Author Topic: Gangs Of New York  (Read 14796 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cine

  • Pretttttyyy, Pretttyyyyy Pretty Good
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Respect: +281
Gangs Of New York
« Reply #60 on: November 09, 2003, 01:55:30 PM »
0
Quote from: Onomatopoeia
Any filmmaker worth his salt knows that a $100,000 church built for the sole reason of doing a 360-degree pan is NOT NECESSARY for the story.

Irrelevent. A church doesn't have to be built necessarily for narrative purposes. It's called "Art Direction"....:wink:
Quote from: Onomatopoeia

And any filmmaker worth his salt would think of another way to shoot that scene instead of blowing another $100,000 he didn't need to blow.

Remember that this is not a filmmaker who is worrying about keeping a cheap budget. When you consider how large it already was, do you think 100 grand is that much?
Quote from: Onomatopoeia
And any filmmaker worth his salt would've made Gangs of New York a much better movie than it actually was.

Maybe so. But who cares?

ElPandaRoyal

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Respect: +105
Gangs Of New York
« Reply #61 on: November 09, 2003, 02:17:06 PM »
0
Quote
...that's fellatio, unless Marty has something to tell us.



Fuck...... it was written very quickly and, well, it was a stupid mistake. I sure hope he doesn't have anything to tell us.
Si

cine

  • Pretttttyyy, Pretttyyyyy Pretty Good
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Respect: +281
Gangs Of New York
« Reply #62 on: November 09, 2003, 02:26:02 PM »
0
The Last Temptation of Cunnilingus.

That should go in the Porn title thread.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Gangs Of New York
« Reply #63 on: November 09, 2003, 11:24:53 PM »
0
Quote from: Onomatopoeia
Quote from: RoyalTenenbaum
MARTY: Do you know what cunnilingus is Harvey?

HARVEY: I'm not very good in German. Why don't you tell me what it is?

MARTY: It's when I put my pants down and you start su...

...that's fellatio, unless Marty has something to tell us.

My problem with this little story is it exhibits exactly what was wrong with Gangs of New York.  It reminds me a little bit about the stories of Apocalypse Now, except not as tragic for the filmmaker.  Any filmmaker worth his salt knows that a $100,000 church built for the sole reason of doing a 360-degree pan is NOT NECESSARY for the story.  And any filmmaker worth his salt would think of another way to shoot that scene instead of blowing another $100,000 he didn't need to blow.  And any filmmaker worth his salt would've made Gangs of New York a much better movie than it actually was.  Don't get me wrong, I had fun, but the last act -- as we're so prone to calling the ending -- sucked.  *takes cover*


No, no.... YOU SUCK!    :wink:

Any filmmaker worth his salt knows that an actor is more comfortable and can really get into character when he has the real thing to work with, and not a 2-D cardboard cutout.
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.

ono

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4237
  • ...
  • Respect: +208
Gangs Of New York
« Reply #64 on: November 09, 2003, 11:34:48 PM »
0
Here's how inconsequential it was though: it's been almost a year since I've seen Gangs of New York, and I still remember a lot about it.  But what I don't remember is the church, and that's how little of importance it is.  Any actor worth his salt would be able to act, no matter the setting.  Acting is so much more mental than physical.  I respect Scorsese for what he does, but obviously a lot more people think more highly of him than I do.  As I've said before, problem with his films is, none of the ones I've seen have really blown me away like other greats have, and a lot of the times, it's because they lack heart.  The closest he's come for me is Taxi Driver, but I don't want to go off on a tangent like that.  I only question this because it seems so superfluous, especially because there are other filmmakers, such as the von Triers, Korines (haven't seen his, but so I've heard), and Soderberghs of the world, who can make compelling films on shoestring budgets, and continue to do so even though they don't have to.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Gangs Of New York
« Reply #65 on: November 09, 2003, 11:41:54 PM »
0
Quote from: Onomatopoeia
Any actor worth his salt would be able to act, no matter the setting.  Acting is so much more mental than physical.


Getting a performance and getting a great performance are two different things. One of Marty's strengths has always been getting the very best out of his actors, and one reason is that he creates such an atmosphere of creativity and trust and authenticity that they do the career making performances they do. The proof is in the pudding, all the actors are falling all over themselves to work with him. If we go by what you said, why didn't he do ALL of Gangs with 2 piece sets and CGI? Because part of the reason for doing the project was building this specific New York.

And the church is fairly memorable, in a McCabe And Mrs Miller sort of way, it gets progessively built over the course of the movie, and is the main site in 3 fairly major scenes.

Trust me, with the few actors I've worked with in my life, 50% could perform in any type of situation, but 100% would prefer the full set. If you're expecting your people to go out on a limb and risk looking stupid for the sake of reaching a great performance, you have to make them feel like they have some security, and this kinda thing (I believe) would go a long way.
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.

cine

  • Pretttttyyy, Pretttyyyyy Pretty Good
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Respect: +281
Gangs Of New York
« Reply #66 on: November 09, 2003, 11:56:21 PM »
0
I agree 100% with what SoNowThen said. Also, I'm reminded of Alec Guinness's disliking for the blue screens in Star Wars and how it was boring for him.

ono

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4237
  • ...
  • Respect: +208
Gangs Of New York
« Reply #67 on: November 09, 2003, 11:58:37 PM »
0
But you're forgetting one important factor in this little debate: Star Wars sucks, anyways.  ;)

eward

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2831
  • Respect: +20
Gangs Of New York
« Reply #68 on: November 10, 2003, 08:07:21 AM »
0
haha
"Do you laugh at jealousy?"

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

Pwaybloe

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1216
  • Respect: +31
Gangs Of New York
« Reply #69 on: November 10, 2003, 09:30:16 AM »
0
Quote from: Cinephile
I agree 100% with what SoNowThen said. Also, I'm reminded of Alec Guinness's disliking for the blue screens in Star Wars and how it was boring for him.


I did some research when you said this, because I couldn't believe they used blue screens in the mid-seventies.  

Anyway, you were right, but I never realized how much Alec Guinness hated making Star Wars.  Here's some funny quotes:

"Science fiction - which gives me pause - but it is to be directed by Paul Lucas, who did American Graffiti, which makes me think I should. Big part. Fairytale rubbish, but could be interesting" - while considering doing Star Wars

[Guinness discussing how much he disliked working on Star Wars (1977) and his attempts to encourage George Lucas to kill off Obi-Wan Kenobi] "And he agreed with me. What I didn't tell him was that I just couldn't go on speaking those bloody awful, banal lines. I'd had enough of the mumbo jumbo."

"I shrivel up every time someone mentions Star Wars to me."

"Apart from the money, I regret having embarked on the film. I like them well enough, but it's not an acting job, the dialogue - which is lamentable - keeps being changed and only slightly improved, and I find myself old and out of touch with the young" - during filming of Star Wars

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy