Directed by Gia Coppola and adapted from James Franco's stories of the same name, Palo Alto is a 'coming of age' drama packed full of teenage angst. It comes dangerously close to average, sticking with the same themes that every film of this genre does: completely absurd house parties, misplaced trust, love, drinking and smoking (in this case every character smokes like chimney for reason unknown.)
However, I think Ms Coppola (that is a relation to the Francis-Ford and Sofia variety of Coppola's) does a fine job of avoiding the mediocre, she uses the conventional themes but plays them out in a more low key tone instead of an over the top, exaggerated style. There isn't necessarily a massive climax to this film, so don't expect a meticulously written plot. The narrative simply occurs, it unfolds with with a certain subtlety that works perfectly along side the gentle camera work and shallow depth of focus. Many of the plot points feel almost brushed over, as though the need more attention and more depth but in the end this works with for the film, it creates a realism that can often be lost in this genre of movie. The played down style Gia Coppola adopts is consistent through every aspect of the film. Though, I could certainly live without single shots of splattered milkshake and dead plants, I'm not overly sure of what these add the film but neither do they detract from anything.
As ever, the adult figures in this movie are almost completely non-existent and the small few that do appear are typically terrible role models. The mother figure comes across as emotionless and shallow while she feigns caring by repeatedly asking her daughter if she is depressed. Even with the addition of the 'I love you's, this half hearted attempt at caring is a lost effort on her part. The stoner step-father is completely absurd and personally I feel a little unnecessary. Yes, adults and youths have difficulty understanding one another but much to the disappointment of film makers and story tellers, they aren't all completely useless. As for the careers councillor? Well, an office full of dead plants aside, she hardly made April (Emma Roberts - niece of Julia Roberts) feel better. This is a far more reasonable representation of adulthood. Repeatedly, she asks April 'What she wants to do?' subsequently leading to April running off to the toilets crying. Where her 'friends' are begin their usual shallow, self involved selves.
April's angst is not helped by Mr B (James Franco's character), her football coach. His long staring smiles at April, which are made a point of with slightly extended cuts are, quite simply, uncomfortable. When he eventually tries to kiss her she is completely taken in by him, we do not need to guess how this plot line will unfold. Its not long before we discover he is manipulative and has a taste for other young girls. Though April (Emma Roberts) appears to be considered the main character, for me, it Jack Kilmer's (Yes, Val Kilmer's Son - they really do keep in the the family with this film.) character Teddy that takes the lead here. He is the stereotyped 'good at heart' character but he does it well, especially when considering this is his first feature film. Seemingly working under the influence of awful Fred (Nat Watt), Teddy gets himself into trouble after a car accident he causes when driving under the influence. At the same time he struggles to find a good time to express to April how he feels about her.
All round this is a well made film. The for the most part the characters are likeable. With the expection of sleazy Mr B and frustrating Fred, though excellent characters, 'likeable' is not the word for them. Gia Coppola does a great job of re-creating Franco's stories into a beautiful film, and achieves an air of realism that few films manage when trying to portray this subject. Despite the stereotype character list and not so unusual themes, both writer and director do justice to a story everyone can relate to. Coppola encapsulates the perfect amount of awkwardness and beauty that comes with the teenage life. One thing that has been bugging is the relevance of the title. Of course I realise that it is a reference to the setting but we hardly see any of Palo Alto and focus solely on the lives of the characters without the reference or context to its setting. So why title it with focus on the place? Something to ponder during a second viewing I think.
No comments:
Post a Comment