Now that the Paper of Record has all but reified the notion, it’s a good time for Topics/Questions/Exercises to examine The Putative Carrying Of Martin Scorsese’s Water. At The Auteurs’, as ever.
Lick the bloomin' boots of 'im that's got it.
You May Also Like
3-D, kids!
3-D, kids!
An old friend who doesn't get into New York City much wrote me earlier the…
Glenn KennyAugust 11, 2010
Grey matters
Grey matters
I profile my Girlfriend Experience, erm, co-star, Sasha Grey over at The Daily Beast, here.…
Glenn KennyMay 15, 2009
The serious tip...
The serious tip...
...is what I'm on this week at the Auteurs' Topics/Questions/Exercises column. It's a shame, but…
Glenn KennySeptember 4, 2009
Thank you for the “Marty” aside. It irritates me no end, too. And I try (though there may be an instance or two somewhere on my site) to refrain from other nicknames I never got permission to use, like “Jimmy” Cagney or “Betty” Bacall. (Bacall I know for sure would eat you for breakfast if you Betty-ed her. An acquaintance of mine who works at a tres famous French couture shop in Manhattan got upbraided by Ms Bacall herself for not addressing her as “Madame.”)
Glenn,
I hope you’ll accept “fuck yeah” as sufficient enough response to your topics this week.
Glenn, thank you so much for sharing your vivid fantasy of “Ms. Pfeiffer” and you “shagging like feral cats” atop a roundtable at the “Married to the Mob” junket. I liked but didn’t love “Shutter Island,” but Messrs. Scott and Wells may have something of a point when a critic who really should know better opens his gushing review by telling us how thrilled to introduce Mr. Scorsese at an awards dinner.
In addition to Marty, we have Woody and Spike. Then there was Orson and Otto. Why does no one call Wells favorite (and mine) Mann Mike or Mikey?
I think you’re taking my comments a little too harshly. I actually like his last two films (haven’t seen Shutter yet). It’s his ’90s output I think was mostly a wash.
I’ve simply found that for a long time, Scorsese’s supporters tend to completely gloss over his flaws as a filmmaker. I can remember taking a film class in the early ’90s, and the teacher showed us the scene in Raging Bull where his wife is cooking the steak. Afterward, one of the students pointed out that there was bad continuity – in one shot Jake’s wife is right next to him, then it cuts wider as he flips the table and she’s suddenly not there. The teacher denied that there was bad continuity and said it was because of pan-and-scan VHS. But it was obviously bad continuity – and having watched the movie on laser disk in full 1.85, I knew the teacher was wrong.
This is what I mean by rose-tinted. No matter how much I love any filmmaker, I can very easily see what’s wrong with their work. It’s just a question of honesty. I had a conversation with somebody who praised Gangs when it came out. I said it was way too uneven to be considered great. And he said that while it had valleys and peaks, the peaks were just so far above anything else that the valleys didn’t matter. To this day, I cannot comprehend that rationale.
I don’t think Scorsese can do no wrong – Bringing Out the Dead, anyone? – and certainly don’t begrudge those who want to take some sand out of what they perceive as limitations in the work of, let’s face it, the single most accomplished living American filmmaker and one of the most talented – sand-takers vs. water-carriers, I suppose.
But it’s a pretty trustworthy sign for me when any film has generated this much passion for and against itself. SOMETHING is at work here and I’m going to stop reading about Shutter Island (could one imagine more ominously cinematographic title for Mart, >ahem, Mr. Scorsese?) and see it to find out just what that something is. But I’ll mention the last thing I’ve read about it is Rob Nelson’s newly posted essay at Moving Image Resource. A telling quote: “So what the new film merely reasserts, if with a wallop, is that character in Scorsese’s films almost always trumps genre as a governing force, and precisely for the character’s instability.” I’ll have to think about that, too. More water-bearing: http://www.movingimagesource.us/articles/mad-about-movies-20100219
So much for using HTML characters on a blog. I wanted to quote a telling sentence from Mr. Nelson’s essay before linking it:
“So what the new film merely reasserts, if with a wallop, is that character in Scorsese’s films almost always trumps genre as a governing force, and precisely for the character’s instability.
You think? I think I think so…
But isn’t this just an extension of a discussion one could have about many critics, especially some auteurists, who plead for *all* the works of a director they love, even ones that seem bad to non-devotees? Scorsese is far from unique in having attracted that kind of love, although I suppose he has little company among living directors.
Mind you, I don’t care for all Scorsese films, but I must be some kind of acolyte as I liked such unloved outings as Bringing Out the Dead (and I positively adored Casino). His goodwill with me is well-founded on his having given me many, many memorable evenings at the movie, and I’m sure it is with the alleged “water carriers” as well.
Siren, I think you’re spot on about the insistence of some auteurists that a favorite director can do no wrong, and a hated director no right. It’s a sad American-style devolution of auteurist criticism from a heuristic tool to a branding strategy.
And yeah, Raging Bull, like a lot of Scorsese films, is a complete hash, continuity-wise. Which demonstrates how little continuity matters to anyone but IMDB commenters. The professor’s insistence that this couldn’t possibly be the case is a sad example of someone so wrapped up in teaching The Rules that he can’t understand what the rules are for.
@ The Chevalier -
I think I can comprehend the rationale, although I wouldn’t say that the valleys “don’t matter.” Just that, in GANGS, the good outshines the bad. Speaking for myself, it’s a terrific film – not perfect, and certainly flawed, but so chock-full of pathos and wit and sublime weirdness that it gets pretty damn close.
Also, while I applaud your eye for detail, I don’t share your view that one of Mr. Scorsese’s (wink) flaws as a filmmaker is a disregard for continuity. There’s an intrinsic streak of messiness in all of his work, and if that results in occasional lapses in continuity, so be it. It’s all of a piece – part of his ecstatic expressionism. (Although it was lame of your teacher to pretend it wasn’t there.)
I loved, or at least very much liked, BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, too, and have never understood why that’s the film everybody brings out as evidence that Scorsese is slipping. If nothing else, I thought he showed a beauitful eye for the surreal in that film (the white horse under the bridge, the legless man scrambling across the street, in the ambulance headlights…)
Also, I’m seeing SHUTTER ISLAND tonight, so I’ll have an honest-to-peaches opinion of it and everything.
@ The Chevalier: My construction of the argument perhaps called for a description of the objections that was pitched with more treble, let’s say, than the original detractor may have intended. At least that’s how I was seeing it whilst I composed.
And then again: You bother me about a steak? I just looked at that scene from “Raging Bull,” and sure enough, that is a continuity gaffe. In the relatively tight medium closeup of DeNiro and Laurie Flax, her arm, the front of her dress, and the bottom of her chin are all there in the right hand side of the frame as she dishes out—are they vegetables? caramelized onions?—and then, after a very quick cut, it’s a medium shot in which DeNiro pushes the table away in a flash. It’s not ENTIRELY inconceivable that Flax’s character backed away from DeNiro’s in a quick enough instinctive recoil that she could not be seen in that particular frame. But it’s unlikely. It’s also unlikely that the filmmakers were unaware of it, and hadn’t figured that all eyes would be on DeNiro as he defeated his own purpose. I think I actually read somewhere that Thelma Schoonmaker once said “Matching is for pussies.”
But that sharp-eyed student found a gaffe! And than mean olé perfesser refused to admit it existed! (That WAS kind of dumb, actually.) Schoonmaker’s editing Oscar clearly needs to be rescinded! It’s too bad your pal didn’t send his discovery to Première back in the day…we surely would have published it in Gaffe Squad.
Also, Shelley Duvall’s cigarette ash expands and contracts all helter-skelter during her consultation with Anne Jackson in “The Shining.” The chocolate ice cream on Danny Lloyd’s face disappears and reappears in the Scatman Crothers kitchen scene therein. And Werner Hinz literally disappears in the opening scene of “The Longest Day.” I wrote about my, and Kent Jones’, philosophy on continuity errors here: http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2008/07/the-fantastic‑d.html
“Fuck continuity.” – Dotty in ZEROVILLE by Steve Erickson
I’m not at all sure about Scorcese’s lacking in the continuity dept. But then, I’m often doubtful of film school absolutes where continuity is concerned – the “360-degree rule” whose origins in the proscenium theatrical tradition any Bressonian should properly bristle against (though, arguably, Bresson did not in his own shooting), matching to master shots, &c., &c.
Chev’s one example notwithstanding, and with all due respect to FB, I think Raging Bull is positively elegant from a continuity perspective compared to some of his other films New York, New York, e.g.). I’m reminded how Michael Chapman talked about how they shot the fight scenes in Raging Bull with one camera, with something like dance move footprints on the ring’s mat to follow. You can’t shoot like that unless you know where your “continuity” is coming from when you and Thelma get to the editing room. Let’s not forget Mr. Scorsese’s early industry teeth-cutting as an editor on Woodstock and a few other films. It may not be “classical” continuity like the King’s English, but in every film it’s expressed in a distinctively Scorsesan syntax. Even in Bringing Out the Dead :}
Let’s not forget Paul Sorvino’s disappearing and reappearing cigar in GoodFellas.
Some continuity things reach out and throttle you, as the Raging Bull example evidently stuck out to the Chevalier’s friend. My example would be the appearing/disappearing black bonnet of Scarlett O’Hara when she’s fleeing Atlanta. But for the most part I agree with Kent Jones, as pithily paraphrased at Glenn’s link. And I will add that I run from the continuity errors section at IMDB. Strikes me as a piss-poor way to watch a movie, matching up everything like an unpaid script girl.
Oh, it wasn’t a friend who noticed the gaffe. Just somebody else in class. But I’d spotted it long before.
Scorsese’s always had bad continuity. It was obvious to me from 20 years ago when I was a teen, first educating myself with VHS. I remember getting Kubrick, getting Coppola, getting Spielberg, getting Allen – but then being severely disappointed once I got to Taxi Driver and Raging Bull; they just felt sloppy and uneven to me. But that’s just my take.
As per Kubrick’s continuity, it’s interesting because he was such a control freak. (He spent 6 weeks shooting the 10 shots with Domino in EWS.) You know he’s completely conscious of what he’s doing – and very often it’s done specifically to call attention to itself. The Duvall cigarette and Lloyd sandwich early in The Shining are funny examples – because in both instances he gets you to focus on the objects for several iterations with perfect continuity, then, on the final shot, suddenly the sandwich is broken and the cigarette tip has crumbled. It’s like he’s intentionally fucking with the audience. Same thing in FMJ, where the cadets are out of place during the opening sequence, or how a soldier is seen close with his rifle lacking a magazine, then a few shots later we see him eject his cartridge and shove another one in – or even how the number of troops changes shot to shot when they’re running to Animal Mother.
A nice juxtaposition of sensibilities is to compare the Copa shot from GoodFellas with the entry to Hue in FMJ. Scorsese does a long, elegant unbroken shot. But Kubrick keeps it going, then suddenly, he breaks the shot for a brief reverse – then, he cuts back to the tracking shot; it’s an intentionally disorienting move. Not that that has anything to do with continuity.
Nobody sees the same thing. A lot of people look at Scorsese’s work and see confidence and exuberance, but I always saw sloppiness and insecurity. I used to joke that I could still see the grease pencil on his movies.
Continuity is important only in films that make continuity, the illusion of “realism”, and the clear statement of spatial relationships a priority. Action films, for example, are a genre that thrives on such priorities, even if no one let Michael Bay in on that secret.
Looking for continuity in, say, a Cassavetes film, is folly. And I think pointing out continuity errors in Scorsese-Schoonmaker, whose work is often more expressive as opposed to representative, is kinda like complaining about the jump-cuts in a Godard film. But that’s just my two cents.
My favourite jump-cut/continuity error: the Cyd Charisse number on SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN. You know exactly what I’m talking about.
It’s kind of funny: I’m sitting here arguing, in effect, that continuity gaffes don’t matter. And yet I know that if I was a filmmaker, and I had made a picture that had a prominent continuity gaffe, unintended and/or unmitigated, I’d be sick to my stomach and not recover for months, years. I still agonize over the single solitary typo in my “Star Wars” essay collection (a misspelling of Natalie Portman’s name).
It makes me wonder (oooooh): is there a filmmaker who has a totally blemish-free continuity record? Aside from the Lumieres and Melies, ar ar ar? How about Wyler? Anybody?
I understand from some contemporary filmmakers of my acquaintance that “script-girling,” as it were, is something of a lost art these days. Interestingly enough, I don’t think there was any kind of “script supervisor” on “The Girlfriend Experience,” because, I figured, Mr. Soderbergh was a) shooting it himself anyway and b) intended to edit out of continuity anyway. He wasn’t doing a lot of “coverage,” either.
Continuity gaffes tend to fly pretty high over my head – I’ve never noticed any of the FMJ inconsistencies that Chevalier points out (although I have always been puzzled by that weird initial cut in the reverse-track in Ermey’s opening monologue). I was tickled pink, however, by the moving garbage can in CITIZEN RUTH – the scene where she’s being told about the evils of abortion – which I noticed only on viewing w/ the commentary, because Payne himself points it out, and states that he did it for no other reason than the silly fun of it.
He does the same thing (which, again, I would have missed if not for the commentary) in Election – in the opening scene when Tracy assembles the table, there are quick cuts to five legs being snapped open. One of the many reasons Payne kicks ass.
My defense notwithstanding, I know as a filmmaker that mistakes I couldn’t eliminate make me cringe. Our new method– using multiple cameras and editing the different angles within the best take– seems to be eliminating both continuity problems and audio hiccoughs, so fingers crossed.
There is one “mistake” we left in deliberately in SEAHORSE– there’s a scene where the brother-in-law is supposed to say “My sister was a better cook before she married you”, but the actor said “your sister”. And it was just so damn funny that we couldn’t in good conscience cut it out.
Oh, good. Some other “Bringing Out the Dead” fans on the board. I had thought I was the only one left – or maybe the only one who ever had been.
Seeing it in the theater did it for me. Richardson’s image-making consistently impresses me, but his work with Scorcese is arguably his best.
I’ll admit that a second viewing of “Dead” was not to the level of the first viewing, but that second viewing was on a 27-inch TV at home. Not a comparable experience.
I also loved the use of music in “Bringing Out the Dead.”
Every movie has continuity errors. A good editor will choose the moments that best serve the emotion of the scene rather than what will “match”. To judge a filmmaker primarily by the continuity errors in their films is rather short-sighted.
As far as “Carrying Marty’s Water”, this conversation occurs with every important filmmaker out there who has a following. I believe every great director out there falls short of having a perfect filmography (and I think Scorsese has been spotty himself recently), but I would generally prefer critics make their arguments about the film rather than spending half their reviews talking about which side they’re on regarding the “Water Carrying”.
Do I really need another critic touting their alternative-to-the-mainstream opinion as if they were so special and unique? Congrats, guys, you see Martin Scorsese for the fraud he is that people like me are too dumb to see through because I liked “Kundun” too much. Excuse me, but Marty has more buckets of water for me to carry.
It just dawned on me that I had a film teacher back around 1990/1991 (at Columbia College in Chicago, for the record), who always referred to the man as “Mr. Scorsese”, a title of respect he gave no other filmmaker.
I think the same teacher was eventually fired for supposedly showing the Rob Lowe sex tape to some students, though that could have just been a school myth.
It’s not that continuity isn’t important. Of course it is. The problem is: important relative to what?
Say you’re an editor and you have to choose between a take where the actor nails it and delivers an Oscar-calibr monologue, but someone has forgotten to refill that glass of water that was supposed to be full, and another take where the water in the glass is right but the actor just isn’t that inspired. Which one do you choose?
Would a writer ever suggest that proper punctuation is unimportant?
I was rather enjoying the give and take here up until this point, at which I feel obliged to quote Warren Oates in “Stripes:” “Lighten up, Francis.”
And add: with Edith Wharton, and Marcel Proust, “proper” punctuation is important. With e. e. cummings and John Dos Passos, not so much. And bring up the question: which is more “proper:” the sequential comma or the serial comma?
Is the comma intellectually intentional, or is it the result of sloppy writing?
I, love, this, topic.
Semicolons are the shizzit.
To bring it back to “Marty’s” film… I don’t quite understand some of the accusations. There were moments that are as dark and experimental as anything he’s done. (Set in the 50s and there are merely two 50s pop songs for starters! One you can barely make out.) Anyone read Elbert Ventura’s Slate piece this week about Scorsese’s best years being behind him? It’s silly, really. He conveniently omitted “New York, New York” (as a miss) from the first third of his career and “No Direction Home” (as a hit) in the last third because they would’ve poked holes in his theory. People miss the existential angst of his earlier films? If “Shutter Island” doesn’t have it, then we have different ideas of existential angst. Referring to the Eastwood/Scorsese comparison, I don’t understand how “The Changeling” gets a pass and “Shutter Island” receives a review like Scott’s. Unless indifference is worse than hate, for which, in cinema, one could easily make a case.
And without getting into spoilers or sounding too much like an apologist, I read the “bad typical movie-ish” moments in the film as being, you know, kind of the idea.
Saw Eno and Cage listed in the music credits but didn’t pick up on their work while watching the film. Pretty neat, though. And here’s hoping the George Harrison doc is sooner than later.
Oops. I didn’t realize there was a separate “Shutter Island” thread. My apologies. I’ll post it there.
All this debate about Scorsese’s “continuity problems” reminds me of William Goldman’s book “Which Lie Did I Tell?”; specifically, the chapter he wrote on the famous scene in WHEN HARRY MET SALLY where Meg Ryan fakes an orgasm. He does talk about whether women really do fake it (yes), and whether guys can tell (no), and the only indicator being, for reasons unknown, there is a slight change in temperature in the roof of a woman’s mouth. He then adds, and I quote, “If you can figure out how to mention that, I don’t know what it is you’re interested in, but it sure isn’t sex.”
Basically, that’s how I feel about continuity. If you’re looking for continuity errors simply for purposes of trivia, that’s one thing (I certainly am obsessed with other kinds of movie trivia). And sure, if you’re bored with a movie, or you’ve seen a movie several times, you start to maybe notice things like, say, Brad Pitt eating from a plate with a bowl on it that turns into just a bowl in OCEAN’S 11, and that’s alright as long as it’s fun and games. It’s when continuity becomes a substitute for critical judgment that I cry foul.
It’s neither fun nor a substitute. It’s just an aspect of his filmmaking that’s glaringly obvious.
On the Goodfellas DVD a group of talking heads filmmakers even joke about how bad the continuity is – but they say it doesn’t matter because the movie is so electrifying.
The Chevrolet wrote: “It’s neither fun nor a substitute. It’s just an aspect of his filmmaking that’s glaringly obvious.”
Yet earlier you wrote: “A lot of people look at Scorsese’s work and see confidence and exuberance, but I always saw sloppiness and insecurity. I used to joke that I could still see the grease pencil on his movies.” So even if Scorsese’s “bad” continuity is glaring obvious, it appears to be a major part of your criticism.
I’m not sure what I’m more confused by, your comment or the misspelling of my name…
Not to break up the nice continuity debate here, but count me as another fan of “Bringing Out the Dead.” Thought it was a really excellent movie, and was wondering where all the hate was coming from here earlier.
“Todo esta bien, Chevrolet.”—Stevie Wonder
Speaking of legitimate good movies… Any word on why the new LionsGate “Ran” is only on Blu-ray but not standard DVD?
@ Chevalier, I don’t have any official word on that, but as the entire run of “Studio Canal Collection” discs thus far has been Blu-ray only, I gather that the high-definition format is pretty much the raison d’être for the sub-brand, as it were. I gather that the Studio-Canal-created high-def master will not likely get a standard-def release any time soon.
The OOP Criterion standard def of “Ran” is still mighty handsome…but yes, I can see how these upgrades might frustrate those who haven’t and aren’t necessarily going to spring for a Blu-ray player. Most of the Studio Canal releases thus far are of films for which very good standard-def versions are, or have been, available. A notable exception is Losey’s great “The Go-Between,” which Optimum released on standard-def in the UK at the incorrect aspect ratio. The new Blu-ray corrects that, and I’m expecting it in the mail soon. Very excited.
Chevrolet,
You say that Scorsese’s “bad” continuity is not a substitute for critical thinking, yet your arguments –if you can call them that, they strike me more as assertions— seem to focus on the use, or lack thereof, of continuity in Scorsese’s films.
Thanks for putting you seal of “legitimacy” on RAN, as I gather we can all be rest assured now that we are not being delusional if we like the film.
I better correct this before Chevrolet discounts my entire question to him/her because of faulty grammar:
“Thanks for putting your seal of “legitimacy” on RAN, as we can all be rest assured now that we are not being delusional if we like the film.”
Michael, in breaking with the pretty laid back comments I’ve left so far: you’re a dick.
If you need to mock my name in order to make your point, you’ve already failed. Furthermore, I still have no idea what your point is.
All right, break it up, break it up.
Mr. Worrall’s probably been called worse, but I’ll leave it to him to speak on that. I’ll just say I have no problem understanding the substance of his remarks. The citation of continuity errors to the exclusion of every other quality in Scorsese’s film does make it seem like a certain tunnel vision is at work here. I’ll go further and say that my own response to DeNiro’s pushing away of the table at the beginning of “Raging Bull” is an emotional one, every time. And I’ve seen it quite a few times. And I don’t consider myself either dumb or unobservant. And I really wonder at people who look at that shot and can only think, “Hey, why isn’t Laurie Flax in that shot? Continuity error!” Obviously, we’re wired differently. And yet I have resisted the near-constant temptation to use the word “dogmatic” in this discussion.
Laid back comments so far? I believe by your own admission that the use of the word “delusional” was meant to be rude. Then there are your comments on people’s use of punctuation.
I mocked your screen name because it appeared to reek of the same haughtiness that your posts do. I will totally admit that when I sense pretentiousness I cannot resist to deflate it. If mistook your sincerity as snootiness, then I apologize.
Glenn pretty much explained the question I was asking you
Apologies, I posted in haste:
“If I mistook your sincerity as snootiness, then I apologize.”
Glenn-
You just hit it. If the movie “works” for you, you tend to ignore the faults. If it doesn’t, then the faults are obvious. Scorsese’s movies never “worked” for me – and, as a teen when I was first getting acquainted with them, being visually attuned, and expecting a movie to look like it came directly from a filmmaker’s mind onto the screen, his continuity errors and stylistic shifts were glaring and jarring.
And all too often, that’s the argument of Scorsese’s defenders: He does so much right, why point out what he does wrong? Um…because they’re both part of the same work, and they both reflect on that work.
Speaking of the steak in Raging Bull:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U502uzVmcAE&feature=related
My apologies for starting a row on your blog, Glen. I appreciate your graciousness in letting me post.
I didn’t bring up punctuation to comment on other commenters. I was talking about film grammar; comparing film language to written language, suggesting images and edits are words and punctuation. The point being, if you read a novel, say, and it was filled with bad spelling or punctuation, you’d certainly notice that as a deficiency, no?
After seeing Scorsese’s shitty, uninspired rip-off of William Peter Blatty’s “The Ninth Configuration” (or did Lehane rip it off first?), calling him Marty is generous at best.
The Chevalier,
So I take it now that you are indeed saying that the continuity “errors” are part of your critical judgment of Scorsese? This is what I was trying to get you to clarify, as your response to lipranzer at 2/20 12:48am seemed to be at odds with a previous post from you.
Film language and written language are, to me, two totally different means of expression. I think it is a mistake to believe they are transferable / interchangeable. I see a lot of this in literary critics who somehow believe that since that can “read” a book, they can “read” a film. Attacks on the continuity of a film strike me as superficial, unless the director is totally incompetent in defining spacial relations, not to mention the question if he/she is actually attempting to make a classical narrative film. I hardly think Scorsese is incompetent.
Chevalier, there is another, practical reason that your comparison between film grammar and written grammar doesn’t hold up. As was pointed out earlier, most directors wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) throw out a take where an actor nails it over a relatively minor continuity gaffe because of the cost factors involved in reshooting. These are factors which don’t apply in the literary arena.
I kind of agree with this “carrying water” theory, except without the conspiratorial (or “everyone’s a sucker but me”) slant that Wells or some commenters have given it. Isn’t “carrying water for” a director pretty much auteurism in a nutshell? The reason I liked, say, The Aviator and disliked The Departed was that the former seemed better at using a staid genre, the biopic, as an expression of its author’s passions and pet themes, while the latter seemed to lack any personality whatsoever and felt redundant in every way. Am I delusional for loving second-tier Preminger or Louis Malle, or even a reviled novel like Melville’s Pierre? I think that subscribing to an author’s overall agenda (aesthetic or otherwise) is necessary before you can really enjoy the individual works. Has there been a “movies I’ve loved by directors I normally hate” post on this site yet?
Of course, continuity is grounds for criticism. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise. I’m not saying a movie has to be perfect – they all have their flubs – but, it is and was a glaring characteristic of Scorsese’s work, and it is, therefore, worth noting when discussing an evaluation of it. It’s all the more glaring in his work because it’s often juxtaposed with highly complex orchestrated camera/editing techniques – so, one moment, you’re impressed by his skill, then the next, it’s as if he’s given up control and tried to slap it together. But what else would you expect from a filmmaker who’s guided by polar opposites Orson Welles and John Cassavetes?…
I’m also not suggesting that film and literature are the same. In fact, they’re almost polar opposites, in how they affect people. However, in its own way, images and edits are the foundation of film grammar. And, as such, why would you be critical of errors in one medium but not another? Would you not notice if a musician regularly hit wrong notes while playing?
Like I said earlier, if the movie works for you, the errors aren’t important. If it doesn’t work, the errors are more glaring.
Yeah, Orson Welles, the perfectionist – he didn’t fly down to South American for the goverment, he tried to hide from the shame – the shame that camera shadow in the “Thatcher’s archives” scene in KANE put on him. And why didn’t he fire Toland for that parrot with the see-through eye? And where DID those dinosaurs come from? And you bother the man about a steak indeed.
Not Welles the perfectionist. Welles the stylist.
“Like I said earlier, if the movie works for you, the errors aren’t important. If it doesn’t work, the errors are more glaring.”
Chevalier, this assertion is confusing given the very premise you’ve set up. If the “errors” are unimportant for a movie that works, yet glaring for a movie that doesn’t, then it seems your point is the “errors” are sort of an extra gravy that one can ignore or not depending on the relative merits of the film in question. That is, the “errors’ are not at the foundation of why you may dislike a Scorsese film since you may like a Kubrick film despite any similar errors because it works for you.
Yet you fail to give the true underlying reasons why you dislike Scorsese’s films. I want to understand. What are the underlying reasons his films don’t work for you such that those “errors” are so glaring?
So with Welles, it doesn’t matter if there are gaffes, continuity errors and camera shadows, ’cause he’s a stylist? And Scorsese ain’t one? Whatever.
Fabian, you’re trying to argue a different point than the one in question.
Tony, I don’t care that much for his movies mostly because I don’t care for his stories, characters or themes – but I also find his filmmaking itself frustrating for some of the above reasons such as stylistic contrasts and poor continuity. Also, I should note, early on I was turned off because I felt he kept retreading – NYC, crime, DeNiro, etc. – while I wanted to see a greater variety.
But I think what it really comes down to is that it was the same moment that I was initially familiarizing myself with his work that American critics post-Goodfellas anointed him the greatest American director. And I just didn’t see it. So that opened a huge chasm.
Interesting that you got sick of Marty’s “retreading” early on. He follows up Mean Streets with Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, which features neither De Niro, crime, nor New York city, and directs someone to a Best Actress Oscar. After that it’s Taxi Driver, which features De Niro and NYC but no “crime” (as I’m assuming you define it), and while New York, New York shares those elements, it’s a musical and period piece with De Niro playing a largely different character. Throw in Boxcar Bertha, the The Last Waltz, it’s a more diverse first decade than meets the eye.
Can we get back to talking about Shutter Island (even if in the other thread) instead of going around in circles?
Not early on in his career, early on in my watching his career…
Tony wrote: “That is, the “errors’ are not at the foundation of why you may dislike a Scorsese film since you may like a Kubrick film despite any similar errors because it works for you.”
This is another of The Chevalier’s inconsistencies –such as when he first wrote that signaling out continuity errors was not a part of critical judgment and now says they are– that I don’t quite understand. From what I get, Kubrick gets a pass because he was a “perfectionist” but Scorsese gets a slap for apparently being asleep on the job or not caring enough. If not caring for characters or themes is your yardstick for a film or filmmaker – why, cause you don’t identify or relate to them? How do you deal with avant-garde films?–then I believe your area of film appreciation will be quite narrow. Sounds much more like a matter of personal taste than aesthetics, which I feel is what you are giving us in terms of Scorsese.
Thinking of a lot of the editing in Touch Of Evil, and Citizen Kane, I think one could challenge the idea of Welles being some classicist in terms of filmmaking . How do you respond to Eisenstein, Dryer, Godard –or any of the other New Wave filmmakers that a lot of Hollywood directors from the 1970s were influenced by?
In regard to Woody Allen, I find a lot of his films, even though the 1980s, are a lot less gracefully composed and edited as Scorsese’s.
“Not early on in his career, early on in my watching his career…”
Well in that case, Chevalier, you have even less of a leg to stand on. Marty’s got one of the most diverse filmographies of anyone in his generation. He’s not Sidney Lumet. About half of his 21 narrative features take place primarily in New York, and two of them are period pieces. 8 of them feature De Niro, and only 5 feature gangsters or organized crimes. Among these films are two horror/thrillers, two religious biopics at opposite ends of the spectrum, a musical, a classic literary adaptation, a historical epic, a nightmarish comedy, etc.
I don’t know what order you viewed his films in, but I’m skeptical of the justification for your feelings here.
The Chevalier wrote:
“Of course, continuity is grounds for criticism. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.”
Why is it ridiculous?
“However, in its own way, images and edits are the foundation of film grammar. And, as such, why would you be critical of errors in one medium but not another? Would you not notice if a musician regularly hit wrong notes while playing?”
Because we are talking about a technical aspect versus the overall conception of a vision, so I don’t think continuity plays a very deciding factor in that. If Scorsese directed a scene where the placement of the actors was all over the place within a simple conversational two-shot, then perhaps I would be critical. But a steak within a sequence concerned with its own rhythms, beats and emotions outside of traditional continuity? I think what you have brought to the table is pretty measly in regard to the big picture. So there are mismatches on objects and not graceful cutting on movement. So what? What counts for me is that the filmmaker knows how to use editing to make his/her point or suggestion, and to further aid in the revealing and defining of a worldview.
I should note that I meant to write that Allen’s films, up through the late 1980s, I find to be much less gracefully composed and editied
MW- We’re spinning in circles. I’m bored explaining myself to you, and you’re taking this much too personally and emotionally. It’s fine if you don’t mind the sloppiness. It’s another thing if you don’t acknowledge its existence.
Laz- From Mean Streets through Goodfellas, the era I’m primarily talking about, off the top of my head there were maybe 3 out 10 features without some variation of NY, crime or DeNiro. Meanwhile, other directors I was watching at the time (Kubrick, Coppola, Spielberg, etc.) were constantly changing subjects, locations, eras, actors, aesthetics, etc. They impressed me a great deal more. Yet it was Scorsese getting all the acclaim at that point.
There’s nothing graceful about Scorsese’s early work, MW. Nor was he trying to be graceful.
Allen’s peak work with Gordon Willis (Annie Hall-Zelig) is among the greatest director/cinematographer collaborations in history. Each film looked and played entirely different. They even shot 4 B&W pictures together and each was distinct.
I am not taking this personally or emotionally; I am trying to get you to make a coherent argument in which you define your position, which I see as all over the place at the moment. That might be easier if you did not resort to assertions or call people “delusional” or dishonest. (If you are going to continue to do that, then I think it is only rational to expect some heat.) I never said that I did not acknowledge Scorsese’s continuity errors, I said that, in the big picture of an individual film and the whole of Scorsese’s work, it does not really matter that much.
If you are bored, that’s fine. I will drop the discussion.
The Chevalier,
There have been hundreds of B&W films throughout the history of cinema that were made by the same team of a director and cinematographer that are distinct. So I do not see how that makes Allen’s B&W films so special; as much as I like Gordon Willis’ cinematography.
However, I feel that I may be taxing not only Glenn’s patience, but other members on the blog as well, so I will stop hogging up the place.
No complaints about hogging up the place. It’s just that I’m thinking this reminds me of the final shot of Bertolucci’s “1900” with DeNiro and Depardieu and the railroad track…and I say that affectionately, mind you!
What I’ve said has been pretty consistent. It’s the same view I’ve had of Scorsese for 20 years and it makes perfect sense. You just disagree with it, that’s all.
So, yes, I am bored. And I don’t expect either to change each other’s minds. So, yes, let’s let it go.
One last note, a few years back, I recall browsing through a book compilation of Variety’s reviews. Among others, I went through Scorsese’s filmography – and the result was interesting. Pretty much every movie he made until Goodfellas received a mixed review – they all boiled down to: There are flashes of brilliance, but overall it’s too mixed. Then, with the ’90s and McCarthy’s arrival, suddenly every movie is a historic masterpiece that raises the cinematic bar.
I agreed with the earlier reviews.
Out.
“From Mean Streets through Goodfellas, the era I’m primarily talking about, off the top of my head there were maybe 3 out 10 features without some variation of NY, crime or DeNiro.”
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Some would say that a true artist often explores the same thematic concerns over a period of time within his larger body of work. Interesting that you use Woody Allen as a contrasting example. Should we be as dismissive of him as you are of Scorsese simply because he had a large number of movies featuring some variation of NY, intellectual navel-gazing or Mia Farrow?
Sounds like you have a personal distaste for Scorsese, which is fine. But to disguise it within such a specious argument as yours is disingenuous, to say the least.
Nothing disingenuous at all. I think Woody Allen is completely worn out and hasn’t made a great film in 25 years. But I’ve probably watched and studied Manhattan’s visual schemes more than I’ve watched Scorsese’s entire filmography.
Yeah, and how about that John Ford?! All he did was make a bunch of westerns with John Wayne, over and over again!
-Yeah, and how about that John Ford?! All he did was make a bunch of westerns with John Wayne, over and over again!
Nothing I’d rather watch less.
I may be a d**k, but at least I am not a fool.
You are a fool because you actually just wrote “d**k” instead of dick…
Yeah, that last post pretty much removed any credibility you had left.
Huh?
“1900,” fellas. Like the man says, see it again…for the first time.
The Chevalier wrote, “The point being, if you read a novel, say, and it was filled with bad spelling or punctuation, you’d certainly notice that as a deficiency, no?”
I have an author he should really check out. What was his name? Oh yes, James Joyce.
I think I also pointed out that there’s a difference between intellectual decision-making and sloppiness. Which would you use to describe Joyce’s writing?
My bad, I momentarily slipped and failed to hang on your every word.
Glenn,
I have not seen 1900 since I was a teenager. I will put it my Netflix queue.
The Chevalier,
I can think of posting much more foolish things besides not spelling out derogatory words. Did Griffith make too many of the same melodramas with Lillian Gish? (Not to mention that Griffith made a lot of distinct black and white films with Billy Bitzer.) Then there’s Sternberg and Dietrich. Oh yeah, Sandrich, Astaire and Rogers made too many films with dancing in them.
People are still arguing with the guy who dismissed John Ford so casually?
Well, yeah, lots of filmmakers made movies in B&W when movies were made in B&W. By the time WA and GW made their B&W films nobody shot B&W anymore. It’s not a format either would’ve had any kind of regular working familiarity with. That’s what made their work so impressive.
Understand something, if you reread my comments, the underlying issue I have with Scorsese is his critical worship. It’s not that he does certain things I don’t like, per se, it’s that he does them, yet he’s still considered by many to be a God.
I love Kubrick, but I can damn well understand why some people wouldn’t like his work. Same goes for Spielberg or the Coens or Fellini anybody else. What I find, however, is that Scorsese fans often can’t understand how somebody doesn’t see his greatness.
No, actually, Laz, it was more of a John Wayne dismissal. I’d rather have a saber tooth tiger try to lick the gum from a Blow Pop lodged in my ass than to sit through John Wayne movies.
Lazarus, this is my last post to the guy who dismissed John Ford so causally.
Chevalier: “By the time WA and GW made their B&W films nobody shot B&W anymore.”
No one, eh?:
The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting 1979
Rautakauppias Uuno Turhapuro, presidentin vävy 1978
The Whole Shootin’ Match 1978
Northern Lights 1978
Eraserhead 1977
Killer of Sheep 1977
Julio comienza en Julio 1977
The Consequence 1977
Kings of the Road 1976
Coup de Grâce 1976
The Ascent 1976
Overlord 1975
Hester Street 1975 .…..
MW, you obviously don’t read. Try looking one post up regarding your first comment.
With regards to your second, you have zero credibility with me, because you seem to be arguing against the achievement of the most highly regarded American cinematographer of the modern era. When I say ‘nobody’, it is not literal. Even today you can find a handful of movies shot in B&W – but it’s still a big deal when Schindler’s List or Rumble Fish or The Man Who Wasn’t There show up. Because it is not the industry norm anymore.
Sorry Lazarus, some promises need to be temporarily broken.
Chevalier,
You must have been writing the post on John Wayne when I was composing my list of films shot in B&W just before MANHATTAN, so I of course could not read it. I never wrote anything negative about Gordon Willis. In fact, I wrote that I liked his cinematography. (I even met the guy and told him. I especially liked his work on PENNIES FROM HEAVEN.)
Nice attempt to back peddle on your initial response to my Ford post. You also back peddle on your Scorsese continuity attack by writing: “It’s not that he does certain things I don’t like, per se, it’s that he does them, yet he’s still considered by many to be a God.” I don’t know, you seemed not to like his continuity. I also don’t think anyone here was calling Scorsese a god.
By now we are both beating a dead horse –one that was probably ridden on by John Wayne–, so happy trails to you ‘pardner!
By morning we’ll probably be eating the slaughtered horse gone bad from O Brother…
BTW/ No back peddling. I was very clear that my reactions to Scorsese were formulated at a specific time, as he was being crowned, so to speak.
And on that note, no further commenting for tonight.
I completely agree with The Chevalier, and in fact, I found this blog because I just returned from seeing Shutter Island and I had to google to see if others shared by frustration with Scorsese’s films. I agree that in many ways he is a good director, but for the love of fuck, hire a decent continuity person. Even student filmmakers know that.
Shutter Island is a mess, and I know they’re now trying to pass it off as intentional, but I don’t buy that. If Scorsese didn’t have several previous examples of continuity issues, maybe he could get away with it, but considering his past, it’s clearly the “pass it off as an artistic decision” ploy.
This is such a bizarre thread. Am I to understand that Scorsese isn’t a master director because there are some spatial discrepancies in his films?
“Am I to understand that Scorsese isn’t a master director because there are some spatial discrepancies in his films?”
Not at all. He isn’t a master director because he’s a persistently clumsy storyteller, continually fails to create characters that audiences can empathize with, hasn’t shown much growth over the course of his career & though capable of impressive – even brilliant – individual shots & scenes is unable to sustain that level over the length of a movie.
The continuity errors are distracting though – think of all those now you see ’em, now you don’t cigarettes & hats in The Aviator – if only because we don’t expect such sloppiness from One Of Our Alleged Greatest Directors. A first year film school student well, yeah, maybe ..
All right, who summoned Beetlejuice back?…
Continuity? I mean…really? Is that the argument? Because other than that, I’m reading nothing but opinions here on the “anti” side – like, he “continually fails to create characters that audiences can empathize with,” or “my reactions to Scorsese were formulated at a specific time, as he was being crowned, so to speak,” or John Wayne sucks. And so on, and on. And on.
I think it’s great to have opinions. I have plenty of them myself, and I express them proudly. However, when someone disagrees with my opinions and calls on me to back them up, particularly on blogs devoted to film criticism like this one, I think it’s only fair to muster up a little energy and try to mount an argument.
Listen, there’s nothing wrong with using perfect continuity, as in a Kubrick or Ozu or Coen Brothers film, as your standard. I think that’s just fine. The only problem is that you have to throw out Renoir (who publicly stated that he never bothered with continuity), Welles, Rossellini, Godard, Malick, and about 3/4 of modern cinema to make it work. But listen, who am I to argue in the face of such unswerving certainty?
Anne wrote: “Shutter Island is a mess, and I know they’re now trying to pass it off as intentional, but I don’t buy that. If Scorsese didn’t have several previous examples of continuity issues, maybe he could get away with it, but considering his past, it’s clearly the “pass it off as an artistic decision” ploy.”
As asked in THE WILD BUNCH: Who is “they”?
Did anyone here make the “pass it off as an artistic decision” ploy in terms of Scorsese’s playing where’s the steak? (Or beef, rather.)
“Continuity? I mean…really? Is that the argument?”
No that isn’t the argument although it’s revealing that Scorsese’s defenders are trying to represent it as that. But then, they would, wouldn’t they?
“I think it’s great to have opinions. I have plenty of them myself, and I express them proudly. However, when someone disagrees with my opinions and calls on me to back them up, particularly on blogs devoted to film criticism like this one, I think it’s only fair to muster up a little energy and try to mount an argument.”
Plenty of argument expressed re Scorsese’s weaknesses on here. It’s just that Scorsese fanboys either refuse to acknowledge them, sarcastically dismiss them or go on petulant little rants. Sort of like yours actually.
I am enjoying Arnie’s implications that a disdain for Scorsese and his work is a sign of emotional maturity. Scorsese’s defenders are almost invariably “petulant,” “sarcastic,” “ranting” “fanboys.” And he’s the voice of sweet reason, hammering away with countless reiterations of “clumsy,” “crude,” “you can’t empathize with the characters,” as insistently as that one note in the Ligeti piano piece that drove the “Eyes Wide Shut” haters so crazy.
Sometimes I think he’s almost begging me to tell him to, well, you know.
But I’m not going to do that. I’m trying to be above that sort of thing. And I don’t want to give him the satisfaction. But I will say to him that he does not persuade. Just so he knows that as far as I’m concerned, he’s wasting his time.
Okaaaayyy…my comment is not longer here. Because I used the “f” word?
I just want to offer some support for The Chevalier; I too am irked by Scorsese’s ongoing continuity issues. Shutter Island is by far the worst, but this has been an issue of his films for some time. Without the “f” word – for PETE’S sake, hire a good continuity person on set at all times. It’s really annoying when small, indie films can get continuity right with their limited budgets, but someone with Scorsese’s budget can’t.
I’m an editor, and I feel really sorry for Schoonmaker if this is what she has to work with regularly. Although, she keeps working with him, so clearly she is getting something out of the relationship.
Arnie’s Zilla wrote: “Not at all. He isn’t a master director because he’s a persistently clumsy storyteller, continually fails to create characters that audiences can empathize with, hasn’t shown much growth over the course of his career & though capable of impressive – even brilliant – individual shots & scenes is unable to sustain that level over the length of a movie.”
This a spoof post, right?
@ Anne, here, now, on my Safari browser, your first comment is still up. I don’t know what’s going on in your browser that made it disappear there.
For the record, I never delete comments for content, unless, you know, it’s the ravings of somebody out of “Salo” or some such thing. Spam I get rid of. I’m fortunate because my commenters are by and large civil enough that I don’t have a lot of tough calls to make, try my patience as some of them might. If you persist in having trouble seeing your comments here, please contact me by e‑mail (it’s on my “About” page) and I’ll try to fix the problem.
I guess it’s all about “Fanboys” and realists. Sorry I bothered.
I understand where The Chevalier is coming from, even if I disagree with him strongly. I look at the continuity in Scorsese’s films less as some kind of flaw in the diamond as a *feature* of the work.
One could argue, as Michael Herr did in his little memoir, that there’s a lot of hamminess in some of Kubrick’s films– but that’s not a “flaw” in Kubrick’s work to be ignored by acolytes or harped upon by critics, it’s a _feature_ of his work. Something that makes it different, idiosyncratic, and noteworthy.
I personally don’t see Scorsese’s work as “sloppy”, and Anne, I wouldn’t feel sorry for Schoonmaker because she’s an editor who hasn’t valued continuity in the least. On an earlier comments thread, Greg Mottola said that his editor worked in the same building as Schoonmaker, who said that ‘match-cutting is for pussies’.
It’s not that continuity is something they come short of, but rather it’s something they don’t give two shits about– it’s not one of their aesthetic values. I think The Chevalier and Betelgeuse have aesthetic values that aren’t in synch with Scorsese’s work– not just continuity, but other ones that we as Carriers of Marty’s Water might see as head-scratchers– but that’s perfectly fine.
I will say that while I disagree strongly with both persons, I do think The Chevalier has conducted himself with more intelligence, tact, and manners than Betelgeuse, for which I commend him as I agree to disagree.
Somehow I missed this, from Arnie’s Zilla: “[Scorsese] hasn’t shown much growth over the course of his career…”
Alright, the last time I tried to articulate my feelings about this, I about got my head handed to me by Steven Santos– no harm done, sir, and no hard feelings– and so I’ve had time to think long and hard about it, and I’m going to try to distill said thoughts and feelings intelligently but forcefully into the (hopefully) concise little paragraphs that follows.
Growth is an arbitrary, bullshit metric. Lambast a filmmaker for making what you think is a bad film. Say, even, that you think a previous film he or she made does it better and deeper than a new one (I think it was Kael who said Brian DePalma had made a better version of “Bonfire of the Vanities” in “Hi, Mom!”– someone please correct me if I’m wrong). But saying a filmmaker hasn’t “grown”– that their current work merely isn’t sufficiently different from their older work– is silly and, in fact, anti-auteurist.
The “growth” metric would reduce the works of Ozu and Ford to ashes– the “growth” metric is born partially of a modern fascination with New-New-New that has robbed us of the ability to appreciate the small differences, and partially of a modern desire to knock our artists off their imagined pedestals, a desire to see them fail, a desire to “punish” them for doing their own idiosyncratic thing.
Some artists are more versatile, yes, and their versatility is a feature of their work. Some artists are more willing to take risks, and that should be rewarded. But to decry someone’s work because they have a consistent and identifiable style, because they return to certain thematic obsessions, because they feel no need to reinvent themselves, or because they’re good at what they do, is bullshit.
This doesn’t mean that all auteurs, self-styled or otherwise, are beyond criticism. If a film doesn’t work for you, it doesn’t work for you, but there must be reasons for that beyond “lack of growth”, and those reasons could be as simple as, “I don’t click with that particular sensibility” (for me, Michael Bay) or “I kinda outgrew that when I graduated high school and stopped feeling sorry for myself” (for me, Tim Burton). Those are valid, viable reactions– but “so-and-so isn’t growing” is not.
Kind of hilarious this discussion is taking place under the banner of SHUTTER ISLAND, which uses an (apparent) continuity error as a key thematic element. Watch the hands, is all I’ll say.
I am actually quite charmed to be called a “fanboy,” for the first and perhaps only time. It makes me feel all contemporary ‘n stuff.
I don’t have a problem with the Chevalier’s opinions as expressed here (although I did rather put hand to forehead when he dissed John Ford’s movies, even if the real problem was Wayne). He’s been clear enough about what bothers him and mostly polite. As Tom Russell said, I simply disagree. I find Scorsese both graceful and eloquent, and if something like Mean Streets doesn’t sustain itself thematically and dramatically over the course of the movie I don’t know what does. I admire Scorsese for being a director willing to go after big, knotty questions and to people his movies with characters that range from tenderly sympathetic to brutally cringeworthy. And as someone who spends most of her time watching the same movies that Scorsese cut his teeth on, I also admire the vastness of his film vocabulary. Raging Bull is one of the most scalding statements on male violence I have ever seen–what it does to the man’s family, his friends, the way it cuts him off from love and comfort and leaves him so hollowed-out he barely comprehends the void that’s inside him. I just don’t give a damn if a steak moves.
You are very kind, Siren. I certainly have no problem hosting anyone’s opinions here, but I also reserve the right to stop taking those opinions seriously at any time. When The Chevalier concocted that elaborate description of what he would prefer to do rather than sit through any John Wayne film, that tore it for me. No further engagement necessary, most likely you go your way and I’ll go mine, goodbye is too good a word babe, so I’ll just say fare thee well, and so on.
I just re-watched the now-infamous moving steak “error” myself…what a joke. THAT is a glaring continuity error? That spoils the scene? HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE CRAZY???
As an aside – five minutes of RAGING BULL was all I needed to be reminded yet again of what a masterpiece that film is (I wholeheartedly agree with the Siren’s assessment).
Anyone who’s ever made a movie knows this to be true: any scene in which there are A) two human beings talking/emoting/whatever, B) >1 camera angle (shot reverse, over the shoulder, etc.) and C) multiple takes…is likely to involve continuity errors. It’s not impossible, but it is exceedingly rare – all the more so if the people are doing things with their hands – smoking, eating, drinking, or if there is anything going on in the background. I know Tom Russell expressed similar sentiments…but it bears repeating.
Here’s a fun exercise – choose a scene, from any movie, that corresponds to the conditions I discuss above. Instead of watching the character who is speaking, watch the other actor – the side of their face, upper neck/shoulders, depending on the angle. Very rarely will it match – it’s all the more obvious if the off-angle character is speaking and you can see their mouth. Again, matching will be rare. If this kind of stuff truly bothers people, my advice would be: stop watching films before you get any crazier. You are clearly qualified to screen tax forms and spot-check the Space Shuttle, but you might want to consider other means of recreation.
All snark aside, and more to the Scorsese debate, risking redundancy…
Now that I’m hooked watching BULL again (thank you very much) – it strikes me that there something uplifting in LaMotta’s character, even when he’s at his most despicable. He’s so fascinatingly mercurial – the way he switches from the menacing brute to the cajoling older brother – whiplash transitions from savage to affectionate and back again; the scene by the pool in which he first chastises Joey for saying “fuck” in relation to and then seconds later uses the word himself – so funny, so great! There’s also the vivid rendering of milieu – the whole hysterical dysfunctional Italian marriage, screaming at each other in the streets, tossed-off threats of death and dismemberment, which is part play-acting and part deadly serious – I don’t know what it is, but I can’t be alone in finding it strangely uplifting & compelling & scary at the same time. It’s similar, I suspect, to the way that (per Kubrick, among many others) have remarked that war, while being awful and many other things, is occasionally beautiful – which isn’t to diminish its moral evil…I don’t know who first said that beauty is fundamentally amoral…The fact that Scorsese can render all of this so well just makes me slap my forehead in amazement. I know this subject is getting a bit played-out around these parts, and I’m mostly preaching to the choir, but man, it’s so good I can’t help myself.
No, I agree with you Zach, it is weirdly uplifting. And while RB is most obviously about violence you can apply things in it to all kinds of obsessive pursuits that drive a wedge between a person and loved ones, including the isolation of being an athlete or an artist. And like (almost) all of Scorsese, it is extremely funny in parts. That came up the last time we discussed RB too. I remember confessing at the time that although it comes after one of the most horrifying episodes in the movie, I always get a loud, guilty chuckle out of “He ain’t pretty no more.” That balance between revulsion and humor is incredibly hard to do; I don’t think Scorsese gets enough credit in some quarters for his incredible control of tone, where he can move fluidly from appalling the audience to having it laugh, however reluctantly.
I would just like to quote partially Anne’s comment, because it’s special:
“I’m an editor, and I feel really sorry for Schoonmaker if this is what she has to work with regularly. Although, she keeps working with him, so clearly she is getting something out of the relationship.”
Yes, perhaps she’s getting something out of the relationship. Who’s to say, really?
All I can say is, you must be some kinda editor, Anne. As least Schoonmaker can rest assured you’re not gunning for her job!
Also, maybe it’s been said, but let’s emphasize: CONTINUITY ERRORS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FILM GRAMMAR. And if you think Scorsese’s execution is “sloppy,” then you have no idea what goes into making a shot, building a performance, etc. You can call him uneven, you can call him overreaching, but one thing is absolutely, abundantly, totally, completely certain: Scorsese knows how to construct a film, and his visual vocabulary is as deep as any living filmmaker’s. Even someone who can’t “relate” to his meanie characters should be able to see this plainly.
Chevalier, as Michael Worrall very rightly said, you’re trying to cloak personal taste with a faulty (and very jumbled) aesthetic argument. And it’s just not working for you, sir. I’d get out while the gettin’s good.
Glenn, is there any chance you could create a Some Came Running t‑shirt with the emblazoned legend:
Match-cutting is for pussies. – Thelma Schoonmaker
I’d buy two!
Incidentally, to the Marty (couldn’t help myself…) hatas, just what IS it about this a‑continuous, character-deficient filmmaker that people have been fooling themselves for a generation? Just the snappy, empty camera work? The generous use of the word “fuck” in its many grammatical discontinuities? Is it concievable to have a non-Manichaen, nuanced view of his flaws/strengths?
The implication I’m seeing here is that Scorsese is sloppy and doesn’t know what he’s doing. Seriously? Like… seriously? Do we hold all movies to this standard? Not even close. Let’s talk about it as a movie, please.
Not to mention, we could argue that the continuity errors have a place in “Shutter Island” from a narrative standpoint as it’s told from the POV of someone who is, y’know, crazy.
John M – I know exactly what I’m talking about. As I said elsewhere, and you can even find Scorsese quoted on it, early on his two primary influences were Welles and Cassavetes – basically high style, and naturalism.
The reason I think that Scorsese often has bad continuity is because in his mind he perceives performance as an extension of Cassavetes’ naturalism. Therefore, he’s more interested in having his actors be natural, even inconsistent, so long as the emotion is correct.
But to me, part of directing is blocking. And part of blocking is determining at what beat an actor sips his coffee or puffs his cigarette. It’s sculpting. You don’t simply run the camera looking for emotion.
That’s one of the reasons directors like Kubrick and Fincher do such a high amount of takes (though with Kubrick, it’s also because he was workshopping as he was shooting). Their feeling is that the early takes are all about blocking the performance – THEN, they keep going until the blocking and dialogue become second nature and the actor is no longer self-conscious about it.
Jack Nicholson quoted Kubrick as saying (and I’m paraphrasing): You don’t photograph reality. You photograph the photograph of reality.
So, this is what I mean when I say that Scorsese’s work veers from highly stylized, orchestrated filmmaking to situations where it feels like he’s given up directorial control – because I think very often that has been his strategy.
Siren – Indeed, the guy is unbelievably deft with tone. It is something he probably doesn’t get enough cred for, and I think that’s also the case with many directors. Tone, for some reason, is difficult to reduce and thus talk about analytically – it’s one of those magical qualities that seems always to be more than the sum of the parts. And, in the case of Scorsese, for those who don’t “see it” or “get it” – I would say the Chevalier is one of those unfortunate souls – no amount of discussion will persuade them. Which is okay. It’s an imperfect world.
Also, Chevalier, for what it’s worth: Scorsese also has a tendency to do many, many takes. I have firsthand knowledge of this. Which would imply that he’s not, as you say, “running the camera looking for emotion,” or “giving up directorial control.”
I do agree, though, that he is after naturalistic performances (in a way that Kubrick, and to a lesser extent Fincher, is not), and this means he’s willing to make certain concessions in continuity (which to my eyes are minor). Where we disagree, I think, is that this is a product of sloppiness or disregard for elegance. It’s deliberate, and I’m among those who think it works wonders.
I agree it’s deliberate. However, and I think this is more a product of his ’70s output, the tonal juxtapositions of these naturalistic, seemingly improvised scenes against the swooping dollies and rapid edits, to my eye, at least, when I was first educating myself on film, were very ugly, very inelegant.
I think both Taxi Driver and Raging Bull are very problematic in this regard. Mean Streets less so, because the whole low budget street tone seems more consistent. Raging Bull never worked for me dramatically because of this very dialectic – I pretty much just want to fast-forward through the unintelligible, repetitive dialogue scenes and just watch the fights. This situation is exacerbated, I think, because the movie is so loosely structured and episodic that it never builds any kind of escalating drama – it’s just a series of scenes.
I like both naturalism and stylization. But there was always something about the way Scorsese mixed the two where it felt like a choppy stew of one or the other without trying to find tonal harmony. The stylized camerawork is often so impressive that it calls greater attention to the inconsistent continuity.
The Chevalier wrote: “However, and I think this is more a product of his ’70s output, the tonal juxtapositions of these naturalistic, seemingly improvised scenes against the swooping dollies and rapid edits, to my eye, at least, when I was first educating myself on film, were very ugly, very inelegant.”
So I gather that your opinion that Scorsese is inelegant has not changed, yet earlier you wrote that: “There’s nothing graceful about Scorsese’s early work, MW. Nor was he trying to be graceful.”
If you know Scorsese was not trying to be graceful, then why are you criticizing his early work as “very ugly, very inelegant”? Could you please clarify your position.
Very simple: I prefer aesthetic congruity.
I like Robert Altman’s work, but he’s not somebody I’d think of as elegant. The lack of harmony is aesthetically harmonious, in its own way, because his improvised direction is clumsily consistent.
And again, it’s not that Scorsese does these things, so much as I look at these things as the mark of a lesser filmmaker than one who is consistently considered the greatest. I just don’t think his work lives up to that. As far as I’m concerned, if, post-1970s, Francis Coppola had only directed Police Academy sequels for the rest of his life, simply by having made The Godfather & Part II, The Conversation and Apocalypse Now, he’d still be farther ahead in my estimation than Scorsese.
Chevalier: While I ultimately don’t agree with your assessment, I do understand where you’re coming from. If you haven’t already, you might want to try KUNDUN, as it’s more “purely” cinematic than his other films, less dependent on performance (though the actors are all quite good and understated) than on style, while still possessing a considerable amount of substance.
I’m curious to know how many Scorsese films Chevalier has seen. And which ones? Because something like Kundun, as Tom mentioned above, is different in so many ways then “typical” Scorsese, not just in terms of subject matter.
Chevalier, I’d like to thank you for at least illuminating why you think the match cuts are detrimental to the substance of Scorsese’s movies. That’s a criticism. Most of what I’ve been reading all over the internet is just whining that the cuts don’t match and trying to use THAT as proof that Scorsese is a bad director. Which is crazy, to say the least. I really like the way you cite that the naturalism he works towards with his actors and his highly stylized camera choreography clash. Though this is one of the things I find most fascinating about his career, so it’s not necessarily a flaw in his personal vision. He’s concerned with other things.
Lazarus-
I tried watching Kundun way back in the ’90s when it first hit video, and I remember being kind of put off by the early section where I felt Scorsese didn’t know how to work with the child. It seemed to me at the time that he was so used to making adult films with adults that he didn’t understand how to get a controlled performance from the kid, unlike say, Spielberg. But it’s been awhile.
And I’ve seen every feature he’s made and most of his shorts and docs, too.
The Chevalier,
Okay, so now we have moved from bad continuity, lack of identifiable characters, making the “same” film over and over again, to “aesthetic congruity”, and now currently Scorsese’s difficulty directing child actors. What’s next?
The kid in Kundun was a non-actor (as was most of the cast), so to compare Scorsese’s direction of children in that case to Spielberg working with Christian Bale, Drew Barrymore, or Haley Joel Osment, for example, is unfair, to say the least. This is primarily what you took away from Kundun? You’ve got to be kidding me.
What Scorsese got out of Jodie Foster is better than any young performance I’ve seen in any of Spielberg’s films.
Also, I’m not sure watching a pan-and-scan VHS tape of Kundun back in 1998 could really be considered a proper viewing.
The Chevalier,
I am curious as to your thoughts on the films and filmmakers that Glenn and fellow contributors here listed on Glenn’s “Film’s Without Continuity Errors” thread.
I think the kid in KUNDUN is very well-directed, actually– he’s like a real kid, goofy, selfish, bratty, and illogical, instead of the Hollywood simulcrum. It goes a long way towards creating the complex and human portrait of the Dali Lama that emerges in the film.
Also, lazarus, I think it is a fair comparision for the Chevalier to make, even if, as noted in my above comment, I completely disagree with his assessment.
Oh, and the kid from ALICE– esp. the scene in the car (“shoot the dog!”)– pitch-perfect.
Oh my! Let me drop that apostrophe in my last post; films not film’s. Long time ago, I got very high marks on my continuity assignment in film school, I swear!
I agree re. the kid’s performance in KUNDUN – in fact, I prefer the little guy to the older guy.
If nothing else, the sheer harmony of the visual/aural elements in KUNDUN is cause for admiration. The Glass score, the colors, the movements (Scorsese notably toned down some of his flourishes, to great effect). I will say that the movie has its dry spots – chunks of the middle could have used a bit more finessing. But when the film hits, it hits hard – the last twenty or so minutes of the film equal the sublime velocity of GOODFELLA’S concluding scenes, albiet ultilizing a completely different tone (there’s that word again…)
Like I said, it was a long time ago. And it was laser disk not VHS.
I always thought that with KUNDUN, Scorsese finally made his Michael Powell film starring Sabu.
Chevalier, I still would like to hear your thoughts on the films and filmmakers listed on the “Films Without Continuity Errors” thread
Actually Chevalier, I would like to know your opinions on the films listed that were made outside of the U.S. (Well, let’s include Stan Brakhage.)
“Also, lazarus, I think it is a fair comparision for the Chevalier to make, even if, as noted in my above comment, I completely disagree with his assessment.”
Tom, how is it fair to compare a director working with those who are NOT professional actors to a director working with those who are, and to then say that the former fails where the other succeeds? Do we watch the Special Olympics and fault the coaches for not training their charges well enough to break the records of their regular olympics counterparts?
Does not compute.
For what it’s worth, we can look at Spielberg’s work with the kid who played Short Round in Temple of Doom, who had no prior acting experience and…well, let’s just say I’m not impressed.
I kind of thought Glenn was trying to be droll with that post. Obviously, most of the films cited either require no continuity due to being single takes, or at least are made up of minimal coverage, or they’re experimental and have no need of continuity. The post kind of struck me as a rhetorical question.
I think Glenn was being more than droll, but I was just curious as to how many you have seen. Thanks for replying.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Bresson’s direction of non-actors/models?
Well, Bresson wasn’t exactly using non-actors to achieve naturalism, was he? (Which is usually why non-actors are employed.) He pretty much had his fist up their asses like a puppet.
Lazarus wrote: “What Scorsese got out of Jodie Foster is better than any young performance I’ve seen in any of Spielberg’s films.’
Lazarus’ point about Scorsese’s direction of Foster is something that The Chevalier has, thus far, ignored addressing.
The Chaviler wrote: “Well, Bresson wasn’t exactly using non-actors to achieve naturalism, was he? ”
Do you think Scorsese was trying to achieve naturalism with KUNDUN? If not, then your criticism about Scorsese’s direction of the boy would seem to me a bit problematic.
I have little recall of Kundun. Like I said, it was a while ago. But the kid stayed with me. Though, all things said, nobody forced him to use a non-actor, did they?
I don’t think Jodie Foster is necessarily better than Drew Barrymore or Henry Thomas or Christian Bale. I think hers might be a grittier role. But I don’t think it’s a better performance.
Chevalier
Why do you think Scorsese chose to use a non-actor? Perhaps you could consider a director’s intentions rather than your own personal response/taste, which seems to be the reason you could not make it through KUNDUN.
We’d have to go back a dozen years ago to get that answer, wouldn’t we? I’m just responding to what I saw on screen. There’s a difference between a director’s intentions and his results. Do you credit the attempt or the execution?
Oh, I also remember Kundun had a lot of shots of mountain peaks. I think.
Responding. Yes, you were; though it looks to me without ever thinking about why Scorsese was doing such a thing, or going back to the film to see perhaps, just perhaps, you misread or misunderstood the performance and/or the film.
I think one should look beyond personal tastes and reactions and come to terms with the film. Let me know if you go back to it.
Yeah, I think we’re heading into that territory usually reserved for modern art where it becomes a debate about whether something is good because you have a legitimate positive reaction to it or whether it’s good because you understand the intellectual intent.
If I go back to Kundun I’ll let you know.
THE THREAD THAT WOULDN“T DIE!
Talk With Each Other – - Not At Each Other
The Importance of Conversation in Marriage
By Sheri & Bob Stritof, About.com Guide
http://marriage.about.com/od/communicationtips/a/conversation.htm
Glenn,
I really think Porky Pig came out to say “That’s all folks!!” with The Chevalier’s last post. (At least for him and me. I can’t speak for Lazarus, Tom and Zach.)
Yeah, I’m pretty much done.
Can we get back to Shutter Island now? I mean it this time.
Certainly not trying to extend the thread beyond its natural life, but I did want to answer Lazarus. Your example of the Special Oylmpics is quite apt, but I still think, as Kurosawa once said, the circumstances of a film’s making do not mitigate defficiencies in the actual aesthetic experience. Whether they’re professionals or non-professionals, whether they’re drunk off their ass or sober as hell, if it ain’t on the screen, it ain’t on the screen. Good is good and bad is bad, regardless of the actor’s (or director’s) experience.
And so, as far as “comparing Spielberg and Scorsese’s direction of children” is concerned, I think it’s fair. That being said, I think Scorsese was going for something different in KUNDUN than Spielberg was going for, in, say, HOOK, and you’re right insomuchas it’s not cool to fault KUNDUN for not being HOOK and HOOK for not being KUNDUN. But I think as far as, “how well did X succeed in what they were doing” and “how much did I get out of X’s child performers compared to Y’s”, I think, yes, it’s fair to compare.
Ok, compare then. But compare EVERYTHING. As I said, Jodie Foster’s work in Taxi Driver is better than anything Spielberg ever got out of a young performer. Maybe better than he got out of any performer.
Agreed, Lazarus: I much prefer Scorsese’s direction of child actors, and actors in general, though in Spielberg’s defense I think the moment at the table in JAWS between Scheider and the kid was quite excellent.
“Ok, compare then. But compare EVERYTHING. As I said, Jodie Foster’s work in Taxi Driver is better than anything Spielberg ever got out of a young performer. Maybe better than he got out of any performer.”
Oh no, I don’t agree. Look at Osment in AI and tell me Foster is better than him. Osment walks away with that prize, as far as I’m concerned. Foster is great, but she also has a bit of that unreal precociousness that most kid actors have. Osment doesn’t have an ounce of it, at least not in AI.