Martin Scorsese’s encyclopedic knowledge of - and undying love for – cinema is formidable and inspiring. To know and appreciate this auteur is to study and understand his passion and admiration for the many filmmakers who’ve had such an incredible impact on his own aesthetic.
I began our first class by showing a clip from A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies (1995), a 225-minute documentary in which Scorsese examines a selection of his favorite American films grouped according to four different types of directors: the director as storyteller; the director as an illusionist; the director as a smuggler; and the director as an iconoclast.
Inspired by this documentary, and based on the 85 films Martin Scorsese said "you need to see to know anything about film" during an interview, Flavorwire put together an amazing video essay of clips and stills from the “Scorsese 85,” using his own words when possible (from A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies and another great documentary celebrating his love of movies, My Voyage to Italy).
You can read this article highlighting the "Scorsese 85" first if you'd like, but your super-sized spring break blog post this week involves you watching "The Martin Scorsese Film School" video essay, choosing one of the films he references that you haven't seen before to screen, and then screening it.
Once you've watched the essay and screened one of the 85 films Scorsese mentioned, please post a response here that includes the following information:
- The title of the film you chose to screen
- Why you chose it
- What you thought of it
- Why you think Scorsese thinks you needed to see it
- And most importantly, how you think your chosen film/director does and/or doesn't relate to and inform Scorsese's work. Please be sure to highlight one film of Scorsese's we've seen to support your answer here.
Have a fun break, and please be sure to post your thoughtful, thorough response here by no later than midnight on Monday, March 27!
The film I chose to watch over break was Shadows by John Cassavetes, and I chose this film for a few reasons. The first was that Scorsese always talks about how inspired he is by Cassavetes’ work; how he was a role model who sort of created the independent directors’ blueprints, which Scorsese utilized to make films of his own. I figured that there would be some strong correlation between the work that Cassavetes produced and the films Scorsese created when he started out as a director. The second reason I chose this film was because it dealt with the issue of interracial dating, and since it’s such a hot topic in the world we live in today, I figured that it would be interesting to see how it was portrayed in the late 50’ when it also started to become a hot topic. The last reason I chose this film was because it wasn’t a film that I wouldn’t typically watch, and I wanted to step outside of my comfort zone to broaden my horizon.
ReplyDeleteI thought the film was very entertaining. It gave the viewer a nice slice of life from the late 50’s in terms of how things were in a biracial household, in terms of how things worked or didn’t work in an interracial relationship, and in the way entertained themselves. The film dealt with themes of courtship, existentialism, race relations, brotherhood, and feminism. I also thought Shadows masterfully exemplified the way that one can utilize more than one narrative in a film. Cassavetes chronicled several separate storylines while effectively finding a way to tie them all into each other so that the viewer could walk away with a well-rounded experience which spoke on many different levels. The film lives after it goes off and its characters resonate in a compelling and alluring fashion, that makes you want to live with them even more as it ends. The film immerses you into the atmosphere and you feel like you are a part of the narratives as they unfold.
I think that Scorsese believes that we needed to see the film for a few reason reasons. Most importantly, I think it because this film deals with more than one narrative. There is the narrative that displays the relationship and breakup between Leila and Tony. There is the story that covers the path that Hugh and Rupert must take as a struggling singer and manager attempting to make their big break and become show businesses’ next stars. There is the storyline that follows the bad boy Ben and his friends as he struggles with identity in a very existential manner. There is the tale, which promotes the idea of womanhood when Leila separates from Tony and asserts herself in strong a feministic manner. And finally, there is a storyline that shows how family sticks together during a conflict. I think all those storylines culminate into a rich experience that showcases how you bring people's mundane existence to life on the big screen in a very empathetic way that the audience connects with.
The narratives show how there are many layers to life, and it explains how one person’s problem or conflict can affect another person’s life dramatically. It illustrates how life isn’t black and white, but that it is in fact extremely gray. I think this film is important because you literally shadow these people as the title indicates, and you become one with all the characters in the way Cassavetes throws you into the gauntlet. As Scorsese states in the video essay, “The emotions are up front.” Cassavetes shows you how to focus on the people who are the spines of the stories that we as filmmakers bring to life. He goes on to say that “relationships were all that he[Cassavetes] was interested in; the laughter and the games, the tears and the guilt, and the whole rollercoaster of love. I think Shadows covers every one of these aspects in a compelling fashion.
ReplyDeleteThis film reminded me of two films that we have seen in class this semester. Shadows made me think first about Who’s That Knocking at My Door because they were both character studies. They both gave us the raw emotions of characters while highlighting human connections. They both illustrated how complicated relationships can be, because of circumstances and events, which can force things to quickly evolve, but also as a result of different outlooks on the world that naturally cause people to be less compatible and accepting of their counterparts. I think Scorsese learned how to make his character relatable, real, and interesting by analyzing Cassavetes. My take away is if you learn to focus on character emotions and find ways to bring them to the forefront of your narrative using your aesthetical tools, then your film will practically write itself.
This second film Shadows reminded me of was Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore. It reminded me of this film for some of the same reasons mentioned above along the lines of emotion. However, more importantly, is the way they both deal with the female character. Alice seems stronger then Leila without a question, but the similarity is in how society throws shit at both women, and then expects them to smile and be happy in the face of adversity. Interestingly, they both come out of their hardships with an assertive mentality that is emasculating to the men that compete for their love after they have been wronged. Both movies have a very feminist outlook that promotes gender equality; Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore does so more than Shadows without a doubt, but I think that’s a result of the times when each film was made. Be that as it may, I think that Scorsese recognized the formula laid out by John Cassavetes and he applied it to his movies. Emotions matter and they are an essential piece to the puzzle when making a film if you want your characters to resonate with your audience, which then compels the audience to connect with your story.
I chose to screen Vincente Minnelli’s The Band Wagon (1953) for many reasons. I had never seen this film but I was immediately attracted to the short clip shown in Flavorwire’s video essay. I also wanted to see why Scorsese calls this his favorite Minnelli musical and in what ways it inspires his work. I grew up watching 1950s Hollywood musicals, so to some extent, I knew what I was in for. However, Minnelli incorporated musical numbers along with other stylistic elements which incorporates a larger audience. The Band Wagon tells the story of Tony Hunter, a dated film star, who travels to New York in hopes of staring in a Broadway musical written by his friends. A dramatic actor is set to direct the musical which fails after the story is rewritten and no longer resembles the original idea. The cast eventually comes together and creates a successful production. While the narrative is very basic, I found the underlying conversations interesting. The progression from silent films to “talkies”, and even black-and-white to Technicolor, left many actors wondering where they fell in the new industry. The film also represents ageism where an actor must fight for his career and is forced to collaborate with a new ballerina. Like I previously wrote, what struck me initially were the visual, colorful sets. The Band Wagon uses the musical numbers as candid moments between characters and scenes from the show they are creating. Each set, especially the final “Girl Hunt Ballet” number, is overly stylized with color.
ReplyDeleteScorsese spoke about Minnelli’s The Band Wagon and expressed interest with the combination of Faust and a light-hearted comedic musical. He also notes his interest with the overlapping of art and reality, which I believe is a common trait seen in Scorsese’s filmography. Fred Astaire’s career was not anywhere near over when The Band Wagon was released, he was 54 at the time and his career was 20 years deep. He was commonly seen in black-and-white films, so the transformation to Technicolor must have been a conversation regarding his future. We see the struggle of a person and their career in Raging Bull. I think the film also inspires his attraction to color. Favoring filming on New York streets, Scorsese also experiments with stages such as Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore. The opening artificial set represents the “rose-toned” life Alice grew up in. I think that interest could have been inspired by the sets seen in The Band Wagon and those similar. Musically, New York, New York is most related to Minnelli’s film. Francine Evan’s singing performances were organized and directed that is similar to a theater performance or a film about a theater performance.
I chose to screen Michael Powell's "Peeping Tom" because of the strong statement Scorsese linked to the film. Martin Scorsese once stated this, "I have always felt that "8 1/2" and "Peeping Tom" say everything that can be said about filmmaking, about the process of dealing with film, the objectivity and subjectivity of it and the confusion between the two. "8 1/2" captures the glamour and enjoyment of filmmaking, while "Peeping Tom" shows the aggression of it, how the camera violates it".
ReplyDeleteI agree with Scorsese in that "Peeping Tom" is a film about filmmaking in a plethora of ways. For one, the film takes us through the mind of an insane character who can't go anywhere without bringing his camera. In other words, he has to film every moment of his life. This makes sense because the main character, Mark grew up with his father filming almost every aspect of his existence. This piece is so intriguing because Michael Powell more or less shows us that being a passionate director and being a voyeur is practically one in the same. Essentially, this film is saying that filmmakers are simply voyeurs. I believe that is why Scorsese wants us to see it because "Peeping Tom" reflects a director's obsession with the filmmaking process. Similar to Scorsese's feelings on directing, shown through Jimmy Doyle's performance in "New York, New York". In a particular scene, Jimmy tells his wife Francine that if he can't play the saxophone that he is not good enough for her or anyone else. That's the kind of voyeuristic obsession that "Peeping Tom" states about filmmakers. It's a director's dark side of the filmmaking process. Much like "Peeping Tom", showing the main character's love for his art in which he can't go anywhere without documenting his experiences on his camera.
Clearly, I can see the the influence from Powell's , "Peeping Tom" in a variety of Martin Scorsese films. One being the voyeuristic approach that Scorsese utilized in many of his works. The opening scene in "Peeping Tom" starts with a close-up shot of the main character's eye further emphasizing his point of view and how the audience will play an intimate role watching this character. Similar to Scorsese's "Taxi Driver", the film opens with a close-up of Travis Bickle's eye as we become voyeurs to his life. Furthermore, there is a scene in "Taxi Driver" where Travis is talking to Betsy on a pay phone and the sight is so embarrassing that the camera becomes the audience and pans to an empty hallway. We are spying on this character, but the interesting part is when the camera becomes a person and moves to the right of the frame. I believe that "Mean Streets" and "Raging Bull" are heavily influenced by "Peeping Tom" the most. Both films feel like documentaries in the sense that Martin Scorsese never put down his camera. Both films share long takes and tight shots that allow the audience to play an intimate role with the characters. In a similar fashion, it is like "Peeping Tom" where the main character never puts down his camera and seeks satisfaction in watching others. We become this maniac because we are watching everything he sees. For example, there is a scene in "Raging Bull" where Vickie comes home from watching a movie, kisses Jake and walks upstairs. The camera does not shy away when it pans to capture Vickie walk up the stairs then back to Jake and Joey. Like I stated earlier, we are a huge part of these characters lives and it is almost like we are spying on them. We are the camera and we casually moved to spy on Vickie and then we focused our attention back on the guys. In "Mean Streets", we play the same voyeuristic role by spying on Charlie's girlfriend, Theresa undress through his window and once she is clothed, we comfortably pan away.
The film I picked was The Conversation by Francis Ford Coppola. I choose to watch this film because it had been recommended to me before by several other people. Some of my friends who have seen the film had suggested I watch it because they said, and I quote, “It’s right up your alley!” The Conversation was also one of the films that I could’ve watched and analyzed for my final in World Cinema II but I picked a different film to view and now, after seeing it, I regret not picking it. Plus I found out that a young, hunky, pre-New Hope Harrison Ford is in it, so I was sold!
ReplyDeleteThe Conversation is a great film that I wished I had seen sooner. It features a young(er) Gene Hackman as a surveillance expert/private detective who is tasked with figuring out the suspicious meaning behind something he has overheard in while eavesdropping in a park. He was hired to spy on a young couple and overhears them talking and he thinks they are in danger. I like this film, for starters, just as film, then my secondary reason for liking this film is that it came out right around the time of the Watergate scandal. This film has many comparisons to that scandal, including the surveillance themes and motifs as well as both the real life events and the conclusion of this movie taking place in a hotel. Though it’s been stated that the film takes no inspiration from Watergate, that all the parallels are just coincidence but the coincidences are just too cool to ignore.
The film itself was really interesting. I found Gene Hackman’s character to be really interesting and neat. The juxtaposition of him being an incredibly private man to what his occupation is was incredible. I really enjoy spy films and The Conversation felt like a dramatic spy film to me; like if James Bond were more dramatic and less action.
I believe that Scorsese recommends The Conversation because “it’s a classic example of studio risk-taking in the early 1970s.” (Fast Company article, “Martin Scorsese’s Film School: The 85 Films You Need to See to Know Anything About Film”) I also believe that the film showcases a good balance between character and plot. Gene Hackman’s character is relatable and understandable in all his actions. The audience can understand why he does everything that he does. Even the smaller roles are well-developed and the audience can understand their motivations. The plot drives the film forward and keeps the story moving. There are no dull points in the movie. It is a good mystery that keeps the audience guessing for start to finish. I believe that Scorsese picked The Conversation as one of his eighty five films to see because it is a good mystery film and an example to follow for further filmmakers. I also believe that Scorsese picked this film to highlight the work of Francis Ford Coppola. He is a legendary director and his work is world renowned so I think Scorsese put this movie on the list, as well as Apocalypse Now, because they are by Coppola and showcase his work.
I believe Coppola has influenced Scorsese. The Conversation is the only Coppola film I’ve ever actually seen but his work is tremendous and all filmmaker, in my opinion, are inspired by Coppola. He’s made some of the best films and everyone else who makes films draws inspiration from that. I can, sort of, see inspiration from The Conversation in Scorsese’s Taxi Driver. Both are stories about a very private man who tends to keep mostly to himself with the exception of coworkers and lady-friends but even then both of those people are rarely let in. De Niro in Taxi Driver is still very private even to the other cab drivers, telling them only bits and pieces of information and he rarely tells anything about himself to Cybill Shepard’s character either. Gene Hackman’s character in The Conversation is the same way. He doesn’t tell anything to the people he works with, especially that one guy he worked very closely with, which is ultimately what drove him away. Both of these characters are also people who are trying to do some good in the world. Gene Hackman’s character is trying to prevent a murder from happening and keep the young couple safe. De Niro’s character is trying to protect Jodie Foster’s character and clean up the “scum” on the streets of New York. Though their methods are different, their intentions are the same; they want to help others. I can see the influence that The Conversation could have had on Taxi Driver.
DeleteI chose to screen Samuel Fuller's 1963 psychological thriller "Shock Corridor". I chose the film because it was one of Fuller's works that I had not yet seen. I am a huge fan of "The Naked Kiss" and "Pick Up on South Street", and seeing this on the video essay reminded me of how unique the set up for "Shock Corridor" is in Fuller's filmography. A journalist prepares for over a year to be committed to an insane asylum under the pretense of being sexually obsessed with his sister (actually his girlfriend) so that he can solve a forgotten murder case inside the asylum. This premise is so wild that I knew I had to give it a watch, and was excited to see how Fuller mixed his usual blend of blunt pulp theatrics with the "pop-psychology" trend of the 1960's.
ReplyDeleteI found the film to be a riveting mixed bag. The film spends a tremendous amount of time setting up the case, and digging into the "loose" psychological rules of insanity that our hero will have to exist in, but it takes away from the time spent on the actual investigation which feels relegated to a rushed third act. But what a time it is. The film is shocking and provocative with its mental patients and their unique "issues" such as a black man who believes himself to be a white KKK member, and inventor of the atomic bomb who has regressed to a childish state, and a former Soviet Defector who now believes himself to be a civil war general. The time spent with these fiery personalities makes the set up worth it in the long run. Fuller also makes some bold stylistic choices, such as shooting the film in black and white but including colored film sequences during the delusional states that the patients have, such as documentary footage of a tribal ritual. These moments along with his usual brutal pragmatism earn the film its "shock" in the title. And while I feel that the ending of him going insane is not handled as well as it could have been, again pacing and set up are much too truncated, the sequence where lighting and water all come down upon him is powerful and staggering, visually what Fuller sees as the mind tearing itself apart, and is just as powerful and uncomfortable as it was when the film was released.
I think it is these powerful unique stylistic choices that makes this film stand out to Scorsese. The film did not play it by the rules and took chances that may be messy, but elevate the film's emotional storytelling to a pure visceral nature. Additionally, the focus on mental states, and peering into the eyes of the insane is such an embedded trait of Scorsese's filmography that maybe he sees this as a genesis of sorts, where genre filmmaking and POV collide in a violent way, that allows us to empathize and understand undesirable characters in a way audiences hadn't before. The protagonists from Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and King of Comedy would all be at place in this asylum, and the way that Fuller uses a tight focus to explore a damage mental capacity acts in similar ways to Scosese's character pieces. Instead of a literal asylum, Scorsese uses the individuals own mind to explore their world view and how they are trapped within the walls that they've mentally created.
Another key themes that seem to resonate between this film and Scorsese's are the protagonist's who get what they want but not in the way they think they do. Travis Bickle and Rupert Pupkin each get the fame and attention they desire, but at a great mental and personal cost. In "Shock Corridor" our protagonist does solve the murder he so pines after, but he becomes one of the insane in the process. This all roots back to Scorsese's core motif throughout all of his work. Obsession. How it consumes men, and how they drive themselves to their own demise because of their inability to not give themselves over completely to what drives and ultimately destroys them.
The film I chose to screen was Don Chaffey's Jason and The Argonauts. I chose to watch it because, from an outside perspective, this movie may appear to be the furthest from Scorsese's tone. However, despite the stylistic differences, the movie has been extremely influential on Scorsese's filmmaking, perhaps more than he knows.
ReplyDeleteThe article "Martin Scorsese Film School" lists Jason and the Argonauts because Scorsese used it to kickstart his daughter's film education, which makes sense. It's a story based heavily in the traditional hero's journey, and one deeply based in pre-established mythology. While not everyone knows the exact story of Jason and the Argonauts, the mythological elements present, (The quest, the destiny, the Macguffin) make the story easy to follow.
In these sorts of high fantasy stories, the protagonists arc manifests itself as a literal journey, trials and tribulations appear as literal monsters, and the goal is a literal golden object. Scorsese's movies work on a more metaphysical level. But Scorsese uses a tool from the mythological playbook quite often in his work. He often uses a physical change of location as a way of indicating a deeper character change, For example, In Mean Streets, the rift between crime and Catholicism becomes so great that the main characters have to escape the dirty, cluttered streets of the city and immerse themselves in a place of complete naturalism. While the journey the protagonists are on is one of contemplation, the physical location change is still utilized as a visual method of conveying a change in character.
Equally as influential is Jason and The Argonaut's revolutionary use of special effects. Ray Harryhausen used elaborate claymation to give the fantasy creatures of the story the tangible quality they needed to look real to audiences. Something I've always found fascinating about Scorsese is his use of CGI. In his recent work, Scorsese has used computer graphics to subtly change the content of a frame to match his vision. While this is a dangerous tactic that can and has been abused by countless directors, Scorsese doesn't airbrush the frame beyond recognition, he adds and subtracts just enough to not dip into the uncanny valley. In films like The Wolf of Wall Street, CGI is used in excess to highlight the falseness of the protagonists reality. Many elements of Jordon Belfort's luxurious life are rendered completely artificially, his home, his yacht, and are recognizable as computer generated. But one of the themes of the film is taking for granted the things that life has given you for granted, and by showing these elements as literally weightless, the CGI emphasizes the films theme.
I saw Cat People--not gonna lie, mostly because of the name. Also, I took a "Genres in Screenwriting" class last semester that highlighted thriller films, and it had been mentioned before, so I knew the quality was going to be good. Even with all that said, it's difficult to imagine a movie with the name "Cat People" being very successful, but this movie did a lot of things right. It was very suspenseful and utilized a lot of misdirects and foreshadowing. And I appreciated how it was able to be genuinely frightening or worrying in parts without a gigantic budget to back it--it reminded me, in a way, of low-budget horror films like The Evil Dead that can be equally, if not more, terrifying than overproduced Hollywood movies within the same genre.
ReplyDeleteI think Scorsese believes this film is important because of the many suspense tactics used within the movie, but also because of the budgeting of the film. I remember our discussions about how Scorsese has slowly transitioned from smaller budgeted films, like Mean Streets or After Hours, to bloated Hollywood productions, like Wolf of Wall Street and Gangs of New York. I think Scorsese more than most directors understands the value of cinema--a bigger budget does not necessarily produce 'better' films. The visceral, authentic, and subtle moments within Mean Streets are sometimes difficult to find within larger budgeted productions. In that way, I think some of the most terrifying and suspenseful moments within Cat People would not happen with larger financial backing. Similar to the infamous shark malfunctions that shaped the design of Spielberg's 'Jaws', the lack of seeing and the absence of payoff is what makes Cat People tick. An audience's imagination is far more terrifying than a beast concocted on a $150,000 budget, and the filmmakers were aware of this.
Some of those same suspenseful moments can be found within After Hours. The misdirects within Cat People--most notably, the bus scene--are imprinted upon the entire movie. This created much of the surrealist feel that Scorsese strived to create; never being able to guess which direction the story might head is central to the core of After Hours, and the constant misdirection of the audience is equally as central to the core of Cat People. Some of the camera work, as well, felt inspired by movies within the horror or thriller genre, specifically the POV shot of the keys dropping towards Paul. The feeling the audience gets as the keys rapidly approach the protagonist is similar to the feeling within the pool scene of Cat People. A character is trapped, surrounded, and being pursued, and while that feeling might be more true of the latter, that abrasive technique is one that informs the audience of how out of his element Paul feels.
I chose the film Germany, Year Zero (1948), directed by Roberto Rossellini, because it was also recommended by a professor in my Italian cinema history course last semester. We briefly studied Italian neorealism and watched Rossellini’s Rome, Open City (1946) as an example of the movement. For those of you who haven’t seen it, Germany Year Zero takes place in Germany after World War II has ended. The film is centered on a 12 year old boy named Edmund, his family, and other families living in a small apartment. Edmund is the “man of the household” because his father is too ill to work and his brother, Karl-heinz, is a soldier in hiding. Edmund and the families living in the apartment try to sell their belongings for money to buy food. In the beginning of the film, a horse is dead in the street and civilians try to cut pieces off of it for food. This film is a very important to our world history. Rossellini shows the audience a different side of Germany because he focuses on an ordinary family’s day-to-day life after the war rather than the brutality of Hitler and the Nazi Party. We see the disastrous effect of Hitler’s Regime on ordinary citizens.It was disturbing to see people in such despair that they thought suicide would be a relief form hunger and fear. Whether from an economic or societal view, the effects of war will forever be engraved into the society in which it happened.
ReplyDeleteThe setting of the film exemplifies how Italian neorealism films were made. All of the locations are real. There aren’t any reconstructed sets or artificial lighting. The viewer is seeing the destroyed infrastructure of Germany as we follow Edmund through the film..Rossellini’s use of non-professional actors also contributed to the realism of the film. This reminded me of Scorsese’s storytelling technique in his earlier films, particularly Who’s that Knocking at My Door? and Mean Streets. Although he didn’t exactly use non-professional actors, his characters were based on people from his neighborhood in Little Italy which gave his films a sense of realism. That same honesty is present in his work as it is in Rossellini’s. I think that Scorsese’s style in It’s Not Just You, Murray! and Who’s that Knocking at My Door was inspired by the French New Wave’s take on Italian neorealism. We’re reminded that we’re watching a film, but the narratives are sincere.
Something that I have always found fascinating, but rarely can find information about, is how an artist can be inspired by their contemporaries. In film school, we are taught to compare filmmakers with those who preceded them in order to see what became an inspiration for their work. However, inspiration doesn’t just come from the past. Artists are also heavily influenced by what is happening around them in the present time. This is why I decided to look at “The Conversation”, a film directed by Francis Ford Coppola, one of Scorsese’s friends.
ReplyDelete“The Conversation” has always been on my watch list, but I never got around to viewing it until this assignment. I really didn’t know what to expect from it, and I was pleasantly surprised. I thought it was an excellent example of a film that captures the emotions of anxiety and paranoia. Coppola is a very technical filmmaker and is able manipulate the feelings of the audience through all of the filmic mediums. The camera placement was always set up like Gene Hackman was being watched, but what I was most impressed by was the sound design. Especially in the beginning, Coppola was able to make use of horrible sound by strategically placing it in areas where the audience would want to pay attention to dialogue. It created more mystery as well as an unnerving tension. But Coppola knew when to keep the sound design to a minimum as well, which in my opinion raised the tension even more. My favorite scene in the movie is when Gene Hackman’s character is inspecting a hotel room which he believes a murder has taken place. All we hear are his footsteps and the sound of a dripping faucet which raised the suspense to its maximum.
Scorsese’s thoughts on “The Conversation” are that it is an excellent example of the risk-taking of the studios in the 1970’s. At the time, if you were an established director, studios would dump money at your feet so you could make anything you wanted. This isn’t the case anymore. If Coppola made “The Godfather” and then told a present day studio that he wanted to follow up that financial success with a low-budget movie about a man who runs a surveillance company, they would kick him to the curb and tell him not to come back until he’s ready for “Godfather Part II”.
I found that “The Conversation” stylistically syncs up with “Taxi Driver” which Scorsese makes just two years afterwards and I don’t think this is coincidental. I saw this particularly within both of the films’ sound design. As I mentioned above, Coppola knows when to bring the sound design to a minimum in order to make scenes stand out as being more tense and it sounds like he may have passed that along to Marty at some point. Scorsese used this technique too when it came to the big shoot out at the end of “Taxi Driver”. Its the only part of the film that doesn’t have that silky smooth jazz score or any other dreamy sound design. All we hear is gun fire and screaming and that immediately sends chills down the audience’s spine.
The film I chose to watch is The third man. The reason I chose this film is because I realized lots of American directors are influenced by film noir. I was obsessed with criminal and adventure film when I was a kid. The style of film noir, the low key light, Dutch angle camera. The realism combined with expressionism give me unique film experience. I could enjoy the reality on one hand and the fiction entertains me on the other hand. The image of film noir is more close to a comic book or novel with tons of illustration. It just bring me into another world. I chose the film because I love film noir and the name attracted me a lot. It sounds formalism and old fashion.
ReplyDeleteThe Third Man made me think of China town. The story is intense, there's no bullshit in the dialogue, each line has its meaning. The background is complex and there are many forces, the Russia, American, police, smugglers and actress. Every character is vivid and their action push the story forward. The film didn't explain why Harry offers Martin a job but he setup his own death at that day. I guess it was an accident because they want to get rid of Harbin. The film started with the funeral of Harry and it is brilliant because it is also end up with the funeral of Harry. The sewer scene is amazing. The shadows, lighting, camera movement and composition are delicate. Above the ground, the Vienna is a split world but their underground is all connected. Though it is complex setup but it is very clear for audience. It is one of the best film noir that's why Scorsese recommend to watch it.
Martin is deeply influenced by film noir in terms of Cinematography and locations. In his early film, who is knocking on the door and mean street, also include taxi driver. The low light and Dutch angle camera were homage to film noir. The stories happened most interior and at night just as most of the film noir. In Scorsese's film, the New York's street is always lit with dim street light. The street is wet and dirty, full with criminal. The tone is similar. Even with characters, Scorsese's character has flaw just as every character in film noir. Scorsese is effected by realism and film noir has strong formalism to express realism. I believe film noir effect martin a lot in terms of the image, though he claimed that Hitchcock and Truffaut effect him the most.
I chose Orson Welles’s, Macbeth. I chose this because I like Shakespeare, Hamlet and Macbeth were my personal favorites, and one of the few stories I enjoyed reading in high school. It has also been a few years since I read or saw a Shakespeare adaption, and the other reason is. I haven’t seen another Orson Welles directed movie besides Citizen Kane, so I thought it would’ve been an interesting choice. The first things I notice is the added emphasis of the three witches. In the play they play off as witnesses, and sometimes agents, of things to come, but in the film they seem to be seen as instigators. Instead of teasing Macbeth with the idea of becoming King, they appear to actually be guiding him, or at least manipulating him. Which I think is a different take, instead of man being lead to ruin, through his own selfish ambition, got lead astray by three witches. And another thing, instead of having solitary soliloquies, they instead are seen as the characters inner thoughts. In some scenes where they are with other people, it makes sense, it’ll help with the overall flow of the movie, and we get a sense of inner turmoil. Since it’s a cinematic adaption it would make sense that he had to make changes. I honestly don’t really mind the change, I just thought it was an interesting take. The sets in this movie are really interesting. The way the throne room and castle look is very striking. Instead of castles we see in movies, they castles in Macbeth look like malformed rock formation, which they carved into. The film also have a light emphasis on sharp edges, the window frame has sharp dagger like edges, the guards and the witches wield tridents, and the crown has a square frame with spikes sticking out. Along with the constant fog it looks like Macbeth is set in hell or at least purgatory. Overall I enjoyed the film and it’s making me want to see his other adaptations of Shakespeare’s work.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he saw a little bit of The Last Temptation of Christ, in Macbeth. Scorsese wanted to make The Last Temptation of Christ, but had to settle with making After Hours. Maybe he saw it as a sign that with enough will and time, perhaps Scorsese could also make his passion project. In the movie you can see a little bit of Travis and Rupert, in Macbeth. They are all characters driven by ambition and they want to move up in the world. Travis wanted to find purpose in a world he rejects, Rupert wants to be famous like his hero, and Macbeth saw chance at becoming king. Their price for their dreams were dire, Travis almost died trying to become a hero, Rupert kidnapped his hero and went to jail, and with Macbeth he had to murder the former king.
I chose to watch One, Two, Three (1961), directed by Billy Wilder because I haven’t ventured into Wilders films yet and I was in the mood for a comedy. It turned out to be one of my favorite classic comedies. Wilder expertly employs stereotypes of all kinds to constantly point fun at each countries ideologies and characteristics. Whether it’s the witty, loudmouth, demanding American Business Exec or the overly structured Germans, Wilder doesn’t shy away of going to far. The dialogue is extraordinarily playful and spitfire with practically no time to breath between the entrance or exit of a character and their amusing exclamations. The entire movie is full of back and forths, like when Schlemmer recognizes the S.S. officer and MacNamara says to Schlemmer “it’s back to the S.S. for you! Smaller Salary!”. There are countless of these witty, comical puns throughout the entire film. Moreso, Wilder uses the action as a way to further enhance these. During the car chase scene the cars are smoking and popping to the point where the driver tailing MacNamara has to look out of his car window to see anything.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see why Scorsese was influenced by this film and in turn encourages other people to see it as well. It’s a clever, upbeat comedy that sources most of its energy from clever filmmaking. A few similarities between Scorsese’s work and this film stuck out to me. The protagonist, MacNamara is an extremely ambitious character, not unlike many of Scorsese’s protagonists, such as Jake La Motta and Rupert Pupkin. MacNamara, like them, succumbs to his own ambitions in the end. His lies and attempts at making Piffl a capitalist end up getting him sent to Atlanta instead of London, which he expressed to his wife at the beginning of the film that he did not want to go there. However, unlike Scorsese, Wilder uses this ending to bring MacNamara and his family back together. I would imagine a Scorsese film ending in a more raw and rough way.
Another is Wilder’s characters relationships with women. The women are almost always a reactionary to the husband and the relationships are not necessarily beautiful. However, unlike Scorsese, Wilder in “One, Two, Three” gives his female characters some spice and (a little more) backbone. Phyllis MacNamara isn’t too shy to give some jabs back at MacNamara and almost comes close to taking her life in her own direction. However she does end up succumbing to comfort and pay offs when she agrees to reconcile with MacNamara. MacNamara’s secretary also comes very close to quitting but in the end takes the payoff/better job. While the two filmmakers don’t paint their relationships in great light, Wilder in “One, Two, Three” gives them a little more light at the end of the tunnel. This, however, could be attributed to the time the film was made in, as well as an attempt to reach a bigger audience whereas Scorsese always seems to prioritize being raw, like the brutal scene in “New York, New York” when Robert De Niro fights with Liza Minelli.
Finally and most importantly is Wilder’s attempts to go all in. Scorsese in a very similar manner is not afraid to follow his characters wherever they may lead him. We see this in the dark and obsessive POV of Taxi Driver, Jake La Mottas ugly demise, and even, to a certain extent, Alice’s content. While these depictions are notably darker and stray away from the comedy “One, Two, Three” utilizes, they are in the same vain. When Wilder uses the “Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini” song as a form of torture for Piffle, it strays from any reality and utilizes tools that would only work in Cinema. Scorsese definitely takes this to heart. Notably in Rupert Pupkins fantastical obsessions. Although we haven’t screened it in class, the Wolf of Wallstreet I feel takes many nods from this. The constant energy from beginning to end, the witty, hilarious dialogue, and the overall willingness to dive into obsession and indulgence. There is more I could say but I’ll keep it short for the blog.
I picked Vincent Minelli’s The Bad and the Beautiful from Scorsese’s 85 film list.
ReplyDeleteI chose the film because it was about studio filmmaking in the time where people really blew stuff up, rode horses on real chariots, and built huge sets with matte paintings of snowy mountains.
The scene in that was shown in the video essay sold me. Kirk Douglas passionately spars with the respected German director of his latest picture. Douglas tells the Director there is tons of untapped potential in the scene, the Director counters that every scene could be directed like a climax, but then there would be nothing to build to. He says, “you can direct this movie. But a director must be humble. Are you humble, Mr. Shields?”
I loved the brutality of an exchange predicated by a moral battle for the dignity of their product. It’s just a movie, but to them, it’s everything. It’s hardcore.
I thought the movie was a lot of fun. It’s really big, really, really dramatic, but it’s passionate about its subject. And that subject is freaking awesome to watch. Seeing Shields obsessive behavior manifest in tandem with the creation of these varied Hollywood pictures was a joy. The scene where Douglas uses the shadows of the screening room to show Amiel that the film (within a film)’s monster would be suggested rather than shown was both corny and completely emblematic of everything I love about the filmmaking process. Drama. Manipulation.
Cheap solutions.
I think Scorsese wants the audience to see The Bad and the Beautiful because on one hand it’s a textual crash course in Hollywood filmmaking, on the other hand it is a sensational Hollywood movie and uses formal, grandiose cinematic techniques which are echoed in the narrative itself. It is a great package of a movie for people who like an obsessive Kirk Douglas performance and an affinity for a filmmaking history.
Kirk Cameron’s Shields is a classic Scorsese character in a few key ways. He’s a man obsessed with his passion (filmmaking), so much so that he spurns his relationships with fellow artists, friends and lovers (and even indirectly causes the death of an actress). It’s a narrative that takes its time to humanize Cameron’s character as somebody who is incapable of creating true relationships, but not necessarily empathize, allowing a distance for the audience to judge Shields’ many destructive tendencies. This is something we’ve seen in Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver) or Rupert Pupkin (The King of Comedy), characters that endure obsessive journeys towards some sense of greatness, but are ultimately unable to escape their delusions. I’m sure Scorsese saw many facets of himself in Cameron’s character, somebody who strives to wring out the ultimate compassion out of a story, but perhaps struggles with the torture imbued in his own pursuit of greatness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBefore John Boorman transported audiences to the banjo-playing, hillbilly hell that is 1972’s “Deliverance”, he presented a film unlike any other gangster film that American audiences had ever seen before. A melodramatic neo-noir, “Point Blank” stars legendary movie tough guy Lee Marvin, Angie Dickinson, Carroll O’Connor and Michael Strong; perhaps best known as Dean Wormer in 1979’s “Animal House”. I chose to watch this film primarly because it’s a film that I’ve owned for some time but have never gotten around to watching it for one reason or other. My initial attraction to the film arose after it was recommended by a close friend who knew I had a great admiration for the films of both Jean-Luc Godard and his New Wave compatriots. My interested my stimulated again following seeing the poster for the film briefly in ‘Mean Streets” and then later hearing Scorsese’s thoughts about the film in “A Personal Journey”.
ReplyDeleteBut I’ll get to Scorsese’s feelings in detail later, now I’ll tell you mine. I really enjoyed it; I think it’s truly a masterpiece of 1960’s American cinema. It’s really interesting to see the gangster picture in such an unconventional, experimental manner; especially considering the fact it’s a Hollywood production. The European influence on the film is apparent throughout from the film’s use of ellipses, parallel editing, intentionally mismatched scenes, etc, etc. The performance given by Lee Marvin is stone cold to say the least, he’s a man that out for his money and willing to get it by any means necessary.
The context in which “Point Blank” is discussed in “A Personal Journey” is in the evolution of the gangster genre. Beginning with cinema’s first auteur D.W. Griffith and his 1919 short “Musketeers of Pig Alley”, moving through the 1930’s and 40’s with the Warner Brother pictures like “Public Enemy”, “The Roaring Twenties”, and “White Heat”; Scorsese documents the total history of the American gangster picture. By the time we arrive at the 1960’s, Scorsese asserts, “the gangster picture had proved so versatile that it could embrace an avant-garde style.” He furthers about the film’s innovated editing techniques, specifically the montage at the film’s climax where we see Lee Marvin confront Carroll O’Connor. The images, as Scorsese contends, act as O’Connor’s wake-up call to who Lee Marvin truly is: “a killer who slugged and smashed his way to the top of the organization in a desperate quest to find the man in charge; the man who can simply pay him.”
Having totally divulged in Scorsese’s filmography, the influence of “Point Blank” is very apparent in “Mean Streets.” As noted earlier, Scorsese intentionally added a tip-of-the-hat to the film by having it’s poster briefly seen in the film; but the influence goes far beyond a gentle gesture. There is a scene in “Point Blank” which I cannot help but feel Scorsese used as almost a template for a scene in “Mean Streets. About a half hour into “Point Blank”, Lee Marvin goes to a jazz club looking for information about his estranged sister-in-law. Knowing he’s being followed and the club surveilled, Marvin attempts to sneak out the back door only to have trouble find him. As jazzy rock ’n roll penetrates the club, Marvin effortless brawls with two men set to kill him. The pool hall brawl with “Mr. Postman” from “Mean Streets” seems all too similar to the scene from Boorman’s film. Now despite Scorsese saying that Sam Fuller had a tremendous influence on both that scene and the film as a whole, there is no denying that after a screening of “Point Blank” that one will see it’s influence ranks alongside both Fuller’s “The Naked Kiss” and Cassavetes’ “Shadows”.
I chose to screen Apocalypse Now. In addition to it being on the list I had seen the “redux” version first and was curious to see what the differences were between that and the original theatrical cut. I figured this was a good opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.
ReplyDeleteThe general consensus regarding the original vs redux versions of Apocalypse Now seems to be that the original theatrical cut is superior to the redux version. The reason most often given is that the extra sequences make it seem too long and meandering, or they don’t really fit with the rest of the movie (particularly the plantation sequence). While it is impossible to argue that they don’t make it longer (49 minutes to be exact), I don’t feel like they are out of place. Both the movie and the novella it is based on (Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness), are about journeys up rivers, are by their very natures meandering. Given that, I think the extra sequences work rather nicely. For me they do a lot to heighten the sort of wandering, trippy, surrealist nature of the film.
The plantation sequence especially. It provides a nice contrast to the sequence at the last outpost with the bridge where things are so anarchic nobody even knows who’s in charge. It also serves as a sort of sister sequence to everything that happens at Colonel Kurtz’s compound. Both are the result of effort by people obsessed with creating order and meaning out of chaos (the jungle). Both are unnerving in their own special way. With the French family the source is their sense of entitlement. With Kurtz it is the fact that he is both wrong and somehow very right at the same time.
I think what I enjoy about this movie is that in a lot of ways it is very similar to Taxi Driver. Both feature creepy, broken, obsessive anti heroes and both have a very definite feel and sense of atmosphere. Captain Willard and Travis Bickle are very much cut from the same cloth. They are unable to function normally in or deal with society and retreat into the tiny slices of the world they feel most comfortable and in control in. For Willard that is the literal jungle of Vietnam, and for Travis it is the concrete jungle of New York at night. They’re both pretty fucked up, but they’re also both really compelling (in a way Jake LaMotta was not).
They also share a similar feeling and mood. They both kind of feel druggy and whacked out like Scorsese said he wanted Taxi Driver to feel.
Apocalypse Now is all about obsession (both in terms of the story and in terms of the circumstance of its production). I feel like that is what Scorsese loves about it. I feel like he can see a little of himself in Willard, or at the very least some of the characters he made a career telling the stories of. I feel like he also has to respect the lengths that Coppola went to getting the movie made. He put up $30 million of his own money, filmed for forever by most standards, and then spent two years in post.
I chose the 1949 classic noir The Third Man, directed by Sir Carol Reed. I chose this film for a few reasons, one, I had it on my netflix list for quite some time and felt like this was as good a reason as any to cross it off, and two, Scorsese mentioned the films camerawork as something truly breathtaking and game changing. The Third Man is often considered one of the greatest of the film noir era and it won Best Cinematography at the Academy Awards. With most films of that era some of the comedic moments don’t age as well as the dramatic moments do so I started watching with that mindset. I was completely blown away by how remarkably well the film has aged. The funny moments are funny, the dramatic scenes are extremely dramatic and the reveal of Harry Lime is arguably one of the greatest character entrances of all time. The films take on Post-War Austria was an incredible example of the themes of a film representing the state of a nation. The betrayal that Martins feels toward Lime is indicative of the betrayal the austrian people felt after World War Two being split up by the Allies and exploited. The cinematography is able to echo this same sentiment with its use of higher contrast ratios shrouding elements of the frame in darkness as well as the dutch angles, giving the film a german expressionist aesthetic throughout was used to distort the world that Martins has stepped into. I believe that Scorsese included this film in his list because of the impact that it had on the film industry particularly the changing the way people position the camera. I also believe that this film is extremely captivating and tells an interesting story that Scorsese can appreciate. After watching After Hours I saw many similarities in the cinematography of Ballhaus and Krasker, the camera is never distracting the viewer from what is happening on screen but instead adding to the viewer's experience while they go on a journey with the main character into an unfamiliar world.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe film that I chose to screen was Midnight Cowboy. I was intrigued by the small scene that was included in the film essay, in which Dustin Hoffman’s character gets into a fight with an aggressive taxi cab driver. From this tid bit, however, I assumed the movie was somewhat of a dark comedy, and though there are funny parts within the narrative, the story was more of a brutal and nihilistic portrayal of reality. I decided to screen this movie because I’d heard many people praise it in passing and as a huge Dustin Hoffman fan, I found it a bit strange that I hadn’t ever seen it before.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this film and was pleasantly surprised with all of the ways it managed to completely disprove my preconceived notions about it. To begin, the form of the narrative revolved around the thoughts of the lead characters. At times, due to Buck’s emotional turmoil, the scenes would flow by lucidly, allowing us to experience the sense of disconnection to the environment that Buck was sensing. He lives entirely in his head, naive to the ways of the outside world, and I loved that the form of the film portrayed this. We get to see his memories, his nightmares, his dreams, etc which add a great amount of depth to a character that I’d originally assumed was vapid and senseless. The song that plays repeadetly throughout the film also further emphasis this character trait. The man in the song sings about how everyone around him is talking, but he cant understand a word their saying, much like Buck. He believes the world to be one way, however, the reality of his environment is completely different than the one he’s constructed in his dreams. I also loved how brutally blunt this film was. There is no happy ending and none of their dreams come to fruition. Ratso doesn’t even fully make it to Florida, but instead dies on the bus moments before they arrive in Miami. It portrayed the dangers of disassociation, how living in your head can never fully work as reality always finds a way to catch up to you. And when it does, it wont have mercy on you.
I think Scorsese thought this movie was important to see for several reasons. One being the style of editing and how the film would weave in-between reality and inside of the character’s heads. The narrative is also what I think drew him to this film, as each character is so well thought out and complicated. I think he’s also drawn to characters that are isolated from the general public, outcasts who cant quite fit in with their surroundings.
This film, though much more dark than Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, reminded me a bit of that film at first. We see a man clearly running from his past to pursue these crazy dreams and then we watch them all fall apart. I also thought of Taxi Cab and how isolated all of these characters had felt from the world around them. The only difference being that Buck had Ratso, while Travis had no one, and that Buck was much less compelled by violence than his undying hope for better times. More so, it reminded me of Mean Streets and the grittiness of that film. The ending especially. In both films, we see a main character die suddenly and each group is unable to escape from their reality. Buck and Ratso we’re naive to think that Florida was the answer to all of their problems, and yet, it didn’t stop them from going.
I chose Robert Altman’s The Player, and wow do I feel like I’ve been thrown for a loop. I chose it because I wanted to watch something more contemporary and I’ve been meaning to watch some Altman for awhile now. I also have always loved Tim Robbins and was intrigued by the concept of getting a behind the scenes look at the world of studio executives; I have always been attracted to meta storytelling.
ReplyDeleteI was, and still am, very confused, but also very excited about what I just watched. The eight minute opening shot, which Scorsese explicitly mentions in the video essay, was pretty astounding to watch. Altman steers your eyes exactly where he wants them to go. He throws you right into the world of the studio, giving you just enough context to understand what’s going on, but holding back enough that you still feel intrigued.
I was immediately struck by the stilted nature of the acting and camerawork in the first half of the film. At first I was thrown by it, but then I began to understand how intentional that feeling was.
I have to preface this by saying that I was not really aware that this film was supposed to be read as satire until after I had finished it. However, it felt like a very, very complicated satire. I didn’t laugh once, although I realize now I was probably supposed to, but I don’t think that took anything away from my viewing experience. I watched it through a very surreal lens.
I noticed also, about halfway through, that there are almost no moments of silence in the entire film. We are constantly listening to other people talking or the score loudly filling the gaps between dialogue. In spite of the film’s slightly slow moving nature, the use of music and dialogue keeps the audience constantly interacting with the film, you can’t ignore it.
And that ending…I’m not even really sure how to talk about it. It is the most meta thing I’ve ever seen. It felt very unreal to me, I’m not sure what was real and what wasn’t. Was what we just watched the real story or the film within the film? The audience’s perception of reality is constantly shifting towards the second half of the film. As Griffin’s mental state deteriorates and his paranoia takes over, the film fully gives into it’s surreal nature, starting with the scene of Whoopi Goldberg and the rest of the Pasadena cops laughing at Griffin as they interrogate him. The film sort of switches there from an observational perspective to a perspective that is strictly Griffin’s. I think that switch is why it’s hard for me to know what’s real or not. But I like not knowing.
I think Scorsese wanted people to see this film because I think as he got older, his interest in dark comedy became more prevalent. Also, this is a film that must have really hit close to home for him because he has been involved in the studio system for most of his career. I’m not sure anyone could appreciate the humor of this film more than Scorsese.
There are two Scorsese films that I think inform his interest in The Player: The King of Comedy and The Wolf of Wall Street. With The King of Comedy, you have an enigmatic, career obsessed, clearly delusional protagonist who does some very dark things to get what he wants. Draw whatever parallels you like there. And then with Wolf of Wall Street, there is that same complicated, sort of terrible protagonist, but you also have that feel of high satire, which Scorsese has maintained that the film was intended to be.
I chose to screen “The Player” by Robert Altman, and I have to say that it’s quite unlike anything I’ve seen before. This was my first experience watching any of Altman’s films and it was honestly a lot to take in. I chose this film mainly because it was an Altman film and I’ve only ever learned about them through books and documentaries up until this point. I wanted to see for myself how I would react to some of the methods he employed to evoke a sense of reality. The credit sequence alone was an amazing long take that for me really set the tone for the rest of the film. The very first thing we see and hear is someone calling for a “take” followed by an inserted slate and a clap to signal the beginning of a scene in a film. However, instead of the camera pulling back to reveal a movie set and crew it goes right into the film that the audience is watching. This stunned me because I simply wasn’t expecting that to happen. Typically when a slate is shown in a film it is directly related to a film being made within the film, but rather than seeing this “hypothetical film” the audience is thrust into the actual movie. Instead of the film trying to create a sense of it’s own reality for the audience to be swept away by but literally draws attention to the idea that this movie is most importantly a movie about other movies. I loved the motif of a “happy ending” being necessary in hollywood because there seems to be so few of them in reality. There is a desire to make the audience feel comforted by a film and not be neglected by the lack of happiness that everyone experiences in their lives, but we don’t generally see represented on screen. However, I would argue that “The Player” did have a happy ending because everyone was able to get what they wanted. Tim Robbins was able to get entirely off the hook for the crime he committed and even managed to get the girl and live happily ever after. Even though he was being blackmailed by a stalker who’s identity is never revealed into green-lighting a film that parallels the hell that he just lived through. It’s happy because everyone seemingly wins in the end. The stalker acted as a catalyst for all of the events that took place in the film and ultimately succeeds in becoming a successful screenwriter in Hollywood. Comparing the opening of the film to the end was something I had a tough time doing when it was over. There was never an indication that the film was ending in comparison to how the film opens by giving the audience a strong sense of visual reflexivity. I have to say that the reason why I believe Scorsese felt it was important for other film lovers to see “The Player” is because its so drenched with film history and trivia. I think it also speaks to the artist who feels they must do everything in their power to accomplish what they set out to do because to them it feels like a matter of life and death.
ReplyDelete“The Player” made me think of “The King of Comedy” because the stalker character was as motivated in getting his script into production as Rupert Pupkin was in getting himself on primetime television. However, in this case the stalker seems to be acutely aware that what he is doing with the lives of other’s is clearly wrong, but the people he’s doing it to justify his actions because in the end they are the oppressors in hollywood. The big executives want to be apart of a project only if it clearly benefits them in the end. They don’t have any regard for the writers, artist, etc. unless it will guarantee a profit. Had Tim Robbins not been blackmailed by a stalker who took his exact story and produced a script with it he wouldn’t have accepted the idea. He didn’t see anything interesting about the film idea itself because he was only concerned about it having a happy ending for the main character. Doing what he does best by only looking out for his own personal interests.
ReplyDeleteDuel in the Sun- 10/10.
ReplyDeleteI can see where Scorcese get's his desire to tell stories about unrequited love in elaborate settings. In the film I can see echoes of Age of Innocence, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and Who's that Knocking at my Door? Duel is a western and it stars a female protagonist struggling with her sexuality and her doomed destiny. Her mother was murdered by her father when she was caught cheating and the MC struggles with this because she has shown similar characteristics to her mother. The MC also struggles with being seen as a jezebel, an object of desire and a female with no control over her destiny. She wants to become a lady like her aunt and she wants to hold onto her virginity. By perserving this, she will be able to marry her cousin whom is rising to the top of the political world. However, it's her other cousin- the rough brother- whom seduces her and then pushes her away. The MC tries to get some of her dignity back by marrying an older man but the rough cousin, now jealous- kills him in a gunfight. The MC transforms and she and her lover kill each other out in the desert. The film is all about unrequited love and doomed characters. We are given tons of foreshadowing that our MC won't make it through the film but we root for her anyway because she is just a girl in a male-dominated world- trying to only make something of her self. The sets and the music are notable and I recommend this picture to everyone.