The Bling Ring

The Bling Ring is a stunningly shot, visually entertaining film that strives to make a statement about materialism and young teens' fame obsessions. Unfortunately, Sofia Coppola fails to translate her vision into a substantiated plot that develops a story and protagonists; neither of which, are worth caring about. Aside from Emma Watson's intimidating performance, the acting is sub-par which aids in the instantaneous transition from Coppola's attempts to create a smart, creative film to a shallow, unsatisfactory film that feels quite unfinished. The idea of The Bling Ring is fresh, however you cannot help but ignore the large lack of intellectual Bling, the film once promised or Coppola might have hoped for.

This is barely a story. The entire thing is just an endless repeat of the main "characters" robbing celebrities' houses and partying at the club afterwards, in fact it's as if one scene just got stuck and repeated over and over again until it created a black hole of bad dialogue, flashing lights, pulsing music and annoying teenage girls. It's all simply nauseating!

The few nice things that can be said about this "film", such as the great cinematography and the talented main actors who try their hardest to say the terrible lines they're given, aren't enough to save it.

The Bling Ring (2013)

First, what this is: a re-creation of a series of actual robberies by spoiled rich high school girls of spoiled adult celebrities in the L.A. area. They do the crimes, they get caught. This is evident from the beginning with some interviews after the fact.

Second, what this is: nothing more than the above. That's the big big problem here. This feature length movie re-creates and re-creates.

We see these indifferent, superficial girls in house after house (and in Paris Hilton's house a lot), trying on clothes and jewelry and taking home whatever they want by the purse-load. And we see all the parties between, party after party. Some with drugs, some without, all with music and dancing and utter detachment from consequences and culpability.

I guess that's the point, to make visible this world and make clear how really repulsive such prettified, well dressed, fashion imitation girls can be. This is the territory of Lauren Greenfield's photographic essay in the book "Fast Forward," but with a very specific focus on this group of half a dozen girls (and one boy who is sort of sucked in by his willingness to fawn and give attention).

There is zero attention to really what makes these girls tick. A very slim attempt is made at showing they have no true education, and no acculturation beyond fashion magazines. But really, what are these girls about? Where are there jealousies, their aspirations, their sex lives, their doubts? The movie is as superficial as the subject, and for Sofia Coppola that's a real shame and inexcusable, as if she just got lazy. Not that making a movie like this is easy, but someone somewhere should have said, hey, look, this amounts to nothing at all.

Where are there comparables beyond Greenfield (whose book has its own flaw of making glorious what she apparently means to critique)? Larry Clark's "Kids" is one place to consider (or his other films, which deal with youth more disturbingly). Or maybe the even more horrible "Murder in Greenwich" which dealt with the East Coast version of spoiled kids losing their bearings (and at least created a plot you could follow with some curiosity).

Coppola has gone this direction before in "The Virgin Suicides" and there she created a semblance of depth. Not this time. And the spoiled title character in "Marie Antoinette" gave her at least a fascinating subject, which she layered up in really compelling ways. And to be sure this isn't "Lost in Translation" (her masterpiece) in any manner. These are all written and directed by Coppola.

If you are the type of person who recoils at the Paris Hilton antics, skip this movie. This is a bunch of wannabe Hiltons and you don't feel sorry for anyone, perpetrator or victim. You just hope it ends fast.

Remember back when you were in school and you had to write a 15 page paper? Remember how you'd finish organizing and writing all your information only to see you've written just 11 pages. Remember how you would go back and just kinda fluff the paper and put in some fluff words and sentences that are super redundant?

That is what this film is. 15 pages = The 90 minute runtime, and 11 pages = The 15 or 20 minutes that this film could have been condensed into.

Now, I am a fan of Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation and The Virgin Suicides, and even her less popular work like Marie Antoinette. But her use of artsy and dull shots that linger...and linger...and linger in this film just didn't work. This film had a great premise, and when I first heard that a film was being made about the "Bling Ring", I was very excited to see how they would be portrayed.

All we saw was some fame obsessed teens doing cocaine and smoking weed while inside of big houses, all the while stealing money and clothes. Occasionally they went out and bought more clothes with the money they stole. There wasn't even any cinematic techniques involving sophistication, or generation of interest. There was really almost no climax, and the film was somewhat like a simple narrative of whats happening, with no REAL story involved. Yes, I know this was based on real life, but I'm sure Miss Coppola could have written in some more juicy scenes that would create interest and grip the audience. I do understand her style and what she did, but that slow pace and the lingering visuals just didn't fit the given subject matter because a film with this premise could have been very upbeat and intense, yet it was drawn out just too much.

It seems as if Sofia Coppola was relying on the skimpy outfits and attractive faces of Emma Watson, Taissa Farmiga and Claire Julien to generate a male audience, while using the "famous lifestyle" for the girls who can almost relate to the characters on screen who, after all, are backed by real people. I, a male, wasn't attracted by either, but by the fact that I was very interested to see whether or not the occurrences were going to be portrayed in a positive or negative light, and I was disappointed to see that it was basically neutral!

The way the annoying, fame obsessed, teenagers were portrayed in this film was somewhat weak, only because the actors were given one of the weakest scripts I had ever seen! I thoroughly understand that Miss Coppola was trying to portray the annoying teenage dialog of our day, but really? Reeeaaaalllly? The actors are not to blame, as the dialog was just stiffly written and impossible to make seem natural.

Emma Watson, I think, did a great job with her portrayal of the real life Nicki who is actually named Alexis Neiers. If you watch some of her interviews and see the way she really talks and how stupid she really seems, you'll know that Emma didn't do anything over-the-top, or any overly annoying acting. Also, Taissa Farmiga stood out as the strongest actress in the group, although her screen time was cut a bit short. I hope she follows in her sister's footsteps with more and more roles.

Overall, not a good one for Sofia Coppola.

5/10, and the one thing that saved it from a 4 was the fact that Emma Watson is gorgeous.

Yeah this is a dismal misfire. Worse it shows a new Coppola that I'll be avoiding in the future. I say this as someone who can get excited for a project like this, one that embraces youth without sugarcoating the folly and pretensions, that brings a genuine curiosity to a vibrant world—in short something like Spring Breakers that in the thuggish lifestyle finds room for reflection.

This is a superficial look at superficial people, and I mean superficial in what Coppola sees of them. For what it's worth she decided to delve into these lives, apparently inspired by real events. The real events are not a concern here, they are always a springboard for our cinematic journey. She decided to bring these people into focus for us to see, at least so far as she could see into them.

And what does she see? A flaky, rootless youth that has not worked to create its world, that emptily covets expensive trinkets and finds them by merely walking through the door and grabbing stuff. This isn't just about these four individuals who sneak into celebrities' homes, it is a broader look at instagram culture. Naturally.

What's worse is that Coppola has not found some inner space where souls feebly try to know each other and participate, how stealing fabrics can be a search for the identity of what to wrap around self. I'm not saying they should have been shown as troubled romantics. Looking at my youth I recognize a lot of superficial obsessions with unimportant things, it comes with being young and just throwing yourself at this or that current, but I also recognize that as inadvertent part of a larger floating sense of everything feeling doable and airy, which is the essence of youthfulness.

It's what Korine brings to Spring Breakers and feels transcendent, the free wandering of mind.

Coppola tries to show some of that, for instance in the scenes of partying where time ecstatically slows, but is constantly bogged down by the surly need to press on with their neuroses and vacant desires. She adopts a catty and empty look because in her eyes they are merely catty and empty people. There's too much judgement here and not enough intuitive understanding of subtler pulls.

In the future I expect her to be torn to shreds for this one film. How is it that her Marie Antoinette, obviously modeled after her own self, can be shown wistfully in spite of the sheltered privilege as a quietly suffering soul but not these girls? It's a worthless film and even manages to reduce everything else she's done.