If you study how groundbreaking the artistry and attention to detail is, I mean – really study it, you’ll see; Raging Bull wasn’t just flashy black-and-white. Consider how every fight was shot differently, the perspective use of slow-motion, the raw story about an unlikeable character that Hollyweird seldom touches, Thelma Schoonmaker’s cutting. Every little tick has meaning. Scorsese discusses these things in the supplements on the DVDs, and you really start to notice.
I admit to it being a while since I’ve seen Raging Bull, so maybe I should revisit it. I hear what you’re saying about Hollywood seldom touching unlikeable characters, but here again Scorsese’s relying on slow-motion shots. I won’t argue that he’s an excellent craftsman, but I guess I prefer films like In a Lonely Place, to name one example, where I felt all kinds of different emotions for Bogart’s character. But Nicholas Ray used no special effects whatsoever. I guess I feel it’s more difficult to tell a good story when all you rely on is the script and the actors.
Scorsese actually decided to shoot in black and white since the color test footage of Robert De Niro fighting in the ring disappointed him, in particular the red boxing gloves which distracted due to the bad quality of then contemporary color film stock, it’s therefore not primarily meant to be original.
Thank you for telling me that black and white was not his original choice. That’s good to hear. What do you think of some of my other ideas about his films?
No, I would imagine a big part of the draw of black & white in Raging Bull, as per the not being original, was the ability to mimic the cinematography of Body and Soul. The cinematography of Raging Bull is actually better than Body and Soul’s. Do you have any idea how astounding that is? James Wong Howe is one of the greatest filmmakers to ever live, let alone cinematographers.
But, I do think Scorsese is somewhat overrated.
Ann E., you don’t mention his best films: “Raging Bull,” “The King of Comedy,” “After Hours,” “New York New York,” “The Aviator.”
As for the rest of oyur remarks, you’re just trying to be cute.
And failing.
We’ve been discussing Raging Bull, and, in fact, I mentioned it in my introduction. I’m not trying to be anything, just honest.
I don’t Scorsese is overrated because when one talks about Scorsese as a filmmaker, I feel, you have to talk about Scorsese as a Film Historian as well.
Scorsese has grown passed his films and has become an ambassador for filmmaking around the world. His appreciation for the artform around the world speaks to me more than his films from after Goodfellas.
Scorsese learned the craft from watching the films of the “Masters,” he emersed himself in films, and at first he took that and channeled it in to his own films, now he channels it to the help those remember the history that he learned from.
If one looks only at his films, because it’s all subjective, yeah they may think he’s overrated, depending on their personal taste. But he has three landmark films in Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas (though Mean Streets is my favorite), though he does have some films that aren’t brilliant, just as every other filmmaker.
But I feel to appreciate Scorsese, one must look at the whole picture.
By now I would hope that we have debunked the usefulness of the " Is. . . overrated" thread in general.
. . . but, no, he’s not overrated. To put a slightly different spin on what David said, it’s possible that certain of his films—Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and Goodfellas particularly, are over-discussed, though.
I’ve never seen anything closely resembling a ‘bad’ Martin Scorsese film. I haven’t seen them all, but I’ve seen maybe 8-10. Not a single bad one so far. Many are even masterful. One of the most consistent directors ever.
I don’t doubt that Scorsese is a film historian and that he learned from the “Masters,” but so did just about every other filmmaker we discuss on this site. And maybe he is an ambassador for filmmaking around the world, that’s not the point of my discussion here. MUBI is supposed to be a place where we can express our opinions and maybe get people thinking about things in a new way, and that’s all I’m trying to do. I’m not trying to attack Scorsese’s character or anything. It’s not about that at all.
I certainly didn’t take it that you were attacking his character.
Maybe you were seeking that response, but it’s not something you would get from me.
Elston, I didn’t say Scorsese makes “bad” films, he’s way past the point of ever making a truly bad film.
Matt, sorry you don’t like this thread.
Well, personally, my favourite Scorsese film is After Hours which is probably the antithesis of what you, Ann, might consider as a “good” film because it is gimmicky and derivative of many things (even self-referential), Kafka not the least of which. However, I think that’s what Scorsese does best and what a lot of people seem to confuse Tarantino for doing “well” (which he doesn’t IMO). The fact that Tarantino has gotten any recognition at all (beyond Jackie Brown at least) probably owes a lot to Scorsese’s success with Goodfellas and his ’70s films.
Scorsese is a “gateway director,” in that his films are not, in and of themselves, particularly original, but when seen in light of his influences and his contemporaries at the time, they are incredibly inventive. And what his films can lead an audience towards is impressive. Scorsese hung out with John Cassavetes back in the day, and that’s one filmmaker whose talent is pretty much undeniable (except by a few I suppose).
I disagree with the OP’s write-off of Raging Bull as a glossy B&W derivitive film (and what’s wrong with Deniro gaining weight for the role? how does that mean he’s compensating for some lack of acting ability merely by default?). I mean, I can understand that Scorsese is probably regarded more highly than he should be amongst young college kids who have no idea who/what Scorsese is emulating, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s overrated. Overrated by who? Using the word “overrated” without any context whatsoever isn’t the best way to go about supporting your argument … just sayin’.
I’d recommend (if you haven’t seen them already) King of Comedy for one, as a very different kind of Scorsese film (and Deniro embodying a protagonist which is TRUELY unlikeable). And how can anyone say that Taxi Driver isn’t anything “new?” Sure, it’s a popular, historical film, but that doesn’t automatically make it a bad film. Scorsese deserves recognition and appreciation for what he’s done (Raging Bull, Taxi Driver … and After Hours IMO, but I can see how that may never be considered part of his “essentials”) and even his latest Shutter Island which is more along the lines of After Hours in the “gimmicky” department, but it’s great for what it is (as long as one doesn’t pay particular heed to the TERRIBLE trailer which markets the film in the worst way possible), not a masterpiece, but certainly done well. The Aviator wasn’t that bad either, I can’t think of a better way to portray Howard Hughes.
EDIT: I should add that there are certain Scorsese films that I really don’t like, Cape Fear being one of them, not to mention, Gangs of New York and the lukewarm Last Temptation of Christ (not a terrible film, but could’ve been done better certainly).
“waaaay over the top.”
YES! SO GOOD, right? Love it.
How do you dig BRINGING OUT THE DEAD?
Deckard, thank you for your well-considered and enlightening response to my thread. I really appreciate it. I like your term “gateway director” and the idea of where Scorsese takes the audience with his films. Even though I didn’t particularly like Last Temptation of Christ, I appreciated the road he took me down, what he got me thinking about. I have to say that I don’t believe Scorsese has the genius of Cassavetes, who I think was a true original. Maybe that’s what I mean by overrated. I seem to be putting people off with that term. Maybe the issue could be that Scorsese is too entrenched in Hollywood and maybe formulaic as a result. I’ll have to think about that some more.
When Raging Bull was released it was as if de Niro was lauded not just for his performance but for the weight he gained for the role, how he suffered for it, etc. The whole thing seemed overly sensational to me somehow.
I have never seen King of Comedy, so I’ll check it out. Thanks for the recommendation.
Overrated in what way?
If someone told me that he was the #1 greatest director of all time, I would probably disagree, although I think that a case could be made.
If you are disputing that he is one of the 10 or 20 greatest directors ever, then I have to call bull sh!t.
Like any director, Scorsese has his strengths and weaknesses. I think that Raging Bull was a brilliant character study, but I wish that he would have left in the scene where LaMotta beats his wife into a miscarriage, and the story of the film doesn’t work as well as some of his other films like Goodfellas or Casino.
The Aviator, like all biopics, is a bit one dimensional, but it holds interest, it teaches, and showcases a tremendous performance and character study.
The Last Temptation of Christ is bold, if at times amateurish.
Goodfellas is visually brilliant from start to finish, and probably the best use of narration ever.
Casino is a bit redundant, but still pitch perfect.
Mean Streets is a classic.
Taxi Driver is a classic, even though I think it is, at times, too bleak, and something feels missing.
If a Director makes 5-10 classic films, I don’t know how he can be overrated.
There are great foreign actors. As far as an actor doing something that drastic, Toshiro Mifune grew a long Red Beard for the title role in that film which precluded him from taking any other roles for about 3 years, and that was at the director’s request, which in this case DeNiro did upon his own accord. Don’t hate.
“I have to say that I don’t believe Scorsese has the genius of Cassavetes, who I think was a true original. Maybe that’s what I mean by overrated.”
Very true. Scorsese is basically a talented mainstream director. He is the finest of the “one for them, one for me” types but, judging by your list of favorite filmmaker’s you’re not going to get much out of his work, including The King of Comedy, unless you’re just looking to be entertained with some easy satire. Which is okay, of course, as long as you recognize it for what it is :)
You’re right on Deniro and the whole “weight gain phenomena” (or whatever it was considered at the time), but the same praise was said for Christian Bale in The Machinist (a film where ANY distraction from the actual film itself was a good thing…anyway, kind of unrelated to Raging Bull, but a similar reaction), but less deservedly. Scorsese is definitely more formulaic than Cassavetes (indeed, as you say, a true original), but they’re also two very different directors. Scorsese is fully aware of his “commercial tendencies” and seems to embrace them (and, even bask in them, such as with Goodfellas and The Departed – two films which are polar opposites of each other in terms of quality, but they both show a “cocky” side of Scorsese that’s refreshing because he can actually back it up – sometimes).
I would’ve enjoyed The Last Temptation of Christ more if I had watched the film before I read the book. The book is really good (though not without its own flaws, but with much different, and less drastic, ones than in Scorsese’s film version) and the screenplay just didn’t have that raw impact that was there in the book. I loved Willem Dafoe as Jesus and think that role was perfectly cast (it fit my image of Jesus, the edgy half-mad half-visionary prophet who, at times, seemed possessed himself) – the rest of the casting … meh, some inspired, some not so much. Not a fan of the soundtrack, but then again, Peter Gabriel never really did much for me anyway.
Anyway, to further elaborate on your original question; I would reiterate that Scorsese is, indeed, overrated, but the same way that the Beatles are overrated – no indication of their lack of talent, but just “being there” at the right place, at the right time.
Jason, please read about my use of the word “overrated” in my previous response.
It must be said, that his visual mastery is his strongest point; and to me the most important part of cinema is how an image is shot and edited(with or without a sound component).
For those who don’t think that the image is important in MOVING PICTURES, I can see where they might pan his work, as his plots and storylines are not very tight, and he is not the philosopher or writer that a Bergman or Fellini is, or insert whomever you like.
That being said, there are very few who are visually better than Scorses. Kurosawa, Mizogushi, Welles, Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Ophuls, and a few others.
When an artist’s great work is followed up by mediocre, it’s tempting to dismiss the whole career, or to see the great moments as lucky. But Scorcese’s great moments could have only come from Scorcese- the new yorker with a taste for the street / the catholic who is interested in thugs, boxers and bullies / the cinema lover with an encyclopedic knowledge etc. I think he is an instinctual director and when he moved away from subjects that he knew well he just started to think his way through the directing process, and his films lost their raw energy.
I have only seen Cassavettes’ debut, and I’ve seen him act in some movie set in Greece. I have a box of 5 films of his that I have to get around to seeing, so I can’t comment too much on Cassavettes’ level of genius or talent.
-sorry you don’t like this thread-
Nothing against this thread in particular, but if you search these forums on the word “overrated,” you’ll see it’s quite, um, overused around here.
Scorsese is for me in the interesting situation of, as a filmmaker, being both overrated and also great. He has made some really impressive films, and is certainly an impressive director, it’s just that when so many lists place him among the 20 greatest directors who ever lived, or as the greatest working director, I can’t help but be a bit confounded.
That said, as a film historian and preservationist he doesn’t get enough praise. Bravo Scorsese!
Top 5 Scorsese;
1. Taxi Driver
2. The King of Comedy
3. After Hours
4. The Age of Innocence
5. Raging Bull
As a stylist, no, he is most certainly not overrated. But nobody in their right mind would argue that Scorsese’s movies were particularly intelligent. Even with Schrader under his wing. ‘Taxi Driver’ comes off more like an urban bogey man story in 2010 than serious social commentary.
Having said that, Raging Bull is one of the best films ever made about a person being their own worst enemy. By the time Jake ‘realises’ what’s wrong, and the extent of his understanding is up for debate, his life is pretty much over. He has alienated every single important person.
DECKARD: You are right about King Of Comedy, but at the same time, it does fit into his ‘ackward loner resorting to crime and/or extreme action to get noticed’ group of films, so it’s an interesting comparison piece to Taxi Driver.
I love King Of Comedy.
^^companion piece rather.
i still can’t edit posts on my computer. it’s very irritating, because i can do it from work!!
Everyone is being very adult and cordial in this thread, but I think any thread questioning Martin Scorseses genius does not deserve such intelligent debate. Scorsese is a great film maker, there is no doubt about that, and questioning his use of filmic techniques just shows how ignorant you are. You’re enjoyment of film must be seriously impeded if techniques such as slow motion, captions, and Scorseses use of music, ruin a film for you.
These kind of threads have to stop.
ann e.
I can almost feel the daggers some of you are casting my way, but I’m just proposing the idea that Marty errs on the side of overkill too much of the time. I think he often kills flies with the proverbial cannon and he often relies on gimmickry to carry his films. Here are a few examples of what I’m referring to:
1. Goodfellas—catchy soundtrack (easy way out) to quicken the pace and use of obviously and strategically placed period objects/decor, etc.
2. Raging Bull—black and white film has been so rarely used in this country since the 1950s that everyone went crazy when this movie came out because it was so novel and looked a lot like the old footage everyone remembers of Jake LaMotta. Not very original. And was it really necessary for de Niro to gain 60? lbs. for the role? Let’s get over it. Name me one actor in a foreign country who has to do something that drastic in order to be convincing.
3. Cape Fear—waaaay over the top. I’ll take the original over this version any day. Robert Mitchum played this in a much subtler and intelligent way. He frightened me more than the also, I feel, overrated Robert de Niro.
Honestly, the only Scorsese film I really like is Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore because to me he just told a story, no gimmicks, no histrionics. This could be just a matter of personal preference, but I’m just asking everyone to think about it. Okay, I’m ready; have at it!!!