So what did you think of Martin Scorsese's first feature, Who's That Knocking on My Door? Do you agree with this extremely positive review of the film by a very young Roger Ebert? And what about his two shorts, It's Not Just You, Murray! (1964) and The Big Shave (1967)? How do these two early films further your understanding of Martin Scorsese?
I hope you'll be completely honest and write whatever you like. All I ask is that you try to be as specific as possible with your language and that you work to support your critical assertions with examples from the film. Vague proclamations like "that was incredible" or "the acting is great" don't mean much. I instead encourage you to highlight specific moments and sequences to support what you're feeling. If you think a film or a scene or a performance is "great," please go further to let us know why.
I also ask that your response address the ways in which you think Martin Scorsese's first feature does or does not relate to his more recent films - thematically, aesthetically, or otherwise. You can reference the shorts we watched in this part of your response as well, especially if you see strong similarities and/or differences in them to more current Scorsese work.
If you write a lot you might get cut off, so please save your response in a separate file before posting. And be sure to post by no later than midnight on Monday so I have time to read what you wrote before our Tuesday afternoon class.
I'm glad you're in class, and I look forward to reading your thoughtful and thorough responses before we meet again. If you have any questions in the meantime, just let me know.
I enjoyed Martin Scorsese’s first film. I thought that it gave me some real insight into how he has evolved as a director. You watch his movies, and you're just amazed at the level of polish that they contain, but then you see this, and as a filmmaker you feel more connected to him and you understand the trial and error, the experimental side that he employed to figure out who he would be as a storyteller. I was impressed because it seems like he’s known what type of movies he has wanted to make from the very start, and even though this film was very raw and gritty, it felt like many of the other films I’ve had the pleasure of seeing, especially in the way the gangster/wise guy is portrayed.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed how unpolished the film was on some levels, like the structure. There are some alarming moments, like the transition into the nude scene when Kietel is talking about broads, and then the sudden move back onto the street as he continues to explain the difference between a broad and a lady. As Ebert mentioned this felt weird and didn't quite fit, and even though Scorsese didn't really want this scene and had to include it, it jumps out at you. However, I still fell that he does a decent job at connecting it to our main character, showing the way he thinks about broads as opposed to a lady. Another moment that stands out to me is the trip to the woods. It seems like this moment is there just as a resting place for the audience as opposed to serving a real purpose in the vehicle of the film. Everything up until that moment is really fast paced and it felt arbitrary, especially because the pace picks back up right after and slows down again when the news is revealed.
Adversely, there were some things done effectively from an aesthetic standpoint. Like his use of sound which is masterful. For example, I love how the movie is so loud and loaded with sound in the beginning, yet when the girl drops the news about the rape, the noise is reduced, and the music that accompanied Kietel throughout turns to an uneasy silence. The latter illustrates how our main character is trapped in his head, and it shows the internal conflict he is having in relation to the bomb that was dropped on him. The movie also seems less colorful in this moment as well, everything seems dark and dreary, as opposed to the bright nature of the first half. He doesn't know how to feel about this lady who he once placed on a pedestal, and it takes the wind out of his sail. Scorsese uses sound effectively like this in all of his movies, like good fellas when Pesci is breaking Liotta’s balls for calling him a clown and the table gets completely silent after the very loud and rambunctious display they had prior to this moment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMiles, I really like what you said about feeling more connected to Scorsese from seeing his earlier works. I feel the same way. There is almost this relief when you realize, oh he didn't just start out making films like Raging Bull, The Departed, or Wolf of Wall Street. It's nice to see that he started with a more raw style than what we see today.
DeleteI also love his use of mine en scene. For example The scene where Kietel brings the girl back to his apartment and as they make out. You see religious statues and figures placed through out the room but positioned more on Kietel’s side to show how he's a catholic and very respectful of his faith, which keeps him from committing adultery with this lady who he respects. In the same frame this idea of religion is contrasted by the girl who is much more open to the idea of them having sex; she is in fact framed by the open door, which I believe is a metaphor for her promiscuous side. I also love how the still shots of the rape are edited in to show how Kietel is constantly playing it back and how he cant get over it,.
ReplyDeleteFor those reasons mentioned above, I think that Roger Ebert’s critique of Who’s that knocking at my Door is fair and deserved. In this movie, I think Scorsese deals with man hood in a way that many young men can relate to; certainly myself, but there are some structural issues that jump out at you as mentioned earlier. Be that is it may, I watched this film and was completely immersed in the world he had created. However, I felt that the story was much more compelling than the visuals. Despite the later, I love Scorsese’ ability to communicate using more than dialogue, and action on the screen; that was the biggest take away, and even such the visual aspect was handled quite well.
I think his two early films definitely helped lay the foundation for this movie and his style moving forward. It’s not just you Murray showed how he wanted to portray these wise guys. It seems as if he wants you to connect to theses characters in a non threatening way. He doesn't want you to be alarmed by the nature of these characters, but instead amused and entertained by the larger than life mentality they seem to posses. He wants you to laugh at behavior that one might detest in normal circumstances. For example you know Murray is mobster who extorts people, runs a prostitution ring, and involves himself in a number of other illegal and possibly immoral activities, yet you like this guy and you laugh at the bizarreness. You wanna see more and know more because his life is so interesting, and because it’s probably the closes that most of us will get to this world.
The big shave was weird to me, and I didn’t really take much away from except the assertion that his movies have moments which leave you puzzled; moments that catch you off guard because you don't know what is going happen, yet you continue to watch because he is the master of enticement. These moments force you to work as a consumer, and search for a deeper meaning. I also think this short illustrates how he wants you to be uncomfortable but intrigued like the scene in Casino where Pesci places the guys head in a vice grip; it’s like you know its not right, but you can’t possibly turn away.
This was my second time viewing Who's that Knocking on My Door, and it was a much richer experience for me this time around. The first time I watched the film was a hazy night at a high school party senior year, so I might not have been in the most analytical state of mind at the time.
ReplyDeleteWatching the film is truly stunning in the sense that it lays bare the themes, characters, and stories that Scorsese will revisit throughout his career. In that sense I could see this film happening at any point in his filmography and feel appropriate. The main themes of the dissection of masculinity, the pressures of societal culture, the objectification of women, and religious struggle appear in the majority of his films and here we can see him piecing them all together. Harvey Keitel ’s role JR is the essential Scorsese protagonist, a man who is a part of the culture around him (low level mob / crime guys) but struggles with the constraints of the life he is leading like Henry Hill in Goodfellas, Ace in Casino, and Jordan Belfort in Wolf of Wall Street. JR’s relationship with women is also the prototype for many of Scorsese’s future characters who have a Madonna/Whore complex, where they place women on a pedestal and lust after them until they finally have them, then lose interest and degrade them; Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull, Newland Archer in The Age of Innocence, and Henry / Ace in Goodfellas/Casino, etc.
In fact JR is such an archetype for his films, Mean Streets almost plays as a sequel to Who’s that Knocking, with Keitel’s character struggling with his life of crime, his sin and catholic guilt and troubles with women picking up right where JR left off.
In addition to the thematics, this films shows Scorsese’s stylistic approach in a very fully formed way, in terms of his style and the way he uses his filmic influences in his films. In his first feature we see techniques such as voice over, montage editing, juke box music choices, freeze frames, jarring cuts, and long takes. And one of his most defining features; his dark sense of humor and strong use of contrast are exemplified in key moments in the film such as the peppy dance song played over the rape scene, and the long detour to the mountains that removes us from the films urban environment for comedic contrast. These are hallmarks of his style that can be seen in some of his most recent work such as Wolf of Wall Street which uses all of these same techniques.
You can also see his influences at the time at play. The stark black and white photography, emphasis on character drama, and economic shooting and production style is reminiscent of early Cassavetes such as Shadows and Faces. Also, the contrast of naturalistic performances of stylized filmmaking; the abrupt cuts, montages, freeze frames, is akin to the French New Wave and techniques used by Goddard and Truffaut.
For the above reasons I found the film to be a compelling character drama with a dazzling stylistic presentation and a blue print for Scorsese’s entire career.
I enjoyed watching these early Scorsese movies and shorts. I feel that since we started here it will give us a better understanding of how he grew as a filmmaker from 1964 to now. It’s Not Just You, Murray! is a good film, for a first film. I’d say it’s the best first film I’ve ever seen, especially from a student. The plot was coherent and to the point. The narrative kept moving and stayed interesting. I liked the part where Murray is talking to Joe and the audio is intentionally cut out. I thought this was an interesting concept. Instead of hearing the direct conversation you heard Murray talking about and the act that actually happened between the two men is left up to interpretation by the audience.
ReplyDeleteI also liked the use of music in Murray! Scorsese uses the song Pomp and Circumstance for the majority of the movie. The scene were it really resinated with me was when Murray was talking about all the operations and things that he and Joe have influence over. The use of Pomp and Circumstance here is interesting because this is a song commonly used in graduation ceremonies so I interpreted it as Murray was graduating from prison to this highly successful life of crime.
I thought Who’s That Knocking at my Door? was interesting. It is different than a lot of the movies I enjoy. The plot, at least to me, was very scarce. It felt like the film just moved from one scene to another with no real motivation. In the beginning I was hoping from more conflict between JR and Joey over the control of the gang but this never came to happen. There were many situations within the movie that never seemed to happen. I would try and guess what was coming or predict the future of the movie and none of my guess ever came true, which I suppose could be a good thing because then the movie is unpredictable.
I largely agree with Ebert’s 1969 review of the movie and early Scorsese. Ebert mentions the scene at the end of the movie where JR cuts his lip on a nail. I felt this scene was awkward and out of place, the same way Ebert did. Same with the naked sex scene. I know this was intentional put into the film for marketing purposes but it felt out of place and forced. I do believe this film shows a good beginning to Martin Scorsese’s career and I hope we discuss how he went from this film to his current film.
Finally The Big Shave (not to be confused with The Big Short starring, the hunk, Ryan Gosling) is another interesting film especially for an early short. The film is interesting to me because of it is supposed a reference to the Vietnam War but I’m unsure I see the connection. Please explain!
The only thing I can think of for the Vietnam War reference is, Scorsese is implying that the U.S advertised and acted like going into Vietnam was no big deal, or 'easy'. Like a normal shaving session would be. But they were wildly mistaken and unprepared, and a lot of blood was spilt. That's all I can think of.
DeleteI hadn't heard anything about it being a reference to the war. That's really interesting.
Who’s That Knocking on My Door? was a unique film from Martin Scorsese, as it seemed to be much more of an introspective film than the bold creations he usually makes. Despite the movie defying my expectations, I liked it as a whole. Who’s That Knocking on My Door? felt very personal, choosing to focus on both good and bad qualities about the main character J.R. (portrayed by the young hunk Harvey Keitel) instead of shying away from taboo subjects. Because of the personal nature of much of the film, I did feel that certain scenes could’ve been handled better, similar to Ebert’s critique. J.R.’s reaction to the rape scene and the final confrontation between J.R. and his love interest felt a little overacted, which I thought distracted from the more subtle moments within the film. For example, I loved the first interaction between the two; the semi-awkward conversations about movies, magazines, and all small talk in between really added to the depth of both characters. Again, when the two are conversing on the rooftop about Western movies and the like, I enjoyed the realistic and improvisational feel to the conversation, as opposed to the grandiose reactions from their fighting sequences (or any sequence involving Joey, for that matter).
ReplyDeleteYet, I think J.R.’s buddies contribute a lot to the film; it shows another side to J.R. that isn’t present within his relationship. This allows the audience to feel less surprised at some of the vile and misunderstood comments coming from J.R.’s mouth—to his girlfriend, they may be seemingly coming out of nowhere, but to the audience, it makes perfect sense. This deeper connection to the character, however, is something that surprised me. Granted, I’ve only seen a few Scorsese flicks, but they seem to be more focused in the actions of characters instead of the internal struggle. This is the reason that the film surprised me.
The Big Shave showcases more of the Scorsese style that I’m familiar with than Who’s That Knocking on My Door? It’s violent, cathartic, and unapologetic, all three words that I would use to describe multiple films throughout Scorsese’s filmography (like Taxi Driver or Gangs of New York). Without the correct historical context of the time The Big Shave was created, however, I do think it would be easy to lose sight of what the film is trying to accomplish. Yet, I think this misunderstanding is also something that can be found in other Scorsese films—I recall the argument that The Wolf of Wall Street is glorifying a violent and lavish lifestyle rather than showing the consequences.
It’s Not Just You, Murray! matches the tone that I associate with Scorsese films. It’s lighthearted, but features a really conflicted character who makes jokes to hide his true pain. I think this character archetype could be true of Scorsese himself as it seems to be another reoccurring bit throughout his career. The storytelling within It’s Not Just You, Murray! is unique, breaking the fourth wall and telling the “true story” through a ‘found footage’ type trope, but the story ultimately held my attention the whole time and felt tonally very similar to Scorsese’s more recent works.
This was my second time seeing Who's That Knocking at my Door. I enjoyed it more this time, and was able to focus more on the filmmaking side of it. My favorite scene is when J.R and The Girl are talking for the first time on the ferry. There is this long shot used that dollies, pans, tilts and zooms for over a minute, going between the two characters as they talk. I love this shot, and think it is a beautiful way of dynamically moving the camera and keeping the audience interested during a heavy dialogue scene that could easily have been shot with a master and two coverages.
ReplyDeleteIt's also very clear that from his early years, Scorsese knew what kind of themes he was going to be wrestling with over his career. This struggle with wanting to live up to the morals that you were taught in your upbringing, and failing to live by these morals, or being challenged by other beliefs is seen in many of his films.
I find it very interesting how similar the opening to It's Not Just You, Murray, and The Wolf of Wall Street are. The cocky, over confident rich/successful middle aged man breaking the forth wall and talking straight through the camera to the audience. Plus the voiceover throughout that is unapologetic in backtracking or rambling on. It's not clean, and that tells you a lot about this character.
The Big Shave surprised me. Where It's Not Just You, Murray showed that a short film doesn't have to be set in one place, and actually covers a wide variety of locations in it's short run time, The Big Shave demonstrates the opposite. Because of the thoughtful shot selection, editing, and music choice, it took me until over two minutes in to realize that I was just watching a guy shave. The cuts, and the increasing amount of blood is a testament to Scorsese's continued use of unflinching violence.
While I haven’t seen Scorsese’s entire filmography, I immediately saw themes and characteristics that would later be used in his films Mean Streets and Goodfellas. Although the film was made in 1965, it still has a nostalgic, 1950s feel with the type of of music he chose to use. The image of the the gang facing off at beginning of the film reminded me of the juvenile delinquent movies of the early 1950s.
ReplyDeleteFamily and religion, good vs. evil, pure and impure are themes throughout this film. The first image we see is of a mother making dinner for her family. The image is pure and sacred. Then of course, the religious figurines seen throughout the film correlates with Scorsese’s own religious upbringing.
Scorsese has a way of making the gangsters in his films likable. They are threatening, with the exception of Murray in It’s Not just You, Murray!, but they're also funny. For those of us who have seen Wolf of Wall Street, we can see that the narration in It's Not Just You, Murray! is basically the same. Obviously, this person isn’t a good guy, but we’re intrigued by him.
Agreeing with Roger Ebert, Scorsese shows a more truthful depiction of inner city youth and manhood without too much of the fantastical psychedelic imagery and groovy music overpowering the film like others during that time.
I also see a lot of influence from the French New Wave in the film’s editing style. It’s more experimental than the traditional linear editing in Scorsese’s later films. I actually really enjoyed the dream scene of J.R’s experience with a prostitute, even if it felt out of place. It was shot very well and the choice of music complemented the scene.
Knowing what we know about Scorsese and his love of cinema history and his religious upbringing, the character of J.R could even be a depiction of himself. Some people might view Zina Bethune’s character being called “the girl” instead of a real name as misogynist, but I think her character generalizes many women who could or have been in similar situations. A woman is either classified as a broad or a girl. This girl could have been any girl during that time, considering the social norms.
I’m excited to see how Scorsese has developed as a filmmaker. In his short film The Big Shave, we’re watching a man shave and cut himself, but this is just a glimpse of this sort of normalized gore we will later see in his films.
Most filmmakers experiment and struggle throughout their career to find their “style”; however, Martin Scorsese is different. By studying Who’s That Knocking At My Door, we notice characteristics that have continued into today’s work. This film, similar to nearly every film he creates, is heavily masculine and I don’t think that is a bad thing. The conversation of Zina Bethune’s “the girl” and the differences between “nice” girls and broads are worth discussing equally in their own space. Regarding his first feature, there are a variety of men which in turn, leads to multiple definitions of masculinity. J.R. is a unique character because we get to see the way he acts around his youthful friends compared to the mature “girl”. (It’s easier to discuss characters when they are given names and not vague descriptions.) One of my favorite scenes from the film is when J.R. rides the ferry and sees her reading a magazine. It’s this great conversation that is so human because it’s both awkward and heartwarming. The conversation leads into them talking about movies which nods at Scorsese’s obsession with cinema.
ReplyDeleteMartin Scorsese places attention on his characters and I believe that is a large reason why people remember his films. It’s Not Just You, Murray! begins with Murray introducing the audience to his life and friend, Joe. By breaking the fourth wall, a common technique repeated by Scorsese, Murray shows off his life and credits Joe. When Murray walks the camera over to his car he abruptly stops the filming to get the introduction perfect. This small gesture is important because it shows Murray's self-obsessed. Scorsese almost gives his lead character’s control over his film by allowing them communication with the audience. As he did with Ray Liotta in Goodfellas and Leonardo DiCaprio in The Wolf of Wall Street.
It wouldn’t be a fair discussion about Martin Scorsese’s work without noting his attraction to violence. I very much enjoyed The Big Shave because of it’s insane concept. It is unpleasant and incredibly uncomfortable to watch but it is memorable. I appreciated the clean, white contrast to the pigmented red blood that eventually takes over the screen. I also was interested in the isolated narrative. The character was alone and he used one razor allowing the “violence” to look somewhat self-inflictive. I am curious exactly how this film is a metaphor for the Vietnam War. Perhaps it shows how quickly disaster occurred and once it began there was too much blood to control. Or how once the man began shaving and cutting he is completely unfazed by the bleeding.
Scorcese's "Who's That Knocking at My Door?", "The Big Shave" and "It's Not Just You, Murray"- Scorcese's very first films- all touch on one central theme that resonate with the majority of viewers: masculinity and how it effects the women and children in their lives. This is central theme that I unfortunately had missed while screening the majority of his films but became very apparent while viewing three listed above. In "Guess Who's Knocking" it deals with the ideology of female relationships and how young, Italian-American men view their partners. The protagonist, JR puts it simply to his Girlfriend after taking her out to a John Wayne picture simply, " There are nice girls and then there are broads." The "nice girls" are the virgins- the one's that you marry and have children with but can never fully express yourself sexually with. The "broads" are the easy girls, the whores, the prostitutes, the women that any man would want to have intercourse with but would never bring home to meet mom. JR gives that speech to his Girlfriend and the film goes even deeper by showing us numerous examples as to what JR means. We see JR and his friends bursting in on an easy girl as she is being intimate with another gentlemen- ridiculing, teasing and shaming her for being sexual. We also get a montage scene with JR with numerous prostitutes just minutes after he refuses to have sex with his girlfriend for fear of taking her virginity or "ruining her." I agree with Ebert's review of the film; it does have many structural flaws but the strength of "Who's Knocking" is it's ability to connect and resonate with audiences. It succeeds with getting a reaction.
ReplyDelete- "Who's That Knocking at My Door?"- 7 out of 10. Scorcese's first feature is probably his most profound. It touches on the masculine psyche and ideals on human sexuality in such a way that it tends to make the viewer uncomfortable. There are no black and white answers to it. There are shades of gray. The ending with JR going into confession is also notable and completes the catharsis of the film- establishing guilt as one of the central themes. There is so much being said in the scene without any dialogue. Only music and tone consciously and unconsciously sends messages to the audience which would be used again in his later works including "Silence" (2016). The ending with JR, cutting his mouth after kissing a crucifix, symbolizing self-punishment, self-destruction and guilt are perfect.
(Part II)
ReplyDeleteThe Big Shave- 9 out of 10. This short is close to perfection and will set the tone for the darker side of Scorcese- self-destruction, torture, pain as virtue and an essential part to masculinty. In just five minutes, Scorcese sets the tone with music, a montage of shots with the bathroom instruments and then the subject. His goal? Complete his shave in order to have a more clean-cut appearance - an essential part of manhood. You may cut yourself and bleed but it will be worth it. Being a man come with responsibility and pain. The twist is that this shave is actually cutting too deeply which may or may not have killed the subject. Each shot of the razor cutting deeper and deeper is psychological torture.
"It's Not Just You, Murray"- 8 out of 10. This picture explores Scorcese's humor side and how he displays just how talented of a storyteller he his by gradually giving the audience more and more information about Murray and his complicated relationship with his best friend and partner/user Joe. Turns out that Joe has been using Murray as figure for his criminal enterprise as he stays out of jail, bangs his wife and ultimately the father of his kids. Murray at the end of film realizes that he is cuck and that all of his success has been a joke. Murray only reacts by repressing his anger (advice that his buddy Joe had given him at the beginning of the film) and accepting the fact that he has become a cuckhold. In Murray's accepted/confused state, he convinces himself that he is happy and that he is a good person. The hard question that the film asks is "What's the point of being successful, if your personally dignity is sacrificed?"
Who's That Knocking At My Door? isn't Citizen Kane, but Martin Scorsese's feature film debut certainly shares Orson Welles' cinematic ambition. A wonderful blend of French New Wave aesthetics, European sensibility and a unique sense of autobiographical input makes for a promising start to an even more promising career. His short films, It’s Not Just You, Murray! and The Big Shave share that ambition as well, you can understand after watching these films that Scorsese is someone who not only has an understanding and appreciation for the medium, but a complete mastery of it.
ReplyDeleteThe story of an Italian street youth named J.R (Harvey Keitel) as he aimlessly shuffles about with his delinquent friends, American ragazzi evoking Pasolini’s Accattone, through the streets of 1960’s New York. To the average moviegoer, who is perhaps unaware of Scorsese’s self-reflexive aesthetic, Whose That may seem rather amateurish. This is not the case at all. As Roger Ebert noted in his initial 1969 review of the film, “This is essentially a directors film,” for reasons both applying director to both the feature and Scorsese himself. Scorsese was well aware and still is very much aware of what he puts into his films. Why else would one include a random ellipses of soft core porn to the tune of The Doors? Merely too homage Fellini’s 8 1/2 or Bergman’s Persona? Absolutely not; each scene, every frame is a calculated decision.
But perhaps the film is dubbed a directors film for another reason, acting as an amalgamation of all of Scorsese’s beloved directors and films into one final product; just as Welles had done with his debut. The directorial influences in Whose That are too numerous to count, perhaps even subject to it’s own essay, but read out like a whose who of art house cinema: Jean Vigo, Orson Welles, Sergei Eisenstein, Roberto Rossellini, Ingmar Bergman, Akira Kurosawa, etc. But unarguably the director whose impact had the largest affect of not only this feature, but on Scorsese’s entire aesthetic as a director is Jean-Luc Godard.
Acting as an almost American contrast to Masculin Féminin, Godard’s film that was released the year prior also dealing with disillusioned youth, with Keitel a contrast to France’s own Jean-Pierre Leaud; the film owes its existence to the Franco-Swiss auteur. From the back of the head POV shot of Keitel walking through the apartment innovated in Vivre sa vie, to youthful anarchy of J.R. and his friends reminiscent of Jean-Paul Belmondo’s carefree attitude in Breathless; those and much more are testament to the influence of one director on another.
It is easy to see the connection between Scorsese's films, Who's That knocking At My Door, It's not just you, Murray, and The Big Shave. For example, in all these films Scorsese is notorious for using music to characterize a scene without the use of dialogue. It is something very hard for a director to pull off, but Scorsese masters it well.
ReplyDeleteThere's a scene in Who's That Knocking At My Door where Harvey Keitel and his buddies roughhouse over a gun with some groovy, popular music playing in the background. This seen had no dialogue, but spoke a lot with the men's physicality. In other words, it was clear to understand the character's personality with their movements towards the weapon.
Additionally, there's a scene in It's Not Just You, Murray where Murray drives around in a car with music playing in the background and jump cuts are revealed throughout the scene. Also, it is clear that Scorsese is influenced by French New wave and Film Noir since most of Godard film were a critique on it.
The Big Shave is also entails what I have talked about above ans is one of my favorite short films of all time in so many ways.
Basically, the film takes place in a bathroom and follows a young man shaving his perfect, hairless face, which eventually leads to the man being covered in blood because he cuts himself. It is very interesting because during the whole time as the man shaves himself, he emotionally does not change in facial expression. In other words, he reveals a neutrality type of look to the world conveying perhaps a robotic type structure without any emotion.
A very key thing to note about this short film is that Martin Scorsese shot this at the peak of the Vietnam War so this film represents a personal statement against the war. In other words, people watching it now will not be as strongly affected by it as audience members viewing it at the time of its prevalence. Even though this film is not the typical Hollywood blockbuster, I appreciate the different elements it uses instead of dialogue to implement a change in character. For example, this film visually conveys change by revealing a clean cut, handsome man turn into something bloody and imperfect by shaving facial hair that is not present. This is done beautifully because audience members are introduced to a clean-cut guy in many different angled close ups and are revealed the same character with imperfections. And in doing so, this character change is executed with more close ups on the main characters bloody face.
I couldn't agree with a few point from the article by Roger Ebert . For instance, Roger said he doesn't like the rape scene and the boy visits the church. For me, this two scenes are the best part. The way he make this two scenes is very radical and pioneering. Later, many directors learn from him that they put melody in violence scene. It becomes a trend or homage to Martin.
ReplyDeleteMartin made this story based on his life in little Italy in NY. This film also setup a model for his feature work, such as Mean street, Goodfellow, etc. In his feature gangs film, there always a bar for those guys to hang out. Most of their conversation happened in bar in his gangs film. Bar is important element in films.
He put lots of music in this film. He mentioned that he could hear any music in the neighborhood at any time in his book. Also he is big fan of pop music, though his mentor told him to listen Beethoven. I can see he is really fond of music and like to put them into his film.
Love between man and woman never take too much weight in Martin's film. I think this one take the most than the other of his films. Martin puts his personal experience about religion and love into this film, He falls in love with someone when he was in the church school where he wants to become a priest. But he was afraid, the pressure from his religion was reflection by this film. Why he take the religion so serious is just because in his neighborhood, the priest is most powerful man, all the gangster respect him.
This film is most closed to Martin's personal life experience, and more authentic. This is where Martin comes from.
In Martin's early work, he doesn't know how to direct actors. His 'It's not just you, Murray' has no dialogue but Voice over and narration. But still it has strong Martin's style, Mother, gangs, illegal business, violence, this are important elements in his film. The Big Shave is pretty bold and experimental work. Martin was pursuing artistic style in his early work and he did it. Later he has to compromised with industry, so he still keeps some of the elements that he believes the public will love it and strength them.
DeleteA huge cinematic element in The Big Shave was when the young man cut his face with the razor and blood started pouring down his face going everywhere. That part felt to me like it was the climax and cinematically proved it by visually showing us the huge change. I believe that Marin Scorsese wanted to make a personal observation on the war. I felt like the shaving cream represents the politics of America, the man is America, and the razor is the military wit the American politics. The protagonist shaves, but the blood represents the overall result of the situation. In other words, over and over the young man shaves the same spot and over and over it is the same result. This visual of the main character cutting his face over and over conveys that nothing clean is the result and it is costly. Additionally, the film explores how America tried to correct the values of the Vietnamese when in actuality the country does not need to be corrected at all. In comparison to the man shaving his face, the clean-cut face can also represent Vietnam, which means it is perfect just the way it is and the razor represents America trying to fix something that is already fixed. I believe that the theme Martin Scorsese was exploring is something along the lines as don’t interfere with anything without understanding it or beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To clarify, I believe this film was bashing generally how people view things in a one sided nature and what is socially correct in our culture does not mean it is the way people live their lives in another culture. A major motif in this short film was the sink because Martin Scorsese kept visually alluding to it. Also, water dropped from the sink that in a way foreshadowed something bigger was going to happen and alludes to something that’s not in a comfortable place or wants to escape.
ReplyDeleteWho's That Knocking at My Door? A couple of young goodfellas. One thing that keeps me invested in this particular film of his is the simpleness of the characters. They're punks, they're the norm of the city life as, and in a sense they are goodfellas. Youths in their prime running a section of the city almost like Michael growing up in goodfellas. Besides it being about an everyday story of youth in the city, but it also references things in the real world. He references The Searchers by John Ford, further deepening the illusion of their world being a part of ours. Other then that the dialogue to me was also very enjoyable, going on nothing other then my father grew up during those times and sounds exactly the same. Going into the actually film making he used there were definitely a few things to note. For one the motion of people walking, or a car driving by, would affect the camera movement. Keeping the visuals flowing, and the viewer following along. Also, one trait I see in a lot of his films the raw use of music, or sound. For example in the car scene J.R. is arguing with Joey, I believe, about wanting to go do something else other then drive. The louder Joey cranked up the radio, the louder and more intense the argument got. Music, as well as the use of sound payed a role. In the party scene where the gang gets together, with some other members, there is no dialogue only music, but the song of choice continues the scene regardless. The scene intensifies when one character pulls to a gun and starts waving it around, but the music stays the same keeping the view in that same sort of presence even before the gun was pulled out. Another great use of music was in the rape flashback, as the struggle got more intense, the music would start to over lap and become hectic as if it was J.R.'s love interest herself. Overall having not seen this movie I had a great time seeing it and look forward to rewatching it.
ReplyDelete"A couple of young goodfellas", I see what you did there...
DeleteAlthough I did like Scorsese's first feature film, "Who's That Knocking At My Door?", I personally felt that it lacked plot and character development to accurately facilitate the story. To be honest, I had a difficult time understand the plot. However, with that being said, I believe this film has given me immense insight to Scorsese's evolution as a filmmaker. I have noticed there were many prevalent themes in this film that would eventually become a staple in many of Scorsese's films. "Who's That Knocking At My Door" is the film that put Scorsese on the map, in terms of telling stories that center on the objectification of women, working class, Italian families, and women being subservient to men. As a result of these themes, the film was a fascinating and intriguing film to watch. It covered topics that were considered controversially risqué and taboo at this time, including rape, opposing societal backgrounds, vigilantism, and the sexual awakening of the protagonist, played by a young and widely unknown Harvey Keitel, in one of his first signature roles, as J.R. I personally believed this film was instrumental in the culmination of the sexual revolution. I noticed throughout the narrative of the film, that the themes of misogyny and identity are two overwhelming themes that cohesively helped carry the story. I feel, that with this film, we still find characteristics in these characters that are still relevant today in contemporary America.
ReplyDeleteWhenever J.R. or another male character would call their women "broads" or "whores", it established how they had interpreted women's roles in society. I noticed that they made a distinction between "nice girls" and "broads". Nice girls were sweet, virginal girls who did not try to manipulate or deceive the men they were with. Broads were considered to be women who did deceive the men they were with by playing hard to get and toying with their emotions. They were also considered to be women who fully embraced their sexuality, by overpowering them with their sultriness and sex appeal. Ultimately, this branded them as so called "whores" because it gave them the reputation of being sexually promiscuous and provocative. So, I am basically trying to say this film displayed a substantial amount of sexism and misogyny towards women and their roles in society, and how men seemed to view them. Overall, because of the misogynistic and overwhelmingly sexist views that males in this era were conditioned to have on women, that it would ultimately be inconceivable and unheard of at this time period, for a man to realize that these women, who may their live their lives in the fast lane, are simply acting the same way men act sexually. However, back then, if a woman were to act the same way as a man sexually, they were automatically stigmatized as "whores" and "prostitutes". This was before the Women's Liberation movement of the '70s where it was unheard of for women to feel the same sexual liberation that men felt. J.R. was from a generation where women were seen as housewives who took care of the house and kids. So, therefore, it was hard for him to reconcile that his girlfriend, who was a virgin, had been raped. Because of the morals that he had been conditioned to believe during his upbringing on women's societal roles, and what he had been brainwashed to believe during his childhood, he did not know how to handle her revelation. Therefore, J.R.'s ignorant perceptions on women and their roles in society were a result of his sexist, Italian upbringing.
I thoroughly enjoyed 'Who's That Knocking'. This is thematic inception of Scorsese's catholic morality conflict, wherein lifestyles and decisions impede on a character's religious conscience. This conflict has been explored in many of his films -- with issues of violence ("Mean Streets", "The Departed", "Raging Bull"), devotion and apostasy ("The Last Temptation of the Christ", "Kundun", "Silence"). In Who's That Knocking the conflict is rooted in JR's (Harvey Keitel) sexual liberation - we witness in loosely structured vignettes JR falling in love with Girl, who makes him feel at peace with his trajectory as a young religious man - get a job, meet a virgin, get married and raise a family. But when JR learns Girl has been raped, he vilifies her and wreaks self-destruction. Scorsese starts his career as unfettered as it is today; the film makes no attempts to actively empathize with JR, who rejects the love of his life for being raped in the past whilst engaging himself in adultering behavior. The film does not condemn JR either, it simply allows the character to exist with his own flawed choices. JR chooses his devotion to the church over his "broad", who he sees as impure. But he decides his love for Girl (Zina Bethune) is just as integral to his well-being as the church. He assumes he can have both, and tells Girl she can be a part of his life, that she is forgiven for what SHE did. She rejects him for his lack of understanding, if he cannot accept what happened to her then they cannot have a pure, healthy relationship. And so, JR returns to the church, "pure" by his own definitions but broken-hearted, devoting himself to the very institution whose beliefs propagated his destructive attitude towards purity in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIt was awesome to see Scorsese's stylistic verve on display in 'Who's That Knocking' as well as 'The Big Shave' and 'It's Not Just You, Murray!'. ‘Knocking’ uses a lot of elements seen in later Scorsese films. He shoots a lot of his bar entrances in now-trademark slow mo (34fps?). The film’s cutting is erratic and abstract in homage to many french new wave pictures. His use of music is hypnotic and often counter-intuitive to the direct emotional language of the given scene. For instance, the sequence in which Girl confesses to JR about being raped, the song The Plea by The Chantels plays as we slowly see this as a nightmare becoming reality for JR, even though the pain is being reflected directly on Girl.
Ditto, the music is for The Big Shave creates a completely bizarre experience. We’re watching a man happily (or is he just unaware?) slash his throat open with a razor while a jazzy Sinatra style song plays in the background. The Big Shave is a blackly comic political film - highlighting the general mock-up created by the US Government after they claimed their intervention with vietnam would soon be over — and then it just kept happening. Americans were lied to, and they saw it blatantly - in news coverage and in the body bags returning home. Though I must admit, had I not known the context of the movie beforehand, I would never have understood the political subtext of the film. It would’ve been a righteous viewing experience nonetheless, but probably far less rewarding. Is there any subtext on screen that I’m missing that would alert anybody that they’re specifically watching a Vietnam war takedown?
-- Nat Alder
I’m not sure what I was expecting from Scorsese’s first feature, I suppose I was ready to recognize aspects of Scorsese’s style that I was familiar with. At some points I did, with the setting, characters, and conflicts all feeling reminiscent of other Scorsese films I have seen (which is relatively few, actually). His obsession with New York, gangs, the church, violence, music, and blonde women are all prominently on display in Who’s That Knocking at My Door?
ReplyDeleteHowever, throughout the film, I never really felt like I was watching a Scorsese movie. The visual style is so immensely different from what I know of his work. During the reading, I learned that not one cut of this film was matched, which is really interesting. I feel like that was just Scorsese trying something out that was very fitting for the time period. It’s clear how much French New Wave influenced this film. But unlike French New Wave, this editing technique didn’t leave me rolling my eyes.
What did leave me rolling my eyes was the characterization of The Girl and how her character was handled. Yes, within the context of the times, I guess her rejection of him at the end and her desire for sex is somewhat “progressive”. But God, she didn’t even get a name. She just sort of existed as a device for JR to realize he’s sort of a hypocritical dick. Which is all fine and well, but that leaves no room for her to be her own person. I couldn’t tell you one thing about her personal life that didn’t have to do with JR. Is she a student? A waitress? A human being? Aside from the mother, every other female role is either a naked woman, or “broads” who are terrorized and condescended to for fun by JR and his buds.
So, I’m really interested to see where Scorsese goes with women from here. I don’t think he’s sexist or doing any of this on purpose, but as one of five women in this class, I am going to be keeping tabs because I think it’s crucial to understanding his view as a director.
I loved the visual style of WTKAMD and of his two shorts, especially The Big Shave. The use of color and the editing in that film was so exciting, which I definitely was not what I was expecting from a five minute short with no dialogue about grooming.
It’s Not Just You, Murray! feels much more like Scorsese as we know him today. Long shots, lots of fourth wall breaking, and a closer look at the lives of criminals. Despite that, it still wasn’t as interesting to me as The Big Shave was. I want to know more about that Scorsese, I liked seeing him do something surprising and weird.
Who’s That Knocking on My Door? was quite the introductory film from Martin Scorsese. The film had all of the ingredients of his calling card like characters that were hard to like, multiple storylines taking place at once, the inclusion of long, unbroken takes, violence, and seemingly pointless scenes about nothing (more on that later). It’s Not Just You, Murray! was basically the abridged version of Goodfellas that told a quirky story about an otherwise unredeemable character, Murray, who is a successful man through means of illegal doings. His story is full of cheap thrills and shallow character traits that become a parody of people esteem, much like most of Scorsese’s newer work, in particular The Wolf of Wall Street. Finally, The Big Shave was just plain weird. I had to scrub through the ending since I do not do well with blood, especially when it comes to a man just cutting himself like a psychopath and not feeling a thing. I did not understand this short and honestly, I do not care to. I am sure there is some meaning to it but, on the surface, I did not get it and was not able to stomach the visuals to digest the subliminal. It seemed pointless.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of pointless, there were many scenes in Who’s That Knocking on My Door? which I found had no basis to serve the story or plot. The first, obviously, would be the sexual scene on Dames. We had discussed this in class, about how this scene was required to show it in a venue and was shot well after the film was finished with post production. It is a funny story no question, but the fact that this scene can be placed in the middle of a story by a director and expect audiences not to check out after seems like a slap in the face. As a movie-goer, I expect the storyteller to care about each scene that is placed in the film and fight for each scene because it serves a bigger purpose. That scene served no purpose to the story and the young Scorsese definitely made a misstep, as far as I am concerned. Another scene I found pointless, yet entertaining, was when (I think) Gaga stole money out of his girlfriend’s purse. It was a good scene to illustrate who this character is, but Gaga’s roll in the film is not essential to the story whatsoever, so to devote a scene to his character that really fleshes his character out for no payoff later is just pointless to me.
In short, we talked about this in class, but this film needed a vastly more robust story for it to be memorable for me. Thinking back on it, I recall a collection of scenes that was like a “slice of life” concept, yet I never had the feeling of knowing when or who these characters were. By the end, I did not care and was happy I did not have to hangout with these people anymore. So, no, I do not think I would agree with Roger Ebert’s review of this film.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis was my first time watching Who’s Knock at My Door, It was an oddly paced film with very little narrative. The main plotline between J.R. and the girl had very little story to it, jumping around from moment to moment, the same goes with the subplot of J.R. and his friends. It feels intentional, as if we are supposed to get a little window into their lives. It also feels a little unpolished, when the film cuts to a different angle, scenes seem to repeat, it could be Scorsese trying to be experimental, but it could also be that he couldn’t find a good transitional moment.
ReplyDeleteI find that his usage of music in the movie to be an interesting choice. For example in the scene when the girl begins to tell J.R. she was once raped, the music in the flashback begins to drown everything else out, and started to play over itself. I believe we are viewing this moment from J.R.’s perspective as he tries to comprehend what she trying to say, which results in him saying “I can’t understand…” The scene then moves on to J.R. and his buddies getting drunk and laughing, with flashbacks to the rape scene. Along with a song, that has the lyrics “don’t you want to love me too” at this point I believe that J.R. has completely dismissed her story. Instead of directly telling us, Scorsese appears to use music as a way to deliver storylines to the audience.
Religion also plays a strong part in this movie and many of his other films. J.R. is an Irish Catholic, but he doesn’t seem to really seem practice it. His house is filled with crosses and other religious objects, but when we get a close up of what I believe to be a statue of the Virgin Mary and the baby Jesus, it appears to have cobwebs on it. Early on in the film it implies that his mother gave it to him, he seems to care enough to keep it around for his mother, but not enough to clean it. Also his last scene with the girl, him forgiving her, as if he is trying to take the weight of what he believes to be her catholic guilt.
What I found most fascinating about Who’s That Knocking at My Door, was how much of the typical Scorsese “tropes” were present in his very first feature. The first five minutes alone has uncomfortable family moments, religious iconography, street violence and shots from a top-down view. For the film as a whole, I thought it was an okay Scorsese flick. I fully agree with Roger Ebert’s view of the film. It definitely feels like a first attempt from an up and coming director. It was very clear that Scorsese was experimenting with themes and topics that he has been questioning for quite a while; perhaps the majority of his adult life.
ReplyDeleteIt feels like Scorsese learned early on that you should write about what you know. For Scorsese, he seems to know about growing up in New York, struggles with religion and faith, and sexuality. His use of music in the film was also something I took note of. Scorsese’s knowledge of music is really incredible. He has an uncanny ability to know the right song to place and, even if the song has lyrics, it never feels like a music video. For example, In the slow motion sequence where they gang is playing around with guns, the rock music playing over the visual feels like it is serving the visual and not the other way around.
As for the two shorts, they pointed out something a little different. They both kind of show how much Scorsese has been influenced by older films and popular culture. It’s Not Just You, Murray had the feel of a classic slapstick comedy mixed with his iconic casual manner of telling a story. The production design, specifically the large amount of bottles simply labeled “Gin”, really felt like an old movie to me. But the camera work felt fairly recent for the time. It’s Not Just You, Murray has a documentary style of camera work that really made me realize that Scorsese’s documentary roots weren’t just something developed recently. The Big Shave, on the other hand, really looked like a vintage commercial for a razor. Right before he started bleeding, I really felt the main character was about to look into the camera and plug the brand of the razor. This isn’t a bad thing at all. In fact, it makes what happens afterwards darkly comedic. It may sound weird, but I would classify both of these shorts as comedies.
Going back to an earlier point, the thing that unifies all of these earlier works and connects them to any future project is that Scorsese writes about what he knows. While these three examples, compared to his recent films, may be different in terms of cinematic feel and gravitate towards the older, static approach to filmmaking. The themes of family, violence, sexuality, and religion have always been and probably will always be present in his projects.
Despite the sometimes confusing structure of the film, I really liked the stream of consciousness aspects that the narrative had and how the piece flowed between different periods of time. Something about the film seemed incredibly personal, as if Scorsese was giving us am inside look on what it was like to be young and Italian and in 1960s New York . I was also surprised with where the narrative of the story went considering the time period; I don’t know of too many directors then who addressed rape so bluntly like it is in this film. Its one of the scene’s that really stuck with me for obvious reasons, especially when its after he knows and he’s experiencing these unwanted flashbacks to it as he tries to go about his day. The small shot where her nylon’s are ripping really stuck out to me too, that moment is just incredibly unnerving and powerful. Though I wasn’t as much of a fan of the movie as Ebert was, I did agree with the majority of his points, especially the one where he discussed the issues with the montage of the prostitutes that Scorsese had later added in.
ReplyDeleteIt’s Not Just You, Murray reminded me a lot of Goodfellas, especially in the beginning where he’s going over how expensive his wardrobe and belongings are, just like how Goodfellas began with Henry idolizing the lifestyle of the Italian Mafia on his street. Both films also utilize the voice over device to help tell the story, which I think functions well for both pieces. I think Its Not Just You, Murray gave a great preview into the style and content that Scorsese’s work would embody.
The Big Shave was definitely my favorite of the two shorts. I loved the juxtaposition of the beautiful jazz in the background as the young man continues to mutilate his face, and the contrast between the bright, red blood and the crisp white set helped elevate the tension in the scene. I think this short showed that Scorsese wasn’t going to shy away from gore and the more darker elements of filmmaking.
Scorsese’s first film Who’s that Knocking at my Door? felt raw in more positive ways than negative. The film’s setting, and characters would foreshadow most of his career. It was older and cheaper than any Scorsese film I’d seen before, and I think some good things came from that. The handheld style combined with good acting created a documentary feel, forcing me to think about how he shot it, and whether the actors were acting. Specifically the scene where the “broads” are over. There’s a long take where one of the girls is surprised by something. Her reaction is so convincing, it looks to me like they captured a candid moment. That’s something I love in film.
ReplyDeleteIn this early film, I noticed that he really took his time with scenes. The up close kissing sequence cuts between their faces and skin in an abstract way. It all blends together. The rape scene is hard to watch but that’s just a reason for him to make to longer. He pushed these scenes until we feel what he intended us to feel. I think that this quality is something that he lost as he started making longer, bigger budget movies.
I have to side with Ebert and say that the structure didn’t quite work for me. Usually I don’t mind an unconventional structure, but I don’t understand why he went between the girl/JR, and JR and his friends in the way that he did. Particularly at the beginning when it cuts to JR and the girl at the ferry. It made it time seem blended and hard to follow, and I didn’t see the reason. The dream sequences made sense to me, but they didn’t help the problem with time.
I think that the way he portrayed gender was the strongest aspect of this film. Ebert questions whether the girl was actually raped, but I thought we were shown the rape scene to empathize with her, and despise JR for his reaction. That’s how I perceived it in 2017. JR expected certain things out of his girlfriend and purity was one of them. In the end when he tells her that he forgives her and she makes him leave, she is the stronger character, standing up for being mistreated. The themes, characters and style of Who’s that Knocking at my Door? were a mere taste of Scorsese’s career. I’m surprised that Rodger Ebert was able to sniff it out.
It’s Not Just You, Murray!: This movie definitely feels like a Scorsese movie. For me a lot of this is more thematic than visual or aesthetic. What he does better than just about anybody is movies that take the wind out of the sails of American dream. That is exactly what It’s Not Just You does. We spend 15 minutes learning about a guy who is the textbook definition of success in America. He wears 20 dollar ties, 50 dollar shoes, and 200 dollar suits. He drives a Cadillac and has a young blonde wife. Why? Because he can dammit. And that’s all the justification he needs.
ReplyDeleteIronically all of his gains are ill gotten. He is one of the ultimate breeds of capitalist. A gangster, a mobster, a wise guy. His portfolio of “things influenced by us” includes but is not limited to politics, undertakers, sports, and private grants in foreign aid *cough gun running cough*. Despite having seemingly done well for himself Murray is still kind of a sucker. His buddy Joe, who he has seen as a friend and mentor, has been the source of multiple “misunderstandings.” If you can call being tossed to the cops and somebody bangin’ your wife “misunderstandings.”
The Big Shave really didn’t strike me as particularly Scorsese ish aside from the use of music that contradicts what we see on screen. It is very much an experimental piece. It didn’t make much sense to me until I read more about it online. Apparently the alternate title was Viet ’67. In that light it takes on a greater meaning and makes more sense. We already see Scorsese’s awareness of cinema and his “stealing.” The blood going down the drain of the sink is a not so subtle homage to Psycho.
Who’s That Knocking at My Door: I think in this film we see a fairly fleshed out sense of cinematic direction both thematically and visually. There are bits of cinematic thievery abound, most notably the unanchored, handheld camera and jump cuts. The French new wave directors made heavy use of both techniques and they bled into cinema throughout the 60s. These techniques (particularly the fluid camera) are used heavily by Scorsese to this day.
Scorsese is undoubtedly a technically brilliant filmmaker. I do my best to pay attention to things like technique whenever I’m watching films, but am inevitably drawn more to theme. This is the thing about his films that I appreciate the most. In Who’s That Knocking we see a rather in depth exploration and deconstruction of masculinity, faith, and popular culture.
Harvey Keitel’s character is both hyper masculine and at the same time not. He is always hanging out with “the guys,” drinking, smoking, and reading Playboy. There is an entire 4 or 5 minute sequence dedicated to his sexual fantasies. But he doesn’t act on these desires when the opportunity arises (the reason being his dedication to his Catholic faith).
This is the result of another interesting paradox. He doesn’t have sex with “the girl” because it isn’t the good Catholic thing to do. At the same time, he hangs out with what appear to be low-level mob types.
Popular culture, particularly cinema, is also elevated to a sort of religious level. JR quotes movies like some people like some people quote scripture. He treats films with a sort of reverence. When discussing movies with Zina Bethune’s character he says “Aren’t you ashamed to have never seen a John Wayne picture?” In the same way it is imperative to go to confession and receive communion as a Catholic it is imperative as an American to watch and enjoy the films of The Duke.
Of these three films I definitely enjoyed Who’s That Knocking at My Door the most. The feature length format allows him to explore more completely themes he was only able to scratch the surface of in Murray! It is also a very honest movie. From the beginning he was dedicated to making movies about the way things are and sort of calling to attention some of the flaws of how society operates.
I really enjoyed watching Who's That Knocking at My Door? mostly because it surprised me. I've always been sort of on the fence about whether or not I like Martin Scorsese as an artist, or simply as a director that makes some movies that interest me. I'm still not entirely decided, but after seeing his first feature that he took on at age twenty-five it has forced me as an aspiring student filmmaker to see his body of work in a different light. Now that I've seen some of his first filmmaking milestones, including his two shorts, It's Not Just You, Murray?, and The Big Shave, I've managed to witness a side of Scorsese that was previously unknown to me up until this point. His eye for precise composition is very much present in Who's That Knocking at My Door?, but still with the somewhat shaky hand of an unseasoned amateur. With all of this considered the film still feels like Scorsese to me; even though the look of the film isn't all that awe-inspiring it still maintains promise while echoing the style he would forge in the years to come. This is where I would have to agree a little with Roger Ebert's review because I think it is a bit undeniable that Scorsese had achieved in making an artistic, contemporary film while also showcasing an eye and appreciation for classic cinema.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite scenes in the film was when J.R. tells "the Girl" that he feels pressured into waiting to have sex with her because of his religion. Up until that point they are shot in a closeup getting very intimate with each other, when I noticed a very unique choice for the sound design. Rather than heightening the sense of intimacy by dampening the sound mix to help get the audience deeper into feeling the characters' affection for one another, you hear children screaming and playing outside, alongside traffic noise and other distracting noise pollution. It felt quite magical and almost stressful to have to strain through these distractions, and try to feel the loving connection firsthand. While the scene neglects to guide our emotions through sound design, music, etc. it manages to steep itself in the real world for a moment to focus on people and not just a young romance, or a boy, or a girl, or a "broad" in terms of a story; but rather a feeling or a sense of connection. It seemed like an extraordinarily interesting way for Scorsese to evoke empathy for J.R. in a way similar to how J.R. must have mostly felt during that scene.
The Big Shave was very reminiscent of Scorsese's acquired taste for movie violence that is so evident in his more popular films, especially the ones involving gangsters. Something he probably picked up from watching so many older films while growing up and while studying film in school. Apparently a lot of older films about gangsters which I'm sure involved a good amount of violence. He never shies away from using a lot of blood or showing overt violence when it is called for, which I can usually appreciate when done tastefully. I can honestly say that he has made me wince at least once or twice with some of his more violent scenarios. From the overall happy tone of what first seemed like a television commercial for shaving cream, or a set of new disposable razors. I had a feeling that it was eventually going to go south, but I wasn't entirely sure how and this fascinated me for the first couple of minutes. I was really impressed with how he managed to build up my expectations for something bad to happen even when everything was going so well. At the first sight of blood I had almost reversed my assumptions due to the smooth, even pacing of the editing, but was not disappointed with the level of gore.
ReplyDelete