If this has already been made a topic, my apologies. If not, then I think it’s high time we discuss the situation at hand.
As the title makes clear, I believe Scorsese’s collaborations with actor Leonardo DiCaprio have been fruitless, disappointing endeavors.
Martin Scorsese is an American icon, a symbol of Americana itself, a legendary director regularly cited as the “best living director.” His canon of work include groundbreaking, controversial films that have since become a part of the collective American psyche.
In 2001, Scorsese helped relaunched DiCaprio’s career. Let’s be honest here. Leo was indeed ‘A list’ after Titanic (1997), but his following films floundered. Anybody remember The Man in the Iron Mask (1998), The Beach (2000), and Don Plum (2001)? People these days simply forget that there was indeed a time when DiCaprio’s career was stalling and fast before Scorsese handpicked him as the lead role in Gangs Of New York. DiCaprio gave a serviceable performance (he was outshone by an over-the-top Daniel Day Lewis), but none of that mattered: DiCaprio was A-List again.
Since the release of Gangs of New York in 2002, Leo has been the lead in every film Martin Scorsese has directed. The Aviator (2004), The Departed (2006), Shutter Island (2009), and now the talk of DiCaprio portraying Frank Sinatra in a biopic directed by Scorsese. Just please god no.
How did DiCaprio become Scorsese’s new muse, the position last held by Robert De Niro, the most explosive actor of his generation? Don’t get me wrong. Leo is by all means NOT a bad actor, not a terrible actor at all. He is, as I stated in another post, simply an adequate actor. His best work, I believe, is long past him, best encompassed in his performances in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape (1993) and even The Basketball Diaries (1995). But being an adequate actor is simply not enough to play the lead in a Scorsese picture…continuously. And clearly, Scorsese disagrees with my opinion, hiring Leo over and over again, telling the world " This is my this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased."
That Scorsese truly believes Leo to be the absolute, best choice for every lead role in his latest film is simply bewildering. Leo does not have the range to encompass so many varied characters. And to see him portray Frank Sinatra would be nothing short of an atrocity.
This whole charade just needs to stop. I speak for many Scorsese fans when I say that as much as we love him, and will continue to (try to) love him, he just needs to take a break from Leo.
And yes, I fully anticipate Leo’s fans to defend him, and perhaps even to eat me alive. That’s fine. My bottom line is this: Leo is unworthy of Scorsese.
I’d love to hear your opinions.
(P.S. Shutter Island is utterly disappointing and I agree full heartedly with A.O. Scott’s review. )
dicaprio is not up for acting in a scorsese picture
and scorsese has downgraded his pictures as a result of it
I think the problem with Scorsese isn’t with Leo but with Scorsese himself. The article in Slate today nicely summarizes some of the problems with Scorsese. His films feel complacent because there doesn’t seem to be much at stake with them anymore and he seems to have spent the past decade hunting Oscars. Subsequently, the energy and excitement in his films is gone.
I think there’s also some flaws with your argument too that Leo needed Scorsese to transform himself into a serious actor. He’s done that fine all by himself by generally making pretty good decisions. I don’t really think he’s a great actor or anything but that’s not the point. One could actually argue that Scorsese has needed Leo to get the budgets he needs to make these huge films that he’s making. And that’s actually more of the problem. He needs A-list actors cause his films in the past decade have all been budgeted around 100 million. And Scorsese is a director who doesn’t need that kind of budget and is probably hampered by it. As for Leo, of his post-Titanic work, the ones you mention aren’t even accurate.The Man in the Iron Mask (1998) was made before Titanic was released and itself was dumped into theaters while Titanic was still on screen. Don Plum (2001) wasn’t even a real film (itself the source of a lawsuit). The Beach (2000) was a big disappointment but hugely anticipated because of the whole Trainspotting team involved. It wasn’t a bad choice. It was just a bad film.
scorsese’s real stakes and passion it seems are in his concert films and documentaries of late.
Shine a Light and No Direction Home are the best things he has done since Casino, he should just stick with that stuff
I disagree, but I’m not going to bother arguing about it. I think your point is fair enough. What I’m wondering is why were you disappointed in Shutter Island if you were already convinced that the Scorsese/DiCaprio pairing was no good?
I’d like to know if you think those films would be significantly better with a different actor and if so, which actor?
I’d also like to know when that Shutter Island banner on the top of the page will go away.
“Fruitless disappointing endeavors”? Surely not “The Avaiator.” or “The Gands of New York.”
“Shutter Island” is a major disappointment however.
I feel terrible for people that don’t enjoy Leo’s work, and even worse if they can’t enjoy his work with Scorsese. Because those films are freaking marvelous.
“The problem with Leo and Scorsese”
is when getting old, you’re gradually falling….what a pity…to think Gangs of New York has more fans than Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore or Mean Streets. sheesh.
“I’d also like to know when that Shutter Island banner on the top of the page will go away.”
Amen to that
“I’d like to know if you think those films would be significantly better with a different actor and if so, which actor?”
I dont think those films could be salvaged by any actor that doesn’t mean we cannot blame dicaprio at least a little for his leaden acting and his boyman looks that are all wrong for shutter, gangs and departed
“to think Gangs of New York has more fans than Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore or Mean Streets. sheesh.”
The Auteurs doesn’t exactly project the world wide fan base for films, but…whatever.
ahem ahem, i’m not referring to the Auteurs fanbase, i’m moving beyond that, please Vocalities, don’t be so smart-ass.
" dont think those films could be salvaged by any actor that doesn’t mean we cannot blame dicaprio at least a little for his leaden acting and his boyman looks that are all wrong for shutter, gangs and departed"
His baby face didn’t bother me in Gangs or Departed but his coat in Shutter Island looks too big. Who knows though, maybe that’s intentional.
“i’m not referring to the Auteurs fanbase, i’m moving beyond that, please Vocalities, don’t be so smart-ass.”
So, you’re speaking on what group of people then? Is there honestly any real way that you can say one film has a larger fanbase than another when they are both popular movies?
And yeah, I’m a smart ass. You’re a lot of things too…takes all kinds.
“You’re a lot of things too…takes all kinds”
thank you for decorating my already abundant characteristics, thank you very much.
uuummm….is Alice so popular compared to Gangs? don’t look so much the Anglophone statistics, there are other countries too…sheesh dude, sheesh.
are there really so many conservatives around here?
This is the second time you’ve referred to me as a conservative and I’m beginning to wonder if you’re aware of it’s definition.
As for Alice and Mean Streets, well, those films have decades on Gangs of New York. Box office numbers aside, I just think it’s silly to make an honest assumption that one film has a larger fan base than another. Even if you asked every person you’ve ever met, that wouldn’t even come close to being a fair representation. That’s all.
More to the point, so what if Gangs did have more fans? If it were verified and became public knowledge, what difference would it make on anything? It’s irrelevant to what the discussion is really about, isn’t it?
Leonardo DiCaprio is one of my favourite actors of modern times.
I see no problem between Leo and Scorsese. Great films, some good performances by Leo.
no, it’s not…because Leo’s pretty face is attracting even the ones who despised him in early years, another reason to prove Gangs is just a trivialized “epic” with a Scorsese in decline. same goes for the wretched and useless remake, The Departed.
“Box office numbers aside”
unfortunately, this IS the point. historically speaking, Alice and Mean Streets have a considerable amount of fanbase but imagine after 10 years or so what will happen to the Gangs extravagant fanatic proportions? once again, don’t forget it’s about worldwide spectrum, not just the Anglophone “world”.
“I’m beginning to wonder if you’re aware of it’s definition.”
do not try to go against me about that issue.
p.s.: “that wouldn’t even come close to being a fair representation”
i think it’s fair to say Charulata has a lesser number of fans than Gangs of New York without even asking someone, noooooo?
I think that in 10 years i’ll like Gangs even more, in this case mostly because of Day-Lewis. In 5-6 years i started to think less of Taxi Driver. And the numbers of fans don’t define the quality of a work.
“no, it’s not…because Leo’s pretty face is attracting even the ones who despised him in early years, another reason to prove Gangs is just a trivialized “epic” with a Scorsese in decline. same goes for the wretched and useless remake, The Departed.”
More baseless generalizations. I’m glad I don’t have this kind of blind bitterness toward film.
“do not try to go against me about that issue.”
Don’t worry, my time has just enough value to prevent me from bickering on the internet for too long.
“i think it’s fair to say Charulata has a lesser number of fans than Gangs of New York without even asking someone, noooooo?”
Is it fair to say that my home videos on Youtube have a smaller fanbase than Avatar? Wait, we’re we talking about either of those things.
“More baseless generalizations.”
either you haven’t seen the original Infernal Affairs or you can’t appreciate it over the wretched and useless remake.
not baseless at all, just not close-minded. cheerio.
The original Infernal Affairs was nothing terribly special in my opinion, but compared to The Departed, it’s like The Passion of Joan of Arc. I hate to say this, because I do greatly admire Scorsese as an artist, a cinephile, and an archivist, but that film just sucked ass.
“but that film just sucked ass.”
precisely why we don’t need more remakes like Robocop…i mean, Robocop is basically like Infernal, a cult-based flick, corny to the bone. do we really need another Scorsese to prove he can do….better????
Something to note:
I believe one of the attractions could be that Leo is the owner (or part owner) of Appian Way a production company. This is a list of the production companies movies. Some are Leo and Scorsese collaborations. Shutter Island being one of them. … (money talks $$$).
Production Company – filmography
Atari (2011) … Production Company
Conspiracy of Fools (2011) … Production Company
Ninja Scroll (2011) … Production Company
The Chancellor Manuscript (2011) … Production Company
The Low Dweller (2011) … Production Company
The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt (2011) … Production Company
Beat the Reaper (2010) … Production Company
Shutter Island (2010) … Production Company (in association with)
Orphan (2009) … Production Company
Public Enemies (2009) … Production Company (in association with)
“Greensburg” (2008) … Production Company
The 11th Hour (2007) … Production Company
Gardener of Eden (2007) … Production Company
The Aviator (2004) … Production Company
The Assassination of Richard Nixon (2004) … Production Company (in association with)
I just really want Scorsese to make another comedy film, like After Hours or The King of Comedy or even something like Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore.
The Aviator was a masterpiece.
Do you think it maybe has to do with Scorsese moving his films from New York (after Gangs..) to Boston?
Leo can act but his baby face lets him down. I thought he was well-suited to the part and really excellent in the Aviator though (Scorsese’s last decent film in my opinion).
Scorsese real last film was Bringing Out the Dead in 1999 not Casino which came out in 1995.
The cinematography in Bringing Out the Dead is profound, and its gritty, its also a real downer of a movie for majority of people. Some people think it sucks just cause Nicolas Cage is the main character but I think its one of his best movies.
When Scorsese set out to make Gangs of New York, with Leo DiCaprio EVERYONE at the time of its pre production was excited to see what was gonna happen but the movie was subdued by something, that something is still unknown to me. I feel the window to make that film closed, Scorsese was offered a chance to make this film in the late 70s with the Clash set to do some music and be in the film. I can only imagine what this movie would of been back then.
The Aviator is a film De Palma should of made, and Bonfire is a film Scorsese should of made. I own it on DVD and watch it from time to time, I like the set design and the fact that Scorsese shot a film at Cinecetta in Italy, That place is an epic landmark. The best things about Gangs for me was the Irish actor who rivaled Bill the Butcher and ran for mayor. Scorsese should of had more scenes with him and build his character bit before the duel with The Butcher. Also perhaps more delving into the the various criminal operations and practices of 1800s Five Points, A.K.A Chinatown, Little Italy, Bowery, It would be interesting to contrast the Uptown Bourgeoisie lifestyle that was cultivated at the time, very decadent and gaudy but it was good to see the riot and destruction of the home, favorite Scorsese cameo.
The Departed is probably the most watched and most acclaimed and subsequent Academy Award award winner, which is kinda of leaves you with a what the fuck confusion considering he was nominated in 1980 for Raging Bull and did not win, was before that for Taxi Driver did not win. Its actors won but the film it self did not win.The fact the Departed won was like yes finally Scorsese gets the Academey Award, “Hollywood” excepts him but at what cost? to make a shell of your former movies. (and when I say Hollywood I am not directing referring to actors but studio personnel,agents,producers, and the vast positions held within the Hollywood system which fuel the industry. Not the actors the photogs hound, thats just easy cash and yet another industry that has grown yet simultaneous destroyed a vital element in Hollywood is candidness, the studios protection and supervision of actors, which was unparalleled back in the golden days’(1915-1980) After Heavens Gate was so over reported and pre dismissed and then critically panned, the control of the director was taken away and has been lost since, the only way to gain some artistic control is be a proven financial success)
The Departed’s flaws for me was was lack of character development. They shot scenes of Leo’s chacter Billy as a kid, where were those scenes, CUT. i wonder what they where in the script. I feel like they should of went back into time more and showing a younger Jack Character and perhaps Billy’s Uncle and Father. All of that was missing. Ray Winestone WAS WASTED. He looked the part and had some great short flashback scene which made him some brutal psychopath. His character was scarcely underdeveloped in the movie.
Jack’s character was more wild and disturbing, a sex scene with him snorting coke of a one of the two ladies he is with post Opera the scene was in film was lamely done and you can tell its a patch, like something cut up and fixed to fit. THAT stuff hurts. I feel you need to get Billys character doing more undercover work which translates to him selling drugs with his whacked out cousin played by the wonderful dramatic and comedic actor Kevin Corrigan. More of Leo Dicaprio doing criminal shit before hooking up with Jack so we how HE GETS his atttention, show him selling coke, who he deals with the junkies. Same thing with Damons character show him being a cop making busts, dealing with CI’s and perhaps “taking a walk on the wild side”= police corruption. Would if have been too much to add the dimension of the vast muticulural communties present in Boston( i.e the Chinese in Boston, The Puetero Ricans,etc. The touch on it in the beginning?)
Perhaps because of the harsh gritty brutal neo-realistic nature of his films Scorsese maybe just said I will tone my movies down because, so they can be more acceptable,therefore they can generate MORE box office and financial success. That is my the overall assessment. Some refer to Scorsese’s loss of spirit or enthusiasm. Some critics say he does it for “oscars” but that is all incorrect. First because he still maintains the best style and technique among ANY director. I fell the stories of The Departed and Gangs of New York where things he wanted to do, some will say will The Departed is a remake of Infernal Affairs true and Infernal Affairs is better, I certainly like it. However William Monahan’s script is what Scorsese liked and I am sure anyone that reads it will know why.
I feel like some scenes where cut and muted either because of the extreme nature of the perversion or violence, overall its “immoral-ness”. Remember Scorsese works within Hollywood and works for a studio which is now for some odd reason( the conglomerates run the STUDIOS), I feel Scorsese does not fight the studios anymore and just gives in and does what they want and see fuck it.
Shutter Island I have NOT SEEN but I have HIGH HOPES for. It seems like Scorsese gets a lot to play with cinematic tricks. flashbacks, jumpcuts, gods eye views, odd camera placement and great tracking and panning shots, funky lighting. surreal psyche outs, which employ a number of great deal of used film language and overall technique. Scorsese is ultimate film scholar. He has seen more movies than most people have and will see. I truly believe he has seen so much. He is the ultimate. The films he preserves and he analyzes films is just unmatched. I will weigh in on Shutter Island by Sunday.