Martin Scorsese

oyKsobC

It’s difficult for many of us to be unbiased when it comes to Martin Scorsese. Very likely he could direct a remake of When Harry Met Sally and I’d think it was the greatest thing since Taxi Driver. But even given all of that bias, and all the ways I love The Wolf of Wall Street (my favorite film of the year) it’s still hard to put into words why he’s just the best director working today and why he shines so brightly with The Wolf of Wall Street, his fifth collaboration with Leonardo DiCaprio.
Continue reading…

Screen-Shot-2013-05-01-at-10.24.13-AM

An interesting video take by Ali Shirazi on some, not the usual, Scorsese films. It makes me think there will come a time when Gangs of New York is re-evaluated.

The Passion Of Martin Scorsese_ A Tribute Video from Ali Shirazi on Vimeo.

Joel-Phillips-Scorsese-550x722

Over at Slashfilm are several images inspired by Scorsese or his films. There will be an art show in NYC on Friday. Details here.

More pics after the jump.

Continue reading…

Martin Scorsese is one of those people who has given much more than he has taken.  His contribution to American film is immeasurable. But I have always appreciated his thoughts on film. That’s why they call him The Professor! Happy Birthday, magnificent human.

Guest essay by Michael in Florida

Right after the first dreadful Hugo trailer premiered in July, I conjectured that Hugo was Martin Scorsese’s Schindler’s List, i.e., a film outside the director’s comfort zone. After seeing the film several times now, I can safely say that prediction turned out to be prescient, but for a different reason. While both films stretch their respective filmmakers as artists, they remain anchored to their hearts and their obsessions, arguably turning into their most personal works. Scorsese’s cinematic touchstones are still evident in Hugo: society’s self-loathing outcasts, living on the fringes with a last chance at redemption. The final shot in Hugo is a closeup of a machine, built with a movie camera’s parts, which brings the two grieving lead characters together. Georges grieves for a lost passion and Hugo grieves for a lost family. The machine is the redeemer of the forgotten artist and the abandoned thief. It gives their life purpose. If it sounds autobiographical, it is.

In a speech he delivered two years ago right before he started principal photography on Hugo, Martin Scorsese said that “making films and preserving them are the same thing.” Losing a film through deterioration would be as if it was never made at all, as if it never existed. This is something that Georges palpably feels in Hugo.

Continue reading…

BAFTA has just announced that they will awarding Scorsese with their highest honor (does this mean that …? Nevermind) as follows:

Awarded annually by BAFTA, the Fellowship is the highest accolade bestowed upon an individual in recognition of an outstanding and exceptional contribution to film. Previously honoured Fellows include Charlie Chaplin, Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg, Sean Connery, Elizabeth Taylor, Stanley Kubrick, Anthony Hopkins, Laurence Olivier, Judi Dench and Vanessa Redgrave. Christopher Lee received the Fellowship at the Film Awards last February.

Tim Corrie, Chairman of BAFTA, said: “Martin Scorsese is a legend in his lifetime; a true inspiration to all young directors the world over. We are delighted to honour his contribution to cinema history and look forward to paying tribute to him in London on 12 February.”

Martin Scorsese added: “It is a great honour to be recognized by the British Academy and to join the ranks of such an esteemed group of industry colleagues and friends.”

directors

“I’d imagine the whole world was one big machine. Machines never come with any extra parts, you know. They always come with the exact amount they need. So I figured, if the entire world was one big machine, I couldn’t be an extra part. I had to be here for some reason.” — Hugo

This year saw films by arguably the greatest directors America has ever produced — Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, and Steven Spielberg. Those guys are the reasons many people have become filmmakers at all. Whole schools of filmmakers, generations flooding film schools everywhere, cut their teeth on their films. And they happen to be my own personal favorites. You might say my whole life has been shaped and decided by what I saw in films by these men over the past three decades. It is a strange turn of events that they will be in the race the same year. Though all three of their films are so good — even with their weaknesses they are still better than almost everything else we’ve seen this year. But of the three, only one has directed a masterpiece. And this because he’s telling the story from his heart, telling the story for his daughter, and at the same time, delving into the evolving technology of 3-D. In other words, Martin Scorsese is still growing, not resting on his laurels.

These three directors, though, have led three different schools of thought where filmmaking and storytelling are concerned. They all three started in the 1970s — was there ever a better decade for filmmaking? The 1970s was a time for open minds, when Fellini and Bergman were the flavors that changed how people thought about movies. The 1960s loosened the knot but the future of American film had its biggest quake in the ’70s because it signaled the beginning of Allen, Scorsese and Spielberg.

Continue reading…

Over at Salon, Matt Zoller Seitz on Friday Night Seitz has put together his favorite Scorsese movies:

This has been quite a year for 60-something American filmmakers. Terrence Malick, who started directing in 1973, created the year’s most divisive conversation piece with “The Tree of Life.”  Woody Allen, who started directing in 1966, had his biggest financial success with “Midnight in Paris.” Steven Spielberg, who directed his first feature-length movie 40 years ago, has two blockbusters coming out this month, “The Adventures of Tintin” and “War Horse.” And Martin Scorsese, who made his directorial debut in 1966, has had another success with “Hugo,” a film history-conscious 3-D art film for kids that finished second to “The Muppets” at the box office during its opening weekend and was just named film of the year by the National Board of Review. It’s as good a time as any for a Best of Scorsese list — as if I really need an excuse!

On Facebook I ranked my favorite Scorsese movies just for the hell of it. And though I suppose my favorites shift depending on what I’m feeling at the time, right now I’m going through a Departed phase, and of course, it’s hard not to look at the diversity of this director’s work in light of his success with Hugo. Right now, this is my list — if I had to pick ten, I’d go:

Taxi Driver
Raging Bull
King of Comedy
Goodfellas
The Departed
Hugo
Mean Streets
Age of Innocence
No Direction Home
A Personal Journey Through American Movies
The Last Waltz

But then, I couldn’t give up these either:

The Aviator
Shutter Island
Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore
Cape Fear
Gangs of New York
New York New York

How about you?

4-star reviews from The New Yorker, Variety, Box Office Magazine, The Hollywood Reporter. 4 stars from Roger Ebert. No fan of 3-D, Ebert says, “Scorsese uses 3-D here as it should be used, not as a gimmick but as an enhancement of the total effect.”

David Denby at The New Yorker says, “Reality, filmed illusion, and dreams are so intertwined that only an artist, playing merrily with echoes, can sort them into a scheme of delight.”

At the moment of greatest rapture in Martin Scorsese’s 3-D “Hugo”—a film with many moments of happiness—a twelve-year-old Parisian boy, Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), and his pal Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz) are leafing through a book of film history, when images from the pages start to move and then spring to full motion-picture life. The time is the nineteen-thirties, and Scorsese and his technicians are looking back to the pioneers, jumping through restored versions of films by the Lumière brothers, Edwin S. Porter, D. W. Griffith, and, most centrally, Georges Méliès, the inventor of fantasy and science fiction in the cinema. For Scorsese, the early movies are a procession of miracles: the directors realized that sixteen frames passing through a camera every second could yield illusions, disappearances, transformations, magic. In recent years, while making his own movies, Scorsese has dedicated himself to film history and preservation. He has put this ardent attention at the center of a beautifully told and emotionally satisfying story for children and their movie-loving parents. “Hugo” is both a summing up of the cinematic past and a push forward into new 3-D technologies.

Continue reading…

NPR profiles Scorsese and Hugo, which reminds me that it’s wholly unexpected to see Martin Scorsese take such a radical shift as a storyteller and filmmaker. Like John Stewart said, he was used to the high body count.  When the trailer for Hugo was released people started whining about how it wasn’t a “Scorsese movie.”  But you know, this is a director who has always tried different genres — he’s never made just the one kind of movie. Sure, he’s most known for his gangster movies but those are just a tiny part of what he can do.  Here’s to hoping audiences discovered Hugo — it’s one of the best films of 2011, should be a Best Picture nominee.  Will it, won’t it?  Who ever knows.  Does that matter? Nope.  The Oscar race is a love affair.  Some of them you remember, some you’d just as soon forget.

“It sounds like a cliche, but the idea is that you’re in the world with them,” he says of his decision to film in 3-D. “When you start telling stories, you want sound, color, a big screen, so to speak, and depth. People have always wanted that, and so for me this was a great opportunity.”

There was still a learning curve to using the new technology, but despite all that, Scorsese describes Hugo as one of the most rewarding experiences he’s ever had making a film. It also may have helped that the characters in Hugo don’t have a lot in common with the characters Scorsese usually works with, who “may not be the nicest people to be around.”

“But you know, Taxi Driver in 3-D would have been interesting,” he says. Just imagine a 3-D version Robert DeNiro asking a mirror, “You talkin’ to me?”

“He’d be talkin’ to ya,” Scorsese says. “That would be amazing.”

Jim Cameron lends his admiration to Martin Scorsese whose first dabble with 3-D is not unlike a director like Hitchcock or Bergman filming in color for the first time. In Hitchcock’s color films, specific colors are so vivid they are almost whole characters in and of themselves. With Scorsese, someone who is already a master of the frame, filming in 3-D is like going color; it’s like going electric. But with Hugo, of course, the story — thanks to the writing and the brilliant lead performance — ends being the thing that stays with you long after the 3-D effects have faded. Cameron, of course, is trying to help validate 3-D — it’s a movement by now. Some directors are embracing it. Others reject it. After all, look at all that Orson Welles and Gregg Toland did with Citizen Kane, all without 3-D. On the other hand, look at Hugo.

Video after the cut.

Continue reading…

Jim Cameron lends his admiration to Martin Scorsese whose first dabble with 3-D is not unlike a director like Hitchcock or Bergman filming in color for the first time. In Hitchcock’s color films, specific colors are so vivid they are almost whole characters in and of themselves. With Scorsese, someone who is already a master of the frame, filming in 3-D is like going color; it’s like going electric. But with Hugo, of course, the story — thanks to the writing and the brilliant lead performance — ends being the thing that stays with you long after the 3-D effects have faded. Cameron, of course, is trying to help validate 3-D — it’s a movement by now. Some directors are embracing it. Others reject it. After all, look at all that Orson Welles and Gregg Toland did with Citizen Kane, all without 3-D. On the other hand, look at Hugo.

Video after the cut.

Continue reading…

hugo4

Easily one of 2011’s best films, Martin Scorsese’s Hugo is a lyrical dream, a film that pays homage to what is so transformative about cinema — its possibilities, its power, and its magic. You’d probably think, then, that Hugo would be full of rapid-fire cuts and scenes that move so fast you can’t keep up with them. That would be true, probably, of the movie you’d imagine Scorsese would make when dabbling in 3-D for the first time. That is what I expected. The last thing I expected was this slow dance, this melancholy masterpiece that takes its time telling its story, and fills itself not only with dazzling visuals but moments of genuine sentiment.

Continue reading…

hugo4

Easily one of 2011’s best films, Martin Scorsese’s Hugo is a lyrical dream, a film that pays homage to what is so transformative about cinema — its possibilities, its power, and its magic. You’d probably think, then, that Hugo would be full of rapid-fire cuts and scenes that move so fast you can’t keep up with them. That would be true, probably, of the movie you’d imagine Scorsese would make when dabbling in 3-D for the first time. That is what I expected. The last thing I expected was this slow dance, this melancholy masterpiece that takes its time telling its story, and fills itself not only with dazzling visuals but moments of genuine sentiment.

Continue reading…

Sign In

Register

Reset Your Password

Email Newsletter