Martin Scorsese

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Martin Scorsese

#451 Post by hearthesilence » Thu Jul 06, 2023 6:15 pm

Nope, there's only been one cut. Was it a 35mm print? It's always possible that somehow that whole chunk was cut out of the print (like it was severely damaged and they never bothered to replace that portion). Dreadful if it was, but possible.

User avatar
Tom Amolad
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:30 pm
Location: New York

Re: Martin Scorsese

#452 Post by Tom Amolad » Thu Jul 06, 2023 6:23 pm

That’s what I thought.

Pretty sure it was a new DCP restoration.

Aging is hard…

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Martin Scorsese

#453 Post by hearthesilence » Sun Sep 17, 2023 5:01 pm

Scorsese released a statement when Robbie Robertson passed away, but Rolling Stone just published something lengthier from Scorsese, complete with personal Polaroids.

FWIW, I remember him mentioning the Thanksgiving dinner with Antonioni as part of his tribute op-ed for the NY Times when Antonioni died - had no idea Robertson was there. ("I crossed paths with Antonioni a number of times over the years. Once we spent Thanksgiving together, after a very difficult period in my life, and I did my best to tell him how much it meant to me to have him with us.")

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Martin Scorsese

#454 Post by FrauBlucher » Thu Oct 19, 2023 7:09 pm


User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#455 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Oct 19, 2023 7:37 pm

It loses all credibility putting Bringing Out the Dead in the sewer

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Martin Scorsese

#456 Post by swo17 » Thu Oct 19, 2023 7:39 pm

At least the #1 pick is worthy/a surprise

User avatar
TechnicolorAcid
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2023 7:43 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#457 Post by TechnicolorAcid » Thu Oct 19, 2023 8:09 pm

It’s a solid list and besides Bringing Out the Dead (which is written about positively at the very least) being put near the very bottom, all of the films do make sense to why they were put where they were. Also I’m just glad they talk so positively about all of his films, after witnessing the dumpster fire of Mr. Greene’s article, it’s a welcome surprise.

beamish14
Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 3:07 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#458 Post by beamish14 » Thu Oct 19, 2023 8:32 pm

Casino not in the top 5 is fucking crazy. One of the most endlessly rewatchable and entertaining films I’ve ever seen, and it eschews all the rules of modern Hollywood story structure


User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: Martin Scorsese

#460 Post by Finch » Thu Oct 19, 2023 10:59 pm

Disappointing to see Bringing Out The Dead this low in both lists especially when a bore like Color of Money is given slots above it. I need to watch Wolf of Wall St; I've kind of avoided it until now. Happy that Silence is getting more consideration after what felt like a muted reception at the time though I'd have still swapped the casting of Garfield and Driver around. FWIW, my current top Scoseses are Taxi Driver, Bringing Out The Dead, The King Of Comedy, Mean Streets, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Silence and Goodfellas, with honorable mentions for The Irishman, Casino, The Age of Innocence and two thirds of Shutter Island.

User avatar
MV88
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:52 am

Re: Martin Scorsese

#461 Post by MV88 » Thu Oct 19, 2023 11:04 pm

Maybe this is nitpicky, but referring to Scorsese and Schrader as “lapsed Christians” reveals either a lack of research (neither of them is lapsed) or a lack of understanding of the word “lapsed.”

User avatar
Randall Maysin Again
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2021 3:28 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#462 Post by Randall Maysin Again » Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:48 am

How about ranking Scorsese's filmmaking decades? For me its, from best to worst: 1990s, 2010s, 1970s, 1980s, 2000s.
Here's my ranking of the films I've seen:

The Real Deal: Goodfellas, Casino, Cape Fear(marred by horrible, offensive staging of rape scene--please find some other way to film that!), The Irishman, The Wolf of Wall Street, Scorsese's direction and camera movements on The Age of Innocence (never mind the somewhat enfeebled and denuded material)

Decent Thriller with a Stupid Twist that ruins everything: Shutter Island. and, in a similar vein/level of quality: Solid Conventional Biopic with Admirable Touches: The Aviator. and, somewhat similarily, Fun, too Flashy, Puerilely and Adolescently Macho, and Overrated: Raging Bull

Overrated Misses and Lacking in Lasting Value, but with lots of surface/incidental assets: Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Taxi Driver

Dull and Unconvincing Fake Realism: Mean Streets (Kent Wakeford may be the worst cinematographer I've ever encountered)

Hysterical, Repellently Obsessive, Incredibly Messy and unappetizing and Probably Completely Meaningless: Gangs of New York, New York, New York

obnoxious, puerile, pretentious, distasteful trash: The Departed & Arid and Empty and Useless: After Hours

Haven't seen the rest!

felipe
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 11:06 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#463 Post by felipe » Fri Oct 20, 2023 7:47 am

Is it me or is the marketing push for the new film way bigger than for his last efforts? It's like these past few weeks I've seen Scorsese everywhere, from career retrospectives and best-of lists to interviews about Barbie and TikToks about sex slang. I don't recall a studio pushing his films as hard as this before.

User avatar
yoloswegmaster
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:57 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#464 Post by yoloswegmaster » Fri Oct 20, 2023 7:49 am

It's most likely because the stars of the film are unable to do any press for the film due to the actors strike, so they gotta push Scorsese out there.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Martin Scorsese

#465 Post by hearthesilence » Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:04 pm

yoloswegmaster wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2023 7:49 am
It's most likely because the stars of the film are unable to do any press for the film due to the actors strike, so they gotta push Scorsese out there.
Pretty much. That's happening with a few other films as well - Todd Haynes, Richard Linklater and especially Sofia Coppola are doing a ton of publicity (though Coppola was able to get the stars of her film to appear at NYFF - I guess they got a waiver).

felipe
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 11:06 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#466 Post by felipe » Sat Oct 21, 2023 9:35 am

yoloswegmaster wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2023 7:49 am
It's most likely because the stars of the film are unable to do any press for the film due to the actors strike, so they gotta push Scorsese out there.
Makes sense. I guess it's working then, because this seems to be getting way more press than The Irishman or Silence, which were released without the limitations of a strike.

ford
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:44 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#467 Post by ford » Sat Oct 21, 2023 10:44 am

Randall Maysin Again wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:48 am
Cape Fear(marred by horrible, offensive staging of rape scene--please find some other way to film that!)
Marred? It's incredibly effective. It's absolutely terrifying. How is it "offensive"?

User avatar
Randall Maysin Again
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2021 3:28 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#468 Post by Randall Maysin Again » Sat Oct 21, 2023 11:16 am

Okay, maybe I can't really fault Scorsese morally for filming it the way he does, It just happens to greatly exceed my level of what I can tolerate when I'm enjoying a good relatively lightweight genre film, and I'm sure there were other filmmaking options, that could still be pretty horrifying, without being so sickeningly explicit. It's just my preference is all. I guess Scorsese isn't really doing anything wrong with this scene, other than the in his case, quite possibly incorrect assumption that with many male filmmakers, showing some poor actress's most vulnerable body parts being bitten, or hacked off, or whatever, is the first resort, rather than the last. It's just something to be avoided, if one can, you see.

User avatar
Mr. Deltoid
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:32 am

Re: Martin Scorsese

#469 Post by Mr. Deltoid » Sat Oct 21, 2023 1:40 pm

Randall Maysin Again wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2023 11:16 am
Okay, maybe I can't really fault Scorsese morally for filming it the way he does, It just happens to greatly exceed my level of what I can tolerate when I'm enjoying a good relatively lightweight genre film, and I'm sure there were other filmmaking options, that could still be pretty horrifying, without being so sickeningly explicit. It's just my preference is all. I guess Scorsese isn't really doing anything wrong with this scene, other than the in his case, quite possibly incorrect assumption that with many male filmmakers, showing some poor actress's most vulnerable body parts being bitten, or hacked off, or whatever, is the first resort, rather than the last. It's just something to be avoided, if one can, you see.
Nonsense. The scene with Illeana Douglas is short, sharp and shocking - and incredibly effective. As for 'most vulnerable parts being bitten, or hacked-off' - there is nothing titillating about it, nor does Scorsese linger on her body in any exploitative way. In fact, if I recall, there is no nudity at all in this scene.

User avatar
Randall Maysin Again
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2021 3:28 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#470 Post by Randall Maysin Again » Sat Oct 21, 2023 2:08 pm

You fellas are pretty defensive of Scorsese! I'm barely criticizing him at all, you know. I'm definitely not saying the scene crosses the line into being exploitative. To each his own, but surely you don't maintain that the scene has to be filmed the way it is.
Mr. Deltoid wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2023 1:40 pm
As for 'most vulnerable parts being bitten, or hacked-off' - there is nothing titillating about it, nor does Scorsese linger on her body in any exploitative way. In fact, if I recall, there is no nudity at all in this scene.
These two things are not exactly the same. You can just honestly, unflinchingly and head-on depict a big tattooed yucky guy tying up Illeana Douglas and biting into her ear, or any other especially sickening violent event, but why do that when you can convey the horror effectively without making your audience really uncomfortable and lose their lunch? There are certain kinds of violence that I really can't stomach and really turn me off of a film, though I overall still really enjoy Cape Fear, and I wouldnt' equate Scorsese with a Lars von Trier type. That kind of douchy provocativeness doesn't permeate the entire film, or even the any of the violent events themselves. I just think Scorsese is being forthright about everything, and I would just much prefer he be more discreet on the rare/one occasion (I've never seen a comparable moment in any of his other films) he depicts this kind of violence. You're perfectly right Scorsese doesn't do what you said he doesn't do. And I'm not saying ears are nudity. Scorsese's a pretty moral filmmaker, my caveats in this regard are just nitpicking in the grand scheme of things.

User avatar
okcmaxk
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:37 am

Re: Martin Scorsese

#471 Post by okcmaxk » Sat Oct 21, 2023 3:13 pm

Randall Maysin Again wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2023 2:08 pm
I'm barely criticizing him at all, you know.
"obnoxious, puerile, distasteful trash"—I didn't like the rat either, but barely?

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Martin Scorsese

#472 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat Oct 21, 2023 3:16 pm

I always thought how the scene was done undermines the scenes that follow. Douglas’ refusal to press charges because she knows first hand that the system is rigged against rape victims rings pretty hollow after we just watched her get part of her face bitten off. If there’s one thing male police officers, judges, and juries would easily believe, it’s that a woman wouldn’t consent to having chunks of her face bitten off and her arm dislocated. That kind of obvious brutality transcends institutional sexism.

beamish14
Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 3:07 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#473 Post by beamish14 » Sat Oct 21, 2023 3:29 pm

To this day, I’m amazed that Cape Fear didn’t earn an NC-17 rating as a result of that scene

User avatar
Randall Maysin Again
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2021 3:28 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#474 Post by Randall Maysin Again » Sat Oct 21, 2023 3:34 pm

okcmaxk wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2023 3:13 pm
"obnoxious, puerile, distasteful trash"—I didn't like the rat either, but barely?
Okay, but to be fair, and in retrospect, I would just direct that at the stoopid material, not Scorsese. Although..i guess I could probably use those same adjectives to describe the look of the film, which also sucks, and maybe that was more Scorsese's doing, I don't know.

ford
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:44 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#475 Post by ford » Sat Oct 21, 2023 5:12 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2023 3:16 pm
I always thought how the scene was done undermines the scenes that follow. Douglas’ refusal to press charges because she knows first hand that the system is rigged against rape victims rings pretty hollow after we just watched her get part of her face bitten off. If there’s one thing male police officers, judges, and juries would easily believe, it’s that a woman wouldn’t consent to having chunks of her face bitten off and her arm dislocated. That kind of obvious brutality transcends institutional sexism.
I guess it's a testament to Illeana Douglas's performance that I totally bought it.

Post Reply