XIXAX Film Forum


Scorsese's article in Rolling Stone

EL__SCORCHO · 18 · 5436
Pages: 1 2   Go Down

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EL__SCORCHO

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
    • Posts: 210
on: April 29, 2003, 02:49:15 PM
Anyone read the article "On the leading Man" Scorsese wrote for Rolling Stone (issue May 15, 2003)?

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
    • Posts: 4536
    • 24/30 Cinema
Reply #1 on: April 29, 2003, 03:41:28 PM
No, but I'd love to. Can someone post it?
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.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
    • Posts: 4536
    • 24/30 Cinema
Reply #2 on: April 29, 2003, 03:49:58 PM
On that note, can someone post the article where William Goldman ripped into Marty? I just wanna read it and get pissed off. It might be fun.
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

  • Admin
  • *****
    • Posts: 22985
Reply #3 on: April 29, 2003, 04:13:23 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
On that note, can someone post the article where William Goldman ripped into Marty? I just wanna read it and get pissed off. It might be fun.


In the Feb. 3 issue of Weekly Variety, screenwriter and Hollywood pundit William Goldman wrote a scathing essay about it, entitled "Crashing the party for poor Marty."

It began, "I am sick unto death about feeling guilty about Martin Scorsese," then went on to mention "five great directors who never won Oscars, Charlie Chaplin, Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick and Orson Welles." Scorsese "should have won a couple of times," Goldman said -- for Taxi Driver,or Raging Bull,or even Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore.

"But it's not a mortal sin they didn't," he continued. "This year it's like there's a Byzantine plot to get Scorsese the honor. The Hollywood parties he is attending must make him want to barf, but there he is, glad-handing anyone in the vicinity who is an Academy member. . . But he sure doesn't deserve it this year -- Gangs of New York is a mess." Goldman decried its lack of story sense and its overabundance of themes: "Is it about gang warfare? Family revenge? Irish immigration? The Civil War? The draft? These subjects and more flicker in and out, never accumulating or connecting to one another."
“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

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
    • Posts: 4536
    • 24/30 Cinema
Reply #4 on: April 29, 2003, 04:35:05 PM
That's funny, the guy who wrote Butch Cassidey & The Sundance Kid and The Princess Bride is ripping the man who made Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. Die William Goldman, you only wish you could make a film as good as Gangs.

BTW, thanks MacGuffin.
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.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
    • Posts: 5803
Reply #5 on: April 29, 2003, 05:19:25 PM
SoNowThen,
don't make your comeback to what he said by your identification of him as a filmmaker that you consider to be of lesser quality than Scorsese. If we were to follow that kind of thinking, everything you said about anything movie-wise would be meaningless. Base your comeback on what he is saying instead.

He didn't even rip into Marty that much. At worst, he questioned Marty's party going during award season, as I did too. Not only is this a fair article, but I agree with everything he says, from his thoughts on Gangs of New York to him not getting the oscar. Marty would be better off joining that elite group of directors who haven't won and proving he is better than the category itself.

~rougerum

The Silver Bullet

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
    • Posts: 585
    • http://esotericrabbit.blogspot.com
Reply #6 on: April 30, 2003, 02:16:48 AM
Quote
Marty would be better off joining that elite group of directors who haven't won and proving he is better than the category itself.

My opinion exactly. I was very pleased when Marty didn't win.
If he had won he would be on a level with people like Kevin Costner and Mel Gibson. He is so above that level it really isn't funny.
RABBIT n. pl. rab·bits or rabbit[list=1]
  • Any of various long-eared, short-tailed, burrowing mammals of the family Leporidae.
  • A hare.
    • [/list:o][/size]

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
    • Posts: 4536
    • 24/30 Cinema
Reply #7 on: April 30, 2003, 08:57:34 AM
Yes, yes, yes, I'm glad he didn't win for that reason as well. But COME ON! Goldman is getting down on our greatest living director. The man must shut the fuck up. Why can't a movie be about a whole bunch of things? It was an epic.... that's what they are all about. Wide canvas. I mean, I'm not saying it's his best, but for what it was I loved it. Harry Knowles (even though I don't take much stock in his opinion) said something very cool about Gangs. He said: for those whom it works for, I feel jealous. So some people just couldn't get into Gangs, but I really could. And I'm sure we can all agree that on a long enough timeline, Marty will be remembered a lot more favorably than Goldman.
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.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
    • Posts: 5803
Reply #8 on: April 30, 2003, 03:20:06 PM
The reason why the movie shouldn't have been about all those things Goldman identified, is because so many of them only really came into the picture at the very end of the movie. The movie did have a running theme of the issue of slavery, but then it brought those issues into so many things that were really not just connected to the story that we were following. Scorsese switched from telling one story and tried to tell the history of New York that didn't correlate at all. Wide canvas and many topics is fine, but you should know how to show it properly. Scorsese could have summed up the feeling of New York city by continual focus on its story, but tired to show the literal instead. It was just a mess. And to estinguish the rest of the movie, the only character who seemed in the environment the movie was speaking about was Day Lewis. The rest were just saying their lines and hitting their spots.

And really isn't putting down Marty that much at all, just the movie mainly.

~rougerum

Mellow Fellow

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
    • Posts: 33
Reply #9 on: April 30, 2003, 03:27:00 PM
butch cassidy is a better film than gangs of new york. aside from day lewis, everything was totally uninvolving. scorsese is obviosly superior to goldman, but gangs of new york wasnt very good.
Some people say I was an embarassment to the nation. Well, I say, that depends on what your definition of "was" is, jerk.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
    • Posts: 4536
    • 24/30 Cinema
Reply #10 on: April 30, 2003, 04:18:14 PM
Well, to each their own. But I loved Gangs. Loved it. Not saying it was perfect, but really enjoyed it, both times I saw it. I liked both the Goldman-authored films I mentioned, but they were just fluff compared to 5 minutes of any Scorsese film I've seen. And all those things that came out in the end of Gangs, I felt they were there the whole time, just lurking in the background, waiting to explode. And when they finally did, it was a huge payoff for me. Like the crane shot that follows the immigrants off the boat, past the army sign up, back with new recruits to another boat, then back off with the coffins.... AMAZING!! It was a huge middle point to the film. And I just really liked how, in most movies the characters are the focus of the world, but in this one all the other events just smother them over and render them insignificant at the end.

Anyway, I'm don't really need anyone to agree with me, I'm just trying to explain why Gangs worked for me. But sorry to El Scorcho for getting way off topic. And I reiterate, could someone possibly post the Rolling Stone article?
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

  • Admin
  • *****
    • Posts: 22985
Reply #11 on: April 30, 2003, 04:31:48 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
And I reiterate, could someone possibly post the Rolling Stone article?


It's not up on the site yet.
“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

eward

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
    • Posts: 3384
Reply #12 on: April 30, 2003, 04:55:56 PM
i completely agree with SoNowThen.....
"Do you laugh at jealousy?"

"No, I don't even laugh at seasickness! I happen to regard jealousy as the seasickness of passion."

Sleuth

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
    • Posts: 3468
  • dead comic genius
    • http://www.conologue.com
Reply #13 on: April 30, 2003, 05:36:36 PM
To those of you who didn't think Gangs should have won best picture:

Do you at least think it should have won for the sets (I don't remember the category name, but it includes sets and Chicago beat it out there too)
I like to hug dogs

Gabe

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
    • Posts: 135
Reply #14 on: March 20, 2005, 09:40:27 AM
Don't you need to know U.S. history to get gangs?  I only started loving it once I learned all about Tweed and 'the New immigrants'.  I think some people may find it shitty because they don't see enough in it to relate to ( which you would if it was based solely on immigrants and gang warfare. ) But If you know US history, Gangs is a greatly Humane adaptation indeed.

Pages: 1 2   Go Up