A lot more people describe him as a great director. A lot more people think he's hit the sublime as often as anybody.ando wrote: 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.
A lot more people describe him as a great director. A lot more people think he's hit the sublime as often as anybody.
Well, I don't think reaching the sublime in cinema happens to just anybody and certainly not often. Does it? It seems to happen every once in a long while. I use sublime in the sense of an art transcending the height of its possibility. There are sublime moments in every aspect of life, though they're rare in occurance. They're the moments you never forget. In cinema those moments seem to involve revelations about life, storytelling and film itself. Everything that has gone into the experience of watching a film, including the audience, the filmmakers and the subject come together in a kind of undeniable recognizable truth. The moment transcends all the artifice that supports it. What we see most of the time is the artifice. Not many directors are able to transcend artifice (even doc directors) and it doesn't happen often, in my opinion. Stronger... hmmm... like most people, the films that I like have little to do with the creative or technical acheivements of filmmakers of a particular nationality. Forgive me, but that notion seems absurd, especially when all one really needs is a camera to make a good film (I don't know how to measure a film's strength, or a nation's creative strength. I can understand a nation's creative influence, but even there, those influences have a precedent (usually foreign)).American cinema is generally considered the strongest over the course of film history
Scorsese wants to stop making blockbusters
MARRAKECH (Morocco): United States filmmaker Martin Scorsese said here on Sunday he plans to stop directing Hollywood blockbusters and focus on documentaries and short films.
The director of hit films like Raging Bull, Goodfellas and The Aviator was one of the honored guests at the Marrakech International Film Festival, which opened Friday and runs until November 19.
The director who turns 63 this week said at a press conference that he was getting old and did not want to spend his time making big pictures demanded by Hollywood studios.
He predicted that the film he would make in Japan next year, Silence, would be one of his last efforts for Hollywood. The movie will tell the story of Portuguese priests who go to Japan in the 17th century to convert the country to Christianity.
The American director said he wants to focus on documentaries like the one he did recently of US folk music legend Bob Dylan.
Scorsese, who said he liked films from different perspectives, saluted the work of Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami, who is also attending the festival.
After finally watching Casino, I agree completely with this and would appreciate hearing from others as to why it's been so acclaimed as the years have passed. Sharon Stone completely took me out of this one and I can't understand why her performance has been praised, unless it was simply because she kept her clothes on.zedz wrote:The first half of Casino is among his most brilliant work: an incredibly imaginative, multi-layered documentary of the mechanics of this great criminal machine that seems to me one of the few sound films to take as its departure point Vertov and 20s Eisenstein. Unfortunately, the human story of the film's second half, though well-executed, is unengaging and over-familiar.
Agreed about "Age of Innocence", though I wouldn't go so far as to say it was for the "MTV generation". Also, though the voice-over did kind knock one over the head, it was also I think a nod to "Barry Lyndon" and at time the actress tried to utilize the same drole and biting humor, as well as preempt the action as well. Still, it didn't work too well. I detested her voice most of the time. Perhaps, her voice was proper in one way though, in that Scorsese constantly reminds us we are not in the Old World but the new, and that these ceremonies are all conducted under the pretense really of good taste. Still, this theme of the immature America is far better expressed in "Gangs of New York", which I feel is kind of like "Age of Innocence"'s far bloodier and less nostalgic cousin.Narshty wrote: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.
Agreed about "Age of Innocence", though I wouldn't go so far as to say it was for the "MTV generation". Also, though the voice-over did kind knock one over the head, it was also I think a nod to "Barry Lyndon" and at time the actress tried to utilize the same drole and biting humor, as well as preempt the action as well. Still, it didn't work too well. I detested her voice most of the time. Perhaps, her voice was proper in one way though, in that Scorsese constantly reminds us we are not in the Old World but the new, and that these ceremonies are all conducted under the pretense really of good taste. Still, this theme of the immature America is far better expressed in "Gangs of New York", which I feel is kind of like "Age of Innocence"'s far bloodier and less nostalgic cousin.Narshty wrote: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.
It's worth pointing out that nearly all the voiceover/narration is taken verbatim from Wharton's novel. (In fact, there's lots more that Scorsese could have included but didn't.) So as far as the content and tone of the voiceover is concerned (i.e., whether or not it reduces ambiguity or otherwise hits us over the head thematically), it's entirely Wharton's doing. Now, whether or not the voiceover is necessary at all is still a good question, but I don't think we should blame Scorsese for its content. (Personally, I like Wharton's prose and ironic tone, so I tend to think that its inclusion is one of the strongest aspects of the film.)che-etienne wrote:...though the voice-over did kind knock one over the head, it was also I think a nod to "Barry Lyndon" and at time the actress tried to utilize the same drole and biting humor, as well as preempt the action as well. Still, it didn't work too well. I detested her voice most of the time. Perhaps, her voice was proper in one way though, in that Scorsese constantly reminds us we are not in the Old World but the new, and that these ceremonies are all conducted under the pretense really of good taste.Narshty wrote:...a voiceover that holds them by the hand and bulldozes through every possible ambiguity...
I felt that way about Age Of Innocence the first time I saw it as well. But I kept coming across it on various movie channels and I found myself drawn in each time. I think that it's hard to get into because the pacing, the mood and everything about the film is so outside anything else Scorsese has ever done. I don't think it's one of his best films, but certainly one of his most accomplished steps outside his normal themes.Floyd wrote:Age of Innocence to me was very difficult to get through. I remarked to the person I was watching the film with that the performances and dialogue just seemed withdrawn, staged, and routine. Dialogue between Ryder and Day Lewis just seemed to be a continuous beat as in you say your lines, I will say mine. Let's not have any pauses of reflection either, just immediately speaking after each others lines. Maybe you can claim it is supposed to be that way, but to me I just wanted to run away from how much I was dulled by it all. To me it was one of Scorsese's largest failures.
Scorsese Set to Become Film Critic
Famed director Martin Scorsese has been hired as a film critic for a satellite TV service after complaining about their movie review system. The Aviator director will pen a monthly column for On DirecTV, a magazine and program guide for people who subscribe to DirectTV. Scorsese will offer critiques of overlooked films on DirecTV. Executives at the company came up with the idea when Scorsese, a DirecTV subscriber, wrote to the firm to suggest changes in the movie review system.
It actually worked for me in this context, considering how mannered and calculated everyone's behavior was, on both a conscious and subconscious level, at least everyone in high society. Even when people let their hair down in private dinner conversations, they still had to act a certain way. It's been awhile but I have a hazy recollection of a few characters, like Jonathan Pryce's, breaking away from that model in less formal moments - I think there was a scene where Pryce disclosed his involvement with the Countess to Daniel Day-Lewis's characer - which would make sense because I don't recall those characters having the same status or prestige.Floyd wrote:Age of Innocence to me was very difficult to get through. I remarked to the person I was watching the film with that the performances and dialogue just seemed withdrawn, staged, and routine. Dialogue between Ryder and Day Lewis just seemed to be a continuous beat as in you say your lines, I will say mine. Let's not have any pauses of reflection either, just immediately speaking after each others lines. Maybe you can claim it is supposed to be that way...
To be fair, I don't think they were bad, but they certainly could've done better, and while I haven't read the book, from your description, I'd have to agree, I'm a little disappointed those elements were dropped.tryavna wrote:It's worth pointing out that nearly all the voiceover/narration is taken verbatim from Wharton's novel. (In fact, there's lots more that Scorsese could have included but didn't.) So as far as the content and tone of the voiceover is concerned (i.e., whether or not it reduces ambiguity or otherwise hits us over the head thematically), it's entirely Wharton's doing. Now, whether or not the voiceover is necessary at all is still a good question, but I don't think we should blame Scorsese for its content. (Personally, I like Wharton's prose and ironic tone, so I tend to think that its inclusion is one of the strongest aspects of the film.)
I used to love Scorsese's adaptation, which successfully captures the unusual blend of nostalgia and irony of the novel. Since I've re-read the novel, however, the movie impresses me less. For one thing, Wharton was quite clear that the Countess Olenska was the "dark woman" and that Newland's wife was fair -- an important distinction both for symbolic reasons and in terms of literary tradition. So I think that Pfeiffer and Ryder are hopelessly miscast.
Man, I don't think it was overbaked at all. If anything, it was kind of refreshing to see a costume drama done with some gusto, especially when 90% of the costume dramas from the 80's and 90's were so stiff and boring. (Granted, Barry Lyndon gets similar criticism, but the cinematography was masterful and absolutely gorgeous and has yet to be matched in that department by any period piece[/i].) After years of hearing overwhelming praise for filmmakers like Oliver Stone, I'm wary of excess, but not only did Scorsese make this with the same visual flair he's used in every picture, it's still very tasteful in this context. Having said that, I don't believe the visual style undermines the content - everything did seem very slow and eventful. You don't need to make a soporific film or lull the audience into boredom to get that point across. I think the first third of the film was just boring, uptight parties where everyone's constricted by their surroundings and their own costumes, and all the drama unfolds through the mundance exchange of party invitations and party arrangements. What begins to boil through that is the suppressed emotions of Lewis's character, and for the most part, in the film's first half or so, that only comes through in the visuals and the sound.Narshty wrote: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. ...
Wow, I wouldn't call Taxi Driver cold at all, and compared to The Godfather and Kubrick's work, it probably gets under my skin a whole lot more.che-etienne wrote:Also, on "Raging Bull" and "Taxi Driver", a friend of mine would agree with you. And in the case of TD, I do too. There is a coldness in all of Scorsese's films, which I think in the end lies in too much interest in technique and too much self-conscious quoting of cinematic influences...Scorsese seems to have to think about every move he makes. I guess what I mean is I feel there is a cold edge to Scorsese that feels very calculated (funny then that I'm comparing him to Kubrick about whom many make the same argument) which I think in the end separates him from other, greater filmmakers... when you watch "The Godfather" you feel a real heartbeat there, but when you watch "Taxi Driver" or "Mean Streets" I'm not sure you can say the same. There's too much grit and too little lyrcism.
That's a very odd criticism. You don't seem to understand what Scorsese was trying to do with Mean Streets, which was to show what life in Little Italy appeared to be to him whilst growing up there. And the idea that Taxi Driver should have a 'lyrical' aspect is inconceivable, frankly! Schrader has indicated that he was suicidal at the time of writing the screenplay and the subject matter hardly lends itself to anything but a dark style, though I would argue that Herrmann's exquisite score - which I feel is the most appropriate and perfect score I have yet experienced - delivers a highly effective emotional counterpoint to the depressing, grim scenery and actions. I have a hard time believing that any man could not sympathize with Bickle, regardless of the fact that he is a Vietnam vet Marine, simply that he feels alone in a hostile world filled with depravity, where he seeks his redemption through a compassionate act that is resisted by Iris. Much like Ford's deceptively devastating 1956 tale of vengeance and redemption, so too does Taxi Driver present a man who, though warped and twisted through years of war and loss, tries to find the path to salvation. but finds it a harder road to walk than those of the battlefield. Do either men find salvation by the journey's end? Both films have ambiguous endings, so it all depends on your own viewpoint. Scorsese is far from a clinical filmmaker; his films often have a frenetic, kinetic aspect to them, an electrifying energy and gallows humour. From what I have read and heard from Scorsese in regard to his reason for making films, he is primarily concerned with the emotions of the characters and the complexities of their situations - The Last Temptation of Christ speaks loudest in this regard, where he really want to get to the heart of the matter, of who Jesus was and what he felt about his journey. I feel a love of humanity in his films, but also a love of Cinema, what it was, is and what its potentials might be.che-etienne wrote:when you watch "The Godfather" you feel a real heartbeat there, but when you watch "Taxi Driver" or "Mean Streets" I'm not sure you can say the same. There's too much grit and too little lyrcism.
