(Spielberg) in person

Started by mutinyco, June 12, 2003, 08:54:44 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mutinyco

You're making the case. Choose your ways and means.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

Well, I'm at work, so if I wanna post something here, can you give me until lunch time, so I can actually write something? I don't wanna ruin your post, but I guess everyone should be able to read it, unless you absolutely want a PM.

But again, do you want a whole career summation, with snippets of films? Or a film specifically?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

MacGuffin

"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

SoNowThen

Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

mutinyco

Focus on him. Why is he such a great director in your estimation? Stick to him and use references to his work to bolster your argument.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

'kay. Cool. I will post here by early afternoon.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

modage

this  is gonna be good.
*(grabs popcorn) :yabbse-thumbup:
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Alethia


SoNowThen

okay, here goes...

WHY I LOVE MARTIN SCORSESE
an essay (?) by Sean Corbett


I'm not gonna get all technical here, because if I start using too many big words, or thinking too much, it'll smother the raw passion that I feel for Marty's work. So I'll go with the guts of what I feel -- the stuff that "curls in your belly, makes you wanna freaky deaky".

Also, the following are some reasons why I love his films. I don't profess to know why anyone else does. This stuff is personal. Yet I truly wish everyone loved him as I did...

Okay, so what makes a director amazing, and doesn't have to do just with the "visuals, and violence", as you said. Well, I gotta bring visuals in at some point, because these are Moving Pictures, and as we all know, a picture is worth 1000 words. It's the visuals that get the story across. And Marty happens to be a master at visual kinetic storytelling. But more on that later. Anyway, what really makes a director (what essentially "is" a director) is the choices he makes for his film. Being the General on set, the director will oversee everything that happens, and give his stamp of approval (depending on how much control he is afforded by the financers -- in Marty's case, he has always exercised as much control as possible, given the situation). So the first and foremost important choice the director can make is what kind of stories he wants to tell. In this, I feel Martin is superb. He seems to gravitate towards struggles for redemption, sometimes specifically dealing with how to live life according to Christian principles, when it seems so impossible in the real world (Mean Streets, Last Temptation Of Christ). His subjects are not "good" men (but really, who is?),  rather they are sinners who know they sin, and frequently loath themselves because of it... and go out of their way to punish themselves for it. I can relate to this because it seems to be how I've chosen to live my life. Of course, in Scorsese movies the punishment is usually more exciting, but that's all down to his great showmanship of drama. But these stories are not morality tales; he never tells us the "right" thing to do, because Marty does not pander to an audience. He just shows the effects (personally and externally) of his main characters' choices. This, I feel, seperates him from a gross majority of filmmakers who feel a need to prove a "point", and suss out a "bad guy", when that bad guy is in each of us, and until we learn to look in the mirror and deal with ourselves (Raging Bull), things are just gonna get worse.

Some may say that Martin just resorts to violence in his films, as an easy way out. But how can one make this claim? His characters are violent men, raised with violence, almost taught to understand that violence is an acceptable way to solve things, and frequently -- when confused as to how to think something through -- put this attitude into sudden and horrendous effect. This is why he works so well with Paul Schrader scripts. Paul is so affected by this notion of "manhood" and its historical connections with violence as progress vs violence that afflicts and stagnates us. But I digress. Shit, too many fancy words. Back to the game: Casino is a great example of people confusing Marty's screen violence as exploitation/smut/what-have-you. Pehaps, up until that point, viewers were exhilirated by Joe Pesci's actions. I dunno. Maybe they thought what he did was "cool". Well, this is why Marty has such a brutal final killing scene. You liked Joe? Well, watch as his best friends beat him to (near) death with bats, then bury him as he still breaths. This where his lifestyle got him. This is where it all ends. Live by the sword and die by it. Clearly, Marty continually comdemns violence, but has to be realistic and say Violence has existed, and will exist, forever. Especially when all these flashy things are up for grabs (Vegas casino money, chicks, power and fame, good tables at restaurants...) some people are gonna try and take them by force. The man is exploring one of our most human traits/flaws from the beginning of time. His stories are important.

His other common themes include Lonliness, Blind Obsession/Dedication, Loyalty, and as I said before, Redemption. Now, I'm not saying he is unique in this aspect, but pointing out that his mix (his "palette" if you will) is very interesting, at least to myself. He has, and continues to, explore these subjects in depth, with an almost perverse fascination. Most of his main characters (upon some moment of catharsis) undergo a baptism of sorts (attributed to his Roman Catholic roots) with blood. They are Cleansed by the Blood Of Christ, so to speak. No other contemporary director has worked this intensely with religious imagery in a non-satiric way. Look for a spray of blood (most times from the neck) for this: Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Gang Of New York, obviously the whole crucifiction in Last Temptation. Sometimes this bloodletting is negative (signalling a significantly low moment for the character): Raging Bull last fight, Casino bar stabbing, Bringing Out The Dead. The images are consistent and effective throughout his work.

Now, what better way to segue into the visuals of Scorsese? How can one accuse the man of being overindulgent with his camera? Have you ever seen the way he moves and speaks in real life? This is the celluloid representation of how he feels. Intense, kinetic, constantly flowing and evolving, with the opportunity to explode at any second (the perfect match for the stories he picks!). He takes forms from all the greatest directors of the past, and merges them into both a celebration of cinema, and a unique voice all his own. In the movies, style definitely counts for something. And Marty has style. In terms of influencing our best directors of today, the man is like The Beatles to Pop Music. He has taken fluctuating camera speed, and raised it to perfection, when having to deal with characters' heightened states of perception (see Taxi Driver, the slow-mo Travis POV shots). He has a very specific use of this, which I believe is exclusive to his films, in terms of its presentation and context. Of course, assisting these visuals is his wonderful ear for music. Not just the great source songs we are all familiar with, but with his choice of score as well. How amazing was the scene from Taxi Driver, where we went straight into a Jackson Browne song, after being intoxicated with Bernard Hermann's lovely score up until that point. But then this rock song explodes in, and we see Travis staring at the tv, zoning out, gun in hand. Very subtle zooms and inch-long dollies help enhance this scene, as it is made concrete to us that Travis is ready for his long descent into extreme violence and perhaps madness -- the True Force he thinks he must attain. This is my favorite scene ever, in cinema. Shivers down the spine, ladies and germs, shivers.

As I said before, choices are key here. And another important choice in filmmaking is who you surround yourself with. Granted, Marty has been blessed to work with some of the notable talents of our time. But he has always brought out the very best in them, so that much of their other work pales in comparison. Peter Gabriel's music for Last Temptation (and his bit in Gangs), I'd have to say is the high water mark of his musical career. He has been known to agree. Same can be said for Michael Chapman, a fine DP, who was on his A-game for Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. Thelma, his editor, with his support and guidance, has forged a cutting style as unique and influential as anything in the business. And of course, we come to his actors. His casting decisions are superb, and who else could show us the brilliance of Joe Pesci? All actors admit to great joy upon working with Martin. He always makes sure to tell the story, but will take breaths to show people just living their lives (how they cook, what music they listen to, etc), which must be nice to performers who are continually made to be slaves of some contrived plot. Most talked about (for good reason) is his allowance of improv to flesh out a performance. He gives enough freedom for an acting artist to bring a full and wonderful interpretation, yet can still bring in the reins to keep the movie on track. Whether it be with character actors (the several greats in Bringing Out The Dead), or huge stars (Color Of Money, Paul Newman's deserved Oscar), this man is a true Actor's Director.

As I can't quite fit these into formal prose, I will list off some other reasons I think Marty is great:

- shows he can work in many genres (thriller, crime, comedy) and inject new life into each
- eschews the pat 3 Act Structure of films, and has developed his own sequential/episodic storytelling that suits his stories so well (studies of character more than plot)
-  well respected in the industry, even by directors like Spielberg, who I consider to be his 180% opposite
- hugely influencial, especially on Tarantino and PTA
- a true, passionate lover and supporter of film -- and one of our most learned cinephiles (see his documentaries)

I would like to close with a description of the 2nd last sequence of Raging Bull, which can summarize most of what is great about Scorsese. Firstly, I note that even though it would have had to be marketed as a Boxing Picture, he doesn't let that tie him down from telling the proper story of the man: Jake LaMotta. It is not the tale of just a boxer, but of a man who deals with his problems outside the ring as he does inside; with violence and rage. But of course, outside the ring, he will not be celebrated for his victories, but will be punished. He almost craves this punishment. He allows himself to be beaten to a pulp against Robinson, but still this doesn't work. Because no one can solve Jake LaMotta's problems except Jake LaMotta. So he is put into a cell, where he is FINALLY forced to confront himself. He bashes his fists to the wall, the wall feels no pain, it is he who feels the pain. He can't contain it. He can't explain it. This is a man who is known not for his great boxing finesse, but for the fact that he can take so much punishment. But he can take no more. He breaks down: screaming, kicking, punching, then finally, crying. "I'm not an animal... I'm not that man...", says DeNiro. Yes, the great performance was given by the actor... but Marty had to put him in that context, create that situation for him, so that the great performance would bloom. And look at that scene! He has Chapman barely light it. You can't even see DeNiro! But you feel it. You feel his pain so much. This scene staggers me. It is the apex of the film. Where it all pointed to. This man must fight himself, come to terms with his own demons, like we must on a daily basis when we fail. At the end of the day, you have yourself. To blame. To love. To be true to or not. Violence. Lonliness. Loyalty. And finally, if it's possible (and Marty shows that he believes in some ways that it is)... Redemption.

*As a note, this scene was originally written to be something else, by Paul Schrader. They deemed it un-actable, and set to coming up with a new one. Right before shooting, together on an island getaway, Marty and DeNiro fleshed out the whole script, and came up with this scene. So, essentially, Marty did the final rewrite on Raging Bull, which is why I attribute the scene so much to him.

And this is why I truly believe Martin Scorsese is a brilliant, passionate, important director, who should (and will) be considered among the greatest of all time.

Cheers

(ps - sorry I sweared at you before, mutinyco, I was a little pissed off, and cranky this morn. I hope this expresses my opinion in a more mature fashion).

-- I will not edit this post, as it is from the heart. So, sorry in advance for spelling/grammer mistakes. Also, sorry for leaving so much out, but this is what I can come up with now. I could go on about Marty forever.--
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Sleuth

I like to hug dogs

children with angels

That was good! Looking forward to round two...
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

mutinyco

Greetings. Time for my take.

I think that every reason you gave as to why he's a great filmmaker, aside from his unyielding support for the medium and its restoration, is why I dislike his films. I don't find his Christian approach interesting, but intellectually archaic. I don't appreciate his frantic visual style – just like you said, it's a demonstration of his personality, which clearly lacks focus. And I don't feel he's been successful in multiple genres, that his excursions into costume drama, historical epic and religious exploration are flat and misguided, at best.

First, the Christian thing. I would argue that any filmmaker who attempts to be intellectually relevant, yet cannot get past the clank of Catholicism, isn't worth his beans. This is why somebody like Stanley Kubrick, who was considered by just about everybody who knew him to be the most intelligent person they'd ever met, was an atheist, agnostic at best. Intelligence requires skepticism, and I don't see that in Marty's work. Punishment and redemption aren't interesting or particularly deep. They are little more than emotional rationales. This is particularly destructive to Raging Bull, and the unwatchable Bringing Out The Dead.

I think Raging Bull is a boring film, first and foremost. It's dramatically monotonous, alternating between beautiful, overshot fight sequences and repetitious scenes of LaMotta being uncommunicative and arguing with everybody. The improvs are tedious. Repetitious. "I heard things." "What things? "I heard things." And on and on. No attempt is ever made to explain why LaMotta might be the way he was, even though much of who he was could probably be attributed to his formative years in boarding school. He's like a machine. Just keeps doing and not learning. The abrupt switch to years later again makes no attempt to explain how somebody who could barely maintain a conversation earlier could now be a social sleaze. He is, like most of Marty's characters, a moron. Stupid people doing stupid things. And this distances me from an emotional involvement. I've never had an emotional reaction to the jail scene. It comes so late in the film that I'm usually zoned out by then. And yes, I'm well aware that the original scene had him trying to masturbate, but failing to achieve an erection. That would have been better. It would have had balls, no pun intended, and been extremely humorous at the same time. It also would've been a great illustration of the link between his masculine sexuality and violence. That was the logical conclusion. But Marty instead focused on his "redemption."

Bringing Out the Dead was embarrassingly bad. A clear example of how out of touch he was as a director. He was consciously trying to return to a scenario he'd approached quite messily 20 years earlier. Whereas Taxi Driver was gritty, Dead was polished. It looked like a music video and hit too many beats he'd employed countless times before. Even the soundtrack was stale. It's boring to watch him cut his films to 1970s rock at this point. Get over it. You've done it too many times already. We all know your musical taste, and sometimes you even repeat songs. Move on.

This is all about choices. And I don't think they're interesting. Yes, directors make many of the decisions, including what story to tell. I don't think he makes good choices. I think he repeats himself too often and uses the same actors in the same parts too often. Do you realize that of his first 6 major films, 5 of them are set in NY and invariably feature low-level crime to one degree or another? That is not somebody interested in variety. That's not somebody who likes to stretch himself. Not somebody with a great deal on his mind.

As for eschewing the 3-act structure, so what? So did Fellini, Kurosawa, Bergman, Kubrick, Coppola, The Coens, Antonioni, Altman, etc. And he's done it in the least interesting ways, in my opinion. Fellini stretched between reality and fantasy. Kurosawa shuffled time and POVs. Bergman juxtaposed dreams of youth with age. Kubrick jumped 4 million years into the future. Coppola got off the boat. The Coens cut off their Johnson. Antonioni had his plot vanish. Altman perfected the ensemble. Scorsese preferred to mix choreography with improv to be episodic.

His incapacity for coherent storytelling is plainly displayed in Taxi Driver, a mess of a film. Scenes are out of order dramatically. So not only does this jumble the flow, but it also provides poor continuity, as Travis' hair length keeps changing. A perfect example of this is when he picks up Palantine in the cab. That scene should take place later on in the film. It should've been the spark to his mohawk, as the first time we see it is at a Palantine rally. Why does the scene occur right after Betsy tells us he won't be in town for a few weeks? Hello? Marty was doing a lot of coke and infamously rearranged the script in the editing room to Paul Schrader's horror. Second point, there are several scenes in the film that DO NOT BELONG. This is a first person narrative. That means Travis is telling the story. Period. There can't be any scenes outside of that. Yet there are. How would Travis know what Shepperd and Brooks talk about at work? How would Travis know that Foster and Keitel dance together? He wouldn't and the scenes are dramatically out of place. They don't belong, no matter how entertaining they may be. Yes, they're giving the audience information, but the audience IS Travis in a film like this. They're unnecessary and sloppy. (He even suggests as much on the Taxi Driver DVD.) And the ending is God awful. A trite attempt at irony that fails miserably. It should have ended with the bloodbath. That was the dramatic conclusion. Thematically, a baptism by blood isn't interesting. Know what is? Playing up the consequences of the military and its disregard for training clearly unstable people to kill, sending them off to kill, then returning them to society and expecting them to act normally.

This poor judgment extends deeply into his visual storytelling. He doesn't, in my opinion tell stories with pictures. He whizzes his camera around in an incoherent manner because he lacks discipline. He can never just allow a scene to take its natural flow. He has to rush everything and force it with unnecessary visual gimmicks. He's said that his two biggest influences were Welles and Casavettes. And that was obvious to me the first time I watched any of his work. I only heard him admit so years later. If there were ever two directors at polar ends of the spectrum whose work does not blend, it's Welles and Casavettes. One preferred tight visual choreography, the other loose improvisation. Unfortunately, Marty isn't very good at either. His Cassavettes is repetitious and lacks life. His Welles is based more on long lenses and quick editing, where Welles preferred wide compositions and long takes. (The Copa shot notwithstanding.) Welles was a master at staging the camera with his actors, letting it move with the action and within spaces. Marty isn't capable of staging. He has to let his camera do it for him. Put the camera here. Put the camera here. Move it here. His filmmaking is interesting because what he's dramatizing isn't. Gangsters enacting violence on each other? What's interesting or informative about that? Or idiots sitting around improvising dumb conversations?

He uses the most brazen techniques to accomplish what should be done subtly. Composition and lighting do so much. Spielberg and Kubrick were and are masters of this. Welles too. Look at the way they place multiple characters and pieces of information within their shots. Scorsese has to get individual shots of things, then paste it all together. It breaks the natural flow of events and calls its technique to attention. Art is an illusion. If your seams are constantly showing, then you're a lousy illusionist.

I could go on, but I'll wait for your response now.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Cecil

Quote from: mutinycoArt is an illusion.

says who?

are you talking about all art or just filmmaking? or just certain movies?

mutinyco

All art. It is not real. Yet you are accepting it as a form of reality. Whether paint of a canvas or pictures on film. In film's case. There isn't even actual motion. It's a series of still images that run at 24 fps to create an illusion of motion. And so on.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Ghostboy

Well.......I think you're 95% wrong, mutinyco, but only in contrast to my own opinion of what's right. I'll stay out of the debate, though...let's let the two opponents keep squaring off unhindered.