Did anyone read William Goldman's bashing of Martin Scorsese?
 

He wrote something in Variety (?) where he called Gangs of NY a mess and said that Scorsese shouldn't win the oscar for best director.

Did anyone read it?

I don't know if he'll win the oscar or not, but he doesn't deserve to. GONY was a mess.

On the other hand, Goldman is far from infallible himself. Marathon Man has got to be the worst script ever.

Have you got a link to the story?

I don't have a link hope some one has....

ANd I read that Speilberg was working behind the scenes to help Scorsese get one...

I love William Goldman. He's one of the few people who tell it like it is. His deconstruction of Saving Private Ryan in Premiere was one of the best pieces of writing on that film I've ever read. He put into words all of the problems I felt with that film and had trouble expressing. I'd love to read his opinion on GONY as I also felt that film was a total mess and have trouble expressing exactly why. I'm Goldman pinpointed it.

I haven't forgiven Goldman since his 1988 hatchet-job bio of John Lennon. He can rot.

Here it is:

Crashing the party for poor Marty

by William Goldman

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am sick unto death of feeling guilty about Martin Scorsese.
Here are the names of five great directors: Charlie Chaplin, Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick and Orson Welles. What do they have in common? For all their fame and brilliance, none has won the Oscar for best direction.

Neither has Scorsese.

Should the five have won? Absolutely. But it's not a mortal sin they didn't. Should Scorsese? You bet. A couple of times. ("Taxi Driver," obviously, "Raging Bull," obviously. But I fell in love with his talent earlier on, with "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore.")

This year, more than ever, it's like there's a Byzantine plot to get Scorsese the honor. As if the phonier critics all dropped to their knees and looked up at the Hollywood Gods, going in unison, "Oh pwease, we twied so hard wif 'Kundun,' we even twied wif 'Bwing Out the Dead,' so pwease pwease wet Marty win this year, he wants it sooooo bad."

That he does. The Hollywood parties he is attending must make him want to barf, but there is, glad-handing anyone in the vicinity who is an Academy member who might throw him a vote.

Miramax, the greatest movie company of the era (and the most brutal -- and maybe they have to go together) is so all-out for Scorsese it's heart-stopping. They do a brilliant job and I honor that -- but I will never forgive them for hyping the Oscar to Roberto Benigni, the scummiest award in the Academy's history. And I suspect Scorsese will win, too.

But he sure doesn't deserve it, not this year -- "Gangs of New York" is a mess.

Please do not sputter on about some of the visuals -- my God, bring Ed Wood back from the dead, give him a hundred mil-plus to play with, he'd give you some visuals, too.

No, the problem with "Gangs of New York" is nothing new in Scorsese's work -- he has never been secure with a story. No one's much better with actors or look or camera placement. It's that most crucial director's tool that haunts him. The reason his movies do not make much, if any, money is not because he is dealing with esoteric subjects that are above the average moviegoer's head. It's the clumsy storytelling that frustrates us, sending us out of the theater dissatisfied.

"Gangs" is in trouble from the outset. In the opening scene Leo, at about age 10, is watching his daddy shave. There is a cut. The razor is given to the kid and then the father intones the following: "The blood stays on the blade."

I have a friend who is so giddy with the sheer pretentiousness of that line that he says it to everyone. You say "Good morning." He answers, "Yes, and the blood stays on the blade."

And please do not blame the screenwriter for that. Because when you are dealing with a giant ape director, they get what they want. And Scorsese chose to open the story that way.

What story though? The lack of an answer is what demolishes the movie. Is it about gang warfare? Family revenge? Irish immigration? The Civil War? The draft? Political corruption? Prejudice? These subjects and more, all of them valid enough alone, flicker in and out, never accumulating or connecting one to the other.

One example to indicate the problem: Two hours and seven minutes into the film, folks, there is a scene between Leo and the political boss of New York -- and they are discussing a subject never mentioned before in the movie and which you could not guess if I gave you the rest of my lifetime: who is going to run for Sheriff.

For 10 minutes, an amazing wasted length of movie time, and especially damaging this late into a pic, we deal with the election of the sheriff and his subsequent murder and Leo eventually challenging Daniel Day-Lewis to combat.

But we knew from the first sequence that this would happen because Day-Lewis killed Leo's pop.

So now the fight, yes? Nope. Not in this baby. Ten additional minutes drudge on before they get to it.

OK, a word about fights in the 2002 films: It's the worst year ever. I thought nothing would ever beat "Insomnia" with Pacino in climactic combat vs. that tower of power, Robin Williams,. Eleven feet tall, the two of them together, tops.

But this fight was worse -- because you couldn't see it. Scorsese has hidden it behind the smoke of cannon fire. Nothing to make John Wayne worry.

But the battle is still better than the way the movie ends, with a disgraceful shot of the World Trade Center.

I guess if you can't move people legitimately, you do what you have to do…

I love Martin Scorsese and agree with every word in that article.

Good article. Goldman has some valid points.

I too agree with Goldman's criticisms on the film.

Also, there's no need for people to get defensive on the film and start to bash Goldman.. At least he is giving reasons why he didn't like the film, as opposed to some people who just say "Gangs of New York sux."

I hope that's not directed at me. While I said simply "GONY was a mess" I've stated elsewhere in detail why I didn't like it.

I think Scorsese is one of the best directors still making movies, and he also is one of the biggest film fans out there. But, GONY was a mess.

I'm not sure if you were joking or not, but if you're not, it was Albert Goldman who wrote that book.

I love Scorsese and liked Gangs of New York, but I agree with that article. When my friends asked me what I thought of the film, the only thing I could think of was "messily brilliant". He reached for the fences, to use a cliche, and fell short.

As for Goldman, my favorite article of his was his justification for why Titanic was the only legitimate choice of the five nominees for Best Picture in 1997. I completely agreed with his assessment of the ending of L.A. Confidential as a copout, and as much as I loved the film, that ending bothered me to no end.

Inconceivable!

Dude, Marathon Man rocks!

He's bashing "The Gangs of New York", not Martin Scorsese.

Got an online link? I want to read that.

Thanks for posting the article.

Goldman has interesting points BUT

that's why they are talking about giving him the Best Director Aware and NOT the best picture award. That's why there are separate categories for different disciplines.

They want to reward his overall vision of NY and his ability to capture the environment, the culture etc..

What that arrogant bag of wind fails to do in HIS article, is name a subtable candidate other than Scorsese for the 2002 year. The prospects and suspects(I have yet to see the Pianist, so I have no opinion to offer on Polanski):

Rob Marshall: Tough to give it to him, considering he's done relatively minor and benign adaptation to preexisting stage material. Not a knock by any means, just not Best Director work, especially over Scorsese

Stephen Daldry: Workman like work, and I'm not on the anti-Hours Bandwagon, but it didn't overwhelm me personally. But I put as much stock in the writing and editing of this film, as his direction, but he did lead some fine performances. Doesn't overwhelm Scorsese

Pedro Almodovar: This was a job I'd consider to Scorsese's. Simply a great film, should have been nominated for best pic over the Two Towers. Possibly the best work from one of the great directors of the last decade or so. But I can't see the Acadmey voting him, and he's not a total slam dunk, but if I had a vote, it'd go here. Terrifically paced and nuanced drama, with lovely performances from all. He should get his reward in the Screenplay category, and if there's any justice, he'll take some gold home one way or the other.

Peter Jackson: Legitimate contender, had much of the same epic obstacles as Scorsese in dreaming big. Hard to give it to him considering he wasn't nominated, and should probably win next year, but I'd say his work was every bit as good as Marty's.

PT Anderson: Too polarizing a filmmaker thus far. Folks tend to love or hate his work, and that will make garnering as much as a nomination a chore.

Todd Haynes: Interesting choice, had a real plan going into this modest film, and may have exectued better than any director other than Marshall, based on getting concept to screen. But much like Marshall, he seemed to very generously borrow from the Douglas Sirk films, and while a very intriguing choice, I don't think it was better work than Scorsese.

I mean, next to this list, it's not like anyone's getting shafted by a Scorsese Oscar here. I'd love to see Aldmovar, but I'm realistic and realize he's not going to win. Not a film is nominated, nor has been produced in this or any year that doesn't have flaws. GONY is no different. But he needs to clarify who's getting shafted by the legend getting his gold.

rotfl

Just the mere possibility that he's been holding a grudge since '88 due to a misremembered name... Delicious. :lol:

Maybe I am alone, but I loved Gangs of New York and strangely enough, I am NOT a big Scorsese fan. In fact, I tend to think he's a little overrated. But those two combos probably put me in the very small minority I guess.

Was GONY perfect? No. Not even close.

Did it have some good parts? Yes.

I tend to look at the film more like "the glass is half-full" than "half-empty". It had enough good parts to sort of redeem it in my eyes. The bad and messy parts, which it had in spades, weren't numerous enough or bad enough to destroy the whole movie.

But does Scorsese deserve the Oscar for this film? I don't think so.

I kind of hope he doesn't get it for this, but instead for a better film that he'll do later on. He's not going anywhere - he'll keep making more films - they should wait until he makes another one that actually deserves the award, instead of giving him a consolation prize this year.

I wish. I looked all over the internet for it and couldn't find it. It was reprinted in one of his books though.

I thought Gangs of New York was easily one of the five worst movies I saw all year, but I don't know about this comment:

"The reason his movies do not make much, if any, money is not because he is dealing with esoteric subjects that are above the average moviegoer's head. It's the clumsy storytelling that frustrates us, sending us out of the theater dissatisfied."

So all of his movies feature "clumsy storytelling"? Casino is "clumsy storytelling"? I'm sure that's not what he meant, but that is pretty poor writing.

The article wasn't about who the best director of the year was, it was about how ridiculous the critical masturbation over Scorsese was.

I don't see how someone could be "Best Director" if the movie isn't any good. Reward the production designer and historical consultants for the environment and everything.

Uh, no. The knocks against GONY, and specifically Goldman's criticisms of the films, are all areas that the director is responsible for. That was his point, and you failed utterly to comprehend it. As he said, if you resurrected Ed Wood and gave him $100 million, he'd be able to deliver some pretty snazzy visuals and costumes. The director's job is to tell the story. A movie can be well directed and not be a great film- that is why there are separate categories for the awards- but GONY is not an example of one.

Goldman is saying that GONY is neither a great film, nor a particularly well-directed film. He says that it is nominated for best director not because "They want to reward his overall vision of NY and his ability to capture the environment, the culture etc.. ". According to Goldman, Scorcese has been nominated because people feel bad that he hasn't yet won a best director Oscar. Given the Academy's history, and Miramax's history, this doesn't sound at all far-fetched.

Although a decent article, I still have to disagree overall.

Ed Wood could not make a Martin Scorsese movie, even with $100 million. Look no further than Joel Schumacher for that proof.

Will he win because of the times he was screwed over? Probably. Should he win because he made an ambitious, flawed, but still brilliant film? I think so. GONY is a classic case of shooting for the moon but still reaching the stars. The only real storytelling flaw of the film is that Scorsese is too passionate about his subject matter and fills the canvas with TOO much story, TOO much action. For me, that's just not really a problem. I was riveted for every moment of this film. Still not as good as Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Last Temptation of Christ, or GoodFellas, but still better than any neat, clean, formulaic Hollywood product (I wonder when they'll start selling Chicago dolls at Kay Bee).

I'm sorry, I just can't accept a criticism of such a daring, uncompromising filmmaker from a guy who's best work (Butch & Sundance) was still a buddy picture, and who is responsible for such by-the-numbers scripts like The Ghost and The Darkness. Also, the man wrote the book Magic, for God's sake. This is like Salieri carping that Mozart's latest symphony isn't up to his other stuff.

He also wrote All the President's Men and The Princess Bride. I don't just don't see how you can invalidate someone's entire opinion based on the fact that you didn't care for their past work.

Not to put words in your mouth...but by extending your argument the only <i>valid</i> criticism of a film would be by other filmmakers whose work is generally superior to the film/filmmaker he is critiquing. That makes no sense.

Most scholarly criticism, whether Art, Literature, Film, or what ever, is produced by non practitioners. I don’t think one has to be a great novelist or even a mediocre novelist, to provide valuable insight into an author’s works; the skills required for each draw from different talents.

It is one thing to disagree with Goldman; another to dismiss his thesis simply because you find his scripting skills lacking.

That's a fair point, but I think such an attack should have that support. I think I'd have much more problems with this "campaign" if it were made at the expense of an overwhelmingly deserving candidate. Otherwise, why the hemmiming and hawing? I missed the Goldman article in 1991 during that Oscar race, when Costner had been annointed golden boy over the seminal Scorese film, Goodfellas, one of the great directorial efforts ever.

Still, one could argue that Costner was just as deserving. It was by no means a cake walk for Costner to get a three hour Western epic about Native Americans made. I'm actually on the fence over who deserved it that year.

Dances with Wolves is garbage, of course Scorcese deserved it that year.

You did put words in my mouth...I preceded that part of my post with reasons why Gangs of NY was great. The comment on Goldman's own work was more of an afterthought.

Ok, Princess Bride was great. But the guy has made a habit in recent years of criticizing a formulaic Hollywood establishment that he is firmly a part of, probably more so than Scorsese or even Curtis Hanson. You both raise a good point in that a critic should not be held to the quality of his own art. Also, I don't think he provides any valuable insight. He picks at a few subplots but does nothing to get to the deeper aspects of the film. Whether he likes the movie or hates it, I think he really missed the boat on this one.

I don't really have a problem with the article because I disagree. When I read Pauline Kael's old reviews, I often disagree with them, but I admire and am captivated by her work. And, frankly, that is because it is better written than Goldman's. While a lack of brilliance does not discredit a critic's contention, it does make it less convincing.

Dude! Magic rocks!

5 Cent, "uh no" is not a compelling arguement, nor is it particularly nice.

They separate the categories of Best Director and Best Picture because the Academy believes there is a distinction between the two. Some one can - in their mind - be the best director of the year even if their film is somewhat flawed.

Take Spielberg and Minority Report. Spielberg's vision of the future and his take on the various subjects explored in the film was fascinating. He created a unique and complete world. He's someone who could have been nominated for best director even though his film isn't as worthy as the other best picture nominees.

So, Scorsese can be best director even though the film isn't perfect or his best work.

oh, william goldman who wrote the crapfests that are:

the general's daughter
hearts in atlantis
absolute power
the chamber
heat (burt reynolds)
fierce creatures

and the tepid:

memoirs of an invisible man
year of the comet
ghost and the darkness
chaplin
maverick
the hot rock

He also wrote some classic movies, but I don't see how it's really relevant to his argument.

there is no relevance.

Gangs is a mess

The Oscars are a bigger mess just look at last years disaster,we all know who usually wins doesnt deserve it and probably the same with this year,people take these awards way to serious and I could careless who wins the Oscar because in my mind Martin S. should have won 3 of these.

I, too, dug William Goldman's criticisms of LA Confidential - his point being that Russel Crowe's Bud White was shot in the face....WHY'S HE ALIVE IN THE CAR AT THE END!. I felt the same way.

However, he's an ass! He picks very good directors to pick on, instead of the Schumacher, etc. His picking-apart of "Saving Private Ryan" was the most mean-spirited attack on a nearly-perfect movie. He didn't understand why the soilders at the end of the film didn't just leave Ryan and "his men". Uh, excuse me Mr. Goldman, but have you ever heard of giving a $h!t about others! These men were beaten down, and preparing to hold a bridge (a last stand). What kind of soilder just says "good luck"....better yet, what type of human being would?
I think Goldman is great at examining films, but maybe he should focus on his own screenwriting talents ("Hearts in Atlantis", "Ghost and the Darkness"....anyone?).
Now, on defending GONY and Scorsese. Every year, I watch Actors and Directors win the Oscar due to their "Career". A "youngin" gets nominated, and the pundits say "he/she is young and will have more chances". Are you kidding me? Like it's a cakewalk to even get nominated. Secondly, they will defend the likes of a Nicholson (who has played himself over and over and over.....except for "About Schmidt") and say that someone with this kind of resume deserves it for his/her career.
Now, here we are in 2003, possibly the most short-sighted awards nominees in history. They should just call it the December awards - "sorry Mr Mendes, your movie came out one-two-three-four-five-six freakin' months too early. Too f'ing bad! We are way too short-sighted to remeber your film, even though this is our industry!!!"
Point is this - why buck the trend of giving someone an overdue Oscar in a year when a guy who has put out one great film after another gets a shot at his! I mean, no one cried "foul" when Denzel Washington finally got his (nevermind he got a Supporting award for "Glory") for that piece of $h!t "Training Day". Everyone just polished his A$$ (including nausea-inducing Julia Roberts).
This is a year when Harvey "the Godfather" Weinstein can pull strings to give it to someone who actually has slaved away for years making his kind of movies.
Does this erase the errors of the past (Warren Beatty's "Reds" over "Raging Bull"). No. Not by a long-shot. But I can honestly say, out of every film nominated, and every director nominated, he deserves it.
......although, "Chicago" kicked A$$!
One more thing -- no more Oscars for Meryl Streep. She takes a $h!t in a film and gets nominated. ENOUGH!

:lol: You're right. "Uh, no" is *not* a compelling argument. Had I left it at that, you'd have every reason to report my post as a threadcrap, make fun of me, put me in time out, or whatever. That is why I didn't leave it at that. I wonder why you didn't quote my post. Did you read the whole of it? Perhaps you decided that since I wasn't being "particularly nice", the rest of my post wasn't worth reading.

Right after the "Uh, no", I went on to say that "The knocks against GONY, and specifically Goldman's criticisms of the films [sic], are all areas that the director is responsible for." It was the very next thing that I said. Later in the same paragraph, I said "A movie can be well directed and not be a great film- that is why there are separate categories for the awards- but GONY is not an example of one." See, you and I agree that Scorsese's direction *could* be worthy of a distinguished award regardless of whether GONY is a great film or a flawed film. Most people who understand a director's role would agree. Goldman offers specific criticisms of Scorsese's direction.

I'd like you to elaborate, if you have the time, on what Spielberg's "vision of the future and his take on the various subjects" in Minority Report are. You originally stated that "[The Academy wants] to reward [Scorsese's] overall vision of NY and his ability to capture the environment, the culture etc.. " I was not alone in my response that perhaps other technical awards are merited by these aspects of a film: Costuming, Production Design, et al. Of course, a director of Scorsese's caliber has his hands in everything... but if you could explain your statement in depth we might avoid any further misunderstanding. Goldman harps on Scorsese's decision to include a lengthy scene regarding a Sheriff election- you may feel that this is directorial excellence, because it provides historical setting and cultural backdrop, creating a well-crafted environment. But it is poor storytelling- it is irrelevant to the arc, and disruptive to the pace. The director's most important job is to tell the story by effectively balancing all of the elements- character, setting, plot, et cetera. Going back to your example of Minority Report, I think some portions of the film are directed brilliantly, while others are directed terribly. On projects of this size, since the director has so much influence in so many departments, one of his most important responsibilities is that of marshalling all of the creative forces in such a way that the entire film is cohesive. Segments that are directed well do not always add up to a well-directed final product. There are directors who can do comedy just as brilliantly as they do drama- but if they made a film that swung between perfect humor in one scene and wrenching melodrama in the next, they have failed in their larger mission. So yeah, Spielberg "could have been nominated for best director even though" his film isn't great. Any director could be nominated for any film. That is not the point.

Like I said, you are missing Goldman's point entirely. He never claims that the Best Director award should be linked to the Best Picture award. If you really feel like you need to remind us all that directing and producing are different pursuits and that the awards are distinguishable from each other by criteria x, y, and z, then maybe you should start a separate thread. If you don't feel like reading the article that you started *this* thread about again, but feel like making relevant obsevations, I'll pull some quotes for you.

all quotes attributable to William Goldman:

This year, more than ever, it's like there's a Byzantine plot to get Scorsese the honor.

The Hollywood parties he is attending must make him want to barf, but there is, glad-handing anyone in the vicinity who is an Academy member who might throw him a vote.

Miramax... is so all-out for Scorsese it's heart-stopping... and I suspect Scorsese will win, too.

But he sure doesn't deserve it- "Gangs of New York" is a mess.

[Scorsese] has never been secure with a story. It's that most crucial director's tool that haunts him... clumsy storytelling that frustrates us...

...do not blame the screenwriter for [the pretentious opening scene]. Because... Scorsese [authoritatively] chose to open the story that way.

The lack of a [secure story] is what demolishes the movie... [Many subjects] flicker in and out, never accumulating or connecting one to the other.

Two hours and seven minutes into the film, folks, there is a scene... discussing a subject never mentioned before in the movie... for 10 minutes, an amazing wasted length of movie time, and especially damaging this late into a pic, we deal with the election of the sheriff and his subsequent murder and Leo eventually challenging Daniel Day-Lewis to combat.

Ten additional minutes drudge on before they get to it.

[The fight was poorly staged because] Scorsese has hidden it behind the smoke of cannon fire.

...the movie ends [with a] shot of the World Trade Center.

I guess if you can't move people legitimately, you do what you have to do…

There you have it. I did some editorial snipping to punch up his most salient points- that Scorsese botched the film, yet will still likely win the most coveted individual award a filmmaker can receive.

My final thought is that you *seem* to be under the impression that if Goldman says that GONY is "a mess", that statement should be interpreted as a commentary on its shot at Best Picture status, not a legitimate criticism of how it was directed. You and I agree that a film *can* be well directed but not be worthy of a Best Picture award. By extension, a film could be worthy of Best Picture but not Best Director (though I see this as a less acceptable scenario for any given film). Nevertheless (what we think is not the point): what Goldman is saying is that GONY is so poorly directed that it is, in fact, a bad movie. He isn't content to say "Well, it was okay, but there were better films". He is saying that it is a bad film, and blaming it on Scorsese- after all, if a film truly bad it could not have been competently directed. We aren't talking about (in Goldman's opinion) a good film that could have been directed more expertly, or even a mediocre film that is directed as well as could be expected. What is so hard to understand about that? If you disagree, fine!

If what you are saying is that Scorsese should get the award because he made a good film out of a weak script, hammy performances, sloppy editing, and beautiful cinematography... then be prepared to back that argument up. I'd love to hear it. I'd also love to hear of other, similar cases.