Yeah, I’m hoping he sticks with Pacino if for no other reason than to finally work with Pacino. If Pacino can do Spector and Kavorkian, he can do anyone.
Wow, I thought this issue died! Here goes…
@volupte noir: you know, I’m not so sure anymore of Al Pacino’s reputation as an actor. Ever since Scarface, possibly his last great performance even though it’s love it or hate it, the movies he has picked seem to exemplify his “angry” side and not others.
@odilonvert: personally, i don’t give a damn if an adaptation isn’t trying to be faithful to the source in any way possible; if they want to have another take on a material that is contrary to what the source is trying to evoke, fine with me. only if it works, of course.
@david grillo: kundun has a very big problem as to why it’s one of the two movies which i think are his only missteps: it’s too ordinary and made me want to meet the real person who was the subject in the movie, and that problem can only be attributed (i think) to mathison’s screenplay.
@two plus two: if he was a genre director, then he would not have made some of his finest works that weren’t about gangsters. agree with you on wyler, though he ’s kind of overrated…
@ari: yeah, it sucks how people sometimes criticize something by just scratching the surface (like scorsese’s own raging bull, and jarhead).
The DUDE — I don’t give a damn either. But I found that the film was WEAK just the same. Seriously. WEAK.
And I KNEW someone was going to jump on me for that remark. Even though I said nothing about having to match a book with a film.
The book was GREAT.
The film was NOT.
Pola X on the other hand was very good at capturing the spirit of Melville’s book. Without being a faithful reproduction — did I EVER say that a film has to be a faithful reproduction of anything? NO.
Ok so…. yes my language above is emphatic, but not angry. :)
I’m just getting tired of the limited way that words can be written. So much nuance is missed, spoken language works better…
(Would be interesting if the future forum included people’s actual voices, recorded. Imagine how much time would be saved — the equivalent of a phonecall versus a letter)!
(then has a nervous breakdown trying to explain why she hated Scorsese’s Age of Innocence so much)
I like Last Temptation quite a bit but the material was ultimately too sophisticated for Marty(ahaha, yes i said it, what you going to do about it huh?? ;-). His treatment is good, but it doesn’t go anywhere near deep enough for my liking.
and Odi is right, the book is much better.
It’s such a dead end topic. All directors shift focuses, narratives, even techniques over time, whether that makes their work any better or worse is largely a judgement call, and more about the person judging than the director himself or herself.
Technically, Scorsese hasn’t missed a beat. I suppose one could argue about his choices, but I think this was largely in an effort to be recognized by the Academy. Call it vanity or whatever you will, but there appeared to be a decisive shift in topic matter after Goodfellas, which should have won him an Oscar. What was Age of Innocence, Kundun, or even Casino but a direct bid for an Oscar? I thought Casino was great, not least of all for Sharon Stone’s over the top performance, but alas no Oscar for Marty. Gangs of New York seemed the perfect Oscar movie, taking the mean streets of New York back to the Civil War era, with great performances all the way around. The Aviator also seemed like a sure a bet, as much a homage to Hollywood as it was to aviation, but no go again. Oddly enough, the Academy finally went with The Departed. The Academy decided they liked Marty just being Marty, but at this point I don’t think he really cared, much like when they finally decided to give Paul Newman an Oscar after a half dozen or more nominations for a throwaway movie like The Color of Money. Oh, Scorsese did that one too. Did I give myself away ; )
“All directors shift focuses, narratives, even techniques over time, whether that makes their work any better or worse is largely a judgement call”
i think the point is that he has blanded himself out, not that he is developing new techniques or styles. He is now part of the machine.
Let’s not confuse that with growth and development.
Part of what machine? Marty gets greater creative control of his projects than do most directors so I assume he has final decision on everything he makes. As I said, I think he was aiming at an Oscar with some of the choices he made. Bad or good, is anyone’s call. Personally, I found Age of Innocence woefully boring, but then I’m not a big Edith Wharton fan to begin with, so no matter how lavish a production he did I couldn’t get past what I found to be a dull insipid story. I thought he followed pretty much the same format in Hugo, but the story was more appealing to me and I greatly enjoyed the sets he recreated for Meiles’ productions. Great film, no, but very fun to watch.
Well, now that he’s “officially” working with DiCaprio again, it’ll be interesting to see what comes of the Wall Street project.
I prefer Scorsese’s older films to his newer ones (I’d of course take Taxi Driver over Hugo any day), but I wonder if that isn’t just because I like to romanticize the past. I often wonder what the next generation of Scorsese viewers will think—will they start with his newer works and move backward? How will that affect their view of his filmography?
LOL @ odi re: people’s recorded voices. u mean people screaming at each other?
i won’t speak against marty because goodfellas is just about my favorite film ever
I often wonder what the next generation of Scorsese viewers will think—will they start with his newer works and move backward? How will that affect their view of his filmography?
Most likely kids will work their way backward. Those curious enough to explore Marty’s roots anyway. Safe to say that if Hugo is their introduction, they will be in for a big surprise ; )
Apparently, Al Pacino was Scorsese’s choice to play Sinatra. Personally, I would choose Harry Connick, Jr.. He’s a good if not great actor and he can sing.
Harry Connick Jr. may have modeled his career on Sinatra, but he’s no Sinatra, besides it seems Marty wants to explore the later Sinatra. Wasn’t much of a voice left in him, so I imagine Al will do just fine with the role. But, I have a hard time seeing De Niro as Dean Martin, at any stage in Deano’s career. Curious who he will tag for Sammy Davis Jr. Here’s more on the planned biopic.
Well, Scorsese was never great, so he didn’t lose much. But I agree that he has made some better films in the past, than during the last decade.
I’d say Scorsese is (regarding his career) now about on par with Eastwood as a director. Both are very good, very talented and certainly very consistent. But both have seldom reached anything outstanding. Not that they need to. I think many people probably have too big expectations regarding Marty’s films, as he has been hyped up waaaay too much over the course of his career.
Ruby — well our voices could be modulated by robot so that they don’t sound like they’re screaming. ;)
Joks — completely agree with what you’re saying. “blanded out” — ha ha, love that!
@odilonvert: well you said this: “I did not think it captured the spirit of the book well at all.” so… (btw I think that Innocence is his best since Goodfellas and I haven’t seen a lot of period pieces. oh well, to each his own.)
And though I like Carax, Pola X is not a good movie in my opinion. Haven’t read the book yet.
@wba: Wow. Scorsese and Eastwood never great? Did you see the same movies as I did?
@joks: you know, i think it’s a bit worse than that: he’s not his own artist anymore. Shutter Island felt restricted down to a 1940s freak show and nothing more (like I was watching Val Lewton or something), The Aviator feels out of touch and safe as much as I thought it was good, and The Departed felt like Scorsese was trying to be in his 30s again.
@longstreth: now that you’re thinking about the next generation, i wonder about the generations before us.
The Dude — yes, to each his own. I was speaking about Pola X in the context of capturing the spirit of the book. Which is very obscure (as in how it is written). And adaptions, while not meant to be stage versions of a book, are inspired by them and should have some relationship to them in terms of the spirit of the thing. Otherwise why do an adaption at all. Just make your own movie with no relationship to anything.
This is starting to sound a lot like one of those Godard threads we used to get on here all the time during the “the Auteurs” days. LOL.
So Scorsese is officially NOT doing Silence next. Wasn’t this initially going to be shot before Shutter Island, then after Shutter Island then after Hugo and now maybe it’s after this Wall Street movie?
I have to admit, I can’t get too excited about this material or seeing him reunite with Leo.
Scorsese tackling wall street doesn’t sound very compelling.
Hmm. Not surprising, I guess, that he would do that one while the Lehman Brothers, TARP, and the Occupy Wallstreet movement is still relatively fresh in people’s minds. I can see it in terms of Scorsese’s interest in power dynamics, but I hope he goes at it more like The Social Network and less like Wall Street and Boiler Room.
I wish Leonardo DiCaprio would quit acting. Sure, it would sadden thousands of people, but at least it would make me happy!
@matt parks: well at least we went deeper than “whatever happened to that guy? he used to make movies about this and that but what is he making nowadays?” (i semi-quoted ari)
Well, we’ll see about this Wolf thing, but the basic outline in that article doesn’t seem terribly promising, and well, Scorsese’s attachment to DiCaprio isn’t exactly encouraging. Another movie about the assholishness of the assholes on Wall Street? Really?
We’ll see, and all that. I’m not exactly anxious.
Agreed. The last good film he made was No Direction Home and even then, I suspect my love of that film stems from my love of Dylan (although I certainly hated I’m Not There). It’s sad to see such an accomplished director of grown-up material pandering to children of all ages with self-indulgent nonsense such as Hugo.
Right, we’ll see. Having an aversion to singers’ biopics, I’m just relieved that he will not do Sinatra next :D.
Hugo a masterpiece??? I would just say that the Melies part did make me smile.
It’s ironic that we can speak of Scorsese’s ‘decline’ at a time when he is getting more awards and more projects made than ever. Sure, big award winning films are often mainstream compromised visions that are rarely better than other non-award winning films but from a filmmaker’s perspective winning awards and making money validates whatever they are doing.
So for Scorsese there is absolutely nothing, other than a few fans, telling him to change his ways. Frankly, I have found his films the last 20 years to be about 50/50. I like about as many as I dislike. Sometimes I equally like and dislike his work in the same film!
^But I can’t imagine many people (outside of Kenji) arguing that any of his recent films, no matter how many awards they win, are on par with his classics (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, etc.).
I think that’s the decline people are referring to.
The only difference between Scorsese’s career and De Palma’s is that Scorsese’s recent failures seem to be embraced by mainstream audiences. hahha
VOLUPTE NOIR
Apparently, Al Pacino was Scorsese’s choice to play Sinatra. Personally, I would choose Harry Connick, Jr.. He’s a good if not great actor and he can sing.