I agree with you about Gangs, but what sets his Goodfellas-Age of Innocence-Casino triumvirate apart for me is that he finally integrated the living, boiling characters with a materialist connection to their environment through the camera "theatrics" you mention. Almost like a mix of Cassavetes and von Sternberg. Casino is the supreme example, where the jewelry, clothes, cars, and silver coins join together like a Greek Chorus sing-songing doom for the characters. I realize many people were left cold by the characters in Casino, but I experienced a strong emotional connection, partly due to the music, no doubt.HerrSchreck wrote:He can pay for busy art direction (GANGS, which looked & felt nothing like NYC), and soaring crane or pulley-wire shots or steadicam ballets, but that was never what Scorcese was all about at core. Living dialog, and living, livid, boiling characters.
As a former film programmer who has screened literally thousands of repertory movies for audiences, I can declare myself an expert on the subject and state that there can be a dozen different reasons for audience laughter at the same moment in a film. Some are laughing with it, some laughing at it, some laughing with discomfort, some laughing with scorn, and some laughing only because other people laughed first (actually, all it takes is a few strong laughers in an audience to make for a freaking gigglefest).Barmy wrote:Whoever said people laugh at TD because they "like" it is in error.
But I can absolutely say that most people laugh in Taxi Driver because they like it.