Mean Streets, even more than
Who's That Knocking At My Door?, shows Scorsese really beginning to harness his talents and successfully explore his obsessions on screen. I'd love to know what you thought of this film, especially in relationship to the one we saw last week. Write whatever you like, just be sure to incorporate answers to the following three questions in your response.
- What is Charlie's main conflict throughout the film?
- Why does the film end the way it does?
- What are some of the motifs Scorsese employs throughout the film? What purpose do they serve?
I look forward to reading your thoughtful and thorough response to this film and the above questions - by no later than midnight next Monday of course.
I thought that Mean streets was certainly a step above Who’s that Knocking at my Door? in a few different ways. I was throughly impressed with Scorsese’s first feature, because the style that he would come to utilize in most of the titles I grew up loving were deeply embedded. When I watched Mean streets, I was blown away, because while I saw flashes of this style in his first feature, in this, I literally saw Goodfellas or Casino, and felt as if I was actually watching them in certain moments throughout. For example, the scene in the pool hall where the heavy set guy calls one of the wise guys a “mook” directly reminds me of the scene in Good fellas where Liotta’s character Henry, calls Pesci’s character Tommy a “clown”, and your left wondering if this gonna get serious or if he’s just “breaking his balls”. Also, the shot of Charlie and Theresa in the hallway after they left room after their first sexcapade, and Theresa is leaning on the wall, reminds me of Casino, where Ginger is left used and drugged out leaning on the wall in the hallway after taking Ace for all of his money, and Scorsese gives us this long tracking shot. These movies existed in this film before they were even created and I don't know that he could have created those “masterpieces” without making this particular film. I imagine a large demographic of notable directors attribute their success and inspirations that arise later on in their careers to how they started the race, but this felt different. I can pick out several other moments and say, “wow he really played with those concepts here, and mastered it later in those iconic cult classics that people love and watch over and over again.” This film felt more focused and impactful than the first. I felt like I got a real window into the wise guy's world and the way Scorsese delivers that experience is not only unique, but quite addictive. I imagine people were intrigued in terms of what that sort life encompassed when Who’s that Knocking at my Door? came out, but the way he romanticized that world and allowed us as viewers to traverse that avenue in Mean Streets was extremely compelling.
ReplyDeleteMoving further along, I thought the way our protagonist Charlie was handled within the story was clever. I think his main conflict is one that any person who has a best friend who just doesn't do right no matter how much they say the will, or no matter how much you try to push them to do so, can connect with. I think Charlie genuinely cared for Johnny and loved him like a brother, so he did everything in his power to protect and set him on the straight and narrow path; to make him honor his debts and carry himself with some integrity. As the cliche saying goes, “You lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas.” I hate cliches, but this one couldn't be more appropriate for the relationship that Charlie had with Jonny; it’s this sort of dynamic that became the the fatal demise of Johnny, and almost Charlie as well. I think the ending shows that reality; it shows how you can be a man of integrity and well respected, but that carefully selecting the company you keep or who you choose to help can have resounding consequences, especially in the mean streets. I think that sort of idea is an absolute truth that people often find out the hard way, whether it’s the 1960’s and your part of the mob, or if it’s 2017 and your part of a gang or affiliated with a certain group of people.
As I mentioned in class, I thought is use of figurative motifs stood out as well. One that really stands out in my mind existed towards the end in the scene where Charlie and Jonny are standing in front of the gun store and Charlie is trying to set Johnny straight. I think the purposeful placement of the scene here shows the audience how loaded the situation has become for the both of them. It also give us a little foreshadow as to what may happen later on at the end when they get caught in the drive by. Another figurative motif that was interesting to me was the moment where Micheal is waving the eggplant in Theresa’s face as he tells her something to extent of, “that’s some mouth you have on you”, after he was stood up by Johnny. It shows the machismo attitudes that wise guys had in terms of how they saw women to be inferior, and there for their sexual pleasure. The latter may be a bit of a stretch, but it stood out to me
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the movie, I would have to say that it’s right there with Goodfellas and Casino in terms if how immersed I became as I watched it, and I can’t wait to watch it again with my brother who shares the same interest in these sort of movies.
Like we mentioned last week, Who’s Knocking at My Door? was a great foreshadowing for Scorsese’s continuing career. It introduced us to his focus on characters and their development and the importance of physical and metaphoric symbols throughout his work. Compared to last week’s film, I did enjoy Mean Streets more because of its overall structural differences, which is likely due to his growth between 1967 and 1973. I think the incorporation of music and color made Mean Streets more unique; for example, the violence was more effective with the red blood and the city influenced character actions with colored details. Mean Streets and Who’s Knocking at My Door? (along with many of Scorsese’s later films) questions religion and what is right versus wrong. Both films use crucifixes to explain characters and if I am remembering correctly, the only bedrooms that did not include one pined to the wall was the female characters. There is a shot in Mean Streets that shows an oversized statue on the roof of a building representing the juxtaposition of God watching over a dangerous or literal “mean” street. I also think Charlie’s obsession with touching fire represents his search for something more important or strong in life. Throughout the film the fire gets bigger until it takes over the scene in the theater.
ReplyDeleteCharlie’s main conflict is with himself expressed with situations dealing with his uncle’s business and Johnny friendship. Charlie obviously has interest working with his uncle because throughout the film he continues to sort out loans and repayment between people. However, Johnny makes his work difficult. Constantly flaking and ignoring responsibility, Johnny disguises everyone’s doubt of him with comedy. Similar to J.R.’s interaction with his fellow male characters, Charlie and Johnny have a deep friendship that represents both the idea of masculinity and vulnerability. The scene that takes place in the bathroom when Charlie and Johnny are talking about the money best describes their friendship. It’s comedic but honest because it seems everyone else is annoyed and fed with Johnny except Charlie.
Leading into the next point of Charlie’s religious and self-guilt, he feels he has no other choice but to help Johnny disregarding everyone else’s opinions. He goes so far as to drive Johnny out of their neighborhood to get him away from Michael. However, Michael follows them and dramatically shoots down their car. Because it not only put Johnny in danger but also Charlie and Teresa the ending represents how Charlie did everything he could to help protect his friend but still couldn’t make him a better person. Charlie makes plans to meet with Diane but stands her up, most likely because she is black. He also openly calls Teresa a cunt and how he can’t get involved or marry her, a conversation of the difference between a broad and a nice girl which we saw in Who’s Knocking at My Door? It’s interesting how Scorsese incorporates these small moments of social prejudice throughout his films especially since he was surrounded by judgment between cultures growing up.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMean Streets
ReplyDelete——————
Mean Streets serves as a furthering of Scorsese’s identity as an Auteur filmmaker and builds upon the foundation laid in Who's that Knocking at my Door? The film could almost be seen as a remake of the former. Aside from being played by the same actor Harvey Kiel’s Charley is a more fleshed out JR. They both loves films (The Searchers discussion in Who’s Knocking, and they go see a Western and a Horror film in Mean Streets), they both have religious guilt about their personal relationships and the world they inhabit, and the people around them are similar in both films (a woman with an “issue”, a friend who owns a social club, etc.). The films are also thematically identical , how do you live in a world of sin and still repent and remain morally pure. And how does the struggle between these two worlds impact the protagonist.
Both films even share similar sequences, such as Charlie/JR getting trashed with his friends at a club after a horrible personal experience and having a brief detour outside of the city (The mountains in Knocking, the beach in Mean Streets). This is no accident, and it seems that Scorsese wanted to go back to that original idea and use his bigger budget and more experienced Directing capabilities to make the real version of the film he wanted. We can see his change in director style in the way that he loses some of the more apparent influences from Knocking, and makes every moment of Mean Streets filtered through his own eye. Gone is the stark black and white and minimalism of Cassavetes, now sets are drenched with color (especially red) and the quiet moments of character interaction are replaced with more explosive moments of violence countered by humor, such as the Billiards room fight.
While Scorsese is using the same inspirations as his previous films, now they are evenly coated in his own flavor, and the film is much more creatively cohesive.
DeleteIn terms of character, Charlie lays it all out at the beginning. “You don't make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets. You do it at home. The rest is bullshit and you know it.” Straight to the point. Charlie is haunted by his religious dedication, and makes up for his sins through pain, there is a contest motif of fire. The fire of hell sure, but also the fire as sin. This motif is repeated throughout with Charlie burning himself on lighters, flame of grills, and the red filled club that him and his friends use as a hub for their criminal operations. We see Kietel make conscious choices throughout that key us into Charlie’s psyche like only sipping half of a shot as opposed to the whole glass, or only taking a few drags from a cigarette before putting it out. He rations out his sins and is always keeping a mental tally of where he stands with God. The character of Johnny Boy serves to counter Charlie in every way. Johnny is an archaic spirit with no regard for the laws of man or God. He never pays anyone back for his debts, While Charlie is constantly trying to pay back his “debt” to God, or his Catholic guilt. Charlie believes that by trying to save Johnny he is saving himself, and following God’s word and helping an unfortunate soul. At first it seems selfless, but once it’s revealed that Charlie is engaged in a sexual relationship with Johnny’s cousin it adds a shade of selfishness to his reasons for helping Johnny.
The ending of the film is bleak but serves to illustrate Scorsese’s world view at the time. Charlie goes against his friends to save Johnny and his cousin, creating a very strange family unit. However the man Johnny owes debts to rides up besides them, shoots Johnny in the neck and causes the car to crash. Johnny stumbles out, bleeding in an alley while Charlie and his girl are taken into an ambulance.
Charlie’s arc the whole film has been about sainthood, someone even refers to him as “St. Charlie!”, so the ending of the film leaves us in an interesting place. Charlie is denied martyrdom, or dying in service of his faith, and is left to pick up the broken pieces of his life after failing to save Johnny, who we do not know the ultimate fate of. There are no answers, just like the faithful never hear any from God, but makes make their own sins and atone for them in their own way.
In a plethora of ways the film "Mean Streets" is a more developed product of "Who's That Knocking At My Door". For example, the characters are way more developed in "Mean Streets" and I felt a stronger emotional connection to them than in Scorsese's previous film.
ReplyDeleteCharlie's main conflict throughout the film is the struggle between being a human being or a saint. This idea is displayed really well by Scorsese in various moments. For example, there is a scene where Charlie is sitting on Teresa's bed where she is fully naked and tells him not to look. He nods covering his eyes, but fails to listen as he stares through the cracks between his fingers. This action happens back and forth and is very symbolic of Charlie as a character. There is an apparent struggle within him, which entails his thirst for fun as he stares at his girlfriend naked, but also his attachment to being godly...which leads him to shyly pull away from his actions of human nature because of his guilt.
With that being said, that is why Scorsese obviously grew as a director from "Look Who's Knocking At My Door to "Mean Streets". Scorsese does not really paint any character as black or white, but lets us understand why they do the things they do as well as give us these little, cinematic moments where we immediately connect to them as a character. To Clarify, throughout the film we connect to Charlie because the story is from his POV and it looks as if he is dealing with a lot of crap. He is dealing with pressure from his uncle, his friends are very overbearing, and he has to constantly stick up for that punk, Johnny boy. It is clear, he is trying to do well in life and has a strong connection to faith, but we learn that he doesn't necessarily do it for the right reasons. Over the course of the film, Charlie becomes very arrogant and tries to do saintly type work to better himself, which is paying for Johnny Boy's mistakes. Interestingly enough, Scorsese portrays qualities of Charlie in his most recent film, "Silence" With Andrew Garfield similarly acting arrogant as well as putting others in danger to only benefit himself. On the other hand, Johnny Boy like a ruthless punk kid that doesn't really care about much, but Scorsese gives him a beautiful moment in "Mean Streets" where he cries in front of Charlie saying that he never did anything for him. Like I said earlier, it's these little moments that Scorsese masters in character development, but also further succeeding in making his characters complex.
I believe the film ends the way it does because Martin Scorsese is trying to show us how fascinated we are with violence. In the end, Michael ends up shooting Johnny Boy in the neck, which then allows Charlie's car to crash where they all end up badly hurt. Then eventually the ambulance comes and people crowd around the accident. Simultaneously during the shooting scene, it shows Charlie's uncle watching a movie that is similar to the incident that just took place. Even though the film, looks so real as if it is a documentary, the ending makes the viewer aware that it is a film and we are watching these people suffer, thus proving the point that human beings are attracted to violence.
DeleteMartin Scorsese employs a couple of motifs throughout the film, which are pain, redemption, and the idea of voyeurism. In almost all of Scorsese films there always is a character trying to redeem himself by voluntarily suffering on behalf of that. For example, there is a scene in "Mean Streets" where the character Charlie puts his finger on an open flame. Of course he is in pain, but he feels like suffering for his sins is the only way to better himself. Much like Scorsese's film, "Raging Bull" where Jake Lamotta allows Sugar Ray to beat the crap out of him to prove that he is the best, but to also take responsibility for his sins. Voyeurism can be seen throughout a myriad of scenes in "Mean Streets". Like I said earlier, the scene where Charlie fails to stop staring at his naked girlfriend. Also, there is a scene where Johnny Boy stares at Teresa's apartment through Charlie's Window inquiring about her. There is always this need from different characters to know what the other character is up to and also the tight framing in which most of the scenes are shot makes me feel like I'm spying on these people's lives.
Mean street is Perception of Martin Scorsese to the society where he born and grown up. This is what it is. Nothing like the other gangster film, there's no big boss and high class mafia. These gangs are just bunches of young street boys has nothing serious to do. No job, No business, in their heart is young generation's loneliness. Because they are Italian and live in the neighborhood of little Italy in NY city, that's why it's unique. This is also first time there is a director use cinematic language to descript the world that outside of the mainstream film.
ReplyDeleteCharlie is most complex character in this film. He is the bond of all the relationship. He has multiple roles in the film. Boyfriend, nephew, big brother, business man. He felt sin because of his identity. He went to the church and confess. He doesn't believe he did the right thing to live. When the owner of the restaurant suicides, there's sadness in his eyes. So he walks to the kitchen and put his palm on the fire. He believes the torment could pure his sin or reduce it. He takes the family as the most important thing. He respect the older(his uncle) and helps the younger (Johnny and his girlfriend). He wants to take responsibility like a father. He gave lots of love to Johnny more than a father, like a saint, a priest. He accepts everything that life gave to him. The main conflict of Charlies is he is born to be a gangster but he choose to be a priest. That's why it ends up with tragedy. This is savage world, the saint would get himself be killed or the close one will be killed.
The film end up with full of blood, but no one die. Charlies always tries to be nice to anyone in this savage world, he didn't solve the problem but accumulate it. The problem is click bomb, it will explode sooner or later.
There are multiple motifs in this film. Family, music, redemption, violence, corruption, loneliness, sexy. This constitute the little Italy society. Charlies believes family is the precious, this is also the culture of Italy. He takes the fire as torment and helps Johnny as redemption. Martin depicts a vivid little Italy society throughout this motifs.
When watching Mean Streets, I could feel the weight that John Cassavetes’s words had on Scorsese; this was a film that knew what it wanted to say. Though similar to Who’s That Knocking at my Door?, I find this piece to be much more concise and fixed. I accredit this to the fact that, often times, the film represents its maker: Who’s That Knocking at my Door? was created by a much less experienced Scorsese who, by looking at the film, was plagued by a variety of anxieties, and I think that in being able to grow up a bit and become more proficient with his film making skills, he was able to hone in on many of the same anxieties from the first films, but tackle them from a more skillful perspective. I thought this was especially noticeable in his representation of Charlie’s inner battle between morality and immorality. We see this conflict in Who’s that Knocking on my Door? with J.R.’s character, but its more of a subtext imbedded within the narrative. In Mean Streets however, Scorsese doesn’t hide this battle, but rather, shows the ways in which Charlie actively tries to restore his moral credibility. The most memorable, and my favorite motif, being his constant habit of burning his fingertips over a flame, which as he believed, allowed him to feel a fraction of the pain one goes through while in hell. This to me was such incredible imagery and portrayed his inner turmoil in a tangible form, which is hard to do without being cliché.
ReplyDeleteThe film follows the life of Charlie, who he’ss constantly having to clean up after his rambunctious and irresponsible friend, Johnny Boy. Throughout the film, we see Charlie constantly struggling with his own morality and the question on whether or not he would be considered a good person. This inner anxiety is what motivates him to constantly help Johnny Boy, and is what eventually gets him in trouble. The film ends abruptly and violently, and I think Scorsese’s point was to really portray the reality of life in the mob and how quickly it can take a turn for the worse; I believe he wanted to show that living a life like that can only end one way.
Another memorable motif was towards the end of the film where Johnny Boy and Charlie are in the cemetery. Johnny Boy is laying down on one of the tombs while Charlie sits off to the side, and though it’s a bit cliché, I just found this visual to be really chilling. You know that something terrible is going to happen soon, and what better way to portray that than our main characters hanging out in a cemetery.
It's always been fairly obvious that Scorsese deals with the same themes a lot in his films. After watching Who's That Knocking at My Door and Mean Streets, it's clear how those themes have become the epitome of Scorsese's work. He's familiar with them. I enjoyed what Dan said about the relationship between the two films, Mean Streets is Scorsese 'Doubling down" on the themes previously seen in Who's Knocking At My Door. Charlie's main conflict is the internal struggle between the two aspects of his life he holds closest. The sacred and the profane, family and crime, church and the bar. Charlie is torn between these elements, and this dichotomy is ever present in Scorsese's future work.
ReplyDeleteThe film's ending was a more direct attempt at showing the futility of the situations Scorsese's protagonists find themselves in. In Who's That Knocking At My Door, J.R. attempts to find redemption at his church after fucking up his relationship with his girlfriend, but he finds no solace in the place that once gave it to him freely. The car accident in Mean Streets is a way of showing that the choices Charlie and Johnny Boy have been making not only put them between crime and faith, but between life and death. It's ambiguous, but the ending clarifies the film's moral dramatically.
Mean Streets is a perfect example of a talented filmmaker coming into heir artistic style. Scorsese's use of visual motif's increases dramatically from Who's That Knocking At My Door. The imposing holy forms in Charlie's church paired with tight shots of unblinking eyes give a feeling of uneasy observation. Like we, the audience are both being watched, and doing the watching. The color red is present in scenes where Charlie and Johnny Boy are drenched in their New sins. The bar is an example of an environment that feels like hell, even though we never leave New York. Finally, the menagerie of shots overlooking little Italy while police sirens and gunshots ring off in the distance reminds us again that this familial warmth is in constant struggle against the natural violence of the streets.
It was interesting to re-watch Mean Streets right after Who’s That Knocking at My Door. Mean Streets is more technically advanced and narratively fulfilled extension of Who’s That Knocking, in the sense that in both films follow men navigating their entry into both the mafia world and one of adulthood, or emotional maturity. Both main characters are played by Harvey Keitel and both use the catholic church as a moral code; within which Keitel’s characters struggle to find their place. Mean Streets, while about twenty minutes too long, feels like the first fully formed piece of Scorsese’s dealings with “fatherless” men attempting to make sense of their place in a society. It’s apparent that Scorsese returned to this world with an experienced sheen in Goodfellas and Casino.
ReplyDeleteCharlie’s main conflict is in his conquest for both selflessness (in the catholic sense) and legitimacy (in the mafia sense). He is a man riddled with guilt for the sins he commits within the world he inhabits, but his internal guilt is exacerbated by his misdirected “salvations” — mainly saving his wild-card best friend Tommy from the loansharks out for his blood. Charlie’s problem is that he subconsciously longs for Tommy’s childish, carefree lifestyle; by protecting him he is inherently engaging with an aspect of his life he knows he must leave behind. Charlie claims that familial ties are what keeps him from throwing Tommy to the sharks, but aside from his caustic relationship with Tommy’s cousin, it is clear that Charlie is simply extending a projection of a life he does not want to leave behind.
Somebody on the board made the connection between the use of fire and internal sin, which is right on. Charlie’s perpetual state of sin is exemplified in the lighting of the bar, Charlie + Gang’s hangout spot, which is drowned in blood-red, symbolizing the greed, violence and general debauchery of this world that Charlie is complacent to. When Charlie is out in the real world, the film is greeted with ultra-handheld camera movement and extremely jumbled cutting. But when we’re in the bar, we’re frequently treated to more stylized camera techniques, like slow-motion tracking shots (exemplifying the extension of time that seemingly occurs within this lifestyle), or when the camera is rigged to Charlie’s face, not allowing us to escape from the depravity of Charlie’s drunk, drugged-out weekly parties.
Mean Streets has a somewhat nihilistic ending. in the sense that Charlie’s quest for salvation is violently rebuffed. After Johnny humiliates Michael for allowing himself to be owed by Johnny again and again. Charlie evacuates Johnny, and with Teresa (Charlie’s lover, Johnny’s sister), they set out to start a new life in another city. Charlie seeks to save Johnny and wipe his slate clean, but in the end Michael’s hired assassin (played by Scorsese — who better to come in and tell us the movie’s over?) shoots and injures all three of them. Nobody — not even Charlie — achieves salvation through death or sacrifice — they merely scatter off into the city, forced to deal with all the sins they’ve committed. In a Scorsese film, nobody gets off easy, and with Mean Streets, we see that Charlie cannot sustain all of the elements he wants in his life without an eruption of violence and discontent.
I feel that Mean Streets successfully continued what Scorsese was trying to accomplish with Who’s That Knocking on my Door? Like I commented last week Knocking is a great first film. There were unpolished portions and aspects that didn’t make it a perfect film but considering it was a first film, it was especially good. To me Mean Streets was a more polished more refined version of Knocking. There was a little more of a story to follow and the characters seemed more thorough and taught-out. Mean Streets had Charlie and Johnny Boy (as well as others) as more complex characters whereas Knocking’s only complex character was J.R.
ReplyDeleteCharlie’s primary conflict throughout Mean Streets is with himself. He’s struggling with who he is and who he wants to become. He wants to stay loyal and devoted to his friend, Johnny Boy, but Johnny Boy isn’t making it easy. Johnny Boy is consistently being a pain to Charlie. Charlie went out on a limb for Johnny Boy within the gang and Johnny Boy isn’t respecting that and doing what he needs to do. Charlie is struggling with wether or not he should stay loyal to his friend and stick by his side or leave him and stay loyal to the members of the gang, who are loyal to him.
The ending of Mean Streets is notable because it, in a way, wraps up this internal struggle. Charlie drives Johnny Boy all the way out of the city in order to get him away from the gang. The ending shows how Charlie eventually chooses to save Johnny Boy and stay loyal to him. It shows how Charlie felt the loyalty to Johnny Boy was more important than the loyalty to the gang.
Some of the motifs I noticed within Mean Streets are motifs that carried over from Who’s That Knocking on my Door? One major theme is how the main character treats women in both movies. J.R. and Charlie (both portrayed by the young hunk Harvey Keitel) treat women in a sort of low regard. I can see that both characters have a respect for women in their own way but often that respect is overshadowed by his actions. In Knocking J.R. has the conversation about the differences between girls and broads which eventually leads to him referring to the girl in the film as a broad. He is treating her with disrespect by reducing her to “broad status” and thinking less of her especially after learning she was raped. He also does this by not believing her when she says she was raped. In Mean Streets Charlie’s disrespects women in a couple of different ways. A viewer can see the messed up respect these characters have towards women in regards to the character Diana. Charlie states that she is beautiful but then immediately follows that comment with “it’s too bad she’s black.” So Charlie can find “flaws” or reasons to disrespect women in every regard.
PART 1: Mean Streets and Who's That Knocking on My Door? are for me, essentially, the same movie. I guess in better terms, Mean Streets is almost a retelling of Who's That Knocking on My Door? And further more, I feel like both of these films were redone, again, in Scorsese's Goodfellas.
ReplyDeleteHaving finally been able to do the reading, the book hits hard that Scorsese was very influenced by two things in particular; where he grew up (religion, gangs, street-life) and the inspiration he took from other artists. The more I familiarize myself with not only Scorsese's work, but who the man is, I think the young Scorsese was not making "new films" so much as he was trying to "re-do" his last film, and build upon it. The themes in the two films that we have covered so far this semester have been eerily similar in their storytelling, plot, and character motivations, that I would not be surprised if Scorsese was simply showing the progression of Charlie's character. As Scorsese himself matured, so did his fictional characters. As stated in the reading, Scorsese had planned these movies almost as a trilogy, and it shows.
This is why it makes sense that I enjoyed Mean Streets a whole lot more than Who's That Knocking at my Door? For starters, it is easy to see just how much more focused Scorsese was on this film than his first by even the title alone. Mean Streets strikes such a chord and tells the audience exactly what they need to know. Who's That Knocking on My Door? is an un-focused mess of a title, much like the film itself. It is interesting to note that Mean Streets was almost titled "Season of the Witch" which Charlie's character quotes in the film itself. While I understand where the title comes in and makes sense, for general audiences I feel that title would be confusing and make audiences think they were going to see a film of another genre. It was a mature and smart choice of Scorsese's to switch it up.
PART 2:
ReplyDeleteCharlie's main conflict throughout the entire film is balancing his lives, in my opinion. He lives so many; saintly friend to Johnny Boy, mafia social-climber, casual boyfriend, and his own personal life. Charlie desperately tries to keep all of these lives separate to the point of getting irrationally aggressive when they start to come into contact. One scene in particular is when Johnny-Boy comes to the window of Charlie and Teresa. I understand that Charlie is on edge already, but with the added jolt of Johnny Boy literally dropping in on them, I feel that Charlie hates the intimacy that Johnny Boy might have seen in him for Teresa. I think this conflict paints the conflict that a lot of people have in their lives today; trying to be whoever they think someone will like/respect/love/etc. and when those separate lives start to intertwine, the person living those lives reacts differently because they are not sure how those separate lives mesh. I think it is the same way people feel when they are nervous to introduce their parents to their significant other. Leading two separate lives and one is unsure of how the two will react of one-another. I think this feeds into anyone's worst fear with the ending of the film. All of his lives (mafia, love, friendship) all in one car that crashes in the end. Charlie's inability to seek help for all of the issues he keeps forcing down inside of himself bubble up to the surface and out of nowhere they intersect so violently that in the end, Charlie is so discombobulated that he has no emotion at the end, seemingly losing everything. A very sad ending.
As far as motif's go, I am not very observant when it comes to visual storytelling, to be honest. Although, I can take a guess. I recall there being a lot of red lighting in the film. Now, whether this meant hell, or power, or love, I think a case could be argued for all of them. The hellish-environment Charlie experiences day-in and day-out. The power he feels when he is in a familiar place (the bar) or perhaps the love he feels of the people and life he has. I think the color has so many theoretical meanings that I have no idea what Martin wanted to say with such a harsh red tone.
I enjoyed Mean Streets very much more than Who's That Knocking at My Door? for the focus of story alone. While I feel it is still not a perfectly focused film by any means, there are still scenes that I feel are someone pointless, I am excited to see what Scorsese's next brings.
I enjoyed "Mean Streets" much more than "Who's That Knocking on My Door?" It felt more refined, more intentional than his previous film, but it still managed to maintain a lot of the thematic core at the heart of his work. In a way, I very much think "Mean Streets" is the spiritual sequel to "Who's That Knocking on My Door?"... a little more mature, but still very visceral. I think it's no coincidence that both of the main characters in these movies, the semi-autobiographical depictions of Scorsese, are portrayed by the young hunk Harvey Keitel.
ReplyDeleteThe main conflict Charlie faces is one many young people still face today: will I remove myself from my comfort zone, or remain comfortable where I am? Charlie struggles with this in many different ways. In class, it was mentioned how the Charlie/Joey relationship resembles that of George & Lennie from "Of Mice and Men." I agree with this assessment... in that novel, George faces the terrible realization that he will not be able to continue with Lennie holding him back. This scenario is one that we see time and time again in "Mean Streets" until ultimately, Joey's reckless actions nearly costs Charlie his life.
We see this motif again when Teresa continually asks Charlie to move into an apartment with her across the city. Charlie refuses time and time again, proving his unwillingness to change; yet, the young hunk Keitel shows growth near the end of the film when he agrees to take a restaurant gig from his uncle. Because of this, the audience does not feel as much like Joey is completely holding Charlie back.
This was my first time viewing ‘Mean Streets’ and I can honestly say that its one of my favorite Scorsese films. Like ‘Who’s That Knocking’, the film has several of Scorsese’s tropes and motifs. Religious iconography as well as a sense of family and community are as strong as ever. On top of this, Scorsese also adds a few new motifs such as surprising violence and his use of color. When I saw the relatively calm party at the bar disrupted by the angry veteran who slams his table and attacks a woman, I thought to myself that this is definitely not going to be the last time I see this in a film this semester. Scorsese uses surprise violence to get almost a comedic affect out of it. Not that attacking a woman is ever funny in and of itself, but Scorsese presents things like that in a light hearted way for the audience to be able to relate to any of the characters in the bar that night. To them, this type of violence may be a typical night and something to laugh about later with their friends. Going back to Scorsese’s use of color, I’ve always known that he uses a lot of red in his earlier films, but I think I finally made a connection as to what it means. Throughout the film, I thought it represented different things like violence or sin. But then I started to notice that the only time we don’t see red is when Charlie is out of his comfort zone. Red is a very warm and inviting color and opposite to that is the color blue which was used in scenes where Charlie doesn’t have a lot of power or is uncomfortable. The set with the most red is the bar, and for good reason. Of course Charlie would be comfortable at the bar. Its the place where everyone knows his name and lets him speak his mind. He has status there.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Mean Streets almost seems like a do-over for Scorsese. In this period of his life, he really felt like hitting the reset button on his career after the advice he received from John Cassavetes. It makes perfect sense that he would take ‘Who’s That Knocking’, a film where he was already able to tap into his roots and tell a personal story, and take the constructive criticism given to him from critics like Roger Ebert to make an even better film. The key difference between the two films is that while ‘Who’s That Knocking’ focuses more on character and relationships, ‘Mean Streets’ turns the audience’s attention even more to the environment in which the film takes place. In fact, the environment could be considered to be part of the major conflict in the film. The main character Charlie, essentially J.R. 2.0, is struggling with where he wants to be in life. Some people in the film encourage him that he can be so much more than your common New York hoodlum. But Charlie keeps getting pulled back in due to his desire to help out his friends and keep the peace. If there is anything that the opening voice over of the film showed us, it’s that Charlie wants to be a pseudo-saint of his neighborhood. The film has a remarkable ending that wraps things up quite nicely. In an attempt to flee the city, Charlie, Teresa and Johnny Boy get shot up by Michael as they drive through Brooklyn. Charlie knows that he needs to move on but there are forces much bigger than him that keep him from doing so. From the way it ends, I gathered that the main message of the film is that there is no way to run from where you come from.
"Mean Streets" was more enjoyable to me because it seemed more defined, more fleshed out, and better executed. By the opening scene you could tell that Scorsese knew which way he was taking this film. The characters seemed to have lives outside of the film, whereas in "Who's that Knocking on My Door?" the characters felt a little outlandish.
ReplyDeleteThe main conflict Charlie has throughout the film is protecting Johnny boy. It's the first thing that's introduced and it's the reason for the ending. Doing this upholds his "street saint" image but ironically keeps him involved with the mobs and streetlife, climaxing in lots of blood. However, while Charlie is attempting to get Johnny out of trouble, Johnny takes it upon himself to solidify his fate. He basically realizes there's no escape and decides to just see how far he can take it.
Whether or not Charlie realizes this is a different story. He could, on some level recognize it, but refuse to reconcile with it because his saint complex keeps him at it. Christianity bleeds through this film, just as it did with "Who's That Knocking On my Door?". A great line that sums it up is when Charlie and Teresa are talking and he says "Francis of Asisi had it all down... he knew!" and Teresa responds with "what are you talking about? Saint Francis didn't run numbers." The whole move is summed up in there. Great scene/dialogue.
The ending is incredibly in sync with the rest of the film. In Scorsese fashion it doesn't end in a hollywood up beat type way. It almost even ends right at the climax. The shoot out happens, the car crashes, and yet no one is dead. They are still left to fend for themselves as if they're cursed to walk this earth forever. I mean, the whole movie you're waiting for someone to get popped and when it's about to happen, no one dies.
This is mine
DeleteWhy Mean Streets isn't as widely regarded as Martin Scorsese’s subsequent features has alluded me since my first screening of the film during my freshman year at Columbia College Chicago. Granted the film isn't nearly as cinematographically stylistic as Raging Bull or psychologically in-depth as Taxi Driver, but then again, neither Raging Bull or Taxi Driver is anything like Mean Streets nor should they be. Mean Streets is a film too unique in the cannon of Martin Scorsese’s career in filmmaking, despite it acting as a spiritual sibling to Who’s That Knocking At My Door, because, perhaps most importantly, it’s the film that both cements many of the themes and motifs that we come to see as synonymous with Scorsese’s work; as well as marking the start of one of cinema’s greatest and longstanding director/actor collaboration.
ReplyDeleteCharlie, played by Harvey Keitel, struggles throughout the film with both his life on and off the streets. He aspires to been an idealized Italian-American Catholic, but as he slowly ascends in the ranks of the local Mafia outfit, his faith in the Church slowly declines. Similarly to most Catholics, Charlie feels as if he’s praying to nothing but silence and is finding nothing reassuring about Catholicism. From my own personal experience, I know I’ve thought the same things Charlie has about the redundancy of confession and the endless cycle of forgiveness and prayer as a means of salvation. The idea of Charlie struggling with his faith his often repeated by having his character put his hands over an open flame to burn yourself, a trick his character was said to have learned from his priest. Moreover, Charlie also suffers tremendous amounts of guilty stemming from both an incestious relationship with his cousin and his sinful nature on the streets. His struggle is ultimately one tore between a life guided by faith and one guided by the streets. In the end, his transgressions catch up with him as he kneels in the street, with a literal stained hand, wounded from an assassins bullet.
I believe the film ends the way it does, purposefully ambiguous, because that is how life is. Life is ambiguous, so Scorsese decides to transfer that feeling into the film. I feel as if also that having the film end in that manner only enhances the scenes that occurred before the credits began. It’s as if Scorsese is saying, “This is just another day in Little Italy,” presenting the final scene in almost a documentary-sqe quality. The immense amounts of red that have surrounded our characters throughout the film (a motif Scorsese puts in every film he can), the glowing red lights of the bar and vibrant red of the assassins car, has finally caught up to them in the form of their own blood. It’s a film that comes full circle with itself very well.
The first time I saw Mean Streets was at Le Champo in Paris almost two years ago. Growing up on the south side of Chicago and having family members in gangs, including my older brother, I had always been drawn to films about gangs, mobsters, etc. The worlds of some of those films were similar to my own. Mean Streets, however, doesn’t feel like a gangster film. Scorsese simply gives the audience a look at life in Little Italy in the early 70s.These characters are based on people in his neighborhood, which ultimately makes the film feel personal. We get a personal introduction to each of the central characters. I wouldn’t characterize these men as simple, but they weren’t Vito Corleone either. They were people from the neighborhood. Robert De Niro gives an excellent performance as Jonny Boy, whom Scorsese had said was a depiction of one of his friends.
ReplyDeleteThe shaping of the characters starts as soon as the film begins with the home-movie style footage being shown to us. We get a sense of community and family. Despite all of the quarrels between the men, it still feels brotherly rather than violent. When Charlie goes to collect money from Joey, a brawl breaks out. In the end he says “come on, let’s have a drink”. Although they’re fighting, the threat of danger is absent. The only exception is when Jonny Boy pulls out a gun on Michael. Similar to Who’s that Knocking at My Door? these men are exactly likable, but they still make us laugh. We’ll see this idea of being funny and dangerous challenged later in Goodfellas in the infamous “Funny how?” scene.
Charlie is struggling with whether or not he wants to continue to move up in the mafia. We can see that his catholic guilt is weighing heavy on him as he talks to God throughout the film. Him burning his finger in the fire is his own form of repentance. He’s playing with fire literally and figuratively. Stating the obvious, the color red symbolizes anger, violence, blood, and passion. This color is distinctly present in the bar, where all of those emotions and vices are showcased. But this is normal. It is as normal as the ending of the film, meaning people getting shot is a normal occurrence during this time. What makes it shocking for us as viewers is that we’ve grown slightly attached to these characters. I wanted to know what would happen in their lives or if Jonny Boy even survived. The shooting is a big moment in the film but Scorsese left it open-ended possibly as a way to remind us that these are mean streets. That was the way it was.
Mean Streets- 9/10.
ReplyDeleteThis was my second time screening Mean Streets and I have to admit: it was even better than the first time. The first time screening it was perfect. I was living in the University Center and it was my first year at Columbia College Chicago. I had the hottest woman on campus at the time (she was half Japanese half Thai) and we went over my buddy's dorm to watch the film. With the urban ambience outside of the window all of us (including about two other people) watched the film. It was the perfect movie to watch at the time but I couldn't identify a lot of the ideas and themes at the time. My second screening wasn't as memorable but the film had a profound effect on me.
Charlie, the protagonist, plays a young Italian-American man living in New York City (I'm guessing the Bronx, I'm not sure). His uncle is a Capo in the Mafia and Charlie is pegged to follow in his footsteps. Charlie however is torn between his loyalty to his best friend, Johnny Boy; his secret love for Johnny's Boy's epileptic sister; his attraction to black women; his jaded ideas on Catholicism; and everything that the previous generation (the GI, and the Silent) tried to instill in him. All of these conflicts come crashing down during the climax when Charlie chooses the friendship and love of Johnny Boy and his sister and they are all attacked by other aspiring member of the Mafia.
I won't get into the all of the nitty gritty aesthetics but Mean Streets is damn-near the perfect Scorcese film because all of his talents and recurring motifs are well advanced. He has certainly come a long way since his hit, "Who's Knocking on My Door?" Let's start with the music: it sets the tone automatically and is able to fit in with the times. The cutaways, runaway dialogue, dynamic characters, and misadventures all seem to play out like nostalgia. One of the main reasons why Mean Streets is perfect is because it actually puts you right in the movie. It's almost as if you've lived and seen these events, met these people yourself. By the end of the film you kind of don't want it to end. You want to return to the beginning and keep reliving those moments. I think Scorcese intended that. It's a love letter to his life as a kid in the neighborhood. Scorcese himself pulls the trigger which hits Johnny Boy and Charlie is symbolic. It's him sort of saying goodbye to those carefree days. The cutaway to the film playing in a theater and back to the crash, means that Charlie has come of age. Life isn't like the movies. It's hard. It's heartbreaking. It's violent. But, it's also full of surprises. Absolutly going in Scorcese's top ten. This film is unforgettable and it stays with you.
This was my first time seeing Mean Streets and just like the rest of his films I enjoyed it all the same. I found it to be a definite step up from Who's That Knocking At My Door. Once again I couldn't help but enjoy the dialogue, specially between Charlie and Johny Boy. The improvisation is there in more than just a couple scenes, like when we first see Johny Boy and he lies to Charlie about the money he owes. Maybe this preferred preference is because my father would talk the same way to his best friend when he would be at the house, but regardless the dialogue alone takes me back to a time only a handful of people could tell you about. Coming back around, one motif I kept seeing through the film was the color red, like we discussed before the showing of the film. The most prominent I saw it was in the beginning after Charlie's confession, and he ends up at the bar. The bar is lit an intense red, and from my point of view I saw it as hell. Charlie had just confessed his sins like the good Catholic boy he is trying to be, but goes right back to sining by entering bar, hell, and its temptations.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Charlie I found the best part of his character was that he was, like most of Scorsese's films, any other man. We get more detail out of him because we can hear his "prayers," throughout the movie as this in depth tool to know what he is thinking. Going back to what I said earlier, the first impression we get from Charlie is that he goes to confession, but goes right back to his sinful life learning nothing. His conflict is that he is trying to be a good Catholic, so he is trying to please everyone when he can't. As for the ending, besides going back to red when Johny Boy gets shot, I feel that it was about real life. It ends open giving us questions to ask, while we also have to gibe ourselves the answer.
The most important conflict is that between Charlie’s desire for power and success and his desire to live a good Catholic life. The desire for power and success manifests itself as dedication to his uncle and the mob. The desire for a good Catholic life manifests itself in a sort of savior complex. Charlie sees saving Johnny as a sort of sacrifice that will serve to purify himself. As he says “You don’t make up for your sins in church, you do it in the streets.”
ReplyDeleteTo an extent this struggle extends to his relationship with Teresa. Charlie wants to be with her even though his uncle voices his disapproval and the entire community has more or less shunned her because of her epilepsy. In short, the problem Charlie has is that he wants to be St. Francis and Al Capone at the same time.
This conflict is essential to who Charlie is as a person. I think this is why the movie ends the way it does, or rather doesn’t. I think what Scorsese is telling us is that events similar to those of the climactic sequence will continue to occur ad infinitum until Charlie, Johnny, or both are dead and in the ground. Interestingly it would suit Charlie’s savior complex for him to die in the process of trying to help Johnny. On the flip side of that it would accomplish next to nothing as in all likelihood Johnny would also be dead without Charlie around to watch over him.
I think the most important motif is the repeated use of fire. Several times we see him holding his hand or fingers to a flame. It represents in a very physical way his attitudes towards sin and redemption. There is pain in it while there is no pain in saying ten our fathers (at least not for Charlie).
I didn’t enjoy the film as much as some of his others. There were a few reasons for this. First was the sort of out of left field introduction of Teresa and the love interest angle. It makes sense for Charlie as a character, but I felt like it sort of detracted from the main struggle, which was Charlie’s split loyalty between his uncle and Johnny. The pace of it felt a bit slow to me. Most of Scorsese’s movies grab you and pull you along like a raging river. This one felt more like floating along in an inner tube on the lazy river at a waterpark. I will admit though that there are very few movies that I love after the first watch. I usually have to watch things at least twice.
One of my favorite things about it was seeing him use some of his favorite tricks really heavily for the first time. Stuff like the long tracking shot when Charlie enters the bar for the first time or the slo mo when we are introduced to Johnny. The really heavy use of red lighting in certain locations is another example. It very much looks like a Scorsese film. He also selected an excellent soundtrack as always.
This was my first viewing of Mean Streets. Personally I found the film slightly disjointed and not certain where it was going at times. This film felt as though Scorsese knew the points that he wanted to hit in his films but just squeezed a bit of everything into this piece. Charlie's main conflict throughout the film comes from him being torn between looking out for his friend, Johnny Boy, and saving face with his associates. Johnny Boy seems to be certifiably insane and I did not feel that the friendship between the two made any sense outside of the familial bond. The film ends with a gruesome "drive-by" (I don't know if thats what it is called if both cars are driving) killing Charlie, Johnny and Teresa. This conclusion shows that Charlie's unending loyalty resulted in a grisly demise for himself and the people he cared about.
ReplyDeleteThe film is certainly a step forward for Scorsese and he will pick and choose elements from these films to highlight in his later work but for now Mean Streets feels a lot like Marty's idea notebook. He touches on race relations with Charlie's flirting with Diane the dancer, the audience gets a cursory glance at mental illness in Johnny boy but I guess we will have to wait for Taxi Driver. We get a glimpse of the mafia but never really fleshed out in this film as much as it is in later works such as Goodfellas.
Overall I felt as though the film was important for the career of Scorsese but has little relevance outside of that. The film is not shot particularly well, far too much of the film was too dark to even see detail. I will give Scorsese credit for the magnificent acting in the film. Keitel's performance is believable and nuanced. He and Marty have a gift at making characters that feel as though they were plucked right off the street.
I remember reading in Scorsese on Scorsese that Mean Streets was originally to be part of a trilogy with Who’s That Knocking At My Door?, and one more film. It certainly felt like these two stories existed in the same world, a world that Scorsese continues to explore further down his career. Mean Streets seemed to hit on similar themes as his first feature, specifically religion and ego. The motif that really seemed to stick with me was the fire. “Pain in hell has two sides; the kind you can touch with your hand, the kind you can feel in your heart… and the worst of the side is the spiritual.” During this voice over, Charlie reaches his hand into a lit candle and can’t handle the pain. He pulls it away and I’m sure he’s thinking about how much worse the spiritual pain will be.
ReplyDeleteI don’t completely understand Charlie’s relationships with the women in this film. It seemed like Johnny Boy’s sister entered the film in the second act when there wasn’t a lot going with the story. Charlie also showed interest in the black dancer, but blew her off. In the very beginning of the film he said “she is really good looking, but she’s black.”. She could represent sin, being a stripper, or she could represent the culture and the way people on these mean streets viewed race.
The film is about Charlie’s guilt and sin. As he tries to step up in the world, he’s constantly thinking about his inevitable death. He never tries to repent, or change his ways. We end in a near death experience for Charlie. Scorsese says that this was based off of a real experience that he had, but he had gotten out of the car just before it was shot up. It’s seems to be about his fear of death and hell. All of Charlie’s sins piled up before he was able to confess or repent.
I enjoyed Mean Streets much more than Who's Knocking at My Door?, even though they both were clearly torn from the same cloth. Mean Streets felt more realized; true to the people Scorsese knew, and the neighborhoods that he spent most of his childhood growing up in. Seeing him go back to making a film like this, after directing an exploitation film that meant nothing to him personally, is truly inspirational for anyone who may not believe in second chances. In my opinion, had Scorsese not decided to make another film about something important to himself, we may not have all of the classic "Scorsese" films we have today that so many enjoy. It was important to go back to his roots and first and for most talk about what interests him as a filmmaker, as an artist, as a human being. This film has personally become one of my favorites because it feels so brutally honest and representative of Scorsese's ability to tackle complex themes of personal dilemma. Even though the film is highly stylized and extremely entertaining, Scorsese doesn't sacrifice his artistic voice for entertainment, and still manages to interject himself into the film in any way possible.
ReplyDeleteObviously the fire motif was really strong throughout the film with the flame growing higher and more intense as the film progresses. It helps symbolize the increasing tension that Charlie feels inside himself as he struggles with his professional persona versus who he really feels he should be: a devout, religious man that puts others' problems before his own. He constantly sticks his neck out for the people he cares about with Johnny Boy being the prime example of how Charlie's selflessness can cause more harm than good. Charlie's responsibility within the family becomes less important as he sees Johnny Boy's situation become increasingly more difficult for him to overcome, and his willingness to sacrifice himself for others in need ultimately seals his fate. The film ended fairly ambiguously with the last few shots reserved for the main players in the film's climatic ending albeit with a shot of some windows being closed, but I feel this was the filmmaker's intension. Instead of drawing a bunch of attention the whole shootout seems to go unnoticed because it simply is apart of their environment, and not at all anything out of the ordinary. There is no need for a fuss to be made over another dead boy, it's something that happens all the time and life goes on.
ReplyDeleteMean Streets was a fantastic way to kick off what I believe to be the true start of Scorsese’s career. I do agree that in certain ways it felt like a much more focused remake of Who’s That Knocking At My Door? It was cleaner, more cohesive, and less interested in glamorizing Italian gang life. It had it’s own voice, which I recognized from even some of his more recent films, like The Departed. It also reminded me a lot of Cassettes’ The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, in terms of it’s visual style and content.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the film, Charlie is coming into conflict with his faith, his friends, and his responsibilities to his family. He wants to make up for the sins he commits in his business by taking Johnny Boy under his wing. I think there is a real selflessness inside of Charlie, but his intense to need to somehow “better” Johnny was born out of pure selfishness. He wanted to prove to himself that he could change someone and make their life better, but he didn’t really take into account the fact that some people weren’t built to change. Johnny’s tragic end had been written since long before Charlie came into his life.
Also his relationship with Theresa, Johnny’s cousin, also creates a huge conflict of interest between them. Is Charlie trying to better Johnny for his own personal gain (impressing Theresa), or is he doing it to atone for his sins? I think it’s a mix of both those things driving Charlie towards the inevitable, tragic end.
First of all, I think it’s hilarious that Scorsese employed himself to be the man who pulls the trigger. Couldn’t let himself just sit that one out. I think it ends very abruptly and almost nonchalantly because that sort of violence was incredibly commonplace at that period of time. It wasn’t personal to Tony, it was just good business. I guess it was slightly personal, considering Johnny did everything he could to egg him on. I wonder if Johnny knew his fate was inevitable. He spent most of the film basically baiting death to come and get him.
A lot of people have spoken about the flame as a motif, but I wanted to talk about the voiceover, which was in Scorsese’s voice. He chooses to use it at seemingly random times, but I think how he uses them is very interesting. Most directors would use voiceovers to reveal a lot about a character, I mean it is supposed to be inside someone’s head. But Scorsese really only uses it to reveal just a tiny bit at a time, and mostly uses Charlie’s actions as a means of revealing his character. I feel like those voiceovers are Scorsese directly communicating his own issues and conflicts with the audience. It’s his way of personalizing the film.
And in this week of my Scorsese and Women analysis, I would say that Theresa is a huge step up from “The Girl”. I didn’t really understand the need to make her epileptic, but that’s alright. She was smart, strong, and absolutely held her own against every male character she interacted with. I loved how filthy her mouth was. Progress!
Love what you say about Charlie's motives. I totally agree. Also am excited to read your Scorsese and Women Analysis every week!
DeleteI think Mean Streets is the perfect jumping off point for Scorsese's career. It takes a lot of similar themes that Who's That Knocking at my Door? has, like, struggles with faith, sexuality, friendship, coming of age, and surviving in your element. I feel where J.R was still struggling with his faith, and asking questions regarding sexuality and faith, and where he wants to fit in, Charlie has those answers. Right away with the opening monologue we are told that you don't make up for your sins in church, you make up for them in the streets.
ReplyDeleteI think Mean Streets is a much finer, sharpened, focused look at the same motifs that Scorsese introduced us to with Knocking at my Door? Watching them one after the other was a great help in picking out the similarities, and seeing how Scorsese built on them.
Similar to J.R, Charlie is trying to find his place in the crime world. Both are not necessarily best suited for it, but they have chosen that path, and are trying to make it work. Charlie is definitely farther along than J.R and through out the film is trying to progress to the next level by showing his Uncle that he is ready to control his own restaurant. This becomes difficult when he is told that to get the restaurant he has to stop hanging out with his best friend, and his love interest.
Mean Streets is a great example of many of Scorcese's best attributes as a director. There are many similarities between it and Who's That Knocking at my Door? Both films explore themes of marriage, faith, friendship, loyalty, and what it means to be a man. The opening dialogue that plays over the short montage of a scene of a family dinner, a church, and then violence in the streets sets up the main idea of the film right off the bat. Charlie is much more similar to J.R than he can admit to himself. He struggles with his own identity amongst the other gangsters. He is more nihilistic in his worldview than his religious devotion would suggest. The violence in this film was depicted in a very raw manner. I think that is a strength of Scorcese throughout his career.
ReplyDeleteThis was my second viewing of "Mean Streets", and I found it to be much more reflective of his strengths as a filmmaker than his first feature film: "Who's That Knocking at My Door." The film was a great starting off point in establishing Scorsese's long, distinguished career. Filmgoers could finally see his cinematic vision accurately reflected on the screen; which was more apparent than his previous films. I found that the film had a much stronger plot, stronger character development, and stronger thematic, philosophical motifs that were more proficiently represented. Although, the two films did explore many of the same themes. They explored the themes of marriage, vigilantism, loyalty, religion, friendship, and masculinity. I felt that this film knew the direction it was going in; whereas his first film, it lacked that direction. I felt that with "Who's That Knocking at My Door", Scorsese was a novice, inexperienced filmmaker who did not know a lot about story or structure. However, with this film, it is clear to the audience, that he has done his research. It is clear to the audience that Scorsese had grown significantly as a filmmaker, which reflected through every frame, shot, beat and scene of the film. This was the film that really introduced Scorsese to the mainstream public as the bold, progressive storyteller that he is identified as today. In my humble opinion, I believe this was the film that put him on the map and established his multi-faceted longevity of his distinguished, trailblazing career.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the film, Charlie's main conflicts are trying to hold onto his Catholic beliefs, while also trying to establish himself and be taken seriously by his associates in the mafia. On top of that, he also feels responsible for his volatile, self- destructive, and unpredictable friend, Johnny Boy, played to pure perfection by Robert De Niro, by trying to control his antics; which could very well get him killed by their enemies. Charlie, played by Harvey Keitel, is torn between holding onto his moral compass and basic human principles, while also trying to prove himself as a mobster. He is also trying to conceal his relationship/ secret affair with Johnny Boy's epileptic sister, Teresa. He fears that if Johnny Boy ever found out, he would do something so reckless and impulsive that it would most likely get him killed or prosecuted. So, to prevent that from happening, he keeps his feelings for Teresa a secret.