In preparation for this class, please choose one of the films from the following list (one you've seen or will see in the coming days) and describe how it narratively, aesthetically, and/or thematically connects to one of the films of Scorsese's we screened previously this semester:
- Bringing Out the Dead (1999)
- Gangs of New York (2002)
- The Aviator (2004)
- No Direction Home: Bob Dylan (2005)
- The Departed (2006)
- Shutter Island (2010)
- A Letter to Elia (2010)
- Public Speaking (2010)
- George Harrison: Living in the Material World (2011)
- Hugo (2011)
- The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
- The Fifty Year Argument (2014)
- Silence (2016)
Finally, select a moment/scene/sequence from your chosen Scorsese film that you'd like to screen in class (including a time code detailing exactly when it starts and ends if you can) and explain how the excerpt you've selected supports the narrative/aesthetic/thematic connection you're making to an earlier Scorsese film.
We will try showing as many clips as possible during our May 2 class, so it would be great if you can bring in a copy of the film you're wanting to screen an excerpt from. But if you can't do that, I'll do my best to get copies of whatever films from the list above you choose to write about.
Please be sure to post your thoughtful and thorough response (your last one of the semester!) as soon as you can - but definitely by no later than midnight on Monday, May 1.
My choice is Scorsese's 1999 film, Bringing Out the Dead. This film was a re-union of sorts, re-teaming Scorsese, Paul Schrader, and the night life of New York City. The film follows a night in the life of an Ambulance Emergency Response worker Frank Pierce. Pierce is at the end of his rope, and in a fractured mental state on the most stressful night of his career we follow him as he takes calls, encounters life or death situations, and drives around New York at night. This film acts as a spiritual sequel to Scorsese and Schrader's previous New York night life film Taxi Driver. Both films follow a mentally unstable protagonist throughout the seedy underbelly of New York as they both search for salvation in the form of two women. In Taxi Driver, Bickle yearns for Betsy and Iris, the campaign coordinator and a child prostitute. The rejection of one of these women makes him act upon the other for some form of salvation, his violent attack on the brothel. In Brining out the Dead two women haunt Pierce, one the ghost of a woman he let die, Rose, who he sees throughout the night, and Mary the daughter of a man Frank came to take to the hospital. One dead, the other woman drives Frank to find some sort of meaning in his life, and at the end he finally is able to sleep, while lying on Rose, he attains some form of momentary peace in his life.
ReplyDeleteThe films also function in a similar technical way, much of both films consist of the protagonist driving around the city at night while a voice over narration comments on what they see and what they feel. Both men are dwarfed by the crime and death that surrounds them, and engage in what seems like a fruitless search for answers. One of the key differences is that Frank saves lives, while Travis ends up taking them, this duality is explored through a similar visual style where both men are put to their limits and respond in opposite manners. Frank ends the suffering of Mary's father to grant them both peace, while Bickle murders the pimps to save Iris.
The selected clip I chose (00:53:59-00:56:26) features Frank and one of his partners driving around in the city looking at all of its crime and corruption while he meditates on his role in life. It is the most visually similar to Taxi Driver, using much of the same coverage used for Travis's driving shots, but also shows the key character difference between the two films. While Travis focuses on how disgusting the society is and how it should be destroyed, purified, and wiped out Frank focuses on his inability to aid the world and how insignificant he is in this pursuit, which is visualized by the haunting ghost of Rose, a woman he let die that he cannot escape.
The film that I have chosen for this post is the Aviator. This film follows the life of Howard Hughes, a businessman/filmmaker/pilot, who is a genius, but who also is on the edge of a breakdown due to all the things he tries to simultaneously juggle in his life. Scorsese always gives the audience characters that self-destruct: Jake in Raging bull, Travis in Taxi Driver, and now Howard Hughes. I love this sort of theme, because it gives him a chance to imbue everything with emotion that is heartfelt, which attracts empathy. This film, like Kundun, and Goodfellas, let’s you live with the protagonist from an earlier age. The latter allows the viewer to connect and mature with the protagonist’s victories or new found successes. It Right away, you have themes that deal with a coming of age, self-destruction, fame/fortune, and falls from glory. In Aviator, you get a chance to see all the techniques that makes Scorsese unique. There are a bevy scenes in this movie that totally reminded me of scenes from other movies. However, the film that stuck out the most when watching, was King of Comedy; just in how they both play with the theme of fame.
ReplyDeleteThe scene that sticks out in my head, is the scene where Howard arrives on the red carpet for the first time. The lights from the paparazzi cameras flash and make him uncomfortable, the lights reveal that he is not ready for the lime light, or the fame. The lights are an indication that he has made it, because of his Million Dollar Film. However, we see how this moment is disturbing for him, despite what he might say about wanting the glory. We see this again later when he is with Katherine on the red carpet, and ultimately that fame tears them apart. Just like Jake and Vicki in Ragging Bull, and just like Scorsese and his relationships that are usurped by his love for film, the fame kills your life. The paparazzi expose him in all his lowest moments. The fame makes him sick. This moment reminds me of the beginning scene from King of Comedy. Jerry walks out, and is blinded and swamped by the lights from the paparazzi; it makes him uncomfortable and he wants to get to his car to escape as a statement that fame is burdensome, overrated, and draining; just like Howard feels in a sense. However, in reverse, Rupert’s silhouette is on the limo window, and the flash frame is the success that Rupert idolizes and strives for; the fame Howard and Jerry hate.
This film could be a call and response to King of Comedy about how fame kills in one way or another. For Rupert, the fame he wants so badly drives him crazy and lands him in prison. For Howard, the fame that he has and doesn’t really want, makes him sick, and it almost kills him. They both kind of self-destruct, while trying to deal with anxiety that manifests itself differently based on their relative positions in life. Rupert is loose. Howard is tight and meticulous; they are both affected by fame in different ways. One strives for it, and the other receives it because he is ambitious. But are either of them truly happy? I think not. Howard has moments when he’s aware of his unhappiness, but he ignores it or is naïve. Rupert’s unhappiness turns into motivation to chase and obtain fame in obsessive and maniacal ways, and it only complicates his life. They both are isolated in their films even though they are always around people. They both end up alone. Rupert on the TV screen, and Howard chasing fame again with his newest invention or record. The thing that brings them both despair is also the apple of their eyes. I think this is Scorsese putting himself in some of his films on how he feels about the life of a filmmaker or fame Vs. love.
ReplyDeleteThe scene that I have chosen to show in class is the second-time Howard arrives on the red carpet with Katherine. I chose this scene, because it shows that the fame is cancerous to Howard. It shows the beginning of his self-destruction and almost confirms that it’s coming. It deals with the fame that cripples those who say they want it. It shows how he is unwilling to perform like Rupert. It also illustrates the idea that even though he knows fame and his work are cancerous, he will do everything to maintain it. Even though Howard doesn’t want it, he works with the same passion as Rupert to keep his fame. Only difference is Rupert devilishly desires that fame. The clip starts at 54:10 and ends at 57:28. Enjoy!
The film I chose is Scorsese's 2011 film Hugo. The film follows the story of Hugo, an orphaned boy who lives in the clockwork of a railway station. He meets a young girl who's godfather happens to be Georges Méliès, the silent filmmaker. The story encompasses a passion for filmmaking, and the appreciation for filmmakers who may have been lost to history. There is no coincidence that during the scene you will see, the announcer proudly tells the crowd that they have been able to find, save, and preserve many old films. Sound like anyone we know?
ReplyDeleteScorsese is the perfect director for this film. His whole career has been about his passion for cinema and filmmaking. I can picture Scorsese himself up on the stage in the scene I chose, being honored for all he has done for cinema, and the preservation of it. In the scene, Georges also thanks Hugo for helping him. I see this as Scorsese starting to hand the torch off to the younger generation of filmmakers. He's obviously not done making films yet. Thank god. But he took this film as an opportunity to reflect, and look back on his career.
As much as this film is a reflective film for Scorsese, it was also his first film in 3D. When asked about it he said, "I found 3D to be really interesting, because the actors were more upfront emotionally. Their slightest move, their slightest intention is picked up much more precisely."
I find this inspiring, that a filmmaker who has been in the business so long, was open to using newer technology and used it to his advantage.
But just because of some new technology, doesn't mean we don't get the same classic Scorsese style. In just the one scene I show, you will see an iris used, a quick dolly in, and a silhouetted shot of Ben Kingsley on stage with his hands raised, that reminds me of The King of Comedy. This film also shows Scorsese's ability to work with child actors, shown by beautiful performances by Asa Butterfield and Chloe Grace Moretz.
For me this film is the perfect love letter to cinema, sent by cinema’s most passionate directors. It shows Scorsese’s ability to try new things, 3D, a children’s film, and still be able to solidify his bold and unique style.
The scene I am showing runs from 1:53:40 to 1:58:16.
I chose Scorsese's fim "The Wolf Of Wall Street" because it narratively, aesthetically, and thematically connects to his earlier piece "Goodfellas". "The Wolf of Wall Street" follows the rise and fall of Jordan Belfort, a wealthy stock-broker. Similar to "The Wolf Of Wall Street", "Goodfellas" follows the rise and fall of Henry Hill as he works his way up through the Mafia. Both films are based on real people and both films revolve around themes of crime and corruption. It is also important to note that Jordan carries "The Wolf of Wall Street" in same way that Henry Hill's character carries the film "Goodfellas". We are mostly seeing the film through their eyes and their story. Both films heavily use the protagonists voiceover throughout the piece. Additionally, the camera moves with the characters Jordan and Henry so that we can feel closer to them and have more of an intimate expierience when watching them.
ReplyDeleteThe specific moment I chose was when Jordan Belfort breaks the fourth wall and speaks to the audience. He does it a couple of times throughout this film, but I chose the moment when he first breaks the wall. In this scene (00:03:53-00:04:23), the camera follows Jordan Belfort down his staircase as he introduces us into his lavish lifestyle discussing the excessive amount of drugs he takes. Jordan opens us up into his world early as he breaks the fourth wall just 4 minutes into the movie. I believe Scorsese chose to have this break early so that we could connect to Jordan's character early on since his life is done in such excessive amounts. Additionaly, Jordan breaks the wall as he talks about doing harmful things to his body and again I believe that Scorsese wanted him to break at that moment so that we don't judge his character and the intimate camera movement helps us to not only be spectators, but to empathize with his world.
Much like "The Wolf Of Wall Street", "Goodfellas" also breaks the fourth wall, but this time it's at the end of the film. Henry Hill ends up ratting out Jimmy and Paulie in court, but he breaks the fourth wall to also explain the lavish lifestyle he had. He says something along the lines that he had everything when he was a part of the mob and this intimate moment ends when he states that now it's all over. In the same way of "The Wolf Of Wall Street", I felt very close to Henry's character and I did feel like we were having a personal conversation. I believe that the audience were the jurors to his case and when he suddenly looked into the camera we connected to him. Unlike "The Wolf Of Wall Street" where Jordan breaks the fourth wall early, "Goodfellas" breaks it at the end because Henry did betray his friends and this choice of aesthetic allows us to not judge, to empathize to his story, and understand why he did it at that specific moment. More importantly, it allowed us to understand that now Henry Hill is like all of us. He is an average shmuck.
The films I chose to compare was The Wolf of Wall Street and Goodfellas. The Wolf of Wall Street is essentially a modern day spin to Goodfellas, in which young men are controlled by their greed and insatiable hunger for the finer things in life. In both movies, we watch a tight knit group of guys rise from rags to riches, all while loosing themselves into the world of sex, drugs, and illegal activities. The films start off incredibly similar, despite the age differences of the protagonists when they first arrive on screen. Jordan, whose a young stock broker, and Henry, a child who watches the gangsters on his block, are both determined to live rich and luxurious lives, no matter the cost. At this point in the films, each character is shown to be humble and wide-eyed, as they’re not yet tainted by their greed. However, the men’s egos begin to take control and, as their wealth also grows, they begin to think that they’re untouchable from danger. Both characters then loose control over their lives and soon find themselves in deep, irrevocable trouble with the law. Though, both Henry and Jordan are let down easy, as they give up their coworkers in order to greatly shorten their sentence. At the heart of each story is a conversation on greed and the effects it can have if one is not careful.
ReplyDeleteBoth films also use the device of voice over, which allows us into the heads of these characters, establishing a close relationship between narrator and audience. Through this device, the protagonists are able to introduce characters and give small details about their world that we would otherwise not have access to. Both films also change the camera view point at times, such as in Goodfellas where we see old photographs of Henry and the gang or in The Wolf of Wall Street when we’re shown the wedding video or the infomercial for the company. These devices strengthen the world-building aspect of the film and make the experience even more believable for the viewer.
The scene I chose is the infamous boat scene, in which a federal officer visits Jordan on his luxurious yacht. Here we see Jordan at the prime of his life, his ego at an all time high. He is so blinded by his wealth that he actually believes that bribing a federal agent is a solid plan. This scene is incredibly reminiscent of the “What am I, a clown?” scene in Goodfellas, in which Henry’s ego is also at an all time high. In both scenes we see a power play, followed by a fit of hysterical laughter. Though, in Jordan’s case, the agent doesn’t find this interaction quite as funny.
For whatever reason, I only have three DVDs in my house. I think there are a variety of reasons for this being the case, but mostly I am a broke college student and you can get almost anything on the internet these days. Interestingly enough, the DVDs are “Guardians of the Galaxy”, Akira Kurosawa’s “Dreams”, and “The Departed”. So how strange that 2/3 have to do with Scorsese (Marty plays Van Gogh in Kurosawa’s surreal, sleepy collection of vignettes), and that “The Departed” was the first Scorsese film I had ever seen.
ReplyDeleteSo, if you haven’t figured it out, I decided to watch “The Departed” for this week’s assignment. I would love to compare it to “Goodfellas”, but we didn’t watch it in class, and I still haven’t seen it!
I know that a lot of people were upset that this film was the one that finally won Scorsese an Oscar, but I think it’s smart, sharp, exciting, and surprising. I mean, who could have possibly guessed that ending? Scorsese himself has said that he thinks he won the Oscar because, “This is the first movie I’ve done with a plot.”
As far as all the Scorsese movies I’ve seen, I think this is by far the most intricate plot wise. There are a lot of characters, a lot of secrets, and a lot to keep track of. If it wasn’t done well, I think it could definitely overwhelm an audience. But I think it says a lot about Scorsese as a storyteller that he is able to take all of those threads and tie them together in a cohesive and exciting way. One thing I have always admired about Scorsese is his refusal to dumb down anything for his audience. He expects them to be smart enough to jump into the story where he decides to let them in, and I think 8/10 that works really well for him. And I feel like The Departed is the best example of his work that really exemplifies that storytelling technique. Scorsese tells the audience where they need to be.
I think he had a similar tactic with “Mean Streets”, which bears the most resemblance to “The Departed”. You’re just dropped into this world of fast talking, morally compromised gangsters without much a of a buffer.
I also think both films deal with themes of identity, family, and morality. What makes a person who they are? What makes a person good? These are questions that are asked by both films. Leo DiCaprio’s Billy Costigan is trying his best to keep his head above water as his undercover gig threatens to tear his sense of identity apart. He definitely reminds me a lot of Harvey Keitel’s Charlie from “Mean Streets”. They both can’t seem to escape the expectations of their families and their work. They want so badly to be good, but their history always seems to draw them towards darkness. Matt Damon’s Colin Sullivan is a much more straightforward amoral rat, and his character almost scares me more than Jack Nicolson’s Frank Costello.
The biggest way these two films differ is in their aesthetic choices. Both are incredibly stylized, but in very different ways. “Mean Streets” was sort of lax and intentionally messy with it’s cinematography and overall look. Scorsese was not concerned with being clean with aesthetics because the narrative and plot was pretty loose. “The Departed” is much more clean and structured because that’s what the story calls for. You need to see more because the audience has to be able to keep up with all the information that is being thrown at them.
The scene I chose to focus on was the final rooftop/elevator scene because I think it encapsulates a lot of what makes the movie so memorable. In four and a half minutes, three people die, one of which is a main character, and the gravity of the mole operation is revealed. You finally get these two character foils together in a place the audience is meant to understand as deadly, we did just see someone die on a roof, after all. The blocking, cinematography, and false sense of security for the audience is tremendous here. You really think Sullivan is about to get his comeuppance! Costigan is going to finally get something right and will make up for the sins of his father! And then, we get on that elevator with them. Right as Sullivan begins to beg for his life, and as Costigan finally has him right where he wants him, the door opens and wham! He’s dead, just like that. At the same time, Sullivan’s idealistic view of his relationship with Costello as being a quasi father/son kind of deal is shattered. Barrigan informs him he wasn’t the only mole in the force, and he was about to get sold out. So, in conclusion, everyone’s a rat.
DeleteAs much as I want to write about "Shutter Island" (because I think that movie is awesome) I've decided to write about "The Departed" (another great movie). "The Departed" is a film that closely resembles Martin Scorsese's earlier gangster film "Goodfellas." Viewers can easily see the similarities between the two films. Both are stories of the mob and gangsters living their lives, one major difference is the settings. "Goodfellas" takes place in New York whereas "The Departed" takes place in Boston. Both films feature a mob related plot and also have the same concepts of "a mole" or "a rat" within the organization. "Goodfellas" focuses more on the actually lives of the mobsters whereas "The Departed" features a more thriller-type plot where the "moles" in both the mob and the police force need to be figured out.
ReplyDeleteThe scene in "The Departed" that reminds me so much of "Goodfellas" is the scene where Leonardo DiCaprio's Billy is talking to Jack Nicholson's Frank. This scene, to me, is very reminiscent of the scene in "Goodfellas" where Ray Liotta's Henry Hill is talking to Robert DeNiro's Jimmy. Both scenes take place in a restaurant, both are conversations between a lower member of the mob and one of the bosses and the conversations that are had are very similar. Both scenes talk about a rat in the organization or if a person is going to "rat" on another. Both scenes also feature this very tense feeling for the audience because in both the audience knows the character (whether it be Billy or Henry) is in danger of the mob killing them because of them being an information to the police.
I chose to connect the Wolf of Wall Street and Goodfellas, although we didn’t watch the entire film in class. They both have a similar narrative structure. Each film has the rise and fall of the gangster aspect, but Jordan Belfort in the Wolf of Wall Street is more of a white-collar criminal. Both Jordan and Henry have somewhat humble beginnings, but they make riskier decisions after each success. Their excessive drug use is another factor that leads them to their inevitable downfall. And, of course, there is the narration that is also present in many of Scorsese’s films. (Ray Liotta and Leonardo DiCaprio sound similar!). Each film has themes of attaining power, morality and ethics. If Scorsese’s films were made in the 1930s, a warning against such criminal actives would have been in placed in the beginning of the film.
ReplyDeleteI actually haven’t seen the Wolf of Wall Street since it came out in theaters four years ago and I would like to give it another viewing. This goes for Goodfellas as well because I’ve learned so much about Scorsese and I would like to see the how his aspirations as a filmmaker were reflected in those works. I don’t have either film on DVD, but I remember the opening scene of the Wolf of Wall Street pretty well. When I re-watched it, it reminded me of It’s Not Just You, Murray! with the way that he spoke of his success. In this scene, Jordan discusses his drug habit and the power of money. It cuts off when he starts to talk about how he always wanted to be rich. In Goodfellas, we start off with Henry telling us how he always wanted to be a gangster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UTSqg4sqlU
I'd like to compare The Wolf of Wall Street and Raging Bull. The Wolf of Wall Street is one of my favorite Scorsese films because of its relevance and brilliance. Jordan Belfort is a man who came from nothing, rose to the top (raking in around 1 million a week) and crashed hard to the bottom (until he jump started his motivational speaking and author career shortly after release). The beauty in the film is that it's largely unapologetic, very funny, and a great rise and fall spectacle. It's shot with stunning cinematography, indulging in the color and movement just as much as the protagonist himself would have done. After all it is very clearly from his perspective. Throughout the film we get many scenes that literally plunge us into the crazed psyche of a greedy broker. The film opens up with a voice over, in true Scorsese fashion, describing all of the luxuries he has. We get multiple scenes, like at the beginning where he is landing the helicopter, where the style of film is legitimately drugged out. Also when Jordan almost overdoses on 'ludes and he has to crawl to his car, or when they are playing beer bong at the party where he meets Naomi for the first time. The movie is littered with forced perspective. It also ends with a reflection. The camera shifts and flys over a crowd of eager wanna-be rich schemers listening intently to Belfort, symbolizing that the movie they are watching is instead a camera, a reflection of our human nature and lack of care for the victims.
ReplyDeleteRaging Bull could also be considered one of Scorsese's finest films as well. Like The Wolf of Wallstreet, Raging Bull features a protagonist who rose from nothing to one of the greatest boxers of all time, all to have a harsh and sudden crash. People don't watch this film because it's a great story where La Motta realizes what he's done wrong, rather it is unapologetic, a value rooted in the characters which ultimately leads to their demise. Raging Bull cuts from some of the most violent scenes in film to a domestic setting multiple times, giving the viewer a look at how this lifestyle is carried into normal everyday life as well as the sacred relationship between husband and wife. Wolf of Wallstreet also cuts from contrasting scenes, like partying, hookers, and drugs, to domestic settings with Naomi and his children. The cinematography too is something that is very rooted in the protagonists mindset. The boxing scenes are all captured differently and artistically, giving us the perspective of Jake La Motta. The black and white reflects the characters almost lack of inner turmoil and perspective. The movie ends with La Motta talking to himself in the mirror almost blaming himself but it still remains ambiguous. I would argue that Raging Bull is more apologetic than Wolf of Wall Street but the manner in which the film ends leaves the audience questioning something about their own nature.
While definitely not topically similar, the themes, concepts, and the way Scorsese pursues his goals are strikingly similar. If you look closely enough you can see a true master of form and craft (not formula). He understands the grammar of cinema and employs it masterfully.
My choice is Silence, because I believe it connects with The Last Temptation of Christ. I know it’s a little obvious, choosing two films based on faith, but I believe they are two good films to contrast. Both Jesus and Rodrigues deal with the challenges of keeping their faith. Jesus rejects his role because he believes he is unworthy, he thinks that his human flaws disavows him from being the messiah. While Rodrigues is a true believer from the start, traveling to Japan to seek the whereabouts of a fellow priest, only to find himself stuck in a land where Christians are being persecuted. It was only later in the film where we see Rodrigues question his place in Japan, was his presence the cause of their pain and suffering, or is this all for the greater good.
ReplyDeleteI think a good scene to take away from Silence, has to be when Rodrigues is separated from everybody else and he is wandering the forest. Mad, hungry, and alone, he begins to question his faith. I believe this scene mirrors Jesus’ journey into the desert, attempting to find answers. Unlike Jesus, hungry and tired Rodrigues is lured into following his own personal Judas, and at one point falling into madness, seeing himself as Jesus.
The I chose is Scorsese's Hugo 2011. Because I worked on the visual effect part of this film for 6 months and I have different interpretation on this film. I chose a clip from Hugo which I worked on with other colleagues. When I watched this long shot first time I just think it is beautiful shot and it depicts the life at that time in pairs. Super cool long shot, classical long shot that review our character in the end, sophisticated shot design. Very complex train station scene, full CG city view and all the passengers were shoot with greenscreen. CG smoke and CG building extension. The long shot was combined by many short shots like birdman. This is my perspective about this shot. Through this class I learned that there's lots of meaning behind the camera movement.
ReplyDeleteThe film tells a story about life of older Georges Melies, the boy is the audience, is us, is Scorsese. The train station is time machine, we can see the clock tower. When the boy runs through the gate and comes to clock looks at Melie through the hole of the clock. How I feel is the audience and director go across the time through the time machine and finally meet Melies. I had complete different understanding on this shot after years. I know nothing about Melies 6 years ago and now I know he is a film pioneer and Scorsese present Melies's work in color and 3d view. When the boy hangs on the pointer of the clock tower, it is homage to Buster keaton. Now I can find an explaination why Scorsese design each shot like that, I am glad to know the reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSTnmEEotCQ
Opening scene
Homage shot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGnQyzFarY
1：20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEcTjhUN_7U
3：52
I decided that I would write my last blog post about a Scorsese film that I finally got around to seeing after wanting to for so long, “Gangs of New York”. Watching the film after everything I’ve learned from this class provided a very rewarding viewing experience. While watching, I was instantly making connections to several of Scorsese’s early works. The easiest connection to make is that “Gangs of New York” is yet another ethnographic study of a different time period of New York City. But I would rather spend this blog post talking about something a little deeper.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the film, I was entranced by the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill the Butcher. Personally, this instantly became one of my favorite of his performances. The reason why is that he was able to take a common Scorsese character arc that has been done in several movies and really made it his own. To me, Bill the Butcher is exactly like Jake LaMotta from “Raging Bull”. Both characters are extremely proud men. They each stick to their own delusions and refuse to give them up even as the environments around them change in a way that renders their worldviews obsolete. For LaMotta, he was a winner. Being a winner allowed him to be an asshole to everyone and get away with it. But as soon as he stopped winning, he couldn’t give up his pride and refused to change who he was even though he needed to. Bill the Butcher is the same way. In his prime, men settled their disputes with ‘honor’ by fighting to the death. The last man standing won the argument and the loser had to die with honor or be forced to stay alive with an ultimate shame. In Bill’s head, he understands this to be the only way to do things, even when the world around him is changing to be governed by a more democratic system. Bill doesn’t want to believe that New York is changing and hangs on to his beliefs about honor and dignity in fighting until his death. Here is a clip of Bill the Butcher talking about the way things used to be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdhxL9r9hkg
I chose to re-watch Scorsese’s Silence. The film was just as engaging an experience the second time around. Silence continues Scorsese’s fascination of man’s competition between human temptation and divine living. Being a film about a christ-figure wrestling with his humanity, I was naturally drawn to the parallels between this and Scorsese’s Last Temptation of Christ. I found that the finale of Silence - a fifteen minute epilogue chronicling the end of Rodrigues’ life in Japan, shared a structural and thematic connection to the “Temptation” sequence of Last Temptation, where Jesus experiences normal life as a denied messiah. Specifically, there are two scenes within each sequence that, through an overwhelming emotional struggle, re-affirm each protagonists’ relationship with God.
ReplyDeleteBoth sequences occur after the protagonists have committed to a groundbreaking choice - to deny their relationship with god. In these sequences, both characters share encounters with former followers who re-invoke their connections and cause them to overcome their internal struggles toward divination.
In Last Tempation of the Christ, Jesus is visited on his deathbed by his former disciples, Peter, Nathaniel, John and finally Judas. Judas shames Jesus for abandoning his place on the cross and denying his followers a messiah. Judas points out that in the time Jesus has spent being a normal man, Israel has suffered a loss of spiritual identity, Christians have been persecuted, and Jerusalem is burning. Jesus argues that he has been saved by God, as told by the guiding angel by his side. Judas reveals this guardian angel to be Satan in disguise. Overwhelmed by his misdirection, and the misery of the lives that were lost without his guidance or savior, Jesus leaves his deathbed, onto a burning hill, and asks God to be put back on the cross. He is transported back to reality, where he hangs on the crucifix and pronounces, “I am accomplished”, having overcome the temptation of man.
Last Temptation’s sequence is a demonic projection of Christ’s life had he denied himself his identity as the son of god. The extended “dream” chronicles Jesus living the human life - engaging in the joys and sorrows of a quiet life. He raises a family, suffers the death of Mary Magdalene, enjoys a healthy sex life and works as a carpenter.
After his encounter with Judas, and his realization that the Guiding Angel was a fraud, Jesus understands that his last temptation was to be a real human being, which was taken at the cost of losing the salvation of his followers. By asking to be sacrificed, Jesus accepts that in order to protect humanity, he must sacrifice his ability to live in it. He overcomes his temptation, for the greater good. By overriding his yearning for humanity, Jesus becomes selfless and unifies himself with the divine.
In the DVD commentary, Paul Schrader gives a quote delineating the struggle Jesus encounters, and I think it leads into Silence pretty well:
"The notion that jesus is a metaphor for our struggle to become divine, then he has to incorporate human elements of temptation. Followers of the gospel love to say jesus is human except when it comes to certain areas. The human christ is the one able to accept temptation from the guardian angel, the divine christ is able to create miracles. This back and forth is a great struggle between Christians and has been for a long time.”
In Silence, the missionary Rodriguez apostatizes in order to save himself and fellow captors from execution. After many years living in Japan as an apostate identifying christian relics for Japanese authorities, Rodriguez is visited by his former interpreter - and follower - Kichijiro, who begs Rodriguez to hear his confession. Kichijiro seeks redemption for failing to save his family from inquisition and bringing Rodriguez to the Japanese authorities. An emotional Rodriguez denies Kichijiro of confession, unstably holding to his resignation of Christianity. Kichijiro gets on his knees, crying as he begs for a re-affirmation of the lord’s spirit that has been denied from the Japanese people. Rodriguez, overcome with guilt, prays to God. In his head, we hear the prayer: “Lord, I have suffered against your silence”. After a brief pause, Rodriguez hears God (the voice of Ciaran Hinds) “I have suffered beside you. I was never silent.”
ReplyDeleteRodriguez buckles, and responds out loud:
“If god had been silent my whole life, to this very day everything I do, everything I’ve done speaks of him. It was in the silence that I heard your voice”. Rodriguez cries tears of joy, having understood that his suffering was earned in the name of god. In understanding that God was by his side during his trials, Rodriguez is able to dispel the notion that God exists solely in the physical realm of devotion. To preach, to apostatize, these are delineative acts of religious proclamation, which at their core do not reflect the true nature of man’s relationship to God. The true nature of man’s relationship to god is the love and selflessness that they display to others and treat inside of themselves. Rodriguez apostatized not in sin, but in sacrifice of his image, for the greater good of his followers.
Rodriguez finally understands that by apostatizing, and saving his fellow Japanese Christian captives from execution, he was working under God’s will. He understood that it was his internal devotion to Christ that mattered, not the external. Rodriguez is later able to apostatize without displayed remorse, and dies with a hidden devotion to Christianity. Rodriguez sacrifices his religious freedom but maintains his religious devotion. Christ sacrifices his life as a motion towards divine recognition.
In a lot of ways "The Departed" is very similar to both "Mean Streets" and "Goodfellas."
ReplyDeleteThe only big differences are the location (Boston instead of New York) and the ethnic group that is focused on (the Irish instead of the Italians).
It, like the earlier two films, does an excellent job of holding our hand and dragging us through a shady world inhabited by all kinds of questionable people. You really get an astonishing sense of who the characters are, what makes them all tick, and what the rules of their world or existence are. It is incredible that Scorsese was able to achieve this in a film that is much more "plot centric" than either "Mean Streets" or "Goodfellas." Both of those films are much more episodic in nature whereas "The Departed" is a thriller by nature. Sometimes with films like that (thrillers) directors make a tradeoff in complexity or depth of character. Scorsese managed to make a film that lets us have our cinematic cake and eat it too.
We get a sort of "Goodfellas Lite" in terms of how long we know some of our characters. We get introduced to Matt Damon's character while he is still relatively young, much like Henry.
Scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhqhP58t5O0
This does such a good job of introducing Frank. I can't help but wonder if Henry would have become somebody like that if he hadn't gone into witness protection.
The film I chose is The Wolf of Wall Street, the story of Jordan Belfort. Like most of Scorsese's movie's it has the main protagonist narrating. Just like Mean Streets, Goodfellas, and not the main protagonist but a voice over narration non the less Age of Innocence. Like Henry Hill, being based off a real character in life, both movies show the great rise to crashing downfall of two business men cheating the system. However where Hill used gang violence and intimidation, Belfort used numbers and manipulation to create his success. There is a very similar tracking shot in both movies. In Goodfellas while Hill is escorting his date to the main entertainment hall, the camera explores not only the two characters but what going on around them. So not only are we seeing the kind of night they are going to have we see the life Hill lives and how people act around him knowing he was in the mob. In Wolf of Wall street we get a similar shot when Belfort walks along the office. Two lawyers are reviewing their files the camera tracks along the office, once again giving us an idea of the world Belfort lives in. This time however we get a 4th wall break where Belfort describes to us directly to the camera how everything works. Both shots show us the chaotic fast pace of a wall street stock exchange, and of a busy kitchen and packed bar. Both in a chaotic setting but with the guidance of a smooth camera flow.
ReplyDeleteFor the excerpt I'd like to analysis the scene from Silence when Andrew Garfield's character finally hits his breaking point and has to step on the image of Christ. Specifically when the sound is sucked out of the air and the voice of Christ talks to him. After seeing the torture of so many Japanese christians he is forced to go against his faith to save there lives. This moment in the film was truly beautiful, anyone who hasn't seen it in a theater you will not have the same affect. This was the turning point for his character he had a Christ complex the whole movie, until he actually had to make a huge sacrifice of his faith, for the Japanese people that followed him. That moment almost had my faith restored, that's how powerful that scene was. Again Scorsese shows his ability to use nothing but sound or absence of sound to create such a tear inspiring moment. He did something similar in The Last Temptation of Christ, when Christ meets John the Baptist and the sound of the surrounding area went quiet until Christ was baptized and the sound comes rushing in.
The Departed hands down is my favorite film from 2000's Scorcese. Aesthetically it uses quick cuts, smooth fade outs and music convey the theme of the film which is "The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike." It is stated early in the picture when Jack Nicholson was giving his monoluge. He states, "The church tells you- you can cops or criminals. But, the question I'm asking you is this: when you're facing a loaded gun- what's the difference?" The film connects to every film that Scorcese has done in the past when comes to theme but it expands and revises all of his previous ideas. A big example of that is Scorcese's views on faith and the Catholic church. In the film, Scorcese is coming to terms with the crimes of the church as well as his own doubts and guilts when it comes to organized religion. There are many scenes that epitomizes this but the one that I find very enlightening was the diner scene with Frank Costello- the gluttoness, Irish mob boss with a sadistic appetitite- and Billy Costigan- the nephew of an associate of Costello's and an undercover cop. The scene is an updated version of Mean Streets when Harvey Keitel's character sits down with his uncle to discuss his future. The diner scene in The Departed is simliar but it takes an interesting and dark tone when Costello threatens and intimidates the nearby priests and nun. Costello is furious at the older priest for molesting children. He gives him the line: "In this Archdiocese- God don't run the bingo." He is basically telling the priests that in Boston- he (Costello) is more powerful than God. The younger priest shoots back (pride comes before the fall). Costello asserts his dominance once more by telling the priests that he had an affair with the nun (Sister Mary Theresa) before she took her vows. He then gives them a crude, hand-drawn picture of the nun with her skirt up. By having sex with the nun, Costello shows that he took the Lord's bride before the He did. Afterwards I decided this was the most controversial scene that Scorcese has ever done. He himself was a former alter boy and Scorcese has been struggling with his faith all his life. To do a scene like this is essentially making the church answer for their crimes and corruption by showing them being dominated by mass-murdering, drug dealing, terrorist in Costello. Mean Streets all about guilt. The guilt of not living up to God's standards. The Departed tears the institution of the church down. When I saw this film a few days ago, I was blown away. There was so much in it that I had not remembered or that had suddenly became apparent to me through my few years as a man. Questioning your faith is hard- to attack it is damn-near frightening. Frank Costello controlling God's house was the most frightening thing I had seen Scorcese do. Amen.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think Wolf of Wall Street and Mean Streets are extremely similar. I know this seems a little odd, since Wolf of Wall Street's budget was probably one hundred fold whatever the budget of Mean Streets was, but I still feel that they have a similar energy about them. Both are chaotic looks into the lives of deeply troubled individuals, whether that be Charlie or Jordan. They both feel high-energy and almost explosive, as if each decision the character makes forces them further down the path they are choosing to walk--and both characters should be on a better path. An audience could probably sympathize with Charlie a bit more than Jordan, but both characters still lead lives that are questionable in the eyes of the public.
ReplyDeleteThe party scene from Wolf of Wall Street reminds me of the bar fight scene from Mean Streets. This isn't a traditional comparison, but I think they are similar in energy. The bar fight scene from Mean Streets is chaotic and fun, and while the audience is unsure how the characters will safely escape the scenario, they're having a blast watching it unfold. Same goes for the party scene in Wolf of Wall Street; there's a lot of tension happening in the scene--Jordan is trying to sleep with Naomi, Donnie is on drugs, and the general setting of the party creates the same sorta chaotic feel from the bar fight. The stakes feel pretty low in both scenarios, which I think gets reinforced by the ending of both of the sequences. In Mean Streets, the cops let Charlie and his friends go. In Wolf of Wall Street, Donnie starts publicly masturbating so the conversation is interrupted. These comic moments relieve some of the tension from the previous scene, and Scorsese uses them to benefit the tone of the movie, keeping a playful tone.
The role of Donnie and Johnny Boy are similar within the framework of the two different films, as well. They both are extreme and comedic characters which relieve tension within an otherwise pretty hectic film. The audience is not meant to identify with either of these characters; instead, their role is to make the environment of every scene they're in a little more fun. If you compare Johnny Boy or Donnie to any other character within their respective movies, they seem a little cartoonish in comparison. Again, this is because each character is meant to contribute to the chaos rather than distract from it. They're not realistic, they're extremists. And while the two have very differing motives or ideas about what makes someone "successful," they bumble their ways through each of their respective scenes the same.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI watched No Direction Home, Scorsese’s portrayal of Bob Dylan. It is reminiscent of both The Last Waltz and American Boy. It’s spine is a combination of a single talking head of Dylan and a single performance. Woven in is loads of archive footage, and other talking heads.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary goes through Dylan’s life in a loose sort of structure that jumps around in time based on talking head subject’s recollection. Similar to American Boy, we listen to stories complimented by archive photos and film. The talking head interviews seem to have taken place closer to the release of the film but have a consistent 16mm style to go along with the archive footage, and specifically the recurring concert footage of Dylan. I’m not sure where the concert footage came from, but the production value nowhere near that of The Last Waltz, it feels much more raw. The audio isn’t as crisp, the lights aren’t as intricate, and there are fewer cameras (it’s not a concert film) yet there is still a lot of beauty in the performance. Similar to the structure of The Last Waltz, we cut out of this performance to hear Dylan’s interview, sometimes mid song, as Scorsese did when cutting to Robbie Robertson.
Similar to Scorsese, Dylan is deeply inspired by the folk singers before him. Much of this documentary is talking about, and showing footage of past folk singers, specifically Woody Guthrie. It reminds me of the documentary we watched in class where Scorsese talks about all of his own inspiration.
The Last Waltz Scorsese uses an event (The Last Waltz) to celebrate The Band’s run. No Direction Home doesn’t seem as celebratory as it does informational. I don’t know if it’s Dylan’s low key tone in his 60s, but it isn’t as fun as any of the young members The Band. After watching Dylan talk and perform for hours, I can’t get a grip on who he is, and I’m not sure that any more talking head interviews or information about his background would fix that. The most personal and emotional part of the film are Dylan’s performances. The relationships that are used throughout the film, like Baez, seem to just touch on the history of their relationships, but we never get a sense of how he feels, or what’s going on in his head. I think it all just goes to show that his music is an incredible form of self expression of a mysterious man.
It seems only fitting that the final blog post for this class such embraces Scorsese most recent film, 2016’s Silence. The story of two Catholic missionaries, play by Andre Garfield and Adam Driver, sent to Japan to determine the fate of their former master Father Ferreira, effortless portrayed by Liam Neeson. The film concisely fits within Scorsese filmography as a film, akin to Last Temptations of Christ and/or Shutter Island, which deals with how far is one willing to go for what they believe, their faith for Scorsese’s sake.
ReplyDeleteThe scene that I decided to discuss and analyze is one of the film’s pivotal moments: when Garfield’s character of Father Rodrigues finally reintroduced to the long lost Father Ferreira. As Garfield stands dumbfounded and repulsed to hear of Ferreira’s renunciation of faith, Neeson attempts to reason with his pupil. Neeson says something akin to, “You see Christ in the garden and think your trial is the same as his.” Here Neeson alludes to the Garden of Gethsemane, the garden where Jesus went to bargain with God for his life before being handed over to the Romans by Judas. Neeson asks a powerful question which I think all of not only christendom, but Islamic and Jewish clerics must ask themselves as well must answer, “Do you have the right to make them suffer?”
To contrast Silence with The Last Temptation of Christ, both films deal with the idea of how far is one willing to go for their faith and the ultimate price you pay for having any faith at all. For Christ, faith is the ultimate burden. He didn’t want to be the son of God, it was fate that saw the young Nazarene crucified. But it was also faith that brought Christ down off the cross and into the realities of being a normal man. For Father Ferreira, his faith is all that he has and he clings to it. So when he is forced to renounce Christ, we see how much faith means to one person. As Neeson says, “I heard the cries and I acted” in regards to why he denounced his faith. Perhaps this is Scorsese own crying out saying, “I’ve heard the silence of God for too long and this move is my act of faith.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT2yfzWrulY
The film I have chosen to discuss is Scorsese’s 2010 documentary, A Letter to Elia. I first became familiar with Elia Kazan when I watched On the Waterfront many years ago. I come from a long variety of labor workers in Chicago and I was familiar with the conversation of unions. What I was most interested in from the film was the authenticity of everything, from the on-location filming to the dialogue between characters. It inspired me to want to depict reality with as much authenticity as Kazan did in my own work.
ReplyDeleteScorsese speaks about Elia Kazan with deep respect throughout his documentary. He says Kazan’s films inspired him and influenced him as a child. Throughout this semester and the Scorsese films we have screened, there are elements of Kazan’s work in his films, such as the way Italian-Americans are depicted on screen. Scorsese co-directed and co-wrote the documentary with Kent Jones, who he collaborated with on his 1999 documentary, My Voyage to Italy.
Structurally, Scorsese’s documentaries follow a similar pattern of mixing action, whether that is a musical performance or a film clip, with a narrative story. Such as “The Band’s” footage used in The Last Waltz or the commentary in A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies. A Letter to Elia, also follows a structure similar to other documentaries about influencers that were shown as part of the PBS series American Masters. However, being true to his prior documentaries on film, Scorsese combines his own personal relationships with Elia Kazan’s films and went into detail on how they inspired him. His interest in protagonist’s struggles and their stories in his feature films is demonstrated in his documentary work through his personal commentary in-between clips. Instead of being a collection of clips or a history lesson, A Letter to Elia feels more like a cohesive story of admiration.