Martin Scorsese

[exte]

Well this doesn't make Hollywood any less repugnant to Scorsese, does it?

[quote]Scorsese Gets Jacked By Nicholson

Posted by Scott Weinberg on Monday, Jul. 25, 2005, 12:07 AM

HitMachine writes: "When Jack Nicholson finished filming his role in Martin Scorsese's upcoming gangster movie "The Departed," we hear his fellow cast and crewmembers breathed a collective sigh of relief. While various publications have reported the actor's constant clowning and tinkering with the script, on-set omerta kept the true extent of Nicholson's bizarro behavior under wraps until now.

In fact, studio sources say Nicholson went way beyond making occasional changes to the script, and would actually rewrite each day's shoot -- to the point where Scorsese was forced to shoot the actor's doctored script before shooting his own version just to keep Nicholson happy.

But Scorsese wasn't the only one subject to Nicholson's eccentric rule, we hear. While filming in Boston, the notorious Lakers superfan banned all Celtics merchandise from the premises, a top-level production source says: “If he caught anyone wearing a Celtics T-shirt, he'd literally shut down the set. It was no joke,â€

[TedW]

That gossip item sounds, to me, like utter bullshit.

[ando]

Scorsese is one of the most interesting American directors. He's a visionary in the best sense of the word. There really aren't many American directors with as varied a pallet as Scorsese (at least, not in contemporary film). Spielberg comes to mind, but his films simply don't involve me the way Scorsese usually does with most of his work. I'm doing a retrospective of Scorsese's work (excluding the films made within this decade) and I think if you take a good sampling of his films from the first three decades you'll find an impressive panorama of the American experience (among other things).

[artfilmfan]

"age of innocence" is flatout masterpiece. ... , and 'kundun' is awful.

These are the only two Scorsese films I've seen and I agree with your assessments.

[ando]

I don't. Kundun is a beautiful film. It's really about the idea (and reality) of suffering and finding the compassion within for the self and for one's neighbors (in The Dalai Lama's case, the aggression within his own soul and the encroachment of Chairman Mao and communist China). It's also a moving testament of loss (Scorsese, in fact, dedicates the film to the memory of his mother) and has more to do with the idea of agape love, the primary teaching of Christianity, than most casual viewers are aware of, despite the Bhuddist themes (in fact, this idea is common to both). The latter is really at the heart of most Scorsese films if one cares to look closely.

In addition, the visuals are absolutely breathtaking - poignant in their symbolism, and the motifs are not over-done. It's a terribly intricate film (as most Scorsese projects tend to be) and I'm sure Scorsese storyboarded every scene as always, though he does admit to on-the-spot improvization when necessary. I can't say that I understood all the visual metaphors (or allusions) at the first or second viewing, but the images stay with you (if you care to consider them) and it makes a revisit that much more interesting.

[Gordon]

Kundun is one of the most beautiful, moving and inspiring American films ever made.
To call it "awful" smacks of ignorance and heartlessness.

[Andre Jurieu]

To call it "awful" smacks of ignorance and heartlessness.

... and Gordon takes a page out of Henrik's play-book.

[Narshty]

Age of Innocence is an amazing film. Scorcese himself called it the most violent film he ever made.

Not sure how seriously I'd take that statement.

Thinking back on it, I'd quite like to see it again, but I know in my mind I'm filtering out all the overdone camerawork, editing and incessant voiceover and instead getting wistful over the essential poignancy of Wharton's original premise.

[TedW]

I don't. Kundun is a beautiful film. It's really about the idea (and reality) of suffering and finding the compassion within for the self and for one's neighbors (in The Dalai Lama's case, the aggression within his own soul and the encroachment of Chairman Mao and communist China).

I like this movie; in fact, I'm something of an apologist for it. But it is problematic, and here's why: "finding the compassion within" is a dramatically inert idea. And the Dalai Lama, as conceived of in the movie, isn't a particularly conflicted or troubled character -- which makes him not that interesting. They find him as a boy, he's told he's Buddha reincarnate, he accepts that he is, and that's it. There is no "aggression within his own soul" that I can see in the movie (which might have been an interesting idea had there been). These flaws make the movie less than compelling from a dramatic and emotional standpoint, though the picture-making is certainly beautiful to look at. Some of Deakins' best work.

[Gordon]

To call it "awful" smacks of ignorance and heartlessness.

... and Gordon takes a page out of Henrik's play-book.

Meaning?

[Andre Jurieu]

Meaning?

Meaning Henrik quite often begins his posts by belittling someone else's opinion by claiming it to be made from a position of ignorance and thus implying that the holder of that opinion does not have enough knowledge about film to hold such an opinion. In this case, you've taken it a step further and implied that the viewer who doesn't appreciate Kundun is also cruel and unfeeling. I don't know how this reasoning is arrived at, but it doesn't help when the original statements regarding a particular film's quality (or lack thereof) are trite and without proper justification.

However, even though some don't enjoy his style, Henrik actually has the courtesy to take the time to defend the film in question and support his claim that the other party in the argument is missing some important information or has approached the film incorrectly. His arguments have a substance to them even though one may disagree with his stance. Readers can then make their own decision as to who has made the better case for the film.

In this case you haven't actually told us why believing that Kundun is awful is an ignorant and heartless position. You've just made a sweeping statement. What makes it worse in this scenario is that kieslowski_67 actually asked that someone defend the film and outline what its best qualities are. Why exactly is Kundun "beautiful", "moving", and "inspiring" and a pinnacle in American films? Why is this claim only made regarding American film? Making such statements without backing them up is just as bad as calling it "awful" without justification. They are both equally hollow even if one comes from a position of praise.

[cafeman]

Thinking back on it, I'd quite like to see it again, but I know in my mind I'm filtering out all the overdone camerawork, editing and incessant voiceover and instead getting wistful over the essential poignancy of Wharton's original premise.

Perfectly put. It`s the only Scorsese film that I really consider bad.

[Narshty]

I don't consider The Age of Innocence a particularly bad film, just a rather overbaked one that's a model argument for the "less is more" idea of filmmaking. It's a costume drama for the MTV generation, fearful that the audience will not accept the notion that life was rather slow and uneventful so crams it with endless visual tricksiness and a voiceover that holds them by the hand and bulldozes through every possible ambiguity. I know it was held back a year for Scorsese to continue his editing work on it, but if the studio had just told him "no", I can't help but suspect I'd have liked the film better.

It does, however, have the most genuinely human element of any Scorsese film I've seen. By contrast, I find Raging Bull and Taxi Driver extremely unpleasant, with their presentation of human nature as some sort of Victorian freak show, and the deliberateness of the technical element only adding the voyeuristic coldness.

[kieslowski_67]

Thinking back on it, I'd quite like to see it again, but I know in my mind I'm filtering out all the overdone camerawork, editing and incessant voiceover and instead getting wistful over the essential poignancy of Wharton's original premise.

Perfectly put. It`s the only Scorsese film that I really consider bad.

I beg to differ. I think that the camera work, set design, and art directions in 'age of innocence' are excellent. The only thing you listed that I have problem with is the incessant voiceover even if Joanne Woodward has a beautiful voice. That is also an issue I have had with "Casino".

[Gordon]

Meaning Henrik quite often begins his posts by belittling someone else's opinion by claiming it to be made from a position of ignorance and thus implying that the holder of that opinion does not have enough knowledge about film to hold such an opinion.

Does he feel belittled? Does he? He can speak for himself, but I assure you, it was not my intent to belittle. How dare you make such a claim - and on his behalf, to boot. Don't take the moral highground, with me, sir.

In this case, you've taken it a step further and implied that the viewer who doesn't appreciate Kundun is also cruel and unfeeling.

No, I haven't. There is a world if difference between someone being - momentarily - heartless in regard to a piece of compassionate Art and being a "cruel and unfeeling" person, per se. My goodness, what do you take me for? That would make me an ironically contradictory figure: a man who loves Kundun and the Dalai Lama, but who is insensitive and calous. I am not, I assure you.

I don't know how this reasoning is arrived at, but it doesn't help when the original statements regarding a particular film's quality (or lack thereof) are trite and without proper justification.

The statement was indeed trite, but then, I myself am guilty of this 'style' on frequent basis.

However, even though some don't enjoy his style, Henrik actually has the courtesy to take the time to defend the film in question and support his claim that the other party in the argument is missing some important information or has approached the film incorrectly. His arguments have a substance to them even though one may disagree with his stance. Readers can then make their own decision as to who has made the better case for the film.

Well, ra-ra to this Henrik, whomever he is. I am not an analyical person when it comes to Cinema and Art in general. Films are about feelings to me and Kundun made me run the gammit of emotions and spoke to my heart, not my brain. I am not Roger "Let's analyze every frame of this film" Ebert.

In this case you haven't actually told us why believing that Kundun is awful is an ignorant and heartless position. You've just made a sweeping statement.

Well... one of the film's themes is compassion and learning to understand life and to find wisdom. To then see someone come to the trite conclusion, as you say, that the film is merely "awful" is insulting to Scorsese and to Buddhism - not that Buddhists would take offence, of course! But, once again, I seem to be contradicting myself and am appearing to be hypocritical. These faults, I must try and overcome.

What makes it worse in this scenario is that kieslowski_67 actually asked that someone defend the film and outline what its best qualities are. Why exactly is Kundun "beautiful", "moving", and "inspiring" and a pinnacle in American films?

I don't know why... it just 'is'. I am aware that such a statement on my behalf will be insufficient to many of the scientific cineologists here, but, as I have said, films are about feelings and articulating and defining in a comprehensive manner - especially in regard to Art - one's feelings does not come easily to me: I feel that I am better off for that, though.

Why is this claim only made regarding American film?

It isn't.

Making such statements without backing them up is just as bad as calling it "awful" without justification. They are both equally hollow even if one comes from a position of praise.

Perhaps, but all I can say is that Kundun moved and inspired me. The strength and wisdom of the Dalai Lama - in real life and as presented here - give me strength. I normally can't stand Hollywood biopics, but Kundun is a rare triumph in its natural, unsensational presentation.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - Buddha

[Andre Jurieu]

Does he feel belittled? Does he? He can speak for himself, but I assure you, it was not my intent to belittle. How dare you make such a claim - and on his behalf, to boot. Don't take the moral highground, with me, sir.

I don't know if he, personally, feels belittled or not and I'm well aware he can speak for himself, but the actual emotional results of your methods are not what concern me. What I am speaking to is the technique you use to make your point and argue against his position. Whether he feels hurt or not by your comments means very little. Maybe it wasn't your intent to belittle him personally, but the statement you made attempts to belittle the position he has taken on the film, by calling the view ignorant and heartless without adequate reasoning. Though I can't speak to the emotional outcome of the participants, anyone who reads the statements can discuss the ideas contained within the discussion.

I also have no idea why you think I'm taking any part of the moral high-ground. This has next to nothing to do with morality considering I'm addressing rational thought. In fact I'm completely willing to admit I'm just as much of an amoral bastard as the next guy - maybe even more so.

No, I haven't. There is a world if difference between someone being - momentarily - heartless in regard to a piece of compassionate Art and being a "cruel and unfeeling" person, per se. My goodness, what do you take me for? That would make me an ironically contradictory figure: a man who loves Kundun and the Dalai Lama, but who is insensitive and calous. I am not, I assure you.

Again this isn't a discussion about what type of human you are, or what qualities you personally possess. For what it's worth, you seem to be very sensitive and kind. Originally you stated that

To call it "awful" smacks of ignorance and heartlessness.

Perhaps you didn't mean to say that taking the position that Kundun is awful is a display of the ignorance and heartlessness of the critic, or that the critic in this case is permanently ignorant and heartless. However, your statement infers that conclusion, because you state that the action of calling the film awful is a display of ignorance and heartlessness, thus implying that the one taking the action possesses such qualities. You also didn't qualify it by restricting the actions to this particular film, so one can assume you mean the critic always possesses these qualities. It seems this isn't what you meant, but I think it's a reasonable conclusion to draw from the statement.

Well, ra-ra to this Henrik, whomever he is.

Yes.

I am not an analyical person when it comes to Cinema and Art in general. Films are about feelings to me and Kundun made me run the gammit of emotions and spoke to my heart, not my brain.

So why exactly is the feeling that Kundun is awful not a valid opinion? How is it an ignorant, heartless "feeling"? Why exactly is the feeling that Titanic is the greatest film of all-time precisely because so many women had an incredible emotional experience when watching it not a reasonable conclusion? Why exactly do we ridicule multiplex audiences for "feeling" the films they watch are great? Many Hollywood films speak to the heart of the average audience member, yet many claim their taste in art films to be above that of the multiplex audience.

I am not Roger "Let's analyze every frame of this film" Ebert.

Personally, I think Ebert is one of the least analytical film critics.

Well... one of the film's themes is compassion and learning to understand life and to find wisdom. To then see someone come to the trite conclusion, as you say, that the film is merely "awful" is insulting to Scorsese and to Buddhism

So by this rational, someone who doesn't enjoy Schindler's List or thinks that Night and Fog is awful is insulting the victims of the holocaust and furthermore doesn't agree with the concepts of tolerance and concern. They are also personally insulting Spielberg and Resnais. Last time I checked, just because a film doesn't appeal to someone does not mean they don't believe in the concepts the film is attempting to convey. Maybe they just didn't feel that the film and the filmmaker presented those particular concepts very well.

I am aware that such a statement on my behalf will be insufficient to many of the scientific cineologists here

Not sure how many around here have their degree in cineology. However, I've regularly defended the initial experience of viewing any film. What I don't enjoy is a person deriding someone else's meager opinion, or feelings, by merely stating their own meager opinion. Without any real justification, the idea that a film is awful is just as valid as the idea that it is wonderful, so I don't know how you can claim either one to be ignorant.

I'm going to point out the Ando defended the film pretty well. (Rah-Rah)

Why is this claim only made regarding American film?

It isn't.

Kundun is one of the most beautiful, moving and inspiring American films ever made.

Sounds like a qualifier to me.

[ando]

Ted W said that he found my phrase of describing Kundun's inner struggle, e.g., "finding compassion within" dramatically inert.

Well, I don't know what dramatically inert could mean in cinematic terms other than "it doesn't read" or "it doesn't play". So I'll assume that's what Ted means.

I'm actually glad someone called me on this because what's often overlooked in the film is the rambunctiousness and egocentricity of the young Kundun. He's already a headstrong tot at the beginning of the film, but especially after he and his family discovers that he is the re-incarnated Dalai Lama. Then he's somewhat out-of-control; in fact both his parents are shown reprimanding him for his egocentricity. It takes a series of devestating losses for him to appreciate the value of those closest to him.

Near the end of the film when the adult Kundun is contemplating stategies for dealing with the encroaching Chinese army he comes face-to-face with a child of similar age as he at the time of his "discovery" and observes a similar brashness and unthinking childishness (his mirror, in fact) in the child's declaration of armed resistance (Kill them all! Kill them all! - or something to that effect). By this time Kundun has seen the futility of such a response, though by showing a reflection of what Kundun once was, Scorsese is illustrating to the audience that he is considering such a response. The strength of his conviction to non-violence, of course, prevents him from taking such a course. His people are being slaughted wholesale (and incidentally, continue to be to this day) yet he must adhere to the principles of his faith. Finding compassion for his enemies, in spite of their affronts, and for himself, in spite of his -one might almost say - initial impulses, is an exeedingly difficult task, but one that he has learned through loss and through principle. I think Scorsese illustrates this very clearly and dramatically in several ways, but the reflection of the child's response is one of the strongest.

It must be tough to convey inner struggle within a character on film (I've never done it so I have no idea), but I can certainly see how Scorsese conveys this through various metaphors in the film. I'd say that most of his films include the basic theme of some kind of moral struggle.

I just watched Bringing Out The Dead last night, and again, Nick Cage's character, an EMS driver, is grappling over a past decision that ended the life of a young girl (he sees her face everywhere he goes) as he attempts to give assisstance or "mop up" the lives of other New Yorkers in dire situations. Someone (on another board) said it was Taxi Driver Redux. But Bringing Out The Dead seems diametrically opposed to the situation of Travis Bickle, who could not see himself in anyone around him (at best, his sympathy for Jodie Foster's character is patronizing) and therefore, he has no real compassion for those around him. Nick Cage's character, on the other hand, extends mercy on those around him - he is an agent of compassion (actually, he is compassion), which gives the film a completely different tone than Taxi Driver. Scorsese is always wrestling with this theme - in most of his films it seems, at any rate.

Ando

[Mr Sausage]

I am not an analyical person when it comes to Cinema and Art in general. Films are about feelings to me and Kundun made me run the gammit of emotions and spoke to my heart, not my brain.

Overused metaphor aside, it's the same organ. And I really think there isn't as big a difference between the two experiences as people usually like to think. Feeling something in that metaphorical heart is a visceral, immediate reaction of the emotions. Feeling it in the metaphorical brain is not an entirely different experience, but an attempt to understand how and why the film produced those initial experiences in you. They're very interconnected.

My goodness, what do you take me for? That would make me an ironically contradictory figure: a man who loves Kundun and the Dalai Lama, but who is insensitive and calous.

Reminds me of Rousseau, who could weep at the sight of flowers but had no problem tossing all of his children into work houses.

By contrast, I find Raging Bull and Taxi Driver extremely unpleasant, with their presentation of human nature as some sort of Victorian freak show, and the deliberateness of the technical element only adding the voyeuristic coldness.

This is just so delightfully worded I wish I could agree on that basis alone.

Unfortunately I can't help rejecting it; both films are very passionate and nuanced looks at human nature, often in its most tragic or heartless moments. But I don't believe that giving us a look at the most painful or wrenching aspects of human nature makes a film cold--not that I mind that, but I digress. That Scorsese can make two films about anti-social loners (and I argue that Jake Lamotta is just as anti-social and alone as Travis Bickle) and actually manage to induce concern for them in the audience, even if we often cannot like them, makes him a most penetrating and talented filmmaker, to say nothing of the cinematic success of both movies.

Freak shows are about dissociative amusement and are better likened to most gore or exploitation films. Scorsese's films are too human, and too involved and honest with their characters to be simple car-crash fascination. I think they actually allow us to understand and pity their character's pain, rather than just be amused at their self-destruction.

[Narshty]

This is just so delightfully worded I wish I could agree on that basis alone.

Ahhh, you old charmer.

I'm more than aware that my reaction is a minority one, but I just felt so interminably grubby and wretched after watching both of those. But with Scorsese, I find myself so distracted by his actual physical filmmaking, I find it very hard to connect with the characters in any way - I just feel like I'm watching Scorsese watch the characters.

[Gordon]

So why exactly is the feeling that Kundun is awful not a valid opinion?

All opinions are vaild. And all must be challenged. Especially mine!

How is it an ignorant, heartless "feeling"?

It isn't if he actually felt awful during the film. If he was unmoved by the film, then he would have felt indifferent to Kundun, would he not?

Why exactly is the feeling that Titanic is the greatest film of all-time precisely because so many women had an incredible emotional experience when watching it not a reasonable conclusion?

It isn't. Technically, the film is impressive, but once Billy Zane whips out that modernish-looking gun, I collapse into hysteria. Others are carried along to the end and feel deeply touched by the film and the historical disaster. Not I.

Why exactly do we ridicule multiplex audiences for "feeling" the films they watch are great?

I wasn't aware that we did.

Many Hollywood films speak to the heart of the average audience member, yet many claim their taste in art films to be above that of the multiplex audience.

People who makes such claims are pretentious snobs and are not worthy of my attention. I have little desire to visit cinemas to view the latest Hollywood productions, but these experiences that my fellow citizens enjoy are valid and serve a fundemental purpose: to allow us to temporarily escape servitude to the Will (which is the root of suffering) and, in the West, at least, serve as worthy and fulfilling substitute for religion. The coda to Sturge's, Sullivan's Travels springs immediately to mind as a prime example of this truth.

So by this rational, someone who doesn't enjoy Schindler's List or thinks that Night and Fog is awful is insulting the victims of the holocaust and furthermore doesn't agree with the concepts of tolerance and concern.

No, of course not. Funnily enough, I do not particulary like those films - for myriad reasons, none of which have to do with the historical reality of the death suffering that the Nazis inflicted on mankind.

They are also personally insulting Spielberg and Resnais.

As you are speaking for a hypothetical perspective, it is impossible for me to comment on this statement. I was wrong to accuse our honourable colleague of insulting Mr Scorese.

Last time I checked, just because a film doesn't appeal to someone does not mean they don't believe in the concepts the film is attempting to convey. Maybe they just didn't feel that the film and the filmmaker presented those particular concepts very well.

You are absolutely right. I feel that Scorsese and his cast and crew excelled themselves on Kundun; it is clear to me that heart and soul went into the film, but if anyone feels that the film is highly flawed and a low point in Scorsese's career, so be it.

Thank you for this fascinating discussion, Andre.

[Andre Jurieu]

It isn't if he actually felt awful during the film. If he was unmoved by the film, then he would have felt indifferent to Kundun, would he not?

Whether he felt awful or indifferent, it still doesn't clarify why it's acceptable to attack someone's opinion of the film being "awful" by calling that reaction ignorant and heartless. How is feeling indifferent not a worthy reaction to a film? Indifference is still some sort of feeling. Is a dramatic, extreme, strong emotional reaction better than a mild reaction or complete indifference? Is a feeling of apathy to the material a sign of ignorance and heartlessness, or simply the result of poor filmmaking?

I'm still not seeing how it's acceptable to claim that calling any film awful is a display of ignorance and heartlessness.

There are thousands of films that are generally considered "awful", but I bet I can find someone who was moved emotionally by every single film that has been dismissed through general consensus. So does that give these individuals the right to call the rest of us ignorant and heartless because we didn't have a strong emotional reaction to the film?

Technically, the film is impressive, but once Billy Zane whips out that modernish-looking gun, I collapse into hysteria. Others are carried along to the end and feel deeply touched by the film and the historical disaster. Not I.

So if you were watching the film and became conscious of the fact that the gun that Zane pulls out is somewhat anachronistic to the time-frame of the film, aren't you engaged in a form of analysis? Isn't this a cerebral reaction rather than an emotional one?

Also, can the people who were deeply touched by the film now claim that you are ignorant and heartless (I've never typed those two words more in my life) for not enjoying the film?

Why exactly do we ridicule multiplex audiences for "feeling" the films they watch are great?

I wasn't aware that we did.... I have little desire to visit cinemas to view the latest Hollywood productions, but these experiences that my fellow citizens enjoy are valid and serve a fundamental purpose

Ok, then why do we complain about Hollywood studios that produce the films that move these audiences? They are creating a product that results in an emotional reaction in certain viewers. Isn't that a valid task to participate in if we are interested in causing emotional reactions?

...in the West, at least, serve as worthy and fulfilling substitute for religion.

If entertainment is substituting for religion for these people it's no wonder the Left is being continually crushed by the Right in US politics.

[Gordon]

I admire you persistence, yet I fail to see what you have to gain, Andre. You are raising excellent questions, but I feel that they are drastically derailing this thread way beyond the horizon of Martin Scosese's cinematic landscape. If you genuinely want to continue this discussion, I will glady do so, via PM, email, or another thread. But not here. kieslowski_67 sent me a very short, to the point, gracious PM and remarked that this discussion is rather "overblown". I tend to agree. My accusations of ignorance and heartlessness were uncharacteristically reactionary of me and I wish to retract them (deleting them would destroy the continuity of this discussion, however). They pertained purely to Kundun and are not an indication of my cinematic philosophy.

I would greatly appreciate it if this discussion within this thread ended, as I loathe such discourses on the Internet. There is a rather cold, calculating aspect to your prose, which turns me off; it doesn't align with my view on aesthetics, sorry, though your intellect greatly impresses me.

[Andre Jurieu]

...yet I fail to see what you have to gain...

My only compensation for this is to persuade just a few more people to justify their clichéd criticism, as I loathe their rampant appearance throughout the Internet.

... I feel that they are drastically derailing this thread way beyond the horizon of Martin Scosese's cinematic landscape.

Yeah, but before Narshty, Ando, TedW, and Mr_sausage showed up, the discussion of his "cinematic landscape" has been mostly just listings of his films accompanied by hollow praise/criticism peppered with critical catchphrases. I know I haven't helped matters.

kieslowski_67 sent me a very short, to the point, gracious PM and remarked that this discussion is rather "overblown".

Glad he did.

though your intellect greatly impresses me.

That matters very little to me since it's not the point.

[ando]

Despite my admiration for Scorsese and his obvious brilliance in visual composition, I don't think that he has made a film that has transcended the limits of the craft - in other words, his work fails to reach the sublime. And there are a handful of films that have done this; Birth of a Nation, despite its pernicious social message, reaches a pitch of emotional sublimity; Citizen Kane is sublime in its visual unfolding - the film, in fact, continuously unfolds one visual revelation after another (in fact, the way in which the story is told is far more interesting than the tragedy of Charles Foster Kane); Andrei Rublev is absolutely sublime in illustrating a breadth of scope of the human condition while retaining an utter simplicity (the sublime comes through the revelation of both at once).

It's not my intention to be pointlessly provocative (it probably makes little difference in terms of enjoying a Scorsese film, anyway), but despite Roger Ebert's desciption of Scorsese as an artist who "is never on autopilot, never panders, never sells out, always goes for broke; to watch his films is to see a man risking his talent, not simply exercising it", one feels that Scorsese hasn't somehow achieved the rapture that an artist experiences when he his vision supercedes itself. While it's true that "he makes movies as well as they can be made" (Ebert), he has yet to go beyond that mark. There's, of course, nothing that says he has to, but it's a mark many people point to, for instance, when they describe him as a great American director as opposed to (simply) a great director.

[Titus]

I think I agree with you ando, but I would say it's more a matter of the type of filmmaker that Scorsese is as opposed to some failure on his part to create a semi-trancendental experience through film.

Scorsese is someone that obviously knows what he's doing behind the camera at all times. Nothing really feels instinctive in his pictures, everything is decided on his part beforehand and thus can be analyzed rather evenly after the fact.

Scorsese is more in line with a Cassavetes than he is Griffith and certainly Tarkovsky. Though there's certainly poetry in his pictures, I would hesitate to actually call him a poet. That's not a knock on him in the least, it's just an observation to the kind of filmmaker he is.

I think Scorsese is labeled a great filmmaker just as often as he is labeled a great American filmmaker, and when the latter is specified I think it has more to do with the fact that his films are so distinctly American than it has to do with him not measuring up to the international elites. From my vantage, he's one of the most respected contemporary filmmakers from any country. Off the top of my head, the only ones that are in the same ballpark are Kairostami and Hou, with the Coen's, Lynch, Erice, Mallick, Miyazaki, and Tarr possibilities as well.

I apologize if I've misinterpreted your post, I'm afraid I was (still am) in a bit of a rush