Martin Scorsese

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.

Moderator: DarkImbecile

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#26 Post by Andre Jurieu » Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:58 pm

Jun-Dai wrote:Still others feel that the film is hopelessly naive (e.g., there is no way that a doctor in Manhattan could be so naive as to think that good wives won't have sexual fantasies about men that are not their husbands) or absurdly paranoid (a cult containing all of the most elite men in New York and therefore of the world? Give me a break).
Since Scorsese really enjoyed the film, maybe my comments will not be considered hopelessly off-topic. I've heard this complaint regarding Eyes Wide Shut before, but I'm kind of wondering where the interpretation comes from. Dr. Harford is jealous of his wife's fantasy, but I'm unsure where Kubrick makes it clear that Bill is naive to the fact that women have these types of fantasies. Harford could very well understand that these types of fantasies are normal and regular for women to have, just as he has fantasies regarding other women. In my opinion, Harford dilemma isn't that he doesn't understand this normal human response, and it's not even that his wife has fantasies about other men, it's that she weakens his masculine authority within the marriage by admitting she considered leaving him in order to fulfill her fantasy and also admits she would have left him if asked to, but remained with him out of pity at his weaken state. Not every man understands that their marriage is held together out of pity, even if he is a doctor. As well, knowing wives fantasize about other men is one thing, but having to deal with your wife discussing the fantasy so plainly, openly and bluntly without expecting it is something entirely different - theory as applied to the masses and reality for the individual are two very different concepts to deal with.

As far as the secret society of the most elite men in the world goes, I didn't really have this concept come across to me in the film. I just assumed it was a group of rich guys in NYC who enjoyed orgies. I didn't really think it was some paranoid delusion on Kubrick's part that these men controlled the fate of the world or something, merely that they didn't really want it known to the public that they enjoyed orgies. Considering we are to believe many rich people today, including major Hollywood stars and politicians, make their own partners sign non-disclosure, confidentiality agreements, I don't see how this is all that naive.

User avatar
Jun-Dai
監督
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:34 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

#27 Post by Jun-Dai » Wed Nov 24, 2004 4:12 pm

No, that's paranoid. The other one was naive. :)

Anyways, you're sort of missing my point, which was that if you are willing to concede that those criticisms are valid, does that mean that the film becomes less Good? People have used the argument that yes, the film is less Good as a result (though they may not have done so explicitly, the implication is usually clear). My point was never about the validity of the criticisms themselves.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#28 Post by Andre Jurieu » Wed Nov 24, 2004 4:22 pm

Jun-Dai wrote: No, that's paranoid. The other one was naive.

Sorry, who is in the what now? So it's paranoid to think that people don't want to let everyone-and-their-cousin know that they participate in orgies, and it's naive to think marriages last due to pity, and I should also assume everyone walking around knows this if they have a medical degree? Man, I have some growing up to do....

BTW, that sounded more hostile than I intended it to be.
Jun-Dai wrote:Anyways, you're sort of missing my point... My point was never about the validity of the criticisms themselves.
Oh, don't worry, I know that. I wasn't actually addressing your point regarding the meaning of "Good vs Bad". I readily admit I was way off-topic, and that so far, I have agreed with your posts regarding the issue of "Good vs Bad vs I don't like, etc".

User avatar
Jun-Dai
監督
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:34 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

#29 Post by Jun-Dai » Wed Nov 24, 2004 4:32 pm

Well, I would certainly be taken to task quickly if I were to reprimand you from departing from the topic at hand.

Anyways, it's paranoid to think that there is a gigantic club containing many of the most powerful men in New York (this much is explained in the film. Something like "you wouldn't believe who was in that room if I told you." I don't have the quote handy.) who secretly participate in these occultish orgies, and that this information never leaks out into the public.

It's naive to think that good wives don't fantasize about other men and feel that they would give up their marriage if, at the right time, they were given an opportunity to live out that fantasy (I recall it being clear in the film that Bill expresses some sort of belief that this doesn't happen, before Alice shatters his world by informing him otherwise).

Anyways, you should watch the scenes again and let me know if I'm wrong (if you don't perceive it, then it is not, in my mind, clear).

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#30 Post by zedz » Wed Nov 24, 2004 4:58 pm

We're getting further and further off topic, of course, but where does it say that Kubrick believes the world is structured in the same way as it's depicted in his film? Why are we attributing paranoia and naivete to the filmmaker (and not, for example, the protagonist) in this instance?

Anyway, I thought the film made most sense as the guy's dream / fantasy, brought on by the self-esteem crisis of his wife's revelation. Beautifully made, but almost laughably portentous in many places, and Kidman's druggy, draggy performance is simply bizarre, but not in a good way. For me, it's one of those "great filmmaking, shame about the film" movies - which will probably spark another endless argument. . .

Anonymous

#31 Post by Anonymous » Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:07 pm

Jun-Dai, I must thank you in return for your excellent response. Honestly, I found the first one to be a bit snarky, but thought this one was well-put and made me reconsider my points on the matter.

But to answer your question, I find both Like and Good to be subjective. This is why I gave no objective definition of the poignancy of the melodrama or the tautness of the suspence. What I find exhilarating can be viewed as dull by others. Thus it would be conceivable for one person to say that The Age of Innocence (or The Birth of a Nation or Citizen Kane or Kangaroo Jack) is good when another says it is bad and have both be right.

However, I look at a film's goodness as more objective. I believe that each individual has his or her own concept of what makes a film good, based on what they believe is good film form or good narrative. Granted, I think it is based on a person's own subjective views of objectivity, but it is some-what objective nonetheless. One's like of a film, on the other hand, is based on an even more subjective, more of a visceral feeling illicited from the film.

I agree that it would be improper to demand that somebody restate their claim that a film is bad to a statement that a film is disliked. That one person finds the film to be good does not mean that the film is universally good. You are right in saying that good is based on a subjective view of other people thinking a film should be good, but as can be seen, this purveying of views does not always happen successfully. I guess it comes down to me looking at goodness as more a matter of respect for the film, while liking comes down to one's mere enjoyment.

User avatar
Jun-Dai
監督
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:34 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

#32 Post by Jun-Dai » Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:20 pm

Sorry if I seemed snarky.
I guess it comes down to me looking at goodness as more a matter of respect for the film, while liking comes down to one's mere enjoyment.
I couldn't have phrased it any better myself.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#33 Post by Andre Jurieu » Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:24 pm

Jun-Dai wrote:Anyways, it's paranoid to think that there is a gigantic club containing many of the most powerful men in New York (this much is explained in the film. Something like "you wouldn't believe who was in that room if I told you." I don't have the quote handy.) who secretly participate in these occultish orgies, and that this information never leaks out into the public.

While it's certainly absurd or outlandish, I don't know if that's paranoid, since I'm not sure how someone (a regular nobody in the audience) should really feel an irrational fear of these actions (rich men engaging in occultish orgies) occurring. I wouldn't call it paranoid on Kubrick's part because I don't think he is proposing that the viewers watching feel persecuted by this group of men. While Bill certainly becomes paranoid about the situation, I do not believe Kubrick believes that is the correct response.
Jun-Dai wrote:It's naive to think that good wives don't fantasize about other men and feel that they would give up their marriage if, at the right time, they were given an opportunity to live out that fantasy (I recall it being clear in the film that Bill expresses some sort of belief that this doesn't happen, before Alice shatters his world by informing him otherwise).
Yes, that is naive, and again, though this is Bill's frame of mind, I do not believe Kubrick wants us to share Bill's perception. I would agrue that Kubrick wants us to realize that Bill's unease with the situation is a natural reaction for a man, especially since his position within the marriage has diminished. Again, not everyone realizes the fragile nature of the bonds of marriage - many of my educated friends who were recently married would not believe their wives capable of infidelity - and Kubrick asks us to cast a critical eye on someone so naive. Bill's naive position is not the same as the film's position or Kubrick own perceptions.

My main gripe with this criticism is that it assumes Bill's own paranoia and naivety are the extact same as Kubrick's perception. In my mind, the entire point of Eyes Wide Shut is to be critical of Bill's actions and his beliefs regarding sexuality and marriage. While Bill is naive and paranoid about sex, I do not believe Kubrick intends us to be, and I do not believe Kubrick completely identifies with Bill's actions or perceptions. While he might know what it feels like to have been Bill at one point in his life, and I assume we identify with Bill's mentality as being outdated but natural for the naive, I do not believe Kubrick assumes his audience shares Bill's perceptions.

...and zedz beat me to it with a much more succinct argument.

User avatar
Jun-Dai
監督
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:34 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

#34 Post by Jun-Dai » Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:49 pm

I agree, but you've sort of sideswiped my point. I never meant that Kubrick shared Bill's perceptions or that we are expected to. The idea is that Bill is impossibly naive (i.e., that he is an unbelievable character, and one that it would be difficult/impossible to relate to) and that the situation (that many of the most powerful people are joined together in a secret society) is itself unbelievable (paranoid might not be the right word, but such beliefs--secret societies containing lots of important people, such as the president--are often considered paranoid, since they go hand-in-hand with conspiracy theories). Believable is another critical word that needs its own thread at this point. It is as controversial a criterion for Good as Original is.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#35 Post by Andre Jurieu » Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:16 pm

Jun-Dai wrote:Believable is another critical word that needs its own thread at this point. It is as controversial a criterion for Good as Original is.

Very true.
Jun-Dai wrote:The idea is that Bill is impossibly naive (i.e., that he is an unbelievable character, and one that it would be difficult/impossible to relate to)
Well, it was believable to me considering I know well-educated people this naive in regards to love, sex, gender roles, and marriage, and that I can say that I was once just as naive, even though it was when I was a kid. I don't think his position is completely ludicrous, but it remains a subjective matter.
Jun-Dai wrote:and that the situation (that many of the most powerful people are joined together in a secret society) is itself unbelievable.
Perhaps, but I'm willing to allow the film to some flexibility on the matter, considering I doubt Kubrick is attempting to portray a snapshot of reality, especially given the film's dreamlike fantasy aesthetics.

User avatar
Jun-Dai
監督
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:34 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

#36 Post by Jun-Dai » Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:33 pm

So we are pretty much in complete alignment at this point. I found myself unconcerned with the believability of Bill's character and the situation he found himself in. I found the cult scene too serious given how ridiculous it was (i.e., it seemed to take itself seriously, though I could not), but beyond that I found no problems in the film.

Now. . .

What do you think of Scorsese?

I need to see more of his films (After Hours, King of Comedy, and Age of Innocence to name three), but in general I've only found three of his films to be really significant: Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, and Raging Bull. Goodfellas is certainly a good and influential film, and the rest are all footnotes, some of them actually bad (Kundun). If you chart this, it's mostly a downward slope, though there are a lot of data missing (Gangs of New York is one, though I feel no reason to see it). I feel that Scorsese came out the strongest from the 70s U.S. New Wave, and even transcended it entirely with Raging Bull, but then he sort of fell into a much more Hollywood mode of making films. I'm curious to know why. Did he get tired of making such serious films? Did he feel that his earlier films were too much work? Did he feel that as a famous director he could no longer get the kind of collaborative filmmaking experience needed to fuel his genius? Or is he still making masterpieces, but putting all the greatness into forms that I've simply failed to appreciate?[/code]

TedW
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: A Theatre Near You

#37 Post by TedW » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:30 pm

Jun-Dai, you've gotta get a little more up to speed on his career. There's a whole period of career trials and tribulations between Raging Bull and his more recent studio fare, or even up to the point of Goodfellas, which rehabilitated his career (along with the commercial success of Cape Fear). In a lot of ways, the Scorsese of today was born in the 80s, a period when he was having a difficult time finding where he fit in amongst the studios... and the independent financing/distribution scene wasn't completely developed enough (though he did make two indies) to fully support his type of filmmaking.

King of Comedy is artistically significant (and very socially prescient, too), though probably undervalued. Last Temptation is more than a footnote artistically (to me), but you will find few people singing its praises. It remains, though, about 100 times more interesting than the Gibson film. More importantly, the effort expended to get the movie made and the severe reaction to its release had a tremendous affect on both his life and his work (a friend used to work for Barbara DeFina a few years after this period and told me that Marty was still receiving death threats). It seems he began more consciously alternating personal fare with "commercial" fare (though not usually so commercial in his hands). Still, Kundun, whatever its flaws, is about the most avant movie you're ever likely to see from Disney... and many of the other ones have their moments.

I wll agree with you, however, that his absolute high point was Raging Bull.

User avatar
davida2
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:16 am
Location: chapel hill, nc, usa

#38 Post by davida2 » Sat Dec 04, 2004 4:39 pm

I think it's great when die-hard Scorsese fans take this kind of stuff so personally. Scorsese is one of my five favorite directors, but I'm also not one to sugarcoat anything, either.
If you don't think The Age of Innocence, Casino and Kundun are masterpieces, then you're not a die-hard Scorsese fan.
I'm a die-hard Scorsese fan - and I'm in complete agreement on these. Perhaps I'm uncritical to some extent with directors I love, but I think Scorsese's weakest films outdo many other directors' masterpieces. I think these three in particular are overlooked - I've gotten something new out of them with each viewing, which is also true of almost all of the pre-'91 films.

THX1378
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:35 am
Location: Fresno, CA

#39 Post by THX1378 » Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:52 am

I'm a die-hard Scorsese fan here, and have been for sometime now. The problem with Casino is that everyone compares it to Goodfellas and I think it should be compared on it's own. It's not one of Scorsese's greatest films but it's still a good movie. I'd say of the films that Scorsese has made in the past 15 years that the one that is low on the list is Kundun. To me this is the one film that Scorsese made that doesn't feel like a Scorsese picture to me for some reason. Thats just me. I loved Bringing out the Dead very much. I think it was a return to the style that he used when he made Taxi Driver and the other films he made in the 70's, even had the feel of some of After Hours in it.
As for The Aviator both Ebert and Roper on their show last week both said that it was one of the films they think will be a lock for a best picture nom. They talked about this film and Million Dollar Baby being the other, with Roper at one point from what I remember saying that The Aviator was the best film he had seen so far this year, Ebert saying that if both films got noms that Baby would play better with Oscar cause it has more emotional, Ebert said that near the end it made him cry. During the review Ebert sounded like he was more pleased with The Aviator than he was with Gangs of New York. Ebert over and over again stated on the show that Gangs was the one film that Scorsese made that didn't feel like a Scorsese film and that it was like he was out of his elment, that the film didn't add up to the sum of it's parts and stuff. I still think that Gangs of New York was the best film of that year and is Scorsese's most underrated film.

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#40 Post by DrewReiber » Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:12 am

THX1378 wrote:I'm a die-hard Scorsese fan here, and have been for sometime now.
I'm really not that much of a Scorsese fan and I really enjoyed The Aviator. I've always thought he was one of the stronger mainstream American filmmakers, but I usually don't care for his more popular features as I don't relate to his characters or their environments very easily. Overall, I think Taxi Driver, The Last Temptation of Christ and Raging Bull were the only ones that stood out to me personally. This latest feature does tread some familiar ground for Scorsese, but for the most part it's all essential to the path of the story.

Aside from some autodrive performances (John C. Reilly, Alec Baldwin, Kate Beckinsale), there were some seriously Oscar-nomination worthy ones (Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett). Scorsese's subtlety and atmosphere as director made John Logan's screenplay really soar, when on it's own it would have been alright. The score was pretty bland, but the inclusion of period music was very well placed. Robert Richardson was fantastic, as usual, but very restrained and balanced from what we've come to known him for in recent features.

I can't predict what this film will do in box office, but it did feel like the Titanic for men. As a male fantasy it's probably the ultimate historical escapism. The idea of this self-made millionaire who makes feature films his own way, moonlights with the Hollywood starlets and builds and rides the fastest and largest planes in the world... all the while answering to no one. It is also so rich in historical context, from the bright lights of pre-war Hollywood to the silver age of aviation, the kinds of interest this film may drum up in both DVD and book purchasing will be fascinating to see.

Again, it wasn't perfect. The film drags a bit in places, leaving a feeling that it's a bit rough around in the edges in the third act... but I would definitely give it a hard 3 1/2 stars out of 4. I think this could be the most accessible Scorsese feature in years and EXACTLY the kind of movie that the Academy and critics have been waiting to praise after such great disappointments like Stone's Alexander. I would not be at all suprised to see this film get Best Picture and Best Director, as Scorsese will probably he heralded as some kind of hero by year's end in that he "saved the year" or some such nonsense. Personally, I don't really care about the awards or whatever, I just want to see this film again to see how it holds up on second viewing.

Otherwise, I look forward to seeing The Life Aquatic tomorrow.

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#41 Post by DrewReiber » Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:19 am

THX1378 wrote: Ebert over and over again stated on the show that Gangs was the one film that Scorsese made that didn't feel like a Scorsese film and that it was like he was out of his elment, that the film didn't add up to the sum of it's parts and stuff. I still think that Gangs of New York was the best film of that year and is Scorsese's most underrated film.
Oh, and sorry to make an extra post, but I thought you might want to know that the Gangs of New York that came out is not Scorsese's cut. There was a plan for a 4 hour or so version that was more documentary style that the Weinsteins did not allow to go through for obvious commercial reasons. If we're lucky, that version will get restored someday... hopefully once Disney has finally gotten rid of them.

THX1378
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:35 am
Location: Fresno, CA

#42 Post by THX1378 » Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:02 am

Thanks DrewReiber for the review and overlook of the film. I really can't wait to see it in about 2 weeks. Tuesday night TCM is going to run a Scorsese on Scorsese profile which should be great. Scorsese always has a good story to tell about his life, where he grew up, how he makes his films, and how he still studys films to learn from them. It should be a desent show.
As for Gangs of New York I've heard a million versions of the story of a directors cut of the film. The one I've heard the most is that the film ran almost 30 minutes longer before the Weinsteins made him cut the film. Some people said that they saw this cut *which many have called the workprint version* of the film and that it didn't make any more of an impact to the film at all. I don't know if Scorsese has came out and said that he wanted to make a longer cut of the film or that if this is his full cut of the film as he intented.
From what I've been reading and hearing is that come Oscar time The Aviator will score Scorsese a director nom again and have his best chances this year at winning, hopfuly for a truly great film and not hand it to him just because they want to give it to him for his body of work. The only other films that I think are going to go up against this film are Million Dollar Baby *which is getting some really great early reviews* and Sideways *the best movie I've seen all year so far*

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#43 Post by Andre Jurieu » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:30 am

THX1378 wrote:As for Gangs of New York I've heard a million versions of the story of a directors cut of the film. The one I've heard the most is that the film ran almost 30 minutes longer before the Weinsteins made him cut the film. Some people said that they saw this cut *which many have called the workprint version* of the film and that it didn't make any more of an impact to the film at all. I don't know if Scorsese has came out and said that he wanted to make a longer cut of the film or that if this is his full cut of the film as he intented.
From what I've heard/read, the longer cut does exist from test screenings, but Scorsese himself has said that the film that he released to the public back in 2002 is the version of the film that he intended. While I'm sure Harvey pleaded with him to make the film more audience friendly for box-office purposes, and there are numerous reports of the director and producer clashing on creative decisions throughout filming (most notably in Vanity Fair and Esquire articles - I find it funny that Harvey agreed to pay for the church to be built after Tom Cruise visited the set and told Weinstein he should do it for Marty - talk about kissing movie-star ass), Scorsese has stuck by the version he released in theatres. There was a Chicago Sun-Times interview with Scorsese a while back in which he states that the film had a number of different versions in test screening, ranging from 150 to 220 minutes that he fiddled around with for the better part of a year. I know J. Hoberman keeps commenting that he wishes he could have seen the 220 minute version. However, Scorsese has said he wanted to bring the film down to a more manageable length, where the rhythm was better (which is concerning since I don't think the rhythm of the film is all that great in its current state) , and admitted in the same Sun-Times interview that he might have included too much footage. I'm sure some of these statements by Scorsese are done for publicity sake, since he was battling for an Oscar at the time and didn't want to create a rift with Miramax at the time given their ability to wage a Oscar marketing campaign, but I don't believe it's another clear-cut case of "evil producer decides to destroy master director's genius creative vision" either - though we often want it to be.

EDIT: Here's a little piece from the latest Sun-Times interview with Scorsese, by Roger Ebert (who, if possible, is growing increasingly more bland):
And you worked again with Harvey Weinstein and Miramax, [Ebert] said, despite all those stories about how you were at each other's throats during "Gangs of New York."

"Harvey? A difference of opinions. Issues of taste. No blood-letting. And ultimately, it came down to a hard, cold case of production costs and how much we could spend." Scorsese hinted, almost under his breath, that "Gangs of New York" had fallen a little short of what he had dreamed, but in the real world of production money and how much it can buy, Scorsese made the best movie it was possible to make.
THX1378 wrote:The Aviator will score Scorsese a director nom again and have his best chances this year at winning, hopfuly for a truly great film and not hand it to him just because they want to give it to him for his body of work.
Well whether the film is great or not, there will be a substantial vote for Marty simply because of his body of work, rather than the film. That's just the way voting works. Does anyone else find it slightly sad that Scorsese appears to be really concerned with winning an Oscar? I hope he wins one eventually, but I hate to see him so worried about being recognized by the industry. His films will be his legacy more than some statue. We're all human in the end though and vanity and ego are natural traits.
Last edited by Andre Jurieu on Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dylan
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:28 pm

#44 Post by Dylan » Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:39 pm

Don't forget that the late composer Elmer Bernstein wrote and recorded a score for "Gangs of New York," only to have it rejected by the producers (those who were lucky enough to attend an early screening of Gangs a year before it came out had the pleasure of hearing it as it hasn't received a CD release). I bet Bernstein's music would've been the glue that would've held this film together (more so than the songs, as well as Howard Shore's two or three pieces from his concert hall composition "New York Symphony" {which resembles Holst's The Planets from what I can recall}). It's sad that Bernstein had one of his final scores rejected, and I'm sure an old fashioned orchestral score is exactly what this film needed.

Dylan

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#45 Post by DrewReiber » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:12 am

Andre Jurieu wrote:From what I've heard/read, the longer cut does exist from test screenings, but Scorsese himself has said that the film that he released to the public back in 2002 is the version of the film that he intended.
I heard from someone who worked very close with Scorsese on the film that it was not his cut and it was probable/possible there would be another cut made available someday. As you pointed out from a more recent interview, it's quite likely he's changing his tune because there is distance to the promotion of the film. He's still involved with them, though, so we probably won't get the truth as long as they are all in business together.

User avatar
justeleblanc
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: Connecticut

#46 Post by justeleblanc » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:30 pm

I'm still curious as to the relationship between Weinstein and Scorsese. I mean, Weinstein can tell Kevin Smith what to do, but Scorsese? Can Harvey Weinstein really tell Scorsese what to do? Sure Scorsese is a nice guy, but I'd say he has a lot of pride in his work and I dont think (even now) he would sell out to Miramax. Could it be that Scorsese actually does like the final cut of the film and that he thinks it truly is the best cut? Maybe he's just not as good as he used to be.

TedW
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: A Theatre Near You

#47 Post by TedW » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:51 pm

JusteLeblanc wrote:Can Harvey Weinstein really tell Scorsese what to do?
At that budget level, yes. My understanding is that Scorsese gave up final cut to get the movie made at that price (even though Miramax's investment was capped at a much lower figure).

Harvey basically wanted to eliminate or greatly reduce the Draft Riots aspect of the story. Hate to say it, but he was right. Gangs was really two movies that didn't fit together -- the father-son/revenge story (ostensibly the story of the movie) and this whole other historical component which never quite worked, the presence of which weakened the whole. Harvey's impulse (probably more mercenary than creative -- studios are always fearful of long running times) to focus the movie on the Dicaprio/Day-Lewis story was the correct one, IMO.

User avatar
justeleblanc
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: Connecticut

#48 Post by justeleblanc » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:32 pm

I do agree, but where did that cheesy love story come from?

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#49 Post by Andre Jurieu » Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:00 pm

Well, as it exists now, I'd agree the strength of Gangs of New York is the central relationship between Amsterdam and Bill, and the historical elements are rather problematic. In fact, if the focus of the film was mostly Bill, I think it would have made for a much better film. But how are we to know what other footage/scenes Scorsese would have included had he been able to keep more material of the historical aspects of the story? Perhaps with the additional material, the historical aspects of the film would have been much stronger, and when compared to the personal trials of Amsterdam and Bill may have become much more cohesive. How will we ever really know without seeing the various cuts?

A friend of a friend briefly worked as Scorsese's personal assistant during filming of The Aviator in Montreal and said that The Aviator shoot was much smoother for Scorsese because of the involvement of Warner Brothers, who he seems to feel more comfortable with.
Last edited by Andre Jurieu on Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#50 Post by DrewReiber » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:22 pm

Andre Jurieu wrote:A friend of a friend briefly worked as Scorsese's personal assistant during filming of The Aviator in Montreal and said that The Aviator shoot was much smoother for Scorsese because of the involvement of Warnes Brothers, who he seems to feel more comfortable with.
Honestly, I wish Warner Bros or some other studio would fully support Scorsese... and hopefully The Aviator will make that happen. The Weinsteins are a blemish on the business and I am praying that their end comes sooner rather than later. So they are babysitters for Tarantino and Smith, telling them to get off their butts for their fans and make something now and then. Who cares? The only exclusively positive thing I can find from their company is their $30-million-and-less blank check deal they supposedly have with Robert Rodriguez through Dimension Films, which is otherwise the worst label for mass produced crap since Full Moon Video (which I at least found redeemable qualities in!).

The brothers are consistently the greatest obstacles for seasoned veterans with their own visions, have done nothing but saturate and destroy what was left of the theatrical horror market and proved to be the single worst thing that ever happened to imported Asian filmmaking. I've never been happy about watching Disney gut their own creative departments from the inside until now. Burn, burn, burn, BURN!!!!!

Post Reply