Martin Scorsese

[Noiretirc]

The Art Directors Guild released a statement on Scorsese's Flux genAI endorsement.

All of this pushback gives me hope.

Hope that Scorsese - All The Films will be...complete soon?

[pistolwink]

This is the key point from the ADG statement—and the key fact about AI in my opinion:

Generative AI is only capable of producing this type of ‘cinematic intelligence’ by ingesting large swaths of copyrighted work, likely scraped from the internet without consent, credit, compensation, or transparency.

The entire business model of this sort of AI is one of theft and enclosure of the commons.

I assume Scorsese is doing this because they're giving him a big fat check he'll put to decent use, not because he actually plans to do much "advising." That doesn't make it any better.

[hearthesilence]

MoMA is screening a rare 35mm preservation print of Gangs of New York courtesy of the George Eastman Museum and Scorsese's production company. Part of their current series, "Immigrant Nation: People in Transit" (no doubt inspired by the current political climate), the first screening was tonight and there's another on July 10. It's a beautiful print (the scene where Amsterdam is surrounded by a fog of dust is spotless) and given the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, I strongly recommend going to this just to see it fill the entire span of MoMA's T1 stage, it really benefits from it.

I actually saw this film when it first opened, so it was a real treat to see it again this way, especially when the DVD's and Blu-rays have all been lacking despite incremental improvements with each reissue. When the movie was first released, the most timely thing about it was the election that alluded to the 2000 recount. Everything else felt like a time capsule, but it's become much more powerful now because the "Natives"' vile anti-immigration sentiments no longer sound dated, they're now a spot-on mirror of the Republican Party, both in ideology and personality.

My main reservations about casting remain. No doubt it would've been impossible to get the same financing without stars like DiCaprio and Diaz, but I still wish all of the Irish characters had been played by Irish actors. And it sticks out how Amsterdam is able to heal back into his good looks no matter how much injury is inflicted on him, even when it's done with the intention of disfiguring him. But those reservations faded pretty quickly, partly by the film's presentation but above all by the sad timeliness that's made this film age better than it should.

I should add that deep into the film, it really sank in how some of Daniel Day-Lewis's mannerisms and diction brought to mind Robert De Niro, who was originally cast as Bill the Butcher. To be clear, it's no imitation, nor was it apparent before, but with De Niro's performance in Killers of the Flower Moon now burned into memory, the parallels between their characters is apparent, as if William King Hale could've been a proud descendant of the other. (Figuratively speaking of course, given the backstory with Jenny.) Taken together, the two complete a dark picture of American history as one driven by supremacist leanings.

[lazarus]

That's great news that this print exists. I hope it makes it to the West Coast, specifically the Academy Museum. I think the film is a messterpiece, and my issues aren't really with the casting (DiCaprio appropriately tortured, Diaz appropriately feral), but with the choppiness resulting from what we know were ordered cuts. But it contains some of the best filmmaking of this century, and I think the controversy surrounding it will continue to fade and future viewers will go in with a more open mind, not to mention connect it to more recent events as you said.

I still hold out hope that Scorsese will change his mind and give us his longer, preferred cut, now that Weinstein is out of the picture. The Mr. Scorsese documentary showed that it's still a painful memory for him so why not get the closure? Otherwise, at the risk of sounding morbid, we will be left to petition his descendants when it isn't his decision anymore.

[hearthesilence]

This is a myth that refuses to die despite many articles and interviews that have clarified this over and over again. I think part of the problem is coming from people who don't understand how the editing process works with big studio films, and even film students I know who have gone on to work in the business have explained to me that it's not something they ever learned in school.

The cut that was ultimately released is the only cut Scorsese approved. Anything else was a work-in-progress and never considered to be a finished cut, not the one that somehow leaked and became bootlegged, and not the one seen by a few journalists in late 2001, and even that cut was clearly presented as a work print, so much that people who saw it identified it as such. It's understandable if people prefer it, but those cuts were definitely not finished, and the overwhelming majority of films start out much longer than the released version and get whittled down as they're worked on. The first few cuts tend to include everything just so everyone involved can see what they have and determine whether it plays fine. Just because a scene or a moment was scripted then shot doesn't mean a director will want to keep it - I get why some people will think everything shot belongs in a film, but that's rarely how a film gets made. The filmmaker may ultimately determine something doesn't work or isn't needed for a variety of reasons, and Scorsese has said that many times regarding Gangs of New York, even venting his frustration how this rumor that the film was compromised in the editing process won't go away.

It's common for directors to later wish they had done things differently - Scorsese has said that there are things in Mean Streets that make him "cringe" nowadays - but that's something else entirely.

[nowhereisaplace]

I am almost certainly not going to get a chance to get over to see this tomorrow and I haven’t seen it since its initial run, but have been wanting to revisit it lately. Hearthsilence, what is it about the current home video presentation that it gets wrong?

[hearthesilence]

The original Blu-ray was horrible, and it may be why Disney quietly remastered it in 2010. IIRC, that updated 2010 master is still being used for the current Blu-ray and it isn't bad at all. It's usually pretty cheap too (I used to see it for well under $10 every now and then). Not perfect and could certainly be improved since it's so old, but it's still fine. Since this is 2.35:1, the Blu-ray has to be letterboxed, and tbf, there's exactly how I'd want it, but there's just no comparison to seeing this unfurled across the entire span of a theater, and of course you have the advantage of an excellent film print over a digital master.

[Drucker]

I saw the print tonight, having only seen Gangs once on a small TV many years ago, so this was effectively my first time watching it in full and really locked in. I have to say I wasn't crazy about the film. I don't have any real complaints about casting, but I couldn't really gel with the feel for the film. At various points it touches on the themes you associate with Scorsese, with conflicting feelings about religion as well as paternal relationships. But none of the thematic elements really feel fully satisfying to me. If anything I found the film most intriguing as an anti-war film, especially in the final scene.

In some ways this kind of feels like Scorsese's most traditionally "Hollywood, big budget" production--the least like a personal project of his. I especially felt that way in the first twenty minutes with the musical cues present. Not a top Scorsese for me unfortunately.

[lazarus]

This is a myth that refuses to die despite many articles and interviews that have clarified this over and over again. I think part of the problem is coming from people who don't understand how the editing process works with big studio films, and even film students I know who have gone on to work in the business have explained to me that it's not something they ever learned in school.

The cut that was ultimately released is the only cut Scorsese approved. Anything else was a work-in-progress and never considered to be a finished cut, not the one that somehow leaked and became bootlegged, and not the one seen by a few journalists in late 2001, and even that cut was clearly presented as a work print, so much that people who saw it identified it as such. It's understandable if people prefer it, but those cuts were definitely not finished, and the overwhelming majority of films start out much longer than the released version and get whittled down as they're worked on. The first few cuts tend to include everything just so everyone involved can see what they have and determine whether it plays fine. Just because a scene or a moment was scripted then shot doesn't mean a director will want to keep it - I get why some people will think everything shot belongs in a film, but that's rarely how a film gets made. The filmmaker may ultimately determine something doesn't work or isn't needed for a variety of reasons, and Scorsese has said that many times regarding Gangs of New York, even venting his frustration how this rumor that the film was compromised in the editing process won't go away.

You're assuming a lot the other way calling it a "myth" because you weren't there either. I'm well aware of how the editing process works. and I did not imply that the film should have every written or shot scene put back in--you're making a straw man. What we do know is that Weinstein and Scorsese had many arguments during production, and that strife continued into post-production, requiring mediators. Even if what leaked was merely a workprint, we also know that Weinstein was pushing for a more manageable length, with commercial prospects in mind. Regardless of whether he ordered cuts, or threatened Scorsese, or whatever, it's safe to say that what we wound up with is not purely how Scorsese wanted it.

We know that the narration was added late in the game, it certainly wasn't in the script. Was that a concession made by Scorsese or an idea he had himself?

[hearthesilence]

Obviously I wasn't there, but that was partly my point - there have been a lot rumors spread by people who clearly weren't there, and it stands in stark contrast to what's been stated on the record by people who were there. It's come up on this forum more than once going back many years - those posts are partly what I was referring to, not just your post.

Having said that, the only thing you originally referred to was the editing of the movie. Scorsese himself has talked about the arguments he had over spending many times, and Jay Cocks even went on record saying he had to be fired so they could hire more writers for more drafts. It's no stretch to say those things shaped the film, though given the nature of those changes, it's also speculative how they may or may not have compromised the film. (For example, the script was still a work-in-progress, and it wasn't unusual for Scorsese to go through different writers after each one took it as far as they could.)

I don't know when the narration was added, but bear in mind the script floating around is supposedly from 1993. There's no narration in the work print, but for a lot of reasons it's still possible it was written in some form without being recorded. (It can actually be pretty difficult and expensive to record narration, especially if you want to record a movie star who's already off shooting another movie. If they wanted to make a rough-sounding guide by someone filling in for DiCaprio, that would be easy, but I would not be surprised if nobody wanted to leave that in if they wanted to screen something to the press.)

EDIT: Correction, a workprint was NOT screened for journalists including Jeffrey Wells as it's been erroneously stated elsewhere, turns out Wells (per his own account) got a hold of an unauthorized copy. No provenance given so it's unclear at what point that cut was actually made.

[lazarus]

So you're having us believe that the version without the narration had left space for it, but it wasn't recorded yet?

Come on. That would have stuck out like a sore thumb, and those empty spaces would have been noticeable. Those who saw both versions seemed to perceive that this was new, and not something missing from what they previously viewed.

Occam's razor. Sorry, but it seems more likely that based on all of the cuts that were "suggested", the narration was written and recorded after the fact to help bridge some of those gaps, and explain things to handhold stupid audience members.

Not buying what you're selling here.

[hearthesilence]

All your responses are presenting speculative assumptions as facts where you haven't bothered to quote anybody or at least present a reliable source. This is precisely why I posted to begin with.

I'll repeat a few things again. I stated this very clearly, you and I do NOT know when the narration was created. Only someone who was involved in making the film knows.

If all you have is an illegally obtained bootleg with no known provenance, something Wells admits is what he viewed, you can't just assume it's any kind of finished version of the film, much less a director's "preferred" cut. (This is not a rare mistake. Plenty of people have incorrectly done that with unearthed work-in-progress cuts of other films in the past.)

That appears to be the one concept you're refusing to grasp. It's fine if you prefer watching the bootleg, but that doesn't make it fact that what you're seeing is somehow a cut Scorsese preferred over the one that was released.

If it's still being worked on and there's no indication in terms of how far along the process it is, then no one knows what the plan or the intentions were at the moment that version existed. And this is compatible with the possibility that narration was being prepared. Again, a movie is usually fine tuned incrementally. If at some point, they want to add narration, I wouldn't expect them to cut it in a way that's been making room for narration before that decision. But at the same time, it's not a stretch to say they want to take the time to write something good, especially when they've already written god knows how many drafts of the movie. I can only speculate why someone would create a tape copy of the film at this point (maybe as a reference for the writer when they write the narration, could be any reason), but this wouldn't be an extraordinary scenario. Even when the script is done, they'd have to do one of two things - record a guide track for the lead actor to follow and move scenes around to accommodate the guide (conventional practice) or if the actor gets to set his own pace, they could wait until his recording comes in and then tweak the scenes around that (more difficult, but then again it's not like the people involved make creative choices based only on ease). This is not an extraordinary possibility either. You can dwell on the point of narration all you want, but the greater point remains - there's literally no evidence that this bootlegged cut of the film is what Scorsese wanted over the released cut, only speculation and hearsay.

You made your choice on what to believe, that's your choice to make, but I'm going to leave this for everyone else, an excerpt from an article by Roger Ebert based on an interview with Martin Scorsese:

[Scorsese] talks about whatever comes into his mind, and I learn that he thinks “The River” is Jean Renoir’s best movie, that he would love to make a film from a book by Joseph Conrad, that he has finally gotten through James Joyce’s Ulysses, that he needs to work because he plowed half of his salary back into “Gangs of New York,” and that there will not be a “director’s cut” of the film on DVD.

That last he makes particularly clear, because of all the controversy over reported arguments he had with Miramax chief Harvey Weinstein about the length of the film.

“The debate was about how you get a picture to play, not about how long it was,” he said. He talked about a long process with his editor Thelma Schoonmaker, who has worked on all of his pictures, as they made versions that ran from three hours and forty minutes to as little as two hours and 36 minutes. They screened before test audiences: “This is a film that needed to be screened that way because it contains a lot of information. How much was getting across? How much wasn’t getting across? How much was getting across that you didn’t need to get across, because you could just drop or forget it?”

At one point, he said, it was too short. Scenes played too fast. “I added three or four minutes, clarified certain other things. The rhythm was still off, I felt. This went on and on over a period of about a year. At one point I put too much back in.”

His discussions with Weinstein, he said, were always about finding the length where the picture worked. When that got to the press, it was translated into fights. The movie is currently 168 minutes long, he said, and that is the right length, and that’s why there won’t be any director’s cut–because this is the director’s cut.