In class today, the topic of Martin Scorsese and his movies just happened to pop up. Not that I'm oddly and emotionally attached to directors I like or anything like that, but I love Marty a totally non-weird amount and felt the need to write why I like him and his movies so much. I want to make it clear, though, that I completely respect your opinions about him, Mr. Bennett, and in no way mean to change your mind or anything like that. I just happened to wake up from a nap today and see that picture of a sweet, happy Scorsese winning his Oscar (the last time I actually enjoyed the ceremony) that I put up on my wall years ago and suddenly felt a need to briefly explain some of the reasons why I like him such a TOTALLY non-weird, every day amount...
First off, I'll get his personality out of the way in only a few sentences, so I can then concentrate on his movies, which are much more important. In every interview I've ever seen of him everything he's written that I've ever read, and everything that others have said about him, the man is not only incredibly lovely but a huge lover of cinema. He's sort of like some stereotypical comical nerd with asthma and glasses, but he's said that ever since he was little he's loved movies as a means to both escape and explore. He's clearly obsessed with movies, and I'm unsure exactly what it is but I find something about that immensely endearing. This love of movies has found his way into his work, as his movies constantly have both hidden and obvious allusions to other films. The most recent example of this is in the Departed, where Scorsese put an X somewhere on camera whenever a character dies. This is a direct reference to the Howard Hawks version of Scarface (the good version- there, I said it). It's the little things like this that truly make most of his movies a treasure hunt for cinephiles. (That word is creepy.)
About his camerawork- yes, it is very obvious. It's impossible to watch one of his movies and not take note of a little trick he does here or there. I guess it simply comes down to a matter of personal taste, because this has never bothered me, and in fact I usually like the fact that the camera takes on the role of almost narrator. I can certainly understand why someone would be bothered by maybe a lack of subtlety in the camerawork, but one of the major things I love about most of these movies is the fact that they can appeal to/entertain several different types of audiences. What I mean is, someone with a lower understanding of movies who comes in to watch, say,Goodfellas, can be entertained purely by action, while someone with slightly higher understanding sees the significance of tracking shots or what have you. Others even more perceptive will find more subtle things to take note of - things like brilliant acting, a good screenplay, and those cool little Easter eggs. You can go in as a regular moviegoer or as a film professor or as Akira Kurosawa, you'll find something to analyze.
Finally, I just want to say a few things about the characters. I think you said, Mr. Bennett, that you didn't feel that most of the characters in his movies had any resonance. I guess, again, it depends on personal tastes, but I've found a lot of these characters fascinating. Taxi Driver is a prominent example, because I always think of the movie as primarily a character study of Travis Bickle. Any action that takes place in the movie is completely dependent on the character. The same is true for Raging Bull and even Goodfellas. I've found the way he's handled crime/mafia movies brilliant, as he doesn't seek to glorify or condemn, only explore the psyches of the people involved. At least that's my perception of it, I could be wrong. And his movies that aren't very action oriented, like the King of Comedy, the Avatior, and even Kundun- I've felt that the characters were brilliant. DeNiro's character in the King of Comedy, Rupert Pupkin, is actually one of my favorite all time characters and really affected me a great deal.
To each his (or her) own I guess...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There's an old saying that I like very much that goes like this, "those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still." But, in this case your argument is stated so clearly and in a manner so lacking in any spleen that I have no choice but to recant and agree that I was mistaken about Scorcese.
ReplyDeleteHe has made some very high quality films, and they're all serious in the sense that there's always something to talk about or analyze. I think my aversion to him arose back around that time when I heard him giving a few interviews that struck me as being very pompous and self-important. The Age of Innocence came out around then, and it seemed to me that the boy from Brooklyn was putting on airs.
But you point out that my criticism of him, while still valid in some cases can not be applied to his entire body of work.
I showed "Top Hat" today in class. I thought you were back there, but it turns out you were absent. No wonder there was murmuring in the back. You would have silenced the peanut gallery, I'm sure. Hope to see you tomorrow
I re-read my comment and I don't think it does sufficient justice to your essay. It is just so beautifullly written that I must sing your praises in a higher key. I know I complimented your writing skills before, but, as I never tire while listening to a protracted litany of my own virtues, (and it is a very long litany indeed) I think you will perhaps be able to endure hearing again of yours.
ReplyDeleteYou may not have written with the goal of changing my mind, but you certainly achieved it. Scorcese is back in my good graces, or to put it more seriously, I will approach his work with an open mind again, which I had not been doing for a long time.