That said, Hong Kong Garden is great

I’d respond by saying: I’d like to think that we are capable of viewing pieces as standalones but I don’t think it’s possible.

It works both ways: later work can reveal things that weren’t obvious, themes can be seen in nascent form, we can see development, hints of talent etc.

But it can also reveal where the viewer has interpolated onto a film a level of meaning or substance that may not have actually been present.

With Coppola/LIT I think the big difference, and the reason it is so divisive, is that some people think she would have been capable of filling the spaces had she wanted to, but that she chose not to. (These people, needless to say, are the ones who like the film).

The “opposition” think that she couldn’t, and was in fact using the spaces to disguise a lack of storytelling/directoring talent. (I’ve written this a bit baldly, no offense is meant to anyone who liked LIT - one or two scenes weren’t bad.).

By way of an example; take an artist who paints in a childlike or basic way (Miro etc.). In order for the effect to work, we have to believe the artist could ‘do’ sophisticated but that he or she is choosing not to. The unsophisticated work is a comment in itself, not a lack of ability being disguised.

Ultimately, to accept that ’standalone’ criticism is truly possible we force art to be more static in its “meaning” (poor word) than it actually is.

Phew, long comment. Apologies. Anyway, that’s why I think Sofia Coppola is a fraud!

Regards,
Brendan