Quote from: soixanteScorsese made a few mediocre films in the 80's, but then he did GoodFellas.
one, maybe. and that's cos he wanted to work with paul newman.
Quote from: PubrickQuote from: soixanteScorsese made a few mediocre films in the 80's, but then he did GoodFellas.
one, maybe. and that's cos he wanted to work with paul newman.
I think After Hours, Color of Money and Last Temptation were not primo Scorsese, neither was New York, New York in the 70's nor Cape Fear in the 90's. Certainly Scorsese's 80's output paled compared to his 70's output.
And then there's Clint Eastwood. Blood Work was nothing special, nor was Space Cowboys, but then he did Mystic River.
Quote from: soixante
I think After Hours and Last Temptation were not primo Scorsese,
i think those are two of his best, if not his best behind taxi driver..
edit: :yabbse-lipsrsealed: ....
Interesting topic. I think maybe we're taking too much for granted. It's cool to criticise were he might be going wrong with things. Speaking of Scorsese, I don't like where he's going with these ploys for oscars, Gangs and Aviator and now a remake. Next he's gonna adapt (insert bestseller here). Yet no one's starting a "cantstandya marty" thread.
Just trying to play devil's advocate.
The sad truth is, Scorsese has become too enmeshed in the mainstream Hollywood system and has lost his edge, although he is still a skilled technician. His days as a serious artist were in the 70's.
QT is still making films with an edge. Kill Bill was not only split in two, it was told in a fractured chronology, which is still rare in Hollywood films. His use of grab-bag music cues and cinematic homages dovetails nicely with hip-hop sampling and post-modern self-reflexivity. Using the RZA to score Kill Bill is different from using symphonic movie score composers like John Williams or Howard Shore.
Quote from: soixanteHis days as a serious artist were in the 70's.
yeah, you're joking, right?
Quote from: ewardQuote from: soixanteHis days as a serious artist were in the 70's.
yeah, you're joking, right?
Not at all.
Quote from: soixanteQuote from: ewardQuote from: soixanteHis days as a serious artist were in the 70's.
yeah, you're joking, right?
Not at all.
couldn't disagree more
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: soixanteQuote from: ewardQuote from: soixanteHis days as a serious artist were in the 70's.
yeah, you're joking, right?
Not at all.
couldn't disagree more
To me, Mean Streets and Taxi Driver represent Scorsese's peak, which he will never hit again. Raging Bull was actually shot in 1979, so it's really more like a 70's film than an 80's film.
In the 80's, Scorsese became too mainstream with stuff like Color of Money and in the 90's with Cape Fear. Every so often he makes something like GoodFellas and Casino, which are excellent in their own way, but not as sublime or original as his 70's films. In fact, GoodFellas is like Mean Streets lite -- it is Scorsese designed for mainstream audiences. Stuff like Last Temptation and Age of Innocence are misfires, despite their artistic pretensions.
Perhaps a good analogy is Bob Dylan. Dylan was at his most sublime in the 60's, and will never top the work he did in that period, but he still put out brilliant stuff sporadically, like Blood in the Tracks in the 70's and Love and Theft in 2001.
Quote from: soixanteIn the 80's, Scorsese became too mainstream with stuff like Color of Money and in the 90's with Cape Fear. Every so often he makes something like GoodFellas and Casino, which are excellent in their own way, but not as sublime or original as his 70's films.
up until this century, i think a more accurate statement would be: 'every so often he makes what could be perceived as a mainstream film,' like those two examples u gave.
in the 80s let's see, just assuming Color of Money was "mainstream", and that Raging Bull is a 70s movie
- The King of Comedy, what's mainstream about this
- After Hours, what a huge blockbuster this was!
- Last Temptation of Christ, hmm, more like THE OPPOSITE OF MAINSTREAM
really dude, u need to review ur definition of what ur talking about. the 80s was possibly his least mainstream period, however u define that. even the 90s, with the anomaly (let's call it that for ur argument's sake) of Cape Fear, he made three extremely non mainstream films - Age of Innocence, Kundun, and Bringing Out the Dead. i'm getting sick of that M word now. up until the last 5 years there would be no reason to attach it to scorsese. statistically there is no basis for it.
the same goes for this "misfire" business, what is that? that they were not 'mainstream' hits, thus killing ur argument?
Bringing Out the Dead is about as far from mainstream as you can get with a star actor attached.
Quote from: MyxomatosisBringing Out the Dead is about as far from mainstream as you can get with a star actor attached.
How? Its an easy request. I don't even like the movie, but I'll give Scorsese this: he went for it. He adapted a novel as a faithfully as he could and never hindered one detail or theme to a Hollywood convention.
Should this be moved to the Scorsese forum now? :yabbse-undecided:
Quote from: MacGuffinShould this be moved to the Scorsese forum now? :yabbse-undecided:
i'll split it from the last page or so..
i guess i'm going to have to jump in the minority here and say i agree with soixante, and his bob dylan analogy. (although i can see the 'mainstream' part is subjective and arguable, i still get what he's trying to say.)
Quote from: themodernage02i guess i'm going to have to jump in the minority here and say i agree with soixante, and his bob dylan analogy. (although i can see the 'mainstream' part is subjective and arguable, i still get what he's trying to say.)
Good reply. I sympathize with his position without being able to agree. When it comes to arguing Scorsese, I'm more negative about his films than most people. The only films of his I thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated were Casino, The Last Temptation of Christ and The Aviator. I like others to certain degrees, but not totally. The reasons are too varied to list off in order.
i know of all those words, but bunched together in that particular order, they don't seem to make any sense at all...
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetQuote from: themodernage02i guess i'm going to have to jump in the minority here and say i agree with soixante, and his bob dylan analogy. (although i can see the 'mainstream' part is subjective and arguable, i still get what he's trying to say.)
Good reply. I sympathize with his position without being able to agree. When it comes to arguing Scorsese, I'm more negative about his films than most people. The only films of his I thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated were Casino, The Last Temptation of Christ and The Aviator. I like others to certain degrees, but not totally. The reasons are too varied to list off in order.
Taxi Driver? Goodfellas? Raging Bull? Mean Streets?
These are all brilliant films. You don't include them on your list of Scorsese films you enjoyed?
Quote from: MyxomatosisQuote from: The Gold TrumpetQuote from: themodernage02i guess i'm going to have to jump in the minority here and say i agree with soixante, and his bob dylan analogy. (although i can see the 'mainstream' part is subjective and arguable, i still get what he's trying to say.)
Good reply. I sympathize with his position without being able to agree. When it comes to arguing Scorsese, I'm more negative about his films than most people. The only films of his I thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated were Casino, The Last Temptation of Christ and The Aviator. I like others to certain degrees, but not totally. The reasons are too varied to list off in order.
Taxi Driver? Goodfellas? Raging Bull? Mean Streets?
These are all brilliant films. You don't include them on your list of Scorsese films you enjoyed?
'Enjoyed' is too simple of a word. Appreciation along with enjoyed is better. And honestly, a resounding "no" for all those. I'd love to argue any of them, but still, this is general Scorsese talk. My attempt to adaquately argue each film there would make me skip points and just want to get done. I'll say Raging Bull comes the closest. That film's main problem is the existence of an amazingly better film made years earlier and almost completely alike in subject: This Sporting Life.
Quote from: classical gasi know of all those words, but bunched together in that particular order, they don't seem to make any sense at all...
These replies bug me the most. Say "why"! I just ask for a fair shake. Myxomatosis replied to my post fine.
i apologize....i was basically requesting the same thing, about taxi driver and raging bull, etc....you answered his reply, which was an answer to mine, so, no harm done...two birds, one stone and a little pebble at my self-esteem....
I really love him and his films. But I still haven't seen the following films: boxcar bertha, the age of innocence, the color of money, the last waltz, Kundun, and the last temptation of christ. Any of those on that list should I see first?
Quote from: classical gasi apologize....i was basically requesting the same thing, about taxi driver and raging bull, etc....you answered his reply, which was an answer to mine, so, no harm done...two birds, one stone and a little pebble at my self-esteem....
OK....I'll keep it brief because I feel I do owe it:
Taxi Driver: The best part of this film is the filmmaking achievement to show Bickel's inner paranoia and the violence in his mind. Scorsese in interviews paints the film as a Vietnam War veteran lost after coming home. I don't see any part of that. Not only do I not see that, but I don't see the larger and more interesting question of "how" he became who he even is. A few years ago, The Believer painted the unbelievable scenario of a Jew becoming a Neo Nazi. Startling to see such a character wave his hand in the air to salute Hitler, but also easy. The entire focus of that film should have been how he became that. Also a flaw is that much of Taxi Driver film rests on the supposed dream sequence of whether he survived the gun shoot out and almost got the girl. To me, it hardly matches the character portrait of the rest of the film. Taxi Driver never was about whether he charmed the girl or not, but his continuing downward spiral to make any connection with anyone. To end it on the idea he maybe or maybe not got his dream girl's attention seems like an easy out.
Mean Streets: Scorsese called Cassavetes his mentor and this feels like his apprentice film to him. Scorsese simplifies the story as much as he can and keeps it as personal as he can, but it seemed like he was trying to recreate the hallmark of Cassavetes cinema without getting there. For me, the very best of Cassavetes is his ability to not just keep a story simple, but carry it with a tone of filmmaking and presence that you feel immersed in one person's life and as you follow the character, you feel their traits carried along and it really bleeds through the screen. I think about A Woman Under the Influence and The Killing of a Chinese Bookie when I think of this. Scorsese only goes half way. The story is simple, but he relies on old tricks to tell their story. He doesn't just introduce the character, but he also introduces a problem. Cassavetes is all character til halfway. Then as Scorsese progresses with the story, he focuses on the smaller points of their life and instead of feeling like great detail, it feels like lazy storytelling. I cared more for the problem De Niro's character was and so was impatient for a resolution that was slow coming. I never felt connected really to Keital's character for himself. Scorsese didn't have to be totally Cassavetes to succeed here, but I didn't think he was interesting in general with the choices he made.
Raging Bull: Like I said before, there's a wonderful superior film to this that could easily be compared any day. This Sporting Life is a British film made in the 1960s about a rugby player who deals with anger problems on and off the field and even though he succeeds tremendously at his sport, it becomes clear he is taking his home issues out on the field more than anything else. The film isn't chronological. It jumps back and forth from the beginning to end and sometimes even in the middle. It wasn't trying to influence Pulp Fiction, but paint a portait of this man that starts from his psyche and shows different scenes of his life that as the film progresses, begins to paint a clear image of what truly drives him at his work. The film tells the story according to its theme and the effectiveness of the film was that much more for me than Raging Bull.
Goodfellas: Someone said this film is the lightweight version of Mean Streets. Thats a really good idea. I never believed Ebert's emphasis that this film was that personal for Scorsese. It's told too simply and with too much nostalgia. The story is as enjoyable as any film, but where's the accomplishment? The filmmaking is as crisp as he got at that point, but he succeeded himself immensely for this type of film in Casino. Casino is a spetacle of his command of the camera to tell a story. Goodfellas is enjoyable, but doesn't have enough of the dramatic or personal touch to compete with earlier works and not enough technical majesty to compete with later works. Its a film stuck in the middle for me.
I hope that answers something.
Bringing Out The Dead is a mainstream film. It was financed by Touchstone and Paramount, and has an upbeat ending, and a very traditional Hollywood plot. After Hours is mainstream -- Warner Brothers, big stars in the cast. Age of Innocence -- mainstream, Columbia, big budget.
Ok, non-mainstream -- Jon Jost. Never had studio backing. His films don't play at multiplexes. His storylines are non-linear. He never had Mike Ovitz as his agent, like Scorsese did.
Robert Altman in the 80's -- non-mainstream. Fool for Love, based on a Sam Shepard play, non-linear, abstract, played in about 3 theaters. Whereas After Hours had a somewhat weird edge on the surface, it was still a traditional Hollywood comedy in which Scorsese hoped the audience would laugh in all the right places, while Fool for Love or O.C. and Stiggs were the work of a maverick artist who didn't give a fuck if anyone liked his work (much like when Charlie Parker would play a solo with his back to the audience).
In my opinion, once you work for the major studios, you're a mainstream filmmaker. Guys like Jon Jost, Jean-Luc Godard and Robert Altman seldom, if ever, have anything to do with major studios.
For the record, I haven't lost interest in Scorsese. I still see all his films, and he is still one of my favorite filmmakers. However, I think Scorsese has gotten a little soft with time, like many artists (unlike Altman or Godard, who are both still on the vanguard and pushing the limits of the medium).
I guess I'm splitting hairs to say that I don't like GoodFellas as much as Mean Streets, or Raging Bull as much as Taxi Driver. I thought GoodFellas was the best film of 1990, but still, it's not as great as Mean Streets. Few films really explore the ethical and moral and religious dilemmas explored in Mean Streets. Compared to Mean Streets, GoodFellas just glosses over the surface of mafia life, without really exploring every single layer of someone's soul, like Mean Streets does.
So, what the fuck?
Your film has to be totally obscure and be available to an audience of 23 to be cool? That a movie has the backing of a major studio and a huge budget should not automatically put it in some sort of "uncool" status. How lame is that? I've never understood the whole "run once something is popular" crap. If the film is great, who gives a shit if the budget was $100,00 or $100,000,000. People do the same thing with music.
"Man! XYZ band used to be my favorite, but now they're all over the radio! I hate em!"
Quote from: soixanteRobert Altman in the 80's -- non-mainstream. Fool for Love, based on a Sam Shepard play, non-linear, abstract, played in about 3 theaters.
It grossed $468,106.
I'm guessing it played in a few more than three theaters. Also, it was released by "Cannon Group" who put together a run of some pretty aweful campy movies in the 1980s including,
American Ninja 1, 2, 3, 4
Bloodsport
Cyborg
Death Wish 3, 4
I'm guessing that Altman didn't have people beating down his door for the wonderous "Fool for Love". I'd also bet that he shopped it around quite a bit before Cannon Group agreed.
Quote from: MyxomatosisSo, what the fuck?
Your film has to be totally obscure and be available to an audience of 23 to be cool? That a movie has the backing of a major studio and a huge budget should not automatically put it in some sort of "uncool" status. How lame is that? I've never understood the whole "run once something is popular" crap. If the film is great, who gives a shit if the budget was $100,00 or $100,000,000. People do the same thing with music.
"Man! XYZ band used to be my favorite, but now they're all over the radio! I hate em!"
I never said mainstream was automatically bad or uncool. There are plenty of big-budget studio films I like. However, there is a great deal of danger when a filmmaker with a unique vision crosses over into mainstream Hollywood, and I feel that Scorsese has sometimes done films for commercial, not personal, reasons.
Quote from: soixanteBringing Out The Dead is a mainstream film. It was financed by Touchstone and Paramount, and has an upbeat ending, and a very traditional Hollywood plot.
Traditional plot? One, the protaganist is not a hero, but just someone looking to make good with his sordid past. He acts almost out of fear and anxiety than courage. Two, the love sub plot never materializes to the usual Hollywood affair type. Its basically about two people who want to find some peace in their life. No great love scene or as far as I remember, a romantic kiss. Their major accomplishment is they find comfort in sleeping next to each other.
The ending I wouldn't characterize as upbeat. I'd say hopeful. An upbeat ending would have promised a great life later on when they are just trying to make it through the day.
Read the novel it was based on. It follows that novel very much to its core and Scorsese made the film based just on his appreciation of the novel and with getting Schrader to adapt the screenplay, didn't allow for Hollywood opinion to inflict itself on the film.
I'm finding it odd I'm defending a film I don't think is even good, but it deserves some respect.
Bringing Out the Dead is a good film, and it has some inspired moments. But I think it's still pretty mainstream -- the protagonist meets the love interest in the first 10 minutes, the protagonist has to overcome the demons of his past in order to have a decent future (similar plot to Good Will Hunting).
Compare this story structure to the non-linear works of Godard and Jon Jost. Scorsese works within the confines of big-budget, mainstream Hollywood conventions, and does better work than most directors in this situation. However, I can't imagine Scorsese making a film like Gummo, Elephant or Buffalo 66.
As for Cannon Films, they made a lot of bad B-movies in the 80's, but they also subsidized some art films, such as Barfly, Street Smart and Godard's King Lear. They also gave directors like Altman the creative leeway that major studios wouldn't provide.
Quote from: soixanteQuote from: MyxomatosisSo, what the fuck?
Your film has to be totally obscure and be available to an audience of 23 to be cool? That a movie has the backing of a major studio and a huge budget should not automatically put it in some sort of "uncool" status. How lame is that? I've never understood the whole "run once something is popular" crap. If the film is great, who gives a shit if the budget was $100,00 or $100,000,000. People do the same thing with music.
"Man! XYZ band used to be my favorite, but now they're all over the radio! I hate em!"
I never said mainstream was automatically bad or uncool. There are plenty of big-budget studio films I like. However, there is a great deal of danger when a filmmaker with a unique vision crosses over into mainstream Hollywood, and I feel that Scorsese has sometimes done films for commercial, not personal, reasons.
Mainstream isn't bad, but in my opinion what happens is people change. Like musicians, they had that hunger before, that obscurity and they put it all out on a record, then when they get bigger (which is a good thing) they lose a sense of what it was that got them there. It all happens in the sub conscious. It's the same way with Scorsese, I feel he made his best films at a very young age and has kind of been trodding along lightly. He hasen't made bad films, he's just tried to make good films. Alot of the filmmakers of that era have gone through the same thing, Coppola, De Palma, even Spielberg to an extent. People change, and they get older and they get more money and they get surrounded by different people who change them for better or worse, none of those guys are trying to make a bad movie, they just don't have that same THING they had when they were starting out, cause when you got money, and yes men and acceptance, it's hard to hold onto that THING.
this argument is retarded.
Quote from: ewardthis argument is retarded.
I'm afraid I have to agree with eward. :yabbse-thumbup:
Reading how someone doesn't like these movies is like trying to read a pitchforkmedia review, I just can't understand any of it.
Quote from: Gamblor Ain'tWorthADollarQuote from: ewardthis argument is retarded.
I'm afraid I have to agree with eward. :yabbse-thumbup:
Reading how someone doesn't like these movies is like trying to read a pitchforkmedia review, I just can't understand any of it.
haha..
I hate Pitchforkmedia. Buncha clowns working at that joint.
Quote from: soixanteCompare this story structure to the non-linear works of Godard and Jon Jost.
What about the linear work of John Cassavetes? Is he not an indepedent because his stories are linear? Does one have non linear to be indepedent? Do you realize your argument basically eliminates a good percentage of all foreign filmmakers?
Quote from: soixanteScorsese works within the confines of big-budget, mainstream Hollywood conventions, and does better work than most directors in this situation. However, I can't imagine Scorsese making a film like Gummo, Elephant or Buffalo 66.
Would you argue Sam Fuller as mainstream? Isn't there a history of artists who do have studio backing but always fight for artistic freedom? What about their story?
Quote from: Gamblor Ain'tWorthADollarQuote from: ewardthis argument is retarded.
I'm afraid I have to agree with eward. :yabbse-thumbup:
Reading how someone doesn't like these movies is like trying to read a pitchforkmedia review, I just can't understand any of it.
I'm always stunned by those who don't see anything to an argument still feel so overcome to comment on it. Should all arguments that don't fit your criteria of 'excellence' be put down? See, I doubt you any of you meant to stop this argument in its tracks, but these comments really do shift the tide of what the thread is about. What usually happens is the argument is gone and we're back to talking about absolutely nothing. I see a worse situation in that.
Well maybe my saying that I don't understand why you would argue this is enough to suggest that you should step back from the argument and really think about the significance of what the hell you are talking about.
I think shifting the tide is a good thing, in terms of this argument. But that's just me, because I can't understand this argument. And my point is as valid as any, ideally.
If I should comment on good arguments, why not comment on bad ones?
OK, so what don't I understand about this argument:
I don't see why it is important to quibble over the artistic value of a man's work that I feel is all good to begin with. I'm not in the minority, I think, when I say that Scorsese's shit has never been "mainstream" by any made-up definition of the word. Also, I think, IN MY OPINION, that Goodfellas, Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, and Raging Bull (among others) are amazing pieces of cinema and I really don't agree with anything that's been said about them, especially by you GT. Maybe it's close-mindedness or ignorance, but us, the people of xixax, criticizing something as amazing as Taxi Driver or Goodfellas is about the most pointless thing you could ever do. Sure, in some ideal sense of criticism that everything should be criticised, that's fine, I agree with that. Reading it here, however, I have to gripe. And I did. And now you get this post explaining why.
You can criticise all you like, and again this is probably egotistical and limiting, but let's stick to stuff that has room for criticism without coming off like pompous asses. I mean to me, there's something wrong with being so high-brow to say, "Taxi Driver's ending was an easy out." If I'm the only one, someone tell me.
You're against my argument, fine. But you really haven't explained what about my argument your against. You're just labeling it. I understood the impossible task to "explain" my dislike for many of his films at once, but I do think I adaquately tried to explain.
This "mainstream" thing is very adolescent. In any case, I'm of the opinion that "mainstream" movies are stuff like "White Chicks" and "Men in Black". When intelligent films like Good Fellas are well received by audiences, that's more of a happy accident than an expected audience reaction from the studios and filmmakers.
Just because a film has a big budget and studio support doesn't automaticly makes it mainstream. How can Kundun be mainstream by any standard?? Tibetan non actors in a story about the Dalai Lama? Bringing Out the Dead? Age of Innocence? Gangs of New York even?? The only (maybe) mainstream film in scorsese's career is Cape Fear. But all of his films from the nineties are big budgeted art films. I mean, it's like saying Nixon is a mainstream film. Like James Wood said (talkin about Nixon and Casino): "these films are studio movies made with independent thinking".
I woke up this morning, and found that I had regained my interest in Martin Scorsese.
it is accomplished.
end of thread.
alternate titles: how soixante got his groove back; the soixante redemption.