What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

FBG Movie Club: DotM: Martin Scorsese (1 Viewer)

My other favorite thing for the month that really hit home with me was a recording of Scorsese during one of the podcasts I was listening to at work the other day. To paraphrase, he basically said that he was attracted to the characters in his movies like Jordan Belfort, Tommy, and LaMotta because he feels that all of us could be people like that under the right conditions. That got me thinking a lot about why I tend to agree with that POV but still don't connect with some of his movies. More specifically, I think many of my favorite directors have that same outlook and populate their movies with pretty despicable characters that are equally hard to like - PTA, anyone? . Where we differ on a couple of his heavy hitters is that for me personally I never been around or seen the draw of lifestyles like we see in Mean Streets or Goodfellas. Unlike Henry Hill, I have never wanted to a gangster.
When I was young, I definitely “wanted to be a gangster”. I initially saw these movies as cool and stories of heroes. Luckily I grew out of that in my early to mid 20s and saw what these stories actually were. That said, while I was attracted to it, I never actually would have gone down that road fully. Just wasn’t for me.
I never seemed to gravitate to much that would be considered more stereotypical manly traits, and I've long realized my movie tastes very much mimics this. Never cared much for westerns, action movies, movies about gangsters/criminals, etc.... You know, the core DNA of "guy" movies. So Goodfellas and it's characters I don't get at all, there is a huge disconnect. You say you grew out of it, and I can never remember it. Now, despicable characters like Jordan Belfort? Well....
 
A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies (1995)

Scorsese made this four-hour documentary for British TV in 1995 as part of the British Film Institute's A Century of Cinema program. The operative word in the title is "personal"; he focuses on films and directors that have shaped him as a filmmaker. He makes no attempt at a comprehensive approach to film history and arbitrarily cuts things off at 1969 when he began making movies himself.

The three-part series is divided into four sections that organize his chosen directors into four distinct profiles: storyteller, illusionist, smuggler and iconoclast. Most of the famous directors are at least mentioned but Scorsese spotlights deeper cuts such as Jacques Tourneur, Vincente Minnelli, Anthony Mann and Samuel Fuller. One of my usual pet peeves with documentaries is that the clips are too short. Scorsese respects the art form too much to do this and provides clips that run for several minutes to illustrate his points. 90s Marty narrates the piece in his signature rapid fire cadence with occasional archival interviews from the directors being discussed.

I thought the series was fascinating with Scorsese's unmatched love for the medium always in evidence. His taxonomy isn't perfect but it does provide a framework for him to tackle such a broad subject. My biggest problem was it gave me about 20 new/old movies that I now want to watch.

 
While on the subject of film history, I want to pour one out for the eminent critic and film scholar David Bordwell who passed away last week. I was fortunate to have taken a class taught by Dr. Bordwell at the University of Wisconsin. It was innocuously titled Intro to Film but I remember it as being quite rigorous. I probably spent more effort on that 3 credit elective than I did on my other classes that semester and I was a Microbiology major. He was an engaging lecturer who covered a lot of ground quickly and forced his students to keep up. I remember doing my final paper on a film by Kenji Mizoguchi but I can't recall which one.

Bordwell and his longtime partner and fellow critic Kristin Thompson were early adopters of the Internet as a platform for film commentary. Their blog Observations on Film Art is a tremendous resource for lovers of cinema.

 
A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies (1995)

Scorsese made this four-hour documentary for British TV in 1995 as part of the British Film Institute's A Century of Cinema program. The operative word in the title is "personal"; he focuses on films and directors that have shaped him as a filmmaker. He makes no attempt at a comprehensive approach to film history and arbitrarily cuts things off at 1969 when he began making movies himself.

The three-part series is divided into four sections that organize his chosen directors into four distinct profiles: storyteller, illusionist, smuggler and iconoclast. Most of the famous directors are at least mentioned but Scorsese spotlights deeper cuts such as Jacques Tourneur, Vincente Minnelli, Anthony Mann and Samuel Fuller. One of my usual pet peeves with documentaries is that the clips are too short. Scorsese respects the art form too much to do this and provides clips that run for several minutes to illustrate his points. 90s Marty narrates the piece in his signature rapid fire cadence with occasional archival interviews from the directors being discussed.

I thought the series was fascinating with Scorsese's unmatched love for the medium always in evidence. His taxonomy isn't perfect but it does provide a framework for him to tackle such a broad subject. My biggest problem was it gave me about 20 new/old movies that I now want to watch.

Too funny - I landed on the companion book of this series. I liked another interview book better than Scorsese on Scorsese, mostly because it was newer than mine from the used store, so I am going between The Journey Through American Movies and Conversations with Scorsese. As you said, I have also added a too many ideas to an already way too long list of movies and directors to get to. I'm not sure I will get to it, but I also have from the library My Voyage to Italy. In general this is a huge blind spot for me when in comes to movies and when I was watching the 15-hour doc I recommended, Italian neo-realism was something I had mentally circled to dig way more into, as it very much seems what I would love.
 
As I got through the first 1/2 of the 80s movies, it became crystal clear that Marty indeed is a top director for me. Like Spielberg, the personal batting average isn't there for me like a Wilder, Hitchcock, PTA, or Kubrick. But like Spielberg, the highs for me are very high and I have a disconnect with one of their most popular movies and that one wouldn't be in my top 10 of theirs. Where I am going with this is I think his stretch from 75-85 is ****ing amazing, specifically Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/King of Comedy/After Hours. All four really hit me this month and have been thinking about Raging Bull for days now. Besides DeNiro's nose, it's a perfect movie. Before going on, I just might do the Scorsese commentary track tonight.
 
Ok, time to kick off Marty March. Beer cracked open and Rolling Thunder is cranked up. I know I will get great tunes and some interesting personalities. Will we get a grasp on the elusive Dylan? I doubt it. Scorsese is great, but I don't believe Dylan can be caught.
 
As I got through the first 1/2 of the 80s movies, it became crystal clear that Marty indeed is a top director for me. Like Spielberg, the personal batting average isn't there for me like a Wilder, Hitchcock, PTA, or Kubrick. But like Spielberg, the highs for me are very high and I have a disconnect with one of their most popular movies and that one wouldn't be in my top 10 of theirs. Where I am going with this is I think his stretch from 75-85 is ****ing amazing, specifically Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/King of Comedy/After Hours. All four really hit me this month and have been thinking about Raging Bull for days now. Besides DeNiro's nose, it's a perfect movie. Before going on, I just might do the Scorsese commentary track tonight.
Love that idea. I have all these Criterion with commentary tracks but I've never really dug into them.
 
As I got through the first 1/2 of the 80s movies, it became crystal clear that Marty indeed is a top director for me. Like Spielberg, the personal batting average isn't there for me like a Wilder, Hitchcock, PTA, or Kubrick. But like Spielberg, the highs for me are very high and I have a disconnect with one of their most popular movies and that one wouldn't be in my top 10 of theirs. Where I am going with this is I think his stretch from 75-85 is ****ing amazing, specifically Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/King of Comedy/After Hours. All four really hit me this month and have been thinking about Raging Bull for days now. Besides DeNiro's nose, it's a perfect movie. Before going on, I just might do the Scorsese commentary track tonight.
Love that idea. I have all these Criterion with commentary tracks but I've never really dug into them.
The Cine Files' episode mentioned there was a LaMotta commentary track where he gets a bit nuts. Not sure I'm ready for that. :lol:

I tell myself the commentaries and bonus features are the reason for my movie purchases, but definitely don't dig into them enough. I imagine any Scorsese ones would be an education.
 
As I got through the first 1/2 of the 80s movies, it became crystal clear that Marty indeed is a top director for me. Like Spielberg, the personal batting average isn't there for me like a Wilder, Hitchcock, PTA, or Kubrick. But like Spielberg, the highs for me are very high and I have a disconnect with one of their most popular movies and that one wouldn't be in my top 10 of theirs. Where I am going with this is I think his stretch from 75-85 is ****ing amazing, specifically Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/King of Comedy/After Hours. All four really hit me this month and have been thinking about Raging Bull for days now. Besides DeNiro's nose, it's a perfect movie. Before going on, I just might do the Scorsese commentary track tonight.
Love that idea. I have all these Criterion with commentary tracks but I've never really dug into them.
The Cine Files' episode mentioned there was a LaMotta commentary track where he gets a bit nuts. Not sure I'm ready for that. :lol:

I tell myself the commentaries and bonus features are the reason for my movie purchases, but definitely don't dig into them enough. I imagine any Scorsese ones would be an education.
I heard that and holy cow I can only imagine what that Lamotta track is like
 
As I got through the first 1/2 of the 80s movies, it became crystal clear that Marty indeed is a top director for me. Like Spielberg, the personal batting average isn't there for me like a Wilder, Hitchcock, PTA, or Kubrick. But like Spielberg, the highs for me are very high and I have a disconnect with one of their most popular movies and that one wouldn't be in my top 10 of theirs. Where I am going with this is I think his stretch from 75-85 is ****ing amazing, specifically Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/King of Comedy/After Hours. All four really hit me this month and have been thinking about Raging Bull for days now. Besides DeNiro's nose, it's a perfect movie. Before going on, I just might do the Scorsese commentary track tonight.
Love that idea. I have all these Criterion with commentary tracks but I've never really dug into them.
The Cine Files' episode mentioned there was a LaMotta commentary track where he gets a bit nuts. Not sure I'm ready for that. :lol:

I tell myself the commentaries and bonus features are the reason for my movie purchases, but definitely don't dig into them enough. I imagine any Scorsese ones would be an education.

You are not alone.
 
Dylan and Ginsberg at Kerouac's cemetery plot was quite a moment

death, stay thy phantoms

Scorsese had a wealth of source material to work with. Dylan shot a lot of Rolling Thunder Revue footage for his movie Renaldo and Clara.
 
My fingers have typed "Scorcese" twice so far in this thread but my eyes and brain corrected the errors before posting.
 
My favorite line of Rolling Thunder is Dylan's take on the Oscar Wilde quote

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.- Wilde

When somebody's wearing a mask, he's gonna tell you the truth. When he's not wearing a mask, it's highly unlikely. -Dylan

 
Last edited:
Casino (1995)

I was planning on taking a break on Scorsese but Starz is free this weekend and they had Casino which I hadn't seen since VHS days. Maybe I'm getting burned out a little but I didn't care for Casino. The technical craft is spot on as usual but the movie left me cold and just came off like an inferior version of Goodfellas.

The biggest problem for me was the script. Scorsese and collaborator Nicholas Pileggi wanted to show the inner workings of mob era Las Vegas. The racket of skimming money is rather uncinematic so it had to be explained in endless voiceover. The first half hour was nothing but dueling narrators with De Niro and Pesci talking about what was happening on screen. The plot was flat and unengaging, in part because De Niro's character was static and mostly powerless as events around him spiraled out of his control. There wasn't enough story to justify a three hour runtime; it just kept chugging along until everybody was dead and buried.

It's still a better Scorsese casino movie than The Audition though.
 
I watched The Irishman again this weekend. I really do love that movie even with its couple of big flaws but between that Killers of the Flower Moon, Casino you have to think Scorsese’s flaw is excess. I know his longtime editor Thelma Schoonmaker is a legend and technically brilliant but I question it she’s done enough at times to reign Scorsese in? I wonder what their dynamic is like.
 
I just heard this is the 3rd time Scorsese has gone 0 for 10 at the Oscars. They seem to feel obligated to nominate him but no interest in awarding him.
 
I just heard this is the 3rd time Scorsese has gone 0 for 10 at the Oscars. They seem to feel obligated to nominate him but no interest in awarding him.
It's odd. I don't follow Oscar talk at all or the other awards shows. When we were talking Oscars and Scorsese I actually thought KotFM was a main front runner to clean up like Oppenheimer did. Are there reasons for this?
 
I watched The Irishman again this weekend. I really do love that movie even with its couple of big flaws but between that Killers of the Flower Moon, Casino you have to think Scorsese’s flaw is excess. I know his longtime editor Thelma Schoonmaker is a legend and technically brilliant but I question it she’s done enough at times to reign Scorsese in? I wonder what their dynamic is like.
Good question here. I've said things like that too, but ultimately my guess is that it's still the editor working for the director to complete their vision. I'm not sure how much the editor has control over the run time unless being told to chop it down by the director or studio.
 
I watched The Irishman again this weekend. I really do love that movie even with its couple of big flaws but between that Killers of the Flower Moon, Casino you have to think Scorsese’s flaw is excess. I know his longtime editor Thelma Schoonmaker is a legend and technically brilliant but I question it she’s done enough at times to reign Scorsese in? I wonder what their dynamic is like.
Good question here. I've said things like that too, but ultimately my guess is that it's still the editor working for the director to complete their vision. I'm not sure how much the editor has control over the run time unless being told to chop it down by the director or studio.
True but it’s also the most respected editor in movies and a lifelong collaborator so I have to imagine she has the ability to influence him. Though maybe she just sees herself as a tool to get his vision across and doesn’t really want any artistic control? Maybe she loves the excess too?
 
I just heard this is the 3rd time Scorsese has gone 0 for 10 at the Oscars. They seem to feel obligated to nominate him but no interest in awarding him.
It's odd. I don't follow Oscar talk at all or the other awards shows. When we were talking Oscars and Scorsese I actually thought KotFM was a main front runner to clean up like Oppenheimer did. Are there reasons for this?
Seems like they gave him The Departed and are now just done with him. Though it’s really a bunch of sort of connected people voting and not some hindmive with plans or prejudices. You would think since he’s like the biggest film ambassador in the world and had such a long career that he would have more than 1 Oscar. Maybe he doesn’t do the campaign thing?
 
I just heard this is the 3rd time Scorsese has gone 0 for 10 at the Oscars. They seem to feel obligated to nominate him but no interest in awarding him.
It's odd. I don't follow Oscar talk at all or the other awards shows. When we were talking Oscars and Scorsese I actually thought KotFM was a main front runner to clean up like Oppenheimer did. Are there reasons for this?
Seems like they gave him The Departed and are now just done with him. Though it’s really a bunch of sort of connected people voting and not some hindmive with plans or prejudices. You would think since he’s like the biggest film ambassador in the world and had such a long career that he would have more than 1 Oscar. Maybe he doesn’t do the campaign thing?
That's fair, which is a really stupid part of the process and why I don't get too worked up about the Oscars anymore.
 
I just heard this is the 3rd time Scorsese has gone 0 for 10 at the Oscars. They seem to feel obligated to nominate him but no interest in awarding him.
It's odd. I don't follow Oscar talk at all or the other awards shows. When we were talking Oscars and Scorsese I actually thought KotFM was a main front runner to clean up like Oppenheimer did. Are there reasons for this?
Seems like they gave him The Departed and are now just done with him. Though it’s really a bunch of sort of connected people voting and not some hindmive with plans or prejudices. You would think since he’s like the biggest film ambassador in the world and had such a long career that he would have more than 1 Oscar. Maybe he doesn’t do the campaign thing?
Not sure if you listened to the Big Picture pod today, but I thought they made a great point I hadn't really thought of - Marty being an east coast/NY guy was already a little outside the Hollywood scene, and now with the more international flavor of the Oscars, it removes him from the focus even more. Most of the big winners were born outside the States or for movies made by those born outside the US - Nolan, Glazer, Yorgos, etc.
 
I created a double feature over the weekend that had nothing in common except Martin Scorsese was the director of both films.

After Hours
This had a definite 1980s feel to it but other than that, it was all over the place. This is like The Odyssey set in an American city and fueled by cocaine. The first act was pretty conventional but then everything went crazy (forgive me for being vague but I avoid spoilers at all costs). Lots of familiar faces populate this. I liked the unpredictability of this movie but felt the second act got too redundant, somewhat diluting the unpredictability factor. That said, there were fun moments and frustrating moments (in an empathetic way) and I like the way this ended. Not quite worthy of some of the hype I've seen but a solid movie that I would recommend.

I followed this up with

The Age of Innocence
Quite possibly the opposite of the previous film, this one is more in line with The Gilded Age and works from that timeframe. More serious and a bit less witty that the Gilded Age, this was a tale that fits right in with the best films that take place in the late 1800's that aren't westerns. The directing style in a word is one I never thought to apply to Scorsese before - restraint. The touch of a hand, the turn of a phrase, the slightest change of expression mean so much here. I was honestly surprised how much I enjoyed this film and how effective Scorsese was in bringing it to life. Very out of place among his catalogue but it can fit right in with his best works.

Other than versatility, there is very little I can glean from just these two movies, as they are so opposite to each other.
 
Last edited:
I love Age of Innocence and wish we saw that side of Scorsese more often. Love that book and I thought he nailed the adaptation. It would be interesting to see him do another period piece like this. Something stately and reserved.
 
I love Age of Innocence and wish we saw that side of Scorsese more often. Love that book and I thought he nailed the adaptation. It would be interesting to see him do another period piece like this. Something stately and reserved.

His next project is an 18th century shipwreck movie about the HMS Wager. The Teddy Roosevelt biopic is also still in the works.

So period pieces but probably not stately and reserved. He keeps up a remarkable pace for an 81 year old.
 
I'm going to talk about Goodfellas a bit. My nephew had never seen it and asked about it because he knows it's an all time favorite of mine, so we watched it together recently.

To start, he loved it - it grabbed him right away, and never let up. He was super invested in it, and when Pesci's time was up, he gasped. It's fun to see a movie you know well still "work" on someone. For me, this was probably my 20th time seeing it, so I kind of focused on a few things for this thread - the voiceover since we kind of discussed it a bit, the camera, and the music.

I know @KarmaPolice doesn't like the voiceover, and in many movies I agree with that (including Casino, where it annoyed me.) But it works superbly in Goodfellas. Maybe it's because Henry (and Karen) are good storytellers, or maybe it's how the voiceover truly fills in the story and keeps it moving. Whatever it is, it works here, and never gets in the way - it feels like a natural part of the story (unlike Casino, where it feels shoehorned in). Maybe it's because of the way Goodfellas starts, with the longer shots and the dreamy / flashback-like look at mob life. For example, the scene were he's introducing people in the bar is great, with the voiceover being a crucial part of it (Jimmy Two Times!) Those long, swooping camera shots are great, and of course you have the famous Copa scene included there.

I paid more attention with this viewing on just how sharply the pace changes and how Scorsese uses the short takes to show Henry's agitation in the third act, sometimes doubling up a scene (him making meatballs and glancing over). This is pretty well known about this movie, but my nephew didn't notice this until we talked about it, as he was caught up in Henry's frantic day (which of course is exactly what Marty wanted). He wants to watch it again with a more critical eye.

The music... does anybody do music quite like Scorsese? Especially in this film? The happy pop songs of the early period, Gimme Shelter and mixing coke, DeNiro smoking with Cream playing (such a great scene), the body montage with the ending of Layla, Monkey Man and What is Life during the helicopter. Just fantastic stuff.

Top 5 all time film for me. I'll watch it anytime. For the actors, it's the high water mark for Liotta and Bracco for sure. Good argument for Pesci too. Maybe for DeNiro as well, although for him there are a few contenders.
 
Last edited:
Right on cue - I started my 90s last night with Goodfellas. On the plus side, I see the greatness the more and more I watch it. As @jwb posted - camera movies, needle drops, acting, it's all there. On the negative side, I think I will go to the grave with the opinion (and not one I seem to share with anybody :lol: ) that the voiceover is way too much. Every time when it switches to Karen's v.o. it seems to catch me off guard and create quite a negative reaction from me. I think I incorrectly remember it being introduced later in the movie.

I will never argue that it's a bad movie or anything, it's just not a movie that clicks with me enough to put in the "love" category. But I at least appreciate more in my old age and have a little more fun watching it.
 
Last edited:
I had forgotten just how much of a Hitch nod Cape Fear is. I missed info with the credits and was confused about the score a bit. I swore it was Herrmann, but it was past his death. Looks like his score from the original was reworked? Anyway, the movie. I actually quite like the movie, especially DeNiro - right up until they get on the river house boat. Then it spirals out of control a bit for me and I lose interest. Not terrible, just IMO there are much better Scorsese movies and much better thrillers to spend your time on.
 
I watched King of Comedy again and a question about the end. All part of his fantasy or was this really a story about a guy who's plan worked perfectly? I think I know but I also didn't really see evidence to support it.

Also, I am bummed as it looks like Silence was taken off streaming before I could get to it this month.
 
Casino is both underrated and overrated. It's not Goodfellas and is in many ways too much like a Goodfellas sequel that just got away from Marty. On the other, it's a a lot of fun and the stylization of that era Vegas is perfect.
 
Casino is both underrated and overrated. It's not Goodfellas and is in many ways too much like a Goodfellas sequel that just got away from Marty. On the other, it's a a lot of fun and the stylization of that era Vegas is perfect.

I'll take the under
 
I've been reading and listening to him a bit this month, but haven't seen his love of voiceover ever addressed or his choices behind it.

Personal preferences and all, but I just find it overpowering and annoying in most of his movies - the 90s output especially. I get it if the movie calls for it and it can be useful and effective - perhaps a loner character who barely interacts with anybody as in Taxi Driver? Casino I swear had 15mins of DeNiro/Pesci narration before there was any dialogue between characters on screen. Age of Innocence I felt a bit like I was being read the book in a class.
 
Last edited:
I've been reading and listening to him a bit this month, but haven't seen his love of voiceover ever addressed or his choices behind it.
Funny because Wider was last month and he loved voice over but pretty much exclusively in the beginning and maybe at the end.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top