|
Post by seyfried on Apr 29, 2008 1:16:08 GMT
And to concurr with Brian Wilson, still the best pop song ever.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Apr 29, 2008 1:24:03 GMT
Off the top, I'd agree.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Apr 29, 2008 1:27:39 GMT
Fuck Mean Streets; watch Dirty Dancing.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Apr 29, 2008 2:59:50 GMT
[...]watch Dirty Dancing. But I've found that I don't have the time of my life when watching it.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 5, 2008 17:00:52 GMT
Discussion continued from here.
Sorry, I meant to follow this up but forgot about it (bad thread for a discussion; there's another one in there too). I hate to say it; independent cinema has always been decadent. This can't be true. Decadence is a state of decay. Think of what American independent cinema represented in the 1960s and '70s. During, as De Palma put it, that "flash of light between the demise of the studio system and the rise of the talent agencies", important, enduring films were made. What have we got today? Yeah, I agree completely. But where are the good ones today? Or the great ones? Tarantino ironically juxtaposed dialogue and scenario, but the dialogue is far from naturalistic, it's very arch and knowing. And in fact that's one of the Tarantino'isms that was very in vogue in the '90s, and part of his deeply negative influence on American cinema. Smith has never done anything with dialogue that wasn't done a billion times better by Seinfeld. Actually, I said the violence in GoodFellas was morally bewildered, not bewildering. Scorsese doesn't know what he thinks about it. Maybe he doesn't even think about it. But it's a confused representation; extremely graphic and brutal, but hip and funny at the same time. Why? And all works of art are political, through and through, without exception. The filmmakers might not have intended to make a political statement. They might even see their film as 'apolitical', but the position of 'apoliticism' is very seriously political itself.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Aug 7, 2008 1:52:35 GMT
Actually, I said the violence in GoodFellas was morally bewildered, not bewildering. Scorsese doesn't know what he thinks about it. Maybe he doesn't even think about it. But it's a confused representation; extremely graphic and brutal, but hip and funny at the same time. Why? The most graphic and brutal violence like the Billy Batts scenes and the Henry's pistol whipping of Karen's neighbor, IMHO, weren't presented with a tone of humor and hipness. That's all that's coming to my mind right now. What did you have in mind? The humor before the violence (i.e., the others goading Tommy) when Tommy shooting Spider in the foot is to underscore the psycopathic and sociopathic leanings of mobsters. The same for the "hoof" kitchen scene at Tommy's parents home. I didn't find Spider getting shot for telling Tommy to go fuck himself as funny. It was a complete tonal shift. Unless you're not talking about humor and hipness at the exact moments of violence, but humor & hipness existing in the same film that harbors graphic violence. I think it's sort a dialectical tension for lack of a better term. All this is assumption, though, on my part as I need a bit more to understand your criticism in full.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 7, 2008 19:57:13 GMT
It's been a while, but aren't there genuinely funny wisecracks made when they're digging the grave for Billy Batts? Aren't there montages set to hip '80s pop-rock that include images of beatings and murders? I'm pretty sure there are.
But I was referring more generally to the fact that a character like Tommy is portrayed as being kooky and witty and charismatic. Scorsese likes him and the audience does too. It can be rationalised a million ways, but I don't think it can really be argued that Scorsese isn't infatuated with, and romanticising (consciously or not), gangsterisms. I don't think he's taking much of a serious interest in it.
From that you get filmmakers like Guy Ritchie.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 7, 2008 20:08:26 GMT
It's been a while, but aren't there genuinely funny wisecracks made when they're digging the grave for Billy Batts? Aren't there montages set to hip '80s pop-rock that include images of beatings and murders? I'm pretty sure there are. There are, yes. Don't forget they're based on truth, too, adapted from Henry Hill's (probably romanticised) version of his own life. Tommy DeSimone, the real-life enforcer around whom the character was written, is described by Henry Hill as "90 to 95 per cent accurate". These guys are charismatic, in their own world, when viewed in that context. A lot of them are family guys who happen to be crooks. And yeah, that's one of a million ways to rationalise that representation, in the same way that some of the implausibilities of The Wire are too. And Scorsese would be the first to admit his fascination with the Mafia; he grew up in the same neighbourhoods, and he loved the old (and much more romantic) gangster films of the 1930s. What of it? There's that "s" word, again. Do you mean he's not exploring this gangster world "penetratingly"? I'd disagree, if you do. It's possible to look at the film from your own, subjective ideological system and condemn it as glamourising or "unconscious"; but there's a harsh, cold, increasingly brutal tone that inflects the narrative of GoodFellas, to the point that the early montages and foot-tapping soundtrack become the aesthetic paradox, the decorative shell that these people are living under. It's all a fantasy, a seductive dream-cum-serious nightmare ("As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster"); they're all expendable to the business they shine shoes for (if you'll forgive the in-reference). But I don't see how Scorsese should be made to answer for Ritchie, unless it's for a subtlety that Ritchie's misread. I don't hold Nietzsche responsible for the Final Solution.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 8, 2008 23:39:06 GMT
There are, yes. Don't forget they're based on truth, too, adapted from Henry Hill's (probably romanticised) version of his own life. Yeah, I'm not forgetting that. But it's not really a significant point. I'm sure plenty of appalling people have made jokes while doing appalling things. Why are the wisecracks funny? Why aren't they appalling? Is it because the violence in the film (and also in Casino and The Departed) is trivialised and rendered cool and appealling in its distance and its stylisation. Is it because Scorsese isn't really interested in the serious questions surrounding these characters and the realities of organized crime? Why is he making the film? I think he's fascinated by these guys' charisma - their manner; the way they carry themselves, the way they speak and dress, etc. I think that, along with cinematic style, is what he's focused on in making the film. I don't think he's interested in the structure of their world, or in any kind of broader reality, or in the kind of society that would result in these kinds of people, or in the mafia society as a microcosm of something greater or deeper than itself (which it very much is). Actually, a big part of his conscious motivation for making the film was to stay ahead of the curve and keep up with trends in mainstream filmmaking. In his own words: "You want it fast? I'll give it to you fast." So there are significant elements of commercialism and populism underlying the aesthetic choices he made. I'm not holding Scorsese responsible for Ritchie's films, of course. I'm just saying GoodFellas had a negative influence on cinema, and that influence is manifest in Ritchie's films.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 9, 2008 10:28:09 GMT
Okay. I see where you're coming from.
I'd ask, out of curiosity, whether or not this moral bewilderedness on the part of these films is a detriment in anyway? (From your ratings of them, the films as they are enjoyable - I guess because of the "cinematic style" aspect you mention - but are not enough to have any lasting impact.) Do you want more social digging? Do you think it should be Scorsese's obligation, in some way, to take a more responsible stance on this issue? Do you think he's wearing blinkers, and, if he is, do you think it's deliberate?
If Scorsese is interesting in looking at this world from the inside and treating it as a hermetic universe, without the wider social brushstrokes (like Greenaway and ornithology, perhaps?), is his art then lacking in artistic seriousness?
Or is it just a case of conflicting interests between director and viewer, here? (Or is he lacking artistic seriousness because of that conflict?)
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 9, 2008 10:47:29 GMT
Just a follow up, because I find this interesting. There are, yes. Don't forget they're based on truth, too, adapted from Henry Hill's (probably romanticised) version of his own life. Yeah, I'm not forgetting that. But it's not really a significant point. I'm sure plenty of appalling people have made jokes while doing appalling things. Why are the wisecracks funny? Why aren't they appalling? I think they can be both. But perhaps one (the appalling part) requires more active participation from the viewer, to actually think about what's happening onscreen. You might find it appalling because it is funny and feel that it shouldn't be, that it doesn't have the right to be funny because murder is a serious and appalling thing. I'm not sure if they are trivialised, or rendered cool. I think it's pretty horrific; the style in which they're filmed may filter it for some (it's certainly exciting to watch, in a gruesome sort of way), but that's for the "casual moviegoer", so to speak. I think there's a reason why GoodFellas has received the lasting critical praise it has, and Snatch hasn't. I haven't read any extensive academic writing on Scorsese's representation of violence, but I'm sure there's a complex moral relationship going on, that makes us aware, while laughing at this, how grave it actually is ( I'm aware of it; I think any glorification of the Mafia comes from Henry Hill's own subjective recollections; but the overall moral stance seems to be something more than that). Seyfried may be able to help me out there; Kino, too. I go into this in my previous post, somewhat, asking that if this is the case, then what of it. But I'm not sure if GoodFellas isn't interested in "the serious questions surrounding these characters", or "the realities of organised crime"? (What are the realities of organised crime? You mean the wider social conditions necessary for it to exist and prosper? That's the realities of wider social issues. I don't think Scorsese is too interested in that.) Why is he making the film? I think he's fascinated by these guys' charisma - their manner; the way they carry themselves, the way they speak and dress, etc. I think that, along with cinematic style, is what he's focused on in making the film. I don't think he's interested in the structure of their world, or in any kind of broader reality, or in the kind of society that would result in these kinds of people, or in the mafia society as a microcosm of something greater or deeper than itself (which it very much is). Do you take this influence into account when rating or viewing the film?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 9, 2008 10:57:58 GMT
Just a follow up, because I find this interesting. Yeah, I'm not forgetting that. But it's not really a significant point. I'm sure plenty of appalling people have made jokes while doing appalling things. Why are the wisecracks funny? Why aren't they appalling? I think they can be both. But perhaps one (the appalling part) requires more active participation from the viewer, to actually think about what's happening onscreen. You might find it appalling because it is funny and feel that it shouldn't be, that it doesn't have the right to be funny because murder is a serious and appalling thing. I'm not sure if they are trivialised, or rendered cool. I think it's pretty horrific; the style in which they're filmed may filter it for some (it's certainly exciting to watch, in a gruesome sort of way), but that's for the "casual moviegoer", so to speak. I think there's a reason why GoodFellas has received the lasting critical praise it has, and Snatch hasn't. I haven't read any extensive academic writing on Scorsese's representation of violence, but I'm sure there's a complex moral relationship going on, that makes us aware, while laughing at this, how grave it actually is ( I'm aware of it; I think any glorification of the Mafia comes from Henry Hill's own subjective recollections; but the overall moral stance seems to be something more than that). Seyfried may be able to help me out there; Kino, too. I go into this in my previous post, somewhat, asking that if this is the case, then what of it. But I'm not sure if GoodFellas isn't interested in "the serious questions surrounding these characters", or "the realities of organised crime"? What are the realities of organised crime? You mean the wider social conditions necessary for it to exist and prosper? That's the realities of wider social issues, not the realities of organised crime as a microcosm in itself. I don't think Scorsese is too interested in which factors allow for organised crime to work. Or, he may be interested in them, but he's not bothered about exploring them in his work. Do you take this influence into account when rating or viewing the film?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 9, 2008 18:33:32 GMT
I'd ask, out of curiosity, whether or not this moral bewilderedness on the part of these films is a detriment in anyway? (From your ratings of them, the films as they are enjoyable - I guess because of the "cinematic style" aspect you mention - but are not enough to have any lasting impact.) Do you want more social digging? Do you think it should be Scorsese's obligation, in some way, to take a more responsible stance on this issue? Do you think he's wearing blinkers, and, if he is, do you think it's deliberate? Don't mind my ratings--in any of these threads--for now. I don't know how to handle them yet. But no, I don't dislike GoodFellas. I just don't think Scorsese is interested in the how or the why of the kind of life he's depicting; the deeper realities of it. I just think he's fascinated by the manner of his characters. It's not up to me to dictate his artistic responsibilities to him. I'll just observe that I don't think he's considered it much himself, because I can't imagine anyone honestly, conscientiously concluding that superficiality and trendiness fulfils their artistic responsibilities. If anyone can supply a quote from him on how he views the role of the filmmaker in society, I'd be interested... It depends. It all depends on how connected to reality it is. How seriously does he treat real life? The connection doesn't have to be direct, and it has nothing to do with 'realism'. You can treat life seriously in a cartoon. I guess it's all about following through to a conclusion; ruthlessly getting at the truth of whatever it is you're addressing, using whatever means you've determined are most appropriate for addressing it (determined in accordance with the intention of treating life seriously). In my view, Scorsese doesn't do that in GoodFellas. Well, there seem to be conflicting interests; insofar as I'm interested in more than gangster mannerisms.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2008 19:04:38 GMT
I just don't think Scorsese is interested in the how or the why of the kind of life he's depicting; the deeper realities of it. I just think he's fascinated by the manner of his characters. I'd like to give you a hug.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 11, 2008 2:04:47 GMT
I watched the film again last night so I could talk about it more confidently. I think they can be both. But perhaps one (the appalling part) requires more active participation from the viewer, to actually think about what's happening onscreen. You might find it appalling because it is funny and feel that it shouldn't be, that it doesn't have the right to be funny because murder is a serious and appalling thing. The question is whether Scorsese lays uptempo, buoyant pop music over images of brutality because he's making a serious point or because it's trendy and therefore commercially lucrative to trivialise violence. If he's making a point, what is it? That these guys are totally apathetic or cavalier about violence? That's not an idea that's borne out through the rest of the film. Tommy is a nutjob, but by-and-large these guys are businessmen. They want to preserve their way of life. They're not serial killers. I don't think he's making a point. If he is, it must be in some way connected to whatever point his similar techniques in Casino and The Departed are meant to be making. But I think he just finds the whole milieu superficially appealling. The famous opening line of voiceover might as well be delivered by Scorsese. Some of the violence is rendered brutal and horrible, yeah. But it's like they're set pieces. It's like the brutality of it is part of the allure for Scorsese. Which is all very appropriately Catholic. Some of it is clearly intended to be openly funny. When Jimmy starts strangling Morrie, his wig comes off, and Henry cracks up laughing. That's not even juxtaposition, I think it's just 'Haha, Jimmy's such a badass'. And those montages with the suave pop songs over the brief glimpses of vicious beatings, it's all toward a general effect of non-deliberate, intuitive trivialisation; the moral bewilderment I mentioned. The film isn't any kind of indictment of the lifestyle. The broader sentiment expressed is starry-eyed veneration. Henry keeps saying over and over in his narration that he loved the life and that he misses the life, and Scorsese doesn't seem too bothered with the moral conundrums that arise quite obviously from biographing such a person. By the end of the film we don't know who Henry Hill is, we don't know what he is, we don't know what he represents - we just know what he did. The question of what the realities of organised crime are is one that can definitely be answered. The question of what the realities of organised crime "as a microcosm in itself" are is one I can't imagine is answerable. Implicit even in the phrase are the broader and deeper social realities that facilitate/perpetuate/necessitate its existence. What is the organisation? How is the crime organised? You can't look at it on its own if you want to understand it. It doesn't exist on its own. It's organisation within greater organisation, among and often in conflict with other organisations. It's subordinated to certain things and subordinates others. And it's not fixed, it's adaptive and creative. And what is crime? It's nothing fixed and constant either, certainly. Frankly, I don't think Scorsese, whatever his attitude towards the violence, has any qualms whatsoever with this kind of gangster capitalism. If anything, he admires it (like he admires Howard Hughes). He admires the traditionalism, the family values, and the immigrant drive to succeed; the individualism. And I think he's probably attracted to the ironies and the hypocrisies of the Catholicism of such violent people, he probably sees a lot of himself in these characters. As far as the rendering of this world as a microcosm, you're really talking symbolism. The order of the microcosmos is the order of the macrocosmos writ as small as possible. There's wiggle room of course (the hermetic seal doesn't have to be absolute), but if his intention was to do something fairly abstract like that, then you'd have to wonder about the significance of the Henry Hill character at the center of the microcosm (in a sense generating it, I suppose--except for the one moment when Karen's perspective intrudes). Actually, watching it last night, I had never noticed how so much of the film feels like rapid summation. The whole film is running away with itself, trying to lay out the details of Henry Hill's life. I have to wonder what makes him so interesting. Is he typical or atypical? Why should his life be the fulcrum around which this microcosm of organised crime revolves? Why should a fairly abstract project like that be very deliberately and dedicatedly based on real events, when that necessarily impedes the possibility of metaphor? No, I think the pacing and structure of the film indicate that the focus is the literal (and ostensibly historical) events. Every few minutes the pace slows to dwell on a scene, but then in between we get what are effectively montage sequences with explanatory/elaboratory narration. It's like the relationship between the words and the images is that the narrator says "then we did such-and-such" and the imagery adds a "like so". And that's not intended as a put-down; I just think it demonstrates the literalism of the narrative. It's a Henry Hill biography, and it's fairly commanding, but it's no more than that. It seems enough for Scorsese to colourfully render the gangsterisms that he finds so alluring. GoodFellas or Snatch? I don't think less of GoodFellas or enjoy it less because it was an influence on films I dislike, no. But the influences that came to bear on a film are an important part of understanding it, so you can't understand Snatch without taking into account GoodFellas.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 25, 2008 3:02:40 GMT
1. Taxi Driver (1976) **** 2. The King of Comedy (1983) **** 3. Mean Streets (1973) **** 4. Raging Bull (1980) *** 5. GoodFellas (1990) * 6. Casino (1995) * 7. The Color of Money (1986)
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Nov 1, 2008 7:13:40 GMT
1. The King of Comedy (1982) 8/10 2. After Hours (1985) 7.5/10 3. The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) 7/10 4. Taxi Driver (1976) 7/10 5. Bringing Out the Dead (1999) 6/10 6. Goodfellas (1990) 5/10 7. Raging Bull (1980) 5/10 8. Mean Streets (1973) 5/10 9. Who's That Knocking at My Door? (1967) [blue]5/10[/blue] 10. The Color of Money (1986) 5/10 11. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974) [blue]5/10[/blue] 12. Casino (1995) 4/10 13. Feel Like Going Home (2003) [blue]4/10[/blue] 14. Cape Fear (1991) 4/10 15. Kundun (1997) 4/10 16. The Departed (2006) 4/10 17. Gangs of New York (2002) 2/10
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 1, 2008 12:32:02 GMT
Curious rankings, Anasazie. What did you like so much about Temptation?
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Nov 3, 2008 2:55:27 GMT
1.Taxi Driver 8/10 2.Mean Streets 6/10 3.Raging Bull 6/10 4.Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore 6/10 5.Goodfellas 5/10 6.After Hours 5/10 7.The Color of Money 4/10 8.Cape Fear 4/10 9.The Departed 3/10 10.Gangs of New York 2/10
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 9, 2008 22:05:10 GMT
My only question I have with your thoughts on GOODFELLAS is this: Does every touch or decision by a filmmaker have to have a thematic point or theme to it? If that question means, "Does every single square inch of every single frame of every single shot in a film have to be consciously loaded with information decisively directed toward communicating a conclusive statement on a particular issue?" or something to that effect, then no. That's a completely unreasonable demand to make. I certainly never suggested anything of the sort.
|
|