The Aviator

[Just Withnail]

what do u expect, it's called The Aviator, not "the guy who went crazy".

that's why the other HH story woulda been better.

Besides didn't he already do one about someone called HH going crazy?  :P

[mutinyco]

I think Warren Beatty intends to play the crazy version. But anyhow, this looks promising because it doesn't look like typical Scorsese. I think this is what he always really wanted to make: a big glossy Hollywood film, but never had the guts.

[Gold Trumpet]

I think Warren Beatty intends to play the crazy version. But anyhow, this looks promising because it doesn't look like typical Scorsese. I think this is what he always really wanted to make: a big glossy Hollywood film, but never had the guts.

How would you classify Casino, then? I'm not much hyped for this film either. If the studio plays their cards right, this could win Best Picture at the Oscars. Other than that, Scorsese seems talent for hire.

[mutinyco]

Other than that, Scorsese seems talent for hire.

I see that as a plus.

As for Casino, I think it was typical Scorsese -- but with a big budget.

[Gold Trumpet]

Other than that, Scorsese seems talent for hire.

I see that as a plus.

As for Casino, I think it was typical Scorsese -- but with a big budget.

I don't see it as typical Scorsese. Beginning with Goodfellas, I felt Scorsese was branding his stories into move conventional story terms of Hollywood structure and with Casino - the implemation of a high tech opening sequence and more stars - Scorsese's "typical' became something else. Both films are a world's away from Mean Streets. Anybody, for hire, never seems of much good. Though I won't say Scorsese is as great as most here, he's had a few very mature works and of course I'd love to see him go back to that. Also, since you don't like him, why argue the second point?

[mutinyco]

I agree that he's changed since Goodfellas. And there's a reason. After that film everybody jerked him off as the best American director. Obviously, it got to his head. But I think these were always the films he WANTED to make. He's even said that. He said he always wanted to make widescreen epics, but because he started off doing small, gritty films he had no track record and couldn't get them made. Even when he tried to return to his roots with Bringing Out the Dead, it didn't work. He's too removed from that world at this point. He's rich. Doesn't have to struggle. And that New York doesn't exist anymore either.

I think his earlier films were better. I think because he started off doing more improvisational work, as he tried to move into epic territory his story and structure sensibilities were inconsistent. Polished epics require precise plotting, and that's never been his specialty. So the films looked lush, but didn't work dramatically.

That said, if he can bring his visual approach to a well-crafted script (though it looks a bit like Tucker: The Man and His Dream), it just might work. It won't be pure M.S., but it'll bridge the gap between style and substance.

[Gold Trumpet]

I agree that he's changed since Goodfellas. And there's a reason. After that film everybody jerked him off as the best American director. Obviously, it got to his head. But I think these were always the films he WANTED to make. He's even said that. He said he always wanted to make widescreen epics, but because he started off doing small, gritty films he had no track record and couldn't get them made. Even when he tried to return to his roots with Bringing Out the Dead, it didn't work. He's too removed from that world at this point. He's rich. Doesn't have to struggle. And that New York doesn't exist anymore either.

I think his earlier films were better. I think because he started off doing more improvisational work, as he tried to move into epic territory his story and structure sensibilities were inconsistent. Polished epics require precise plotting, and that's never been his specialty. So the films looked lush, but didn't work dramatically.

That said, if he can bring his visual approach to a well-crafted script (though it looks a bit like Tucker: The Man and His Dream), it just might work. It won't be pure M.S., but it'll bridge the gap between style and substance.

I'm not disagreeing with that and I don't think my ealier post does. Scorsese has grown into a new filmmaker and changed what was typical for him, yes, but after Goodfellas, it seems you are arguing against your original case. I think Scorsese has been making the glossy big budget Hollywood films for a while now. Sure, he has identity of story with films like Casino and Goodfellas, but what about The Age of Innocence? Its a genre story of its own rules and Scorsese really heightens it with exquisite production value, nothing short of what would be expected from Hollywood. The Aviator, besides maybe the addition of a few tricks, seems like nothing new from this director and I think he has been making these films for a while now. He's a great commerical director, but he can be so much more. Even Kurosawa, in between making grander films, made some excellent entertainment vehicles or "conveniance" dramas, but Scorsese has become just that these day.

[mutinyco]

This is where we disagree. I don't think they're typical Hollywood. I think they're "prestige" films. The type of films the "best director" should theoretically be making. They're big budget art films. I don't think he's a good commercial director -- as he's only ever had one real commercial success: Cape Fear. His problem is that he's caught between 2 worlds -- using Hollywood scale on offbeat projects. And they're clashing. He needs to go one way or another. I think Hollywood suits him better at this point -- he's obviously out of touch with real life.

[Arnzilla]

what do u expect, it's called The Aviator, not "the guy who went crazy".

that's why the other HH story woulda been better.

Though you can't tell it from the trailer, this IS that other HH story. The opening scene will even touch on this and the rest of the film will be about his mental deterioration. The trailer is just about what's happening AROUND him. The REAL film, the Scorsese film, is what's happening within him.

[mutinyco]

18 posts in one year. All about M.S....

[Pubrick]

hmm, really makes u think..

[mutinyco]

Not too much though. He should try a little variety. Maybe buy a LifeSavers or something.

I do want to clarify something. I don't hate M.S.'s films. The strength of my responses is just an inverse of his praise. You see, the films which he built his reputation on were not, in my opinion, "great" films. They were small, gritty and narrowly focused. Therefore, once he was hailed as the greatest director, it was undeserved. It's only been since then that he's started making the types of films I usually associate with greatness: sprawl, a variety of subjects and approaches. Unfortunately, I don't think these have been great films. His earlier works were more successful. Just that they weren't tops of the heap.

[Gold Trumpet]

This is where we disagree. I don't think they're typical Hollywood. I think they're "prestige" films. The type of films the "best director" should theoretically be making. They're big budget art films. I don't think he's a good commercial director -- as he's only ever had one real commercial success: Cape Fear. His problem is that he's caught between 2 worlds -- using Hollywood scale on offbeat projects. And they're clashing. He needs to go one way or another. I think Hollywood suits him better at this point -- he's obviously out of touch with real life.

This reminds me of the criticism of Kurosawa's High and Low. A magnificent thriller it is, prolly the best, people say it is above its genre because of the commentary it has on social life outside the edges of its straight forward thriller storyline, but alas, it does not. A rule of thumb for the detective-thriller genre is that it does have social commentary on its side. Like Scorsese's 90s films, he has the dramatic within his films, but they always seem to exist on this same outside, never really dominating the material. This is still Hollywood. Hollywood can deal with the profound, but they never let the material fully take over and its a skirting process. I believe Scorsese has become Hollywood for quite some time under this examination.

[mutinyco]

This reminds me of the criticism of Kurosawa's High and Low. A magnificent thriller it is, prolly the best, people say it is above its genre because of the commentary it has on social life outside the edges of its straight forward thriller storyline, but alas, it does not. A rule of thumb for the detective-thriller genre is that it does have social commentary on its side.

Possibly. But how many films of that genre really stand out and have survived time? Chinatown? The Maltese Falcon? Often, these films have a social element, it comes with the territory. High and Low, however, from its very title, implies that its core is that disparity. It's a social class commentary played out as a thriller. Does High and Low rise or fall on its commentary? I don't think so. It happens to be a supremely well-crafted film that would be successful commentary or not.

The problem with Marty's later films is that they are tackling "ideas" -- they just don't work dramatically. It's not because he's making Hollywood films. They're only Hollywood in their production values. It's because the films he started with simply didn't prepare him for epics. Someone labled the "greatest living director" CANNOT, egotistically speaking, go on making small crime flicks. Otherwise, that title would probably disappear.

One thing though, I think Marty's films helped move crime stories away from social observation and more towards sin and redemption. Crime films seem more interested in emotions and psychology than in sociology. And generally speaking, I don't find emotions as interesting.

[Arnzilla]

mutinyco, is that your warm way of inviting me into the other forums? Do I get cab fare home, too?