how soixante lost interest in him and regained it in 3 pages

[Pubrick]

Scorsese 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.

[soixante]

Scorsese 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.

[classical gas]

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:   ....

[Gamblour.]

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.

[soixante]

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.

[eward]

His days as a serious artist were in the 70's.

yeah, you're joking, right?

[soixante]

His days as a serious artist were in the 70's.

yeah, you're joking, right?

Not at all.

[cowboykurtis]

His days as a serious artist were in the 70's.

yeah, you're joking, right?

Not at all.

couldn't disagree more

[soixante]

His 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.

[Pubrick]

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.

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?

[Myxo]

Bringing Out the Dead is about as far from mainstream as you can get with a star actor attached.

[Gold Trumpet]

Bringing 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.

[MacGuffin]

Should this be moved to the Scorsese forum now?  

[Pubrick]

Should this be moved to the Scorsese forum now?  

i'll split it from the last page or so..

[modage]

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.)