criterionforum.org

Posted: **Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:46 pm**

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.

Also, as American cinema is generally considered the strongest over the course of film history, calling Scorsese a great 'American" director is hardly a qualifier.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:59 pm**

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.

American cinema is generally considered the strongest over the course of film history

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)).

So, I think, in effect, American director means little in terms of a historically creative precedence (especially given, as many veteran directors point out, the dearth of knowledge that many contmporary directors have in regard to films made merely two or three generations ago), but I was at least giving certain critics the benefit of the doubt.

Posted: **Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:38 pm**

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.

Posted: **Tue Nov 15, 2005 8:51 pm**

Okay, I'm gonna be a nice team player and only say that anyone who releases a press release about flip-flopping themselves is definitely old. Mr. Marty stays streetwise. #-o

Posted: **Tue Nov 15, 2005 9:04 pm**

It wasn't a press release specifically directed to make it known he had decided to "flip-flop". It was a comment during a press conference at a film festival (probably specifically for the festival's "honored guests"), and from the sounds of it he was merely answering someone's question (or perhaps he rambled onto another topic while answering a question). It doesn't sound like he specifically scheduled the press conference to announce that he wasn't making Hollywood movies. He was probably answering a bunch of questions and the reporter decided to take the most noteworthy comments for the article.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:30 am**

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.

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.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:07 pm**

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.

Elmer Bernstein's score is nice.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:16 pm**

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.

Elmer Bernstein's score is nice too.

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 is like a once-critic of cinema whose passion for cinema supercedes his own innate artistry. Comparing "Barry Lyndon" to "Age of Innocence" for example, it's just unfair. Kubrick has such an eye for striking compositions and such a feel for the cinematic language that it's as if he's doing it all effortlessly. 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.

For instance, perhaps Scorsese is a far greater virtuosic talent than say Coppola one of his contemporaries, but Coppola's great films touch me far more deeply than do any of Scorsese's for the simple fact that 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.

Maybe I'm just a sucker for lyrcism though.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:08 pm**

che-etienne wrote:
Narshty wrote:...a voiceover that holds them by the hand and bulldozes through every possible ambiguity...
...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.

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.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:11 pm**

I would say that Age Of Innocence and Casino have aged well and gotten better since their initial release. Casino unfortunately came in the wake of (in my opinion) Scorsese's masterwork Goodfellas which I find has the most heart of any of his films. Most critics compared the two when they were completely different stories, with Casino playing out in a fashion remarkably chiched for Scorsese. But I agree with whoever else said it here, the first half of Casino is breathtaking.

Age Of Innocence suffered from the stunt casting of Winona Ryder and I think if there was an actress on the level of Day-Lewis and Pfeiffer in that role, this might've been an entirely different movie, but there is much to treasure here, particularly the cinematography, which yes, owes much to Kubrick.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:49 am**

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.

I'd like to state I somewhat worship Mean Streets though.

Posted: **Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:55 am**

The Age of Innocence is Scorsese's best film, in my book. The Departed does have the feel of a Michael Mann film but I loved the framing in most of the scenes from the trailer accompanied by glorious cinematography.

In my opinion, top 5 Scorsese films are:

1. The Age of Innocence
2. Raging Bull
3. The King of Comedy
4. Goodfellas
5. Casino

Posted: **Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:02 am**

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.

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.

Posted: **Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:45 pm**

"Age of innocence" is my favorite Scorsese film but I have to say that "raging bull" or "goodfellas" marks the peak of his artistic achievement so far.

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:10 pm**

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.

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:49 pm**

Student films on YouTube:

What's a Nice Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This?

It's Not Just You, Murray (part 1) (part 2)

The Big Shave

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:54 pm**

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...

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.

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:02 pm**

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.

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.

BTW, I hesitate to call it great, but I thought the narration worked fine. At the very least, it preserved some sharp prose from the novel (assuming the narration was that faithful to the original prose). I think Welles's narration in The Magnificent Ambersons may have been one reason for Scorsese's decision to use it. Granted, he's used voiceovers before, but those were done in a different style.

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:16 pm**

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. ...

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.

It's not my favorite Scorsese film, and I wouldn't call it a great film, but I still think it's a very good picture with much to appreciate.

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:25 pm**

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.

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.

Most critics on TV talk about the political implications or the violence, etc. at least here in America. Yeah, Bickle is a psycho, a racist, etc. but despite all his flaws, he's surprisingly sympathetic. I'm pretty sure most people I know won't feel that way simply because they refuse to admit any sympathy for a character like Bickle, but things like his disastrous date with Shepard's character, his failure to relate to normal human beings, etc. it just comes off as incredibly sad, and I credit that to both DeNiro's performance and Scorsese's direction. It's more impressive because the sympathy doesn't come from anything obvious or cheap, and the picture doesn't shy away from the vile aspects of Bickle's character.

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:55 pm**

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.

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.

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:24 am**

TAXI DRIVER (& MEAN STREETS) cold? This is such an unusual criticism of these hyperemotional works, works which like The Catcher In The Rye so accurately captures the private state of emotional desparation & dislocation of a lonely & deteriorated soul in such a recognizable fashion that there tends to be ongoing problems with caucasoids stuck in the pit of chronic masturbation & rampant loneliness getting TOO into it.. all the hallmarks that are signal flares on the way to the unhealthy male fringe: dating failures, unhealthy redirection of sexual energy (into exercise & weaponry), puritanism (vs those who are getting what you no longer want out of a form of sour grapes) laid along moral disintegration (poor health, substance abuse). These are some of the most nakedly emotional films on the face of the earth, whose technical devices are usually employed in such a basic form of obviousness that the complaint I usually hear about these films is that there is very little subtlety left owing the Scorsese's continuous underlining of his emotional peaks & valleys.. that his technical devices are tied to high states of angst that they usually amount to holding up emotional flash cards. Like he said (at his AFI honors) his priest said about his films "Too much Good Friday and not enough Easter Sunday".

Perhaps these folks who feel he's cold are 1) female (and cannot relate to the emotional states in TD, which is an experience I repeatedly had from girlfriend to girlfriend, especially when younger & jumped up & down wildly about this film & showed it to everyone I possibly could.. they sat there saying either 'Why would anyone want to make a film about such terrible things?', or, simply, 'It was okay', leaving me writhing Ah but you don't unnerstand, maannnnnn!!! ), or 2) not from New York.

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:22 pm**

I love a lot of Scorsese's work (Taxi Driver, Casino, Age of Innocence), but I think he is overrated as a director. Expecially with the last films he has been making.

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:31 pm**

Overrated may be a bit subjective - mainstream film critics and other filmmakers probably lavish him with more praise than 'alternative' critics and academics - but I agree, I haven't been crazy about any of his recent work. The last great film he did, IMO, is GoodFellas, and since then, Age of Innocence has been the only satisfying work for me. I really liked elements of Casino and Gangs of New York, but I'm still not crazy about either of those films. The rest aren't bad, but they haven't left a great impression on me.

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:28 am**

To an extent, I agree. Bringing Out the Dead was a complete bore. I kept falling asleep in the theater. When he does hit it out of the park, though, it's often quite glorious. Raging Bull is timeless. Goodfellas is immensely entertaining. I don't think he's overrated at all, however. For his age, coming from his generation of filmmakers, he's perhaps still the most capable of reaching those incredible heights again. Early buzz on The Departed is pretty hot. Perhaps he'll never win the Oscar, but I don't think he needs one.