Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, Oct 5, 2019.
what the hell! warn me first! devastating!
I like my cartoons funny! give me Yosemite Sam
Didn't say that, but I did say that claims only "auteurs" make "real cinema" are elitist and smug...
yeah I think marty reached levels he didnt really hit again with td (maybe raging bull), maybe it was partially shrader? its a different thing for me. I do like good fellas tho…
I want a film in which an elderly, alcoholic Yosemite Sam comes to terms with all the abuse he suffered at the hands of a humanoid rabbit and tries to salvage his soul before his death...
Sorry, I thought you knew.
Wait, it's a kiddie cartoon! It surely can't be emotionally devastating! I bet you can buy toys of the characters in the movie, therefore it must be impossible to take seriously as a piece of cinema!
Essentially they did!
Though I don't mean to solely pick on the director of "Hustlers", as there are a lot of Marty wannabes out there. I see more than a handful of movies that explicitly "borrow" from his style.
Not sure which we find more often: those who take from Marty or those who take from Spielberg. A lot of filmmakers in those camps!
I agree it was great...heart felt...just perfect...
hey! we need them both...balances us out...: )
Granted, it's no breakthrough to have a film in which women can be as despicable as men, but it is nice to see in a film. When was Scorsese's last film that could pass the Bechdel test? Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore?
"Age of the Innocence" is the only other Scorsese movie I can think of off the top of my head with a major female presence. Dunno if it passes the test.
Face it: Marty makes "man's movies". He's seemed largely uninterested in female stories, and that's fine. He should make what he wants without having to "diversify" just for its own sake...
The test, simply stated:
The movie has to have at least two women in it,
who talk to each other,
about something besides a man
He's free to create whatever he wishes, but if he's to be held as one of the greatest directors of all time, the question should be asked.
Elitist, sure. Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, etc. are elite in exploring the human condition in movies.
Smug? I don't see it. I think that it's not a popular opinion to call out these comic book movies for what they are. You have to defend your position against accusations that you are "elitist" and "smug." Look at the grief Scorsese is getting for his mild and innocuous comment.
I think that it's much more smug to try to claim that the MCU movies are comparable to these films. They don't even have the same goals. One is a heavily marketed and meticulously crafted product intended to sell the most tickets possible (and the most action figures), the other is intended to explore the human condition. Sometimes these goals overlap, but it is foolish not to draw a distinction.
On the thoughts about Goodfellas vis-à-vis Casino, I can understand & agree with, (in large part anyway), with those that see Goodfellas as better. Casino was Goodfellas on steroids, & was also bloated in comparison, at nearly three hours long, (& over thirty minutes longer than Goodfellas). Whereas both had lots of voiceover work pulling the different elements together, with Casino you had people doing voiceovers regarding other people's thoughts in their voiceovers. I've always felt that Scorsese lost control of the film & allowed it to meander around too much, & wind up with a somewhat sputtering & too understated conclusion.
Also, as great as Pecsi was in both Raging Bull & Goodfellas, in Casino his portrayal of Nicky Santoro, (based on real life mobster Anthony Spilotro), is over the top, though entertaining to an extent. In Goodfellas Pesci finds the right nuances to play Tommy Devito, as his craziness & manic energy spirals out of control progressively, but in Casino he takes the bit in his mouth from his first scene & runs wild from then on.
I like Casino, a lot, & some parts of it are stunning, but it's never been as engaging to me nor drew me into that world as fully as Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Goodfellas or Taxi Driver did. Still, (& this isn't a knock on comic book movies), virtually every film Scorsese has made has drawn me into their worlds more than even the best comic book movies did, with the possible exception of the Nolan Batman trilogy, especially The Dark Knight.
Make that 1001...
Despite the inserted cough joke, I wasn't really suggesting that Marvel films don't qualify as art. It's just a different kind of art. You know, the kind that needs to appease shareholders and the Chinese government.
Seriously though, I'm not suggesting Marvel films aren't epic or even humane in their own way...just that the comparisons you made were fundamentally unsound.
Also, one shouldn't forget that Scorsese saw just one Marvel film before calling it quits. Had he seen more, he might have gained more appreciation for all the world-building. On the other hand, he might have walked away with that much more confidence in his theme park analogy. Regardless, the idea that his offhand comment is even news is kind of pathetic, to be honest.
Did you forget what thread you were participating in? Drop out at any time.
Film is indeed a collaborative medium, but your sentiment is far too sweeping to mean anything at all. Go watch the end credits for any given Kubrick film and then watch the end credits for any given Marvel film and see if you can spot the difference.
His sentiment is quite nakedly elitist, to be frank, but it also comes from an earnest and highly educated place. And guess what? Behind all the widespread and populist appeal, Marvel Studios is far more elitist than Scorsese could ever be.
Have you seen "Raging Bull" in the last 10 years? Aside from the use of black and white and a few memorable shots in the boxing ring, what's "over-stylized" about it? What's "over-stylized" about "Taxi Driver" or "The King of Comedy?"
Strongly disagree. Goodfellas felt like it got out of control, too with that final '70s era sequence. That's the feeling Scorsese was going for, but it was handled much better in Casino, I thought. It didn't sputter around at all, but remained highly focused. Casino had much stronger camera work and cinematography. The Casino voiceovers felt more authentic than Goodfellas, unless you prefer Liotta to De Niro and Pesci.
I don't understand the distinction. They were basically the same character that would erupt in violence over any threat--real or perceived. And where Pesci seems to use his own accent in Goodfellas, he adapted it in Casino for a slightly Chicago flavor that is just a thing of beauty.
It's a more ambitious story, to show the rise and fall of the mafia's grip on Vegas. All parties learned much from Goodfellas and were able to take what they learned and build on it in fresh ways. I really thought this was Scorsese's masterpiece. Mean Streets is appealing because of its spiritual angle and its rawness, but there are amateur decisions made that hurt it. Goodfellas was amazing but Liotta held it back for me. It works because Henry Hill is such a slimy character who can't even be true to himself or his ideals such as they were, no semblance of integrity.
first time I saw it I didn't get it.....next time I realize how genius it really is. i think its one of his greatest, and not just as a black / cringe comedy. but the scenes with Rupert and Rita that show him slipping further into fantasy.. . im not sure where people are coming from with some of the Marty critiques.... y'all acting like hes the next Michael Bay (sorry to any Michael bays fans!) put down the pitchforks…..he just had an opinion
That's fine and doesn't refute my point. Scorsese tries to make films for adults, MCU is aimed at children. That's all. Maybe Scorsese does a good or bad job, but that's irrelevant.
I haven't seen this one in a while. I'd have to revisit it before agreeing as to whether or not it's "over-stylized" (I'm not suggesting you feel that is is--just responding to the initial comment).
Funny you should mention Michael Bay. I was just listening to an interview with Roger Avary, who referred to Bay as one of the industry's greatest auteurs. To paraphrase Avary: "Not everyone has to be influenced by Fellini. Some can be inspired by Coke commercials." To be fair, he has a point, though I'm not trying to put forth some kind of equivalency between Bay and Scorsese. Furthermore, I don't think it changes my perspective on Marvel, which does great things in terms of narrative and spectacle but doesn't really deliver a signature aesthetic (in my opinion).
I didn’t say it’s a bad film. I think it’s good, but it’s pretty relentless and in your face. It’s certainly more stylized than some other boxing films and DeNiro and Pesci are pretty over the top, IMHO, in their performances.
In KoC, which I also think is good, Rupert Pupkin is a ridiculous character. I just mean these aren’t straight depictions of reality compared to other directors. Nothing wrong with it, it’s just different and Scorsese’s thing - the way the films are paced and edited add to a certain lack of realism. I’m contextualizing this relative to some, not all, other great filmmakers.
Juxtapose these films against the work of Antonioni or Ozu - there is an illusion that what you are watching from them can be real - you’re looking into a lens of actual human beings interacting. With Scorsese the characters and proceedings are on overdrive - they’re not as believable - it’s more of an affected style relative to some other auteurs. Scorsese’s use of rock music also adds to his somewhat “hyper” style. It’s just a little more manipulative and a little less organic (Olmi or Bresson, for example) than some others.
If you're talking about 2001, that was just the tradition at the time to credit only the heads of departments. The credits for Eyes Wide Shut are much longer. Are you claiming that Kubrick's smaller crew style is necessarily more artistically valid? Yet another non sequitur.
Who claimed that you said these were bad films? And it might come as news to you, but there's a good chance the actual Jake LaMotta was somewhat in-your-face himself. What's more, New York City was pretty in-your-face back then as well (you know, the place where Scorsese grew up). But all three films you name-dropped are not what I would refer to as "hyper," despite the signature touches.
Also, why would I compare Scorsese to Antonioni or Ozu? Because they all fall under the banner of "auteur?" So what? Are Kubrick and Lynch over-stylized in your book as well? They both rely heavily on music and don't exactly feature realistic characters. Comparatively speaking, Scorsese is more grounded than them both. Is Fellini's "8 1/2" over-stylized?
Yet another bizarre non sequitur, offered with absolutely no attempt to prove your thesis, just tossing it out there, waving your hands and hoping that we don't notice.
Separate names with a comma.