Apex Twin.

Sofia Coppola’s Use of Mis-en-scene

Sofia Coppola’s films bear a sensual, self-conscious beauty about them and her

common artistic traits and approaches to mis-en-scene have formed the recognizable

backbone of Coppola’s often romantic, feminine aesthetic and style. She demonstrates

a considered approach to mis-en-scene that ritually starts with a collection of visual

images and compilation soundtrack in order to create an evocative and emotive visual

style. The use of colour and lighting in Coppola’s films help convey a sense of place

and contextualise each of her films within their respective eras. The soft, buttery

lighting and pastel colours used in The Virgin Suicides accentuates the femininity of

the Lisborn girls and many of the scenes present like a postcard from the 70s. Both

Lost in Translation and Marie Antoinette similarly maintain a pastel colour palette,

which conveys Coppola’s heightened stylistic approach to landscape and ambiance.

Coppola’s use of mis-en-scene in each of her films, act as subtle, visual

reinforcements of the key themes and narrative elements advocated throughout the

text. Though it is not always apparent to the viewer in an immediate sense, Coppola’s

use of space and blocking within her films often carries a symbolic purpose or motive.

For example, in Lost in Translation, Bob’s character (who is tall in stature when

compared to typical Japanese people) is unable to fit inside the Tokyo hotel shower

cubical during one of the scenes. This use of space, on a physical level, represents

Bob’s struggle to fit in (pardon the pun) with this foreign culture and environment, yet

on a deeper level, it also promotes the key themes of alienation and transition

exemplified in the film. Space is also used purposefully in The Virgin Suicides when

the girls are descending from the stairs to greet their prom dates. This scene is shot

from the boys’ perspective looking up at the girls and insinuates both their sense of

awe as well as the girls’ mythical, angelic personae’s (they appear to be descending

from heaven). Similarly, in Marie Antoinette, Antoinette’s character is often portrayed

on camera as being dwarfed by the extreme magnitude and decadence of her


surroundings within the Palace of Versailles, thereby emphasizing her sense of

overwhelmed isolation and loneliness. Coppola hereby uses visual clues, which she

achieves through her strategic use of mis-en-scene, in order to insinuate her

character’s emotions and experiences. Rather relying on dialogue and bold action,

Coppola demonstrates her visual sensitivity and preference for showing rather than

telling her stories.

Attention is drawn to specific props and artifacts featured in The Virgin Suicides,

which in the narrative, act as ‘souvenirs’ of the Lisbon girls. Ostensibly, these

keepsakes may seem mundane in everyday life – old bottles of nail polish, old family

photographs, pastel-coloured items of clothing, photos and other teenage

paraphernalia – yet they are given greater meaning in the film through the way in

which Coppola draws particular attention to them in order to drive the narrative

forward. These objects occupy symbolic clout and act as a common medium through

which the boys are able to explore their collective memory of the girls. Again,

Coppola’s strategic use of props in Lost in Translation, act as symbolic triggers to

emphasize the key themes explored in the film. A poignant example of this is when

attention is drawn to Bob’s character’s fax machine, which in one scene is shown to

randomly start spitting out hand written notes in the early morning hours. The use of

the fax machine in this sequence emphasizes the character’s distance from home and

subsequently, Bob’s sense of alienation and isolation in Japan. However, Coppola’s

use of mis-en-scene is perhaps most pronounced in Marie Antoinette, which is renown

for its ostentatious array of props, costume, lighting and pop music soundtrack. Yet,

the mis-en-scene here does not merely exist for the superficial viewing pleasure of the

audience. Rather, it is used by Coppola to convey the ineffectual nature of tradition

and excess. In particular, she chooses to focus on items of food as artifacts rather than

nourishment and adorns several scenes with lavish costumes and a ceaseless stream of

candies, pastries and shoes.

In addition, her inspired choice of music used in each of her films has further

promoted Coppola’s sense of individuality and creative vision. Both The Virgin

Suicides and Lost in Translation feature a soundtrack comprised of soft, blurred,

minimalist, instrumental tracks that perfectly encapsulate the dreamlike scenes, which

unfold on the screen. The music also compliments the indie/arthouse nature of these


films and is mostly by alternative artists and bands, which in turn, reflect the

Coppola’s sense of originality and creativity. Likewise, Marie Antoinette’s

soundtrack, is similarly comprised mainly of atmospheric guitar-based rock and

electronic music. However, in this instance, Coppola’s choice of modern music (in

particular, 1980s New Wave and post-punk artists) runs at sharp odds with the formal,

historic context of the film which is set in 18th Century, France.

Furthermore, Coppola maintains an authorial consistency in the aesthetic approach of

her work when it comes to the physical appearance of her female protagonists.

Although she has used actress, Kirsten Dunst in two of her films: The Virgin Suicides

and Marie Antoinette, Scarlett Johansson in Lost in Translation, similarly upholds the

pure, Arian, soft, feminine features which have become synonymous with the leading

women in Coppola’s films. Coppola also casts American actors to play her leading

roles, which is a most pertinent choice in Marie Antoinette, given that Antoinette’s

character is portrayed as being French, yet speaks with an American accent. This,

perhaps, demonstrates Coppola’s consciousness of her American audiences.

Sofia Coppola’s Status as An Auteur

The term ‘auteur’ is readily used to describe directors who occupy any sort of

prominence and notoriety within Hollywood. Sofia Coppola has similarly been

labeled an “auteur” by journalists such as Graham Fuller (Fuller, 2000: p. 1) and

Christine Spines (Spines, 2009: p. 92), who use the term loosely and without

providing any real evidence or justification to support her having earned this title

(Spines: 2009). In this essay, I have explored the evolution of auteur theory from its

origins in the Cahiers du Cinema, as well as the ensuing critical debate, which in turn

has reshaped and redefined what it means to be an auteur. However, with that being

said, there is still no finite, absolute definition of auteurship and perhaps one of the

greatest fallibilities of the theory is the subjectivity through which it is received and

employed by critics.

Indeed, Sofia Coppola has exemplified many of the key attributes of auteurship in her

films to date. Her films bear several recognizable patterns and characteristics with

regards to her choice of narrative and themes, style, aesthetic and use of mis-en-scene.


However, intrinsic to a director’s status as an auteur is the consistency of his personal

vision throughout “a large body of work” (Sarris, 1973: p.654). Given that Coppola

has directed only three films to date, it is difficult to ascertain whether or not her

authorial attributes are in fact absolute or incidental. At this stage, it remains unclear

as to whether Coppola will continue to employ these particular, distinctive traits

during the remainder of her directorial career; or whether she will change and start

making completely different types of films. If this is the case, then the body of

evidence I have collected in this in essay in support of Coppola’s sense of auteurship

would indeed become irrelevant and superfluous. Thus, Coppola cannot truly be

considered an auteur at this point or until she has directed a greater number of films

for consideration.

Suffice to say, Coppola does inhabit many of the key traits of an auteur, yet only time

will tell as to whether these traits located in her works to date, will continue and

thereby confirm her authorial status. Undoubtedly, another prominent factor

contributing to Coppola’s pending sense of auteurship – that similarly will only be

revealed in time – is whether or not society is yet ready to accept the female auteur.

However, given that Sofia Coppola joins the company of other successful directors

such as Kathryn Bigalow and Jane Campion – who continue to flourish and grow in

notoriety and status - I for one believe this will be the era of rebalance for the under-

represented gender. And it’s about time.

References

Filmography:

The Virgin Suicides, 1999.

Lost in Translation, 2003.

Marie Antoinette, 2006.

Works Cited:

Rogers, Anna, “Sofia Coppola”, Senses of Cinema, filed under Great Directors in

issue no. 45, 2008

Bunbury, Stephanie. “Sofia’s Choices”, Sunday Age: Agenda, 30th July, 2000, pp. 1-2.


O'Hagan, Sean, "Something About", Sunday Age, 2006, pp. 1-4.

Saccarelli, Emanuele, "Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette: Not even cake?", 2006, pp.

1-5.

Hillier, Jim, "Cahiers du Cinema: The 1950s: Neo-Realism, Hollywood New Wave",

Harvard FIlm Studies, Volume 1, 1985, pp. 107-154.

Naremore, James. "Authorship" in Toby Miller & Robert Stam (eds) A Companion to Film Theory. Blackwell. Malden, Mass. 1999. p. 9-24.

Dudley, Andrew, "André Bazin", New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pp. 11-

19.

Spines, Christine, "Sofia's Choice", Premiere, v. 13, n. 7, 2009, pp. 92-93.

Collis, Clark, "In Person: Sofia Coppola", Empire, n. 132, 2000, pp. 82-83.

Turner, Graeme. “Film as Social Practice”, Routledge, 3rd Edition, 1999, pp. 133-136.

Sarris, Andrew. "Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962", The Primal Screen, Simon &

Schuster. N.Y. 1973, pp. 650-665.

The University of Queensland Cinema Studies Webpage: “Auteur Theory”, last

viewed October 2010,

<http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_t6vy1Yjo_oJ:www.emsah.

uq.edu.au/courses/mstu1001/day%2520ten.doc+auteur+theory&cd=5&hl=en&ct=cln

k&gl=au>

Kael, Pauline. "Polemics – Circles and Squares: Joys and Sarris",I Lost It at the

Movies, Little, Brown and Company. Boston & Toronto. 1965. pp. 293-319

Dawson, Jonathan, “Lost in Translation”, ABC Tasmania: Reviews, December 12,

2003, p. 1.


Scott, A.O., “A Lonely Petit Four of a Queen”, New York Times, October 13, 2006, p.

13.

Kipen, David. “The Schreiber Theory: A Radical Rewrite of American Film History”.

Melville House, 2006, pp. 14-29.

Harmetz, Aljean. “Round up the Usual Suspects”, Hyperion Pr; 1st Paperback Ed,

1993, p. 29.

Corrigan, Timothy. “The Film Experience: An introduction”, Bedford/St. Martin’s;

Second Edition, 2008, pp. 198-222.

Wimsatt, William K. and Monroe C. Beardsley. "The Intentional Fallacy." Sewanee

Review, vol. 54 (1946): 468-488. Revised and republished in The Verbal Icon: Studies

in the Meaning of Poetry, U of Kentucky P, 1954: 3-18.

Marks, E., & de Courtivron, I. (ed.), “New French Feminisms”, Schocken, New York,

1984, pp. 18-39.

French, Lisa. “Centering the female: the articulation of female experience in the films

of Jane Campion”, RMIT, 2007, pp. 90-132.

Kael, Pauline. “Conversations with Pauline Kael”, University Press of Mississippi,

1996, pp. 54-78.

Silverman, Kaja. “The Acoustic Mirror: The Female Voice in Psychoanalysis and

Cinema”, Indian University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1988, pp. 56-69.

Hauser, Brooke, "Women in Hollywood Icon 2006: Sofia Coppola", Premiere, v. 20,

n. 2, 2006, pp. 62-65.

Johans, Jen. “Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette”, Film Intuition, 2006, pp. 1-2. <

http://www.filmintuition.com/Marie_Antoinette.html>


Gilles Deleuze, “Cinema 2: The Time-Image”, New York, Continuum International

Publishing Group, 2005, pp. 24-32.

Haslem, Wendy. “Neon Gothic: Lost in Translation”, Senses of Cinema, 2004.

Fuller, Graham, “Sofia Coppola’s Second Chance”, New York Times, April 16, 2000,

pp. 1-2.

Sofia Coppola - Essay

Documents

Transcript of Sofia Coppola - Essay