Lifestyle
Whatever you’ve heard about 'Megalopolis,' see this gutsy Coppola film for yourself
Nathalie Emmanuel and Adam Driver star as Julia and Cesar in Megalopolis.
Courtesy of Lionsgate/Courtesy of Lionsgate/Courtesy of Lionsgate
hide caption
toggle caption
Courtesy of Lionsgate/Courtesy of Lionsgate/Courtesy of Lionsgate
In the early 1980s, Francis Ford Coppola, with classics like The Godfather and Apocalypse Now under his belt, set his sights on his next magnum opus: an ambitious, fable-like drama that would draw parallels between the U.S. and ancient Rome.
But after the costly flop of his 1982 musical, One From the Heart, Coppola wasn’t able to get another big-budget labor of love off the ground, and Megalopolis languished for decades. It was only a few years ago that he returned to the project, selling off part of his wine business and putting up $120 million of his own money. Even after production wrapped, setbacks continued, from challenges finding theatrical distribution to reports that Coppola had behaved inappropriately with women on the set, which the director has denied.
Now, against considerable odds, Megalopolis has arrived, and whatever you have or haven’t heard about it, I urge you to see it for yourself. You might conclude, like some of the critics at this year’s Cannes Film Festival, that Megalopolis is an unholy mess, full of disjointed plot points, didactic ideas and muddled historical allusions — an epic folly from a once-great filmmaker who long ago lost his mojo and possibly his mind. To which I can only say that every folly should have as much guts and passion as Megalopolis. I’ve seen it twice now, and both times I’ve come away dazzled by its beauty, its conviction, and its moments of brilliance.
The story takes place in a city called New Rome, which looks a lot like New York, but with Roman flourishes, from the classical architecture to the bacchanalian parties and even a Colosseum-style sports arena. The plot essentially updates a famous Roman power struggle from 63 B.C.
Adam Driver plays Cesar Catilina, an architect and designer who longs to transform New Rome into a dazzling futuristic utopia. But Cesar is challenged by the cynical mayor, Franklyn Cicero — that’s Giancarlo Esposito — who sees Cesar as a delusional dreamer. Furthering the conflict is Cicero’s daughter, Julia, a hard-partying medical-school dropout played by Nathalie Emmanuel, who asks Cesar for a job.

There’s a speechy stiffness to Coppola’s dialogue that takes some getting used to. But the story itself is a fairly straightforward mix of romance, sci-fi noir and political thriller. Cesar does hire Julia as an assistant, and they become lovers. But many complications ensue.
There’s the mystery of Cesar’s late wife, who died years ago under strange circumstances. There’s also much dysfunctional-family drama involving Cesar’s filthy-rich banker uncle, played by Jon Voight, and a ne’er-do-well cousin — that’s Shia LaBeouf. Both men have their own sinister designs on the city’s future. And in the borderline-cliché role of an unscrupulous TV reporter, Aubrey Plaza steals every scene, as Plaza usually does.
There’s more, much more: horse-drawn chariots and nightclub unicorns, Old Hollywood-style film techniques and kaleidoscopic visual effects, wild sex and startling violence. There are also references to Pygmalion, Marcus Aurelius, Sapphic poetry and Hamlet, whose “to be or not to be” soliloquy Cesar at one point performs. He’s in the throes of an existential crisis, fearful that humanity’s time may be running out.
And if Megalopolis has one subject, it’s time. The characters talk about time constantly. The trippy production design is full of clocks and sundials. Cesar has the supernatural ability to briefly freeze time in its tracks, but even he cannot halt its forward march for long. Watching the movie, I couldn’t stop thinking about Coppola, who’s now 85, and his own battle with time, including the four decades he spent trying to get Megalopolis made.
But whatever resentment Coppola may feel toward an industry that has both honored and shunned him over the years, there isn’t a trace of bitterness in the movie. Cesar believes in the future, and so does Coppola. Just because Rome fell, he seems to say, doesn’t mean the world has to. Wars can end, the planet can be saved and people can choose to live in a more inclusive and equitable society.
Most of all, Coppola clearly believes in the future of movies, and that, in a medium overrun with franchises, streaming junk and AI technology, there’s still room for a big-screen work of art as grandly improbable and deeply human as Megalopolis. Like so many of Francis Ford Coppola’s movies, it truly is one from the heart.

Lifestyle
‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University
Students walk on the Stanford University campus on March 14, 2019, in Stanford, Calif.
Ben Margot/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Ben Margot/AP
When Theo Baker arrived at Stanford University a few years ago, he joined the student newspaper, following the path of his journalist parents, Peter Baker, a White House correspondent for The New York Times, and Susan Glasser, a writer for The New Yorker.
Through his reporting as a student journalist, he eventually broke a story about manipulated data in Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s neuroscience research that helped lead to the university president’s resignation.
Theo Baker’s book, How to Rule the World: An Education in Power at Stanford University was released May 19. In it, Baker describes Stanford as a place where proximity to Silicon Valley gives rise to a parallel system of influence, recruitment and money, with investors looking to identify promising students almost as soon as they arrive on campus.
He told Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep there was “a sort of Stanford inside Stanford,” where elite students are drawn into an “alternate reality” of excess and access to cut corners.
In the interview, he discusses how Stanford is not just a university but also a pipeline where status and power can matter as much as ideas.
We reached out to Stanford University for comment and have not heard back.
Listen to the interview by clicking play on the blue box above.
Lifestyle
OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf
Lifestyle
How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet
The scoreboard shows the results of the women’s singles final match between Iga Swiatek of Poland and Amanda Anisimova of the U.S. at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships in London, Saturday, July 12, 2025.
Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP
Fifteen points in tennis? Nice. Thirty, 40 — even better. Advantage — that sounds good. “Love” — that also must be great, right? Well, not quite.
As the French Open rolls on and Serena Williams has announced her return to the sport, maybe you’ve been paying a little more attention to tennis. The sport’s scoring system is notably distinct, and can sometimes be hard to grasp for newcomers. But even tennis aficionados might not know why, or how, “love” became the unmistakable callout for zero points. For this installment of NPR’s Word of the Week, we’re exploring how a word that signifies trailing behind got such a sweet name.
“Love” comes from the heart — or an egg?
It’s hard to pinpoint when the first tennis ball went over the net. Tennis is a derivative of lots of other sports, such as “jeu de paume,” a handball game played in France, said JT Buzanga, the collections manager at the International Tennis Hall of Fame museum.

But tennis became a patented, official sport in 1874, said Steve Flink, a journalist whose tennis coverage got him inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. It has retained its unique, mysterious scoring system ever since.
“By and large, the original system has held up almost entirely,” Flink said.
The use of “love” goes back to the late 18th century, said Jesse Sheidlower, a lexicographer. But it was used earlier than that in card games such as whist and bridge. Before the term made its way to tennis, the sport favored plain old “nothing,” or “nil,” he said.
Why love in the first place, though? Historians don’t really know for sure, but there are a few theories.
The French could have something to do with it. Some historians believe “love” derives from “l’oeuf,” which means “the egg” in French. Because eggs are shaped like zeros, terms such as “goose egg” and “duck’s egg” have been used in other contexts to mean zero, Sheidlower said.
It’s also possible English speakers mispronounced l’oeuf as “love.” But Sheidlower isn’t convinced that’s the answer.
“It’s the French equivalent of an English expression. But since that expression doesn’t appear in French, the French word wouldn’t have been used,” he said.
To be sure, France has had a lot of influence on tennis culture, Buzanga said. For example, “deuce” or a game tied at 40 points, comes from the French word for “two”: “deux.” But he prefers another prominent theory: that “love” comes from the idiom “for the love of the game.” Even if a player hasn’t scored, it doesn’t matter, because their heart is in it. It’s the theory Sheidlower said is the most plausible, because the idiom was used by the English before tennis was popularized.

Another variation of the “love of the game” theory is that the word could have come from the Dutch “lof,” or “honor” — or the Latin “amare,” meaning “to love,” Flink said.
But if tennis’ “love” doesn’t come from a French word, the theory at least has a French sensibility.
“I think the ‘for the love of the game’ is kind of romantic,” Buzanga said.
“Love” probably isn’t going anywhere
Tennis used to be a sport of leisure. The style of play has changed a lot over the years; players are more athletic and competitive, for instance, Flink said. But the rules of the sport are more steadfast, he said.
“There’s this incredible, enduring respect for tradition in tennis,” he said. “Changes are not made easily.”
There has been one major change in modern history: the tie-break. Matches can go on and on because players have to score two consecutive points to break a deuce, or by two games to break a tied set. But the onset of television meant matches would have to get shorter if the sport wanted to capture a larger audience, Flink said.

Change even came for “love.” An alternative sprouted up in the 1970s, and is still used today: “bagel,” named for its zero shape, Sheidlower said. Novices may say “zero,” and insiders will understand what they mean, but they “will needle them about it,” Flink said.
But “love” still prevails.
“People kind of like it,” Flink said. “It’s different. Why say zero when you can say love?”
-
Movie Reviews3 minutes agoBandar Movie Review: Bobby Deol roars in Anurag Kashyap’s unsettling legal thriller that refuses to spoon-feed
-
World11 minutes agoTaormina Film Festival Head Tiziana Rocca Says She Wants to Deliver a ‘Human Festival’ Amidst AI Boom, Asks Stars to Be ‘Generous’ to Local Audiences
-
Politics21 minutes agoVideo: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
-
Lifestyle51 minutes ago‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University
-
Technology1 hour agoCyberdecks used to look like little laptops, but now they’re getting more personal
-
World1 hour agoPete Hegseth warns narco-terrorists as U.S. backs Bolivia’s government amid coup warnings
-
Politics1 hour agoDemocrats split over Tlaib’s Lebanon measure as Republicans seize on Hezbollah omission
-
Health1 hour agoPopular weight-loss diet shows surprising impact on serious mental health condition