Xixax Film Forum

The Director's Chair => Martin Scorsese => Topic started by: mutinyco on June 30, 2003, 11:00:41 AM

Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: mutinyco on June 30, 2003, 11:00:41 AM
Does anybody recall when Miramax screwed up Marty's Oscar campaign earlier this year by advertising a fake letter from Robert Wise? I lampooned it at the time. For a laugh go to:

http://movienavigator.org/scorbrick.htm
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 01, 2003, 12:56:22 AM
I'm curious -- how many people actually knew about this?

Right before the voting deadline for this year's Oscars an add appeared in the LA Times, I think. It purported to be a letter of endorsement by Robert Wise (The Sound of Music, The Day the Earth Stood Still), declaring that Scorsese should win the Oscar. Academy members were so pissed off that many demanded their already filed votes back to scratch off Scorsese's name. The Academy refused. Then, the punchline: turns out Wise never even wrote it! Miramax did! Miramax wrote the letter and Wise simply approved it. Notice how Marty was the first to offer Polanski a standing ovation?
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Sleuth on July 01, 2003, 01:36:27 AM
I never heard about that
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 01, 2003, 11:48:15 AM
Well, folks, that's what happened.The best place for genuine movie news on the web is:

http://www.moviecitynews.com

Most of the other sites are dealing with promo news. Stuff from studio press releases about upcoming movies, rumors, etc. If you want to know what's actually going on, this is where you go.

So, yeah, that's the story of how Miramax and Marty fucked themselves at the last Oscars...
Title: Re: ...
Post by: ono on July 01, 2003, 03:34:11 PM
Quote from: mutinycoI'm curious -- how many people actually knew about this?

Right before the voting deadline for this year's Oscars an add appeared in the LA Times, I think. It purported to be a letter of endorsement by Robert Wise (The Sound of Music, The Day the Earth Stood Still), declaring that Scorsese should win the Oscar. Academy members were so pissed off that many demanded their already filed votes back to scratch off Scorsese's name. The Academy refused. Then, the punchline: turns out Wise never even wrote it! Miramax did! Miramax wrote the letter and Wise simply approved it. Notice how Marty was the first to offer Polanski a standing ovation?
If you were screwed over for an Oscar yet again, you'd feel sucker punched, and immediately stand to your feet and start clapping, too.  I bet he may have been making his way to the stage subconsciously, yet trying to hold back that sinking feeling.

Anyway, neither Polanski or Scorsese really deserved best director for their films this year.  Nor did anyone else who was nominated.  It was a rather sucky year in that category.  Should've gone to PTA, but surprise, surprise, he was overlooked.  Jonze was overlooked, too, and he did an excellent job with Adaptation.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: ShanghaiOrange on July 01, 2003, 04:08:41 PM
Mutinyco would be a good focus puller.   :(
Title: More info
Post by: Arnzilla on July 01, 2003, 11:52:39 PM
http://www.nypost.com/avantgo/avantgossip/71634.htm

March 24, 2003

CONTRARY to a recent Los Angeles Times report of a "firestorm," there were actually only two or three Academy members who asked for their ballots back after seeing Miramax's controversial ad angling for a Martin Scorsese Oscar. The flap came when the studio reprinted Oscar-winner Robert Wise's op-ed piece in support of a Scorsese win, originally published in the L.A. Daily News, as an advertisement elsewhere. To avoid future skirmishes, however, Miramax is requesting a meeting with the Academy and other studios to clear the air and clarify Academy rules regulating parties, screenings, ads and the expenditures that have gotten so out of control, says a studio rep. One proposal that's been discussed would create an independent oversight panel composed of former judges, academics and accountants to enforce objective standards and keep the focus on the movies, not the hype.


http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030323/nysu025_1.html

March 23, 2003

LOS ANGELES, March 23 /PRNewswire/

"There have been occasional reportorial inferences in some entertainment news columns that as a public relations consultant to Miramax I did something 'inappropriate' by drafting, at Robert Wise's specific request, an Op-Ed piece that appeared in the Los Angeles Daily News in support of Martin Scorsese and 'Gangs of New York.' I strongly disagree with this suggestion.

"As a veteran Hollywood publicist, I've been writing speeches, letters and statements for filmmakers, executives and actors for more than 40 years. It's what the men and women in my profession do all the time. We take direction and guidance and our job is to put on paper the thoughts given to us.

"The background is that I have known Robert Wise ever since my days as publicity director of Universal Pictures, where I worked with him on three of his major films. Earlier this year, Mr. Wise volunteered his admiration and enthusiasm for Martin Scorsese's career and current film. Knowing this, when William Goldman wrote a vicious attack on Mr. Scorsese's career in Variety, urging Academy members not to vote for him, I asked Mr. Wise if he had any interest in authoring a supportive piece about Mr. Scorsese in response. He agreed with the proviso that we prepare a draft for his approval expressing the thoughts he provided on the subject. Not an unusual request and not an unusual assignment for me. The piece was drafted, submitted to Mr. Wise and he personally approved the draft as composed for placement in a newspaper or advertisement."

Source: Weissman/Delson Communications
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Sleuth on July 02, 2003, 12:02:24 AM
Then it's settled, Gangs of NY and Scorsese are both awesome.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 12:31:59 AM
Ain't shit settled. It was a lot more than 1 or 2. And the Post gossip column is not the place to go searching for fact. As well, the fact that the publicist even had to write that op-ed, which is HIS version, is proof of the shit storm that erupted.

And Gangs still sucks.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Sleuth on July 02, 2003, 12:35:26 AM
Okay, you think that, but do you HAVE to do the southern accent thing?  "ain't shit settled, y'all, come on down and we can have us a good ol' fashioned shootout at the ok corral with bessie mae and leg stump bubba, y'hear"  everybody must stop that at once
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 12:40:18 AM
Go to:

http://www.moviecitynews.com/notepad/2003/030207b_fri.html
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Sleuth on July 02, 2003, 01:01:46 AM
I disagree with that article

Quote"Gangs" is in trouble from the outset. In the opening scene Leo, at about age 10, is watching his daddy shave. There is a cut. The razor is given to the kid and then the father intones the following: "The blood stays on the blade."
I have a friend who is so giddy with the sheer pretentiousness of that line that he says it to everyone. You say "Good morning." He answers, "Yes, and the blood stays on the blade."


Uh, what the fuck?  Is that the last thing you could ever imagine that character saying to his son?

QuoteWhat story though? The lack of an answer is what demolishes the movie. Is it about gang warfare? Family revenge? Irish immigration? The Civil War? The draft? Political corruption? Prejudice? These subjects and more, all of them valid enough alone, flicker in and out, never accumulating or connecting one to the other.

Actually, these subjects and more are all connected because that's the time period they lived in.  Did Goodfellas take some sort of sharp turn because it got into drugs?  I think environment is the key word.

QuoteOne example to indicate the problem: Two hours and seven minutes into the film, folks, there is a scene between Leo and the political boss of New York -- and they are discussing a subject never mentioned before in the movie and which you could not guess if I gave you the rest of my lifetime: who is going to run for Sheriff.

So what?  Did this guy even watch the movie?  These characters, as real people would, are trying to make their lives less horrible by having a good representative (that's how our government works)

Quote
For 10 minutes, an amazing wasted length of movie time, and especially damaging this late into a pic, we deal with the election of the sheriff and his subsequent murder and Leo eventually challenging Daniel Day-Lewis to combat.

But we knew from the first sequence that this would happen because Day-Lewis killed Leo's pop.

So now the fight, yes? Nope. Not in this baby. Ten additional minutes drudge on before they get to it.

...


But this fight was worse -- because you couldn't see it. Scorsese has hidden it behind the smoke of cannon fire. Nothing to make John Wayne worry.

But the battle is still better than the way the movie ends, with a disgraceful shot of the World Trade Center.

A waste of time?  Amsterdam's emotions are charged by all of that.  It's more fuel for the fire.  The best part of the fight is that it isn't what you expect, it is the anti-fight you are led to believe.  I think that is important that it shows how some things you really have no control over.  Not everything works out perfectly like you planned (the fight planning by the way taking place in that 10 minute drudge that is spoken of, meaning it's only building your expectations up of the predictable)

Disgraceful shot of the WTC, that's really interesting.  I want that better explained.

You know, this guy generalizes critics who liked the movie.  It would be just as easy to generalize all of those who didn't.[/quote]
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Arnzilla on July 02, 2003, 03:12:47 AM
Quote from: mutinycoGo to:

http://www.moviecitynews.com/notepad/2003/030207b_fri.html
Shame on Billy Goldman for breaking the AMPAS rules in such a brazen manner. Disgraceful... and poorly written.

As Roger Ebert (http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-rebert09.html) said last March, "Goldman embarrassed himself with the article, which was mean-spirited, green-eyed and wrong.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Arnzilla on July 02, 2003, 03:24:00 AM
Quote from: mutinycoIt was a lot more than 1 or 2.
Oh? How many more actually made such a phone call to AMPAS? The prez said it was an "unspecified number." But he hasn't been very evenhanded in the whole affair. His silence on the Goldman editorial was deafening.

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/oscars/cl-na-oscars14mar14.story
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 02, 2003, 09:45:13 AM
Yeah, Mutinyco, our dear friend, we all know how you feel about Scorsese. Could you kindly fuck off from his thread, and cool out on the smear campaign? We love him. I fucking love Gangs. I could go on and on about it like our other thread, but who really cares? You're not going to listen. If the movie doesn't work for you, fine, but it works for me. Maybe that's because I don't impose prior opinions on what an epic has to be, what with its stock of hero and villian, etc. But I love it.

Seriously, we gotta stop the Marty hate. You and William Goldman must go off into a corner and bitch amongst yourselves, because Marty's name will live on forever as one of the greatest filmmakers on this planet.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 02, 2003, 09:49:43 AM
Tremosloth and Arnzilla, you are my friends. Thank you for supporting Saint Martin in my absence.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: chainsmoking insomniac on July 02, 2003, 10:02:31 AM
I'll back you up any day of the week on ol' Marty dude.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 02, 2003, 10:07:24 AM
Sweet.

Luv the new av, btw.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: chainsmoking insomniac on July 02, 2003, 10:10:14 AM
Thank you kindly.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 10:44:48 AM
I would consider an "unspecified number" to mean quite a few. This whole thing wouldn't have made such a racket if it were 1 or 2. I heard it was roughly 400 or more. That's serious. Pierson couldn't be more specific because it's supposed to be secret ballot. Just by saying X-number of people wanted their ballots back would've revealed how many votes Gangs had received. Also, if Marty had won, it would've thrown massive questions of legitamacy over the win. People weren't voting for Marty because they thought Gangs was great, they were voting to give him a career Oscar. Miramax knew that. That was their campaign angle. I've never seen a film with 10 nominations so reviled in Hollywood. And Arnzilla's LA Times link doesn't portray things good for Gangs in the slightest. As for Goldman, he is correct, just as he was in his dismissal of Saving Private Ryan a few years ago. What he did wasn't disgraceful, but ballsy. And as for Ebert, he wrote this:

"All of this is a triumph for Scorsese, and yet I do not think this film is in the first rank of his masterpieces. It is very good but not great. I wrote recently of "GoodFellas" that "the film has the headlong momentum of a storyteller who knows he has a good one to share." I didn't feel that here. Scorsese's films usually leap joyfully onto the screen, the work of a master in command of his craft. Here there seems more struggle, more weight to overcome, more darkness. It is a story that Scorsese has filmed without entirely internalizing."

He was a goddamn yo-yo on this one. After he reviewed it Miramax gave him shit so he started backtracking. Miramax is like the mafia. And against poor critical support and a poor CinemaScore poll, they hyped it into a masterpiece.

Take off your rose-tinted Scorsese goggles and watch the film for what it is. Even people I know who've seen the 2001 cut say that, although it was MUCH better that the final version, it still lacked dramatic momentum and didn't really work.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 02, 2003, 10:52:22 AM
Take off your black goggles and see the film for what it really was. I know people who saw it in the theatre and loved it.


See how that works? Back and forth, back and forth. Why not just drop it and let us praise Marty in peace. I don't come over to the Spielberg thread and bitch about him, even though to me he symbolizes everything that's shit about movies. I'm just asking you to have some class. You are not really impressing us with your insider knowledge. If I went by what Hollywood taste told me, I would have a pretty dull opinion indeed. Please, I'm asking nicely. Just let it go.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: chainsmoking insomniac on July 02, 2003, 10:54:58 AM
mutinyco, there is no point in arguing a topic like this, because it's all opinion.  Gangs of New York was one of Marty's best in years.  A masterful epic with fascinating historical context.  Beautifully shot, lavish and stunning sets, etc.  
Now convince me otherwise.  :roll:
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 10:59:00 AM
>Now convince me otherwise<

Just watch the movie... :)
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 02, 2003, 11:01:37 AM
Just did last night.
Love it. Love it . Love it.
Played the soundtrack this morn. Wonderful. All still running through my head. DDL = incredible.
Title: Re: ...
Post by: chainsmoking insomniac on July 02, 2003, 11:08:20 AM
Quote from: mutinyco>Now convince me otherwise<

Just watch the movie... :)

*Checks his watch*
Still waiting.... :wink:
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 12:29:58 PM
Here are three things that will help you to understand my feelings on Gangs...

http://www.movienavigator.org/butcher.htm

http://www.movienavigator.org/jamie2002.htm

http://www.movienavigator.org/middlepassage.htm
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 02, 2003, 12:45:55 PM
"Paul Thomas Anderson's talent isn't in question. One day he will make a great film. I don't think he has yet." -- mutinyco --

Seriously, I don't even know you, and I actually hate you. And what you wrote in your article about Gangs, it was the first choice: The Other Critics saw a different movie than you. Plain and simple. And Flawed Masterpiece is a title that should be applied to many great movies, as it is impossible to make a "Perfect" film. Apocalypse Now is a great example of this. A wonderful film, I personally love it, but Flawed Materpiece is a solid description.

I am overcome by rage at your ridiculous statements.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 12:59:52 PM
I actually thought what I said about PTA was a compliment. I was underrating him. Thom Yorke said the best compliment he received with regard to OK Computer was that it was an excellent album, but not the best thing Radiohead will ever make.

As for "flawed masterpiece," I would gasp at horror for Gangs of New York to be equated on any level with Apocalypse Now...
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 02, 2003, 01:02:42 PM
I am happy at having made you gasp.


MAGNOLIA is a fucking great film. BOOGIE NIGHTS is a great film. You have insulted PTA.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 01:23:07 PM
Hardly. I'm being brutally honest. If all you ever do is praise somebody they won't learn. You need to be hard on people. Don't expect to be an artist or a filmmaker if you can't deal with that.

The worst thing that ever happened to Scorsese was that people started calling him the greatest American filmmaker. Because if you look at his post-Goodfellas films he believed it. And his films haven't been as good since. The critics weren't critical enough anymore. Simply because his name was on these films they were already in a higher position of esteem, instead of being taken for what they were.

What I was saying about PTA is that he's extremely talented, his films are conceptually and technically audacious, and that one day he'll make a great film. Just that he hasn't yet.

Just as Marty's most complete and assured work was probably Goodfellas. That happened nearly 20 years into his career.
Title: Re: ...
Post by: Pubrick on July 02, 2003, 01:24:56 PM
Quote from: mutinycoI actually thought what I said about PTA was a compliment. I was underrating him. Thom Yorke said the best compliment he received with regard to OK Computer was that it was an excellent album, but not the best thing Radiohead will ever make.
that's not the same as what u said.

what u said meant "paul's movies so far hav been less than great"

what the thom yorke critic meant, from what u wrote, "ok computer is ekzellent, and future works will be more than excellent, i love u thom".

either ur a bad writer, or u don't know what u mean.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 01:28:23 PM
Please. Search out Janet Maslin's review of The Thin Red Line. Although I disagreed with her overall opinion of the film, she made an interesting point: she stressed that just because a film is made by a great filmmaker, it doesn't automatically mean that it is a great film.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 01:30:21 PM
The points I'm making aren't emotional. They're clear and rational observations. You shouldn't approach what I've said with an emotional gang mentailty. I'm simply try to stir debate.
Title: Re: ...
Post by: Pubrick on July 02, 2003, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: mutinycoshe stressed that just because a film is made by a great filmmaker, it doesn't automatically mean that it is a great film.
i agree with that. it's common sense.

but Boogie Nights and Magnolia are great films, i don't care who u quote or refer to, it's just a fact.

also Thin Red Line is one of the top 10 films of the 90s. look into my soul and tell me i'm lying.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 02, 2003, 01:38:16 PM
I wouldn't use the term "rational" in your observations. I see it more as a personal vendetta against Scorsese.

And please don't tell me that I "can't expect to be an artist or filmmaker" based on your criteria. Puh-leeze.

How do you think these filmmakers (PTA, Scorsese, Malick) came to be my favorites? It's because pretty much everything they do connects with me, and produces a wonderful reaction. It is not automatically a great film, but when these men make something, it always carries high merit with me. Because I love what they have to say, and how they say it. It is a joy to behold. Maybe you should get back to the emotional joy of things, instead of tearing them apart with your Critic Mentality. I'm sure we could look at your films and tear the shit out of them. It's your point of view -- if you look for shit, and wanna write about shit, that's what you're gonna find. It's a destructive attitude.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: chainsmoking insomniac on July 02, 2003, 02:11:39 PM
Mutiny, what are your favorite films/directors?
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 02:24:13 PM
Filmmakers...

Stanley Kubrick, Steven Spielberg, The Coens, Francis Ford Coppola, Terrence Malick, Robert Altman

Films...

Kubrick 1964-75, Coppola 1972-79, Fellini's 8 1/2, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Manhattan, Fast Times at Ridgement High, Nashville

Give or take. That said, I can easily understand why other people might not like these directors, especially my favorite Kubrick. Yes, he's emotional inaccessible, his films are slow, pessimistic, intellectual. I understand that and will debate why I think that's interesting. Perhaps this is an over statement, but I find a lot of Scorsese or PTA fans can't understand why somebody doesn't like their films. The reaction is much more emotional.

And if you're really questioning my feelings about PTA as a filmmaker check this out, cause I can assure you I wouldn't have put in this much effort if I didn't think somewhat highly of him...

http://movienavigator.org/pdlatbam.htm
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 02:26:54 PM
And my point is that you're not an artist if you can't deal with that. I'm saying, if you want to be an artist you should learn to deal with it. A good friend isn't somebody who always tells you you're right. A good friend is somebody who levels with you. Somebody who's honest.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 02:28:37 PM
I meant, And my point isn't that you're not an artist if you can't deal with that.

Not:
"And my point is that you're not an artist if you can't deal with that."

Type-o.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: chainsmoking insomniac on July 02, 2003, 02:33:56 PM
Well, I happen to like every film you listed up there, although with the exception of A Clockwork I'm not a big Kubrick fan.  
I don't take it personally when you say you don't like Scorsese, so I'm not reacting with my emotions.  I just don't understand why you don't like him....on a cerebral level, if you will.
Also, what is the point in posting that PTA link?  Are you saying you do or don't like his work?
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 02:40:34 PM
I'm saying what said before. I think he's an extremely talented filmmaker. Possibly the most exciting young filmmaker out there right now. I just don't think he's made a genuinely great film yet. I'm of the opinion that I'm lucky to see 6 great films per decade. He will make one one day.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 02:44:07 PM
My point is that I spent a week working on the illustration and photography for that article about PTA. I wasn't paid a dime. That in and of itself should say enough...
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 02:48:49 PM
On a related note...

http://www.moviecitynews.com/notepad/2003/030702_wed.html
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: chainsmoking insomniac on July 02, 2003, 02:50:54 PM
Well kudos on the illustration and artwork man.   :)
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 03:05:12 PM
Thank you.
Title: ...
Post by: Alexandro on July 02, 2003, 05:11:57 PM
mutinyco...

you should just drop this...i know you have an opinion but is kind of ridiculous when a person as smart as you clearly are has this absurd internet crusade to just bash martin scorsese...a person dedicating time and effort to gather info and post messages that in one way or another insults the man and his fans...is like...well, as absurd as that william goldman article that made him look like an idiot who couldn't  understand a movie...

you don't like his movies? they don't ring bells to you? well, in the inmortal words of the dude, that's like, your opinion, man...you are mroe likeable when you write about the stuff you like...which reminds me to ask you to write an essay abot artificial intelligence, the world needs it...we should be campaigning for the world to recognise films, not to trash them...what do you think??

and by the way---the post good fellas scorsese movies are less successfull but way more intersting in my view...and pt anderson has already three great movies on his pocket, at least on my view too...

cool
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 02, 2003, 07:06:19 PM
I actually did write about A.I. when it first came out. To the best of my knowledge I was the first to break the news that he really dies at the end and everything you see with his mother is a programmed delusion. I unfortunately don't have a link to it though.

And I don't have a person vendeta to trash M.S., so much as I want to knock him off his pedestal. For the past 10 years there's been no counterprogramming to his praise. I'm just trying to make up for that.
Title: Re: ...
Post by: Arnzilla on July 03, 2003, 02:09:00 AM
mutinyco, your opinions may be odious, but your facts are erroneous.
Quote from: mutinyco
He was a goddamn yo-yo on this one. After he reviewed it Miramax gave him shit so he started backtracking. Miramax is like the mafia. And against poor critical support and a poor CinemaScore poll, they hyped it into a masterpiece.
:roll: Oy vey. Ebert gave it 3½ stars. It was his best-reviewed film of the five best pic nominees, which is why he chose it in his If We Picked the Winners (http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/030310.html) show.

As for "poor critical support," the critics tended to disagree with you.
http://www.geninn.net/critics/topfilms.htm
Title: Re: ...
Post by: SoNowThen on July 03, 2003, 08:58:19 AM
Quote from: Alexandromutinyco...

you should just drop this...i know you have an opinion but is kind of ridiculous when a person as smart as you clearly are has this absurd internet crusade to just bash martin scorsese...a person dedicating time and effort to gather info and post messages that in one way or another insults the man and his fans...is like...well, as absurd as that william goldman article that made him look like an idiot who couldn't  understand a movie...

you don't like his movies? they don't ring bells to you? well, in the inmortal words of the dude, that's like, your opinion, man...you are mroe likeable when you write about the stuff you like...which reminds me to ask you to write an essay abot artificial intelligence, the world needs it...we should be campaigning for the world to recognise films, not to trash them...what do you think??

and by the way---the post good fellas scorsese movies are less successfull but way more intersting in my view...and pt anderson has already three great movies on his pocket, at least on my view too...

cool

Yes! Yes! Another beautiful post. Kudos, m'man.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 03, 2003, 10:08:07 AM
On the contrary. Ebert was a yo-yo. Although I can't access it because EW is a pay site now, I believe his critical grade there was a B. And as I said, he started backtracking after his original review. On the annual best of show, he went so far as to say something like: For most directors this would be a masterpiece, but for Scorsese it's just not one of his. He then proceeded to name 10 films from 2002 that were better.

To see it's real response go to:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/GangsofNewYork-1110067/

77% is shit.
Title: Re: ...
Post by: SoNowThen on July 03, 2003, 10:16:42 AM
Quote from: mutinycoOn the contrary. Ebert was a yo-yo. Although I can't access it because EW is a pay site now, I believe his critical grade there was a B. And as I said, he started backtracking after his original review. On the annual best of show, he went so far as to say something like: For most directors this would be a masterpiece, but for Scorsese it's just not one of his. He then proceeded to name 10 films from 2002 that were better.

To see it's real response go to:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/GangsofNewYork-1110067/

77% is shit.

Where's that horse? It's over there. Fucking smack it. BAM! BAM! BAM!

...shit, it's already dead. Fuck it, smack it some more. WHAM! WHAM! Yeah!! You give it to that horse.

BAM! Take that, horse.
:roll:
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 03, 2003, 10:29:29 AM
Why It Makes Sense to Beat a Dead Horse:    
       
1) Sets an example for other horses. (that might be watching)

2) Aerobic workout.

3) Horse might not be dead yet. (Better safe than sorry. You can never be too careful.)

4) Tenderizes the meat.

5) Horse is unable to fight back.

6) Makes you feel good. (Provides a welcome relief from tension or anxiety.)
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 03, 2003, 10:31:48 AM
Your new nickname is Glue Factory.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 03, 2003, 10:35:02 AM
Yours can be tenderized meat...
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Pubrick on July 03, 2003, 10:36:49 AM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goenglish.com%2FGoEnglish_com_BeatADeadHorse.gif&hash=5502b9c3a6ce83f7653351a7aba937c5519a5332)

the ghost of sphinx would not approve.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 03, 2003, 10:38:22 AM
Something tells me Wooderson is gonna stick awhile.


to which I totally approve!!
Title: Re: ...
Post by: Alexandro on July 03, 2003, 11:32:01 AM
Quote from: mutinycoI actually did write about A.I. when it first came out. To the best of my knowledge I was the first to break the news that he really dies at the end and everything you see with his mother is a programmed delusion. I unfortunately don't have a link to it though.

And I don't have a person vendeta to trash M.S., so much as I want to knock him off his pedestal. For the past 10 years there's been no counterprogramming to his praise. I'm just trying to make up for that.

Well, post those writings around here...that's a cool theory but it's not definitive, though...

and for the other stuff...c'mon man, don't be childish...people like McG are actually making crap AND making money...the enemy is on the other side...
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 03, 2003, 11:39:48 AM
I'd have to hunt down a copy of the A.I. article. I'll look. But I am correct about the ending. On the DVD, Jan Harlan, Kubrick's brother in law, who executive produced A.I., says that at the end he finally learns what it's like to be a real person, because humans ultimately die.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 03, 2003, 11:41:50 AM
I'd also like to point out that the entire 3rd act of Minority Report was quite probably Anderton's halo dream in prison. All of his dreams came true...
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Arnzilla on July 04, 2003, 12:44:17 AM
Quote from: mutinycoOn the contrary. Ebert was a yo-yo. Although I can't access it because EW is a pay site now, I believe his critical grade there was a B. And as I said, he started backtracking after his original review.
Once again, his "original review" in the Chicago Sun-Times gave it 3½ stars. So enough with this yo-yo nonsense.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: ©brad on July 04, 2003, 01:37:05 AM
arnsillapussy and munticock- whatever- u guys r boring me to tears.

booooooooooooooooring.

:sleeping:
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Sleuth on July 04, 2003, 01:49:06 AM
I'm so confused
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: phil marlowe on July 04, 2003, 07:20:03 AM
i have to admit that i enjoyed the tenderized meat part.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 04, 2003, 09:37:42 AM
I'm pretty sick of this too. But just to clarify, he ALWAYS gives Marty high grades. It could be 2 hours of a guy on the toilet and it'd get at least 3 stars. The point is, he said it wasn't one of his better films. He also gave it a grade of B in Entertainment Weekly. Then, at the end of the year he made a point of clarifying his position (better than most films, not one of his best) because he was getting a lot of hate mail -- probably shit from Weinstein too.

The film has a 77% rating -- that's equivalent to a C+. THAT is not one of the best pictures of the year. 3 films that didn't get nominated are Minority Report at 92%, Far From Heaven at 91%, and Catch Me if You Can at 97%. At least 2 of those films will far outlive Gangs. Gangs is not a masterpiece. Miramax spent $50-million to promote it as one.

My MovieNavigator partner wrote a pretty sharp review:

http://www.movienavigator.org/gangsofny.htm
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 04, 2003, 10:36:58 AM
Since when does the Rotten Tomatoes rating become the final word on how good a movie is? Are you actually saying that unless over 80% of the film critics love a movie when it comes out, it can't possibly be good???

Come now, saying you don't like something is acceptable. "Proving" you're "right" by giving it an average grade from film reviews is ludicrous.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 04, 2003, 11:30:50 AM
It also had a Cinemascore of B-, I believe. That takes care of the audience, too. A lackluster grade from both sides. My point is that the film was not well-received. And that it was the combined effort of a few zealous film critics and Miramax's money that helped to create a different impression.

Even Eyes Wide Shut, the most critically devisive film in years, aside from A.I., got a Tomato score of 81%/82%.

It's my opinion that to raise of film of this mediocrity to greatness would be to lower the standards of film greatness.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 04, 2003, 11:35:23 AM
Well, if we're talking true "greatness", then to be honest, I haven't seen anything since 1999. Maybe City Of God and All The Real Girls come close for me, but even though I love Gangs (fav film of 2002), I really wouldn't elevate anything from that year to the Great category. Well, if I had a top three latest, it would be these mentioned. But I'm only calling them Very Good for the time being.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Pubrick on July 04, 2003, 11:49:43 AM
this could well be the most boring argument ever.

jesus u don't even hav avatars to keep me interested.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Something Spanish on July 04, 2003, 12:50:34 PM
I dug the debate. It's losing momentum, though.

I think Scorsese has made his share of great films. And I agree with mutinyco that everything after Goodfellas (excluding Cape Fear) has ranged from sub-par to pure drivel. Gangs of New York is the epitome of that pure drivel. There is stuff I like about it (it's scope and lush sets...) but as a whole, the film is riddled with problems. (!) I just thought of a good, albeit corny, analogy for the overrated flick. The fuckin' movie is like Humpty Dumpty. Ok. It's been edited/spliced into a thousand pieces, and all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Gangs of New York back together again.

But, no. Scorsese had range. He used to have balls. He used to be inventive. He tried to have balls and be inventive with Bringing Out the Dead, but not only does the flick reiterate the same topics the filmmaker conveyed in earlier films, BOTD does this while suffering from castration. I really liked Who's That Knocking on My Door. Boxcar Bertha. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. Taxi Driver (which, in my opinion, had its share of problems, despite the majority's consesnus that it is a masterpiece). And those were merely the "Good" ones. He's made some greats...

Greats: And I gotta curse because I really love these flicks. So I'm gonna say they're fuckin' great. Like...can't find the word. Ok. Mean Streets. Raging Bull. King of Comedy (with a bullet). After Hours. The Last Waltz. The Last Temptation of Christ. His segment in New York Stories. Goodfellas. Cape Fear.

See, I love Scorsese. And I'll probably see every movie he ever makes at least twice. I did not like Kundun. I HATED Casino. Have reservations about New York, New York and The Age of Innocence. Like some parts in Bringing Out the Dead and Gangs of New York, but as wholes, they're messier than sloppy joes.

There are my two cents about the man. I may love most of his films, but I am not brainwashed to declare anything the director makes an unadulterated masterpiece.

(And P.S. - If you liked GONY, obviously, that is fine and all the power to you. But I'm gonna be honest, it boggles my mind how people do not see it's many flaws and open gashes. GONY has to be one of the only films where I don't understand this. Sorry.)
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 04, 2003, 01:30:51 PM
Quote from: Shaun DigiI dug the debate. It's losing momentum, though.

I think Scorsese has made his share of great films. And I agree with mutinyco that everything after Goodfellas (excluding Cape Fear) has ranged from sub-par to pure drivel. Gangs of New York is the epitome of that pure drivel. There is stuff I like about it (it's scope and lush sets...) but as a whole, the film is riddled with problems. (!) I just thought of a good, albeit corny, analogy for the overrated flick. The fuckin' movie is like Humpty Dumpty. Ok. It's been edited/spliced into a thousand pieces, and all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Gangs of New York back together again.

But, no. Scorsese had range. He used to have balls. He used to be inventive. He tried to have balls and be inventive with Bringing Out the Dead, but not only does the flick reiterate the same topics the filmmaker conveyed in earlier films, BOTD does this while suffering from castration. I really liked Who's That Knocking on My Door. Boxcar Bertha. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. Taxi Driver (which, in my opinion, had its share of problems, despite the majority's consesnus that it is a masterpiece). And those were merely the "Good" ones. He's made some greats...

Greats: And I gotta curse because I really love these flicks. So I'm gonna say they're fuckin' great. Like...can't find the word. Ok. Mean Streets. Raging Bull. King of Comedy (with a bullet). After Hours. The Last Waltz. The Last Temptation of Christ. His segment in New York Stories. Goodfellas. Cape Fear.

See, I love Scorsese. And I'll probably see every movie he ever makes at least twice. I did not like Kundun. I HATED Casino. Have reservations about New York, New York and The Age of Innocence. Like some parts in Bringing Out the Dead and Gangs of New York, but as wholes, they're messier than sloppy joes.

There are my two cents about the man. I may love most of his films, but I am not brainwashed to declare anything the director makes an unadulterated masterpiece.

(And P.S. - If you liked GONY, obviously, that is fine and all the power to you. But I'm gonna be honest, it boggles my mind how people do not see it's many flaws and open gashes. GONY has to be one of the only films where I don't understand this. Sorry.)

Well, everyone already knows how I feel, but I'll just give my last two cents. As to Gangs, the only part I feel that doesn't work is the Cameron tries to bite/kiss Leo scene. Which obviously had to be included to appeal to a broader audience and somewhat justify the massive budget. But the rest (the stuff you guys all hate) I think is wonderful. I like sprawling plotlines, I liked all the Boss Tweed political stuff, the immigrants, and the draft stuff. I like how it's kept to the side (but still there... I just rewatched this and all these threads are there from the beginning), until it absolutely has to spill over. I like characters coming and going. I didn't find it sloppy at all. I thought its construction and style suited the story. I do not look at it as a hero vs villain simple revenge story. Revenge is certainly tied in there, but it just becomes part of the ambiance, all contributing to the broad picture of "violence" on the whole. You can't really feel bad for the rioters (even though they get mowed down by the militia/police/army), because two minutes before they were using the hysteria to beat on colored people. You can't really feel for Amsterdam, because he just willingly continues the violence, and deep down really enjoys it. At least Bill, as despicable as he is, is honest. I love all that shit. I don't really want to "root" for anyone when I see a movie like this. I just wanna sit back and drink it in. I have no agenda in liking this film. I went in expecting to not like it. I was pleasantly surprised, and it has held up over repeat viewings for me.

As to Bringing Out The Dead, to say it's similar to Taxi Driver (as has been said before) is wrong. The only similarity is it's mostly late night driving through NY. That's it. Really it's more of the flip side of Taxi Driver. Travis finds no solitude in the love of a woman. He cannot, like Frank, go out and actually do good. Frank honestly wants to help people. Travis is insane, and thinks he is helping people, but is really just being selfish and destructive. Again, probably because BOTD has a positive ending, as opposed to the Taxi Driver ironic one, it's easier for people to get down on. Yet it's just a wonderful little ride of a film. It's more dark comedy with hints of romance. Quite different from Taxi Driver.

I'm not saying anybody's dead wrong. I'm just shedding light on what goes on through my own head. Hope that clarifies my position.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 04, 2003, 01:45:43 PM
I think Marty is a great double-hitter. Not a home run hitter. I think he occasionally shows flashes of brilliance, but his films as a whole lack cohesion. I think he's more memorable for his parts than his wholes.
Title: Re: ...
Post by: Arnzilla on July 04, 2003, 08:06:01 PM
Quote from: mutinycoI think Marty is a great double-hitter. Not a home run hitter. I think he occasionally shows flashes of brilliance, but his films as a whole lack cohesion. I think he's more memorable for his parts than his wholes.
Then tell other filmmakers to stop stealing his parts and filling his wholes.

GONY appeared on more top ten lists than the other best pic nominees which had their directors concurrently nominated: Chicago, The Hours, and The Pianist. However, those films got a higher RT rating than GONY. So don't you get it? Scorsese has a higher standard of excellence when competing against himself.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 04, 2003, 08:21:34 PM
Keep deluding yourself...
Title: Re: ...
Post by: Arnzilla on July 04, 2003, 08:25:52 PM
Quote from: mutinycoKeep deluding yourself...
I've been stating facts, you've been stating opinions. I've yet to give my opinion on any Scorsese film in this forum.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 05, 2003, 06:45:47 AM
Excuse me, you haven't been offering facts. On my part, I would suggest you retrace things. You'll find GONY's Cinemascore, Tomato score, quotes from Ebert (and his yo-yo approach), links to several reviews/articles, the Robert Wise flap which has now forced the Academy to change its rules, etc. All I've been offering are facts surrounding this film.

It's one thing if your point is that you acknowledge the faults Shaun Digi or I have pointed out -- but that they don't matter for you. But it's quite another to suggest they're not there.

As somebody who I would say is fairly plugged into the industry, I don't know anybody who liked Gangs. But I know lots of people who wanted to see Scorsese win. There's a big difference.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 05, 2003, 08:58:56 AM
Won't be able to till tonight. I'll hit it then.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: bonanzataz on July 05, 2003, 01:20:58 PM
this avatar has been formatted to fit your screen.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 05, 2003, 01:27:46 PM
You pan and scanned my avatar! Now THIS is cropping Kubrick!
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: bonanzataz on July 05, 2003, 02:02:51 PM
i thought you'd get a kick out of it.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Arnzilla on July 06, 2003, 12:45:51 AM
Quote from: mutinycoIt's one thing if your point is that you acknowledge the faults Shaun Digi or I have pointed out -- but that they don't matter for you.
I guess they don't matter because pro or con,  I skipped over them since they don't interest me at the moment (been there, done that). The thread's title, however, was intriguing.

I'm not sure what your point is with Cinemascore vis-a-vis Scorsese. My guess is that his highest score was for one of his lesser efforts: Cape Fear. What does that tell you?

I guess we can agree that the film was divisive, much like The Hours, another film with a comparatively low RT rating, yet appearing on more top ten lists than other much higher-rated films.

But onto the yo-yo factor and your nutty implication that Miramax strong-armed Roger Ebert into changing his original review. Simply put, you make David Poland's conspiracy theories sound downright sane.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 06, 2003, 09:20:20 AM
I liked The Hours. I thought it was a taut effort. I would've liked to have seen Peter Boyle win for Best Editing. He did a really concise job of holding the whole thing together. Also seemed to be the only nominee to do any campaigning.

As for the Tomato score, etc., the point was to build up a track record of various sources to show that GONY was not an accepted masterpiece. It was a hyped masterpiece. As for Ebert, I have no evidence of anybody strong arming him -- however I do find it interesting that somebody who basically claims responsibility for "discovering" Marty would go through the process of clarifying his position on national TV. Again, what I'm arguing is that people weren't supporting Gangs so much as they wanted Marty to win an Oscar. Miramax's campaign, even in the words of Harvey Weinstein, was about getting him an Oscar for his body of work. My dissent on this has to do with the fact that he didn't deserve it for GONY -- and to have given it to him for that film would be to legitimize the other controversial winners who've beaten him in the past. Career awards are supposed to be lifetime achievement awards.

As for David Poland, as long as he links my articles I'm content.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 06, 2003, 01:13:54 PM
Just as a tidbit, or an aside, or whatever.... I was reading a Marty interview a while ago, and they asked him about winning the Oscar, and he said something like: of course I'd like to win, but if they're gonna give it to me, give it to me because you think I did a good job directing this film, not for what I've done before.

I guess he could have just been saying that and all, but I thought it was a solid quote. He's a good guy.
Title: ...
Post by: mutinyco on July 06, 2003, 01:18:24 PM
I have no doubt that he's a good guy. I also have no doubt that he got caught up in the Gangs hysteria. He hit every TV talk show, went to every party... he was CAMPAIGNING BIG TIME...

When the Robert Wise scandal broke I think that was a true embarrassment.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: finlayr on July 11, 2003, 09:30:45 PM
William Goldman ain't all that.  His name sounds cool and he knows how to stick to the rigid formulas of Hollywood (razzle-dazzle, lie to me please to make me think the world's really great bullshit) into a script.  General's Daughter??  C'mon, Goldman, can't be THAT jealous of Scorsese, the TRUE artist, can you?
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Mesh on July 30, 2003, 01:40:40 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenSee how that works? Back and forth, back and forth. Why not just drop it and let us praise Marty in peace......Please, I'm asking nicely. Just let it go.

I haven't read the rest of this thread, but God do I hate this kind of shit.

Discuss fucking films and filmmakers.  Love them.  Hate them.  Defend them.  Argue about them.  Xixax.com is rendered even more pointless if we don't do the above.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 30, 2003, 01:54:32 PM
Oh, Mesh....... :roll:





I dunno about you, but to me, there's nothing more pointless than "I think that was great", "well, I think it was stupid", "no, it was great", "no... stupid"... and on and on.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Mesh on July 30, 2003, 02:01:59 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenI dunno about you, but to me, there's nothing more pointless than "I think that was great", "well, I think it was stupid", "no, it was great", "no... stupid"... and on and on.

Here's something more pointless:

"I think that was great"

"Yeah, me too."

"Yeah, totally."

"Hellz, yeah, that movie rulez!"

"Damn straight."

.....which is exactly what you were lobbying for.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: SoNowThen on July 30, 2003, 02:13:35 PM
Actually, what I was lobbying for was a bunch of people who love a certain movie or director, talking about what/why it is it works for them, figuring out what the artist was trying to do/say, and learning from it, and hopefully getting a fresh outlook to enjoy it more next time. The only person I've ever had constructive disagreements with has been GT, and that's kind of his shtick anyway. I get so much more out of positive discussion.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Mesh on July 30, 2003, 02:19:28 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenThe only person I've ever had constructive disagreements with has been GT, and that's kind of his shtick anyway.

For a disagreement to be constructive, I guess I'd have to learn or glean some new perspective from the person I was in disagreement with.  GT's not very good at making clear, cogent points, IMO; I'm never more than 80% sure I understand what the fuck he's talking about, so it's hard for me to A) take him seriously and B) learn or glean anything from him.  But if he works for you:   8)

Quote from: SoNowThenI get so much more out of positive discussion.

Discussions to me are just that:  discussions.  I don't differentiate between positive ones and negative ones.
Title: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: MacGuffin on January 12, 2005, 03:13:22 PM
Oscar Watch: Martin Scorsese
Clint already has his Best Director trophy and Alexander Payne is only 43. This year, everyone’s sentimental favorite is a 62-year-old native of Queens, New York. Source: FilmStew.com

The list of Hollywood legends that have never won an Oscar is of course longer than Greer Garson’s famous 1944 acceptance speech. But in the shadow of two recent and expansive DVD collections from Warner Brothers and MGM, perhaps no such omission feels as glaring this awards season as that of filmmaker Martin Scorsese.

Beginning with Raging Bull, ending with Gangs of New York and spanning The Last Temptation of Christ, Goodfellas and The Age of Innocence in between, the 62-year-old Queens, New York native has had to settle for close but no Oscar cigar. However, many industry watchers are expecting this year to be different, thanks to the second of Scorsese’s three collaborations with actor Leonardo DiCaprio (the third being their ambitious planned remake of Infernal Affairs).

Scorsese himself seems to sense the opportunity, engaging with the media for a more concentrated and consistent period than at any other time in recent memory. From a special edition of Jon Favreau’s Dinner for Five (retitled for the occasion as Dinner for Two) to Q&A’s following special industry guild screenings, Scorsese has been happy to talk up his latest DiCaprio effort, which reteams them as well with Initial Entertainment Group financier Graham King.

“In the ‘80s, I was sort of on the outskirts of the industry, to a certain extent,” explains Scorsese during a recent press conference to promote The Aviator’s release. “I sort of had to make films all over again, lower budget films, until I got The Color of Money and that sort of thing, until I hit back to stories that I really wanted to make like The Last Temptation of Christ.”

“I felt I was real lucky to have lived through a period where people could come back and say, ‘Hey, that stuff that you did in the ‘70s, that was pretty good.’”

It still comes as a surprise to the man responsible for some of the most acclaimed films of the modern era that there is virtually an entire generation of filmmakers who worship at the altar of his filmography, pilfering various ideas and influences. “To even hear about these kids doing films that are influenced by Mean Streets, of all things, it’s a real honor if they really have been,” he says humbly.

At the same time, Scorsese confesses that it’s not easy to continue to move forward without regard for what audiences, critics and fans expect. “For me to make my own films, I just have to remain true to what the picture is and know that's the story that I really want to tell,” he says.

“I was very lucky with The Aviator to have fallen upon the situation with [screenwriter] John Logan, Leo [DiCaprio] and Michael Mann,” Scorsese continues. “All of them created a story about a man that I could identify with, feel for, empathize with; a visionary who also had tragic flaws.”

“I think that kind of makes me feel comfortable with the material. But there's no doubt that every time I make a picture, there's a part of me that thinks, ‘Well, what are they expecting?’”

The Aviator follows Hughes through his early days as a maker of films to middle age, when he was challenged for ownership of TWA by Pan Am president Juan Trippe (played by Alec Baldwin). Logan’s script is a sprawling affair that captures events in Hughes’ life like fly-bys on an aircraft carrier tower. Although Scorsese says he was initially mystified by Logan’s approach, he was also ultimately charmed by the screenwriter’s unconventional approach to both the man and the material.

“[It was interesting] what John chose to leave out during that period, and what he chose to combine and fictionalise, attempting to get the spirit of what Hughes was like,” he says. “[Hughes] was a visionary, he was obsessed with speed, young, energetic, filled with wonder and excitement, not only with aviation but also Hollywood, and making big movies.”

“Major Hollywood filmmakers like Warren Beatty and Stephen Spielberg had wanted to do this project for many years,” Scorsese continues. “But to make a Hughes picture about the events of Hughes’ life, where do you start and where do you end? And so I thought it was more or less their territory until I read John’s script.”

Scorsese is just a few days away from the beginning of his possible awards season roll, with this Sunday's Golden Globes ceremony preceding those of the Academy, the Directors Guild of America and others. Although the hoopla surrounding Clint Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby is formidable, the splashy style of The Aviator is one that could very much sway the voters of the Hollywood Foreign Press, thereby boosting the filmmaker's subsequent Oscar chances.

With his latest film, Scorsese admits that combining fact and fiction is a necessary evil. With too much material to represent accurately, key moments were in the end often condensed to streamline the cinematic narrative.

“In the publishing world, people call it, ‘Faction,'” he explains. “But when you're dealing with a character like Howard Hughes or other characters in history, I think that to a certain extent one can take a kind of poetic license to combine and fictionalise certain aspects of lives and what happened. I think that a lot of it has to do with if you're truthful to the emotion, if you're truthful to the very core of the ideas of what happened in his life.”

“There will always be people who disagree with you because it's based on a real character,” Scorsese acknowledges. “But I think what John did was very interesting. The film is meant to be an impression of views, an impression of the spectacle of Hollywood and at the same time [that of] a man who wants to fly to the sun like Icarus. But his wings really are wax, ultimately.”

Scorsese’s own wings have never amounted to wax, except in the final rounds of Academy voting. But if he fails to win Best Director once again this season for The Aviator, it will increase the odds of yet another of our pre-eminent filmmakers not being recognized by the awards bastion of his chosen industry.
Title: Re: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: Ravi on October 23, 2006, 05:45:03 PM
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54336

Martin Scorsese's Next Film To Be Three Hours Of Begging For Oscar
October 23, 2006

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg207.imageshack.us%2Fimg207%2F9980%2Ftheentitledarticleko7.jpg&hash=f6d44798c7565485dfcab4317b983e80b64c5a1c)

NEW YORK—Director Martin Scorsese, long praised as one of the greatest modern American filmmakers for his works Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Last Temptation Of Christ, and Goodfellas, is following up his recent string of critically acclaimed triumphs with The Entitled, a three-hour, unabashed plea for a Best Director Oscar that opens nationwide Friday.

Scorsese has lost to almost every major American filmmaker in his career, including actor–director Kevin Costner, who went on to create Waterworld and The Postman.

Scorsese also designed the poster for his latest Oscar effort.

"I've been making pictures for 40 years," said the intense, fast-talking Scorsese in an excerpt from The Entitled, during which the Rolling Stones' "Gimme Shelter" can be heard in the background. "For 40 years, I've been making pictures. And I've always been fascinated with the struggles a man must endure when people don't appreciate him. People say I'm the best. I didn't say it, they did. I just do my work. But for years they've been talking and you know it. You do. I deserve that award, is all I'm saying."

The film, produced, directed, and independently released by the five-time Academy Award nominee, is a bold departure from his signature style of rapid editing, kinetic camera movement, and intricately choreographed tracking shots, instead employing only a single camera on a stationary tripod, with virtually no editing besides brief opening and closing credits. Captivating narratives of moral decay and violent machismo were notably absent, as Scorsese focused on a a simple message of redemption and gratification he hoped would be "real easy for everyone to understand."

"For years I did the little pictures about the types of people I grew up with," said a passionately gesturing Scorsese in another Entitled scene. "Then I did the prestige-y, historical stuff like Last Temptation and The Age Of Innocence because I related to the characters, you know, outsiders in repressive environments making fateful choices. Then I started making the big sweeping epics, like Kundun and The Aviator. I've made comedies and documentaries, even concert films. Ever heard of The Last Waltz? No? Okay. You should."

Continued Scorsese, "What happens? Nothing. Nothing for the versatile visionary who lives and breathes pictures."

Scorsese goes on to describe in meticulous detail individual scenes "that alone should have won the Oscar," including Travis Bickle posing with his guns in front of a mirror in Taxi Driver, the close-up of coffee cups at the Debonair Social Club in Raging Bull, and the pool-hall fight scene in Mean Streets. "Remember my scene in the back of the cab in Taxi Driver?" Scorsese said. "That was me. I was that guy. That was me. Everyone remembers that."

"You already should have done right by me with Gangs Of New York," he said. "I handed you guys that one on a silver platter."

Although Scorsese does away with his traditional ensemble cast in The Entitled, several of his past associates make brief appearances, including director and screenwriter Paul Schrader, friend and collaborator Jay Cocks, and film editor Thelma Schoonmaker.

"There's Paul," said Scorsese as Schrader briefly tilted his head into the frame and waved. "He has his own directorial career and he still says I should get an Oscar. He should, too. None of us are above wanting a little recognition. We're not stuck up."

"You want feel-good and heartwarming, right?" Scorsese said. "I can do that. Or I can do casual violence with no strings attached. You know I can. What else you want? Kung-fu wire-work? Mentally disabled guy? Boring Robert Redford-style fishing movie? Just tell me what to do, I'll do it. Done. End of story. Give me my Oscar and I'm out of here. Poof."

Newsweek movie critic David Ansen called The Entitled Scorsese's "best shot" at a directing Oscar since his most recent loss to Clint Eastwood for Million Dollar Baby. "Filming in a soundstage in Burbank instead of on the streets of New York was a risk, but it will pay off," Ansen said. "As long as Spielberg doesn't come out with anything, I'd say this is Scorsese's year."

Film-industry insiders said that The Entitled was already being talked about as the frontrunner for the Golden Globes, the Palme d'Or, Cannes, and Tribeca Film Festival honors, and an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.
Title: Re: Whoops! - Marty's Oscar campaign
Post by: pete on October 25, 2006, 12:01:10 AM
I can't tell if that was bland sarcasm or bland cluelessness.