I like the fact that Leo is Scorsese's new DeNiro. I think they have good chemistry together.

Wow, I agree with Sid about Clint but totally disagree about Scorsese. Gangs of New York is Scorsese's movie, flawed, but his. No one else could've directed that.

Martin Scorsese's direction is not lacking, if anything it's improving. He is trying new things, he's done the small movies for most of his career. He wants to try the big ones now. He's experimenting, and I'm glad. I'm sure he'll once again do smaller movies, but for now he's deciding to test what else he can do.

I would say Scorsese just needs stronger stories, there is nothing lacking with his direction.

I think Scorsese's American Express commercial deserved an Oscar for best short subject.

I'm firmly in the 'Eastwood is as fine a director as we have in America' camp as well. To say he'll only be remembered as a cowboy actor is like saying Orson Welles was just the guy who did wine ads...

And a big welcome for Sid Yobbo. Great post, and I'll be on the lookout for more of your posts in the future.

That Scorcese didn't win for Goodfellas and/or Raging Bull is undeniably a crime; especially now that some time has passed and shown their longevity, their ability to continue to bring in new generations of film lovers to call them great movies. A far greater shame that he didn't win in those years against the likes of Robert Redford for Ordinary People.

Personally, I wouldn't even consider it flawed. It's a beautiful, raging piece of filmmaking.

Scorsese (or Eastwood for that matter) doesn't need the Oscar to validate his worth. His vision is timeless, and will be around cinema history forever.

Agreed on both accounts. Regarding the latter, the same obviously holds true for both Hitchcock and Kubrick.

These epics you speak of are some of the more daring and innovative of the genre found in the last 10 years. I disagree that "a dozen different directors" could have made them. That's a ludicrous statement. Scorsese's blood is in these films - the scale of which have been a personal goal for him for ages.

From what I've read, films like the AVIATOR are like a candy store for him.

Personally, I love to see Scorsese given budgets that fit his vision, performers that are willing to play, and release patterns and reviews that can get challenging films like the AVIATOR to 100 million. He's in the middle of a career renaissance, and I'm thrilled to reap the rewards of it.

Eastwood too, for that matter.

Absolutely. Marty has successful movies, both criticially and financially. People say poor Marty, but seem to forget that his films are making money, getting tons of notice, and a heck of a lot of critical acclaim. Two best pic and best director nods in a row? His first film to crack 100 million? A great relationship with a new actor? Marty's on a roll again. That he perhaps isn't churning out things that are quite the classics from earlier in his career isn't reason to pretend he's making films on par with Paul Anderson.

Hooooooooooly shit. Did you just agree with me? Wow. I wasn't sure if you were capable of that.

I guess today is a happy day.

Geez man, I disagreed with you basically in one thread. I never said I think you're always wrong.

I was disappointed he didn't win. Not because I think he deserved a "pity Oscar," but simply because I thought The Aviator was a better film than Million Dollar Baby.

This thread should have been locked after Sid Yobbo's post. Nothing more needed to be said.

as did I. but I also thought Mike Leigh was the most deserving of the award out of the five nominees this year. I tend to weigh a director's camerawork, speculate on performances obtained, and examine their ability to unify form and content to make my decision. I would have ranked the nominees as follows:

1. Mike Leigh
2. Martin Scorsese
3/4. TIE - Marc Forrester / Clint Eastwood
5. Taylor Hackford

I respectfully disagree. I found that VERA DRAKE falls completely apart in the third act. The courtroom sequence isn't handled nearly as interestingly as the rest of the film.

which is it? the entire third act, or the courtroom sequence? I found the characters in those scenes to be compellingly real, and not without conflicts of their own about what they were required to do. the third act only compounded my admiration for Leigh's direction thru terrain that could have easily been all too trite.

Why is it a ludicrous statement? Please tell me what is so singularly unique about The Aviator that only Martin Scorsese could have directed? What is it about this particular biopic that marks it out as daring and innovative?Other than an exercise in hyperbole, what on earth is that supposed to mean? Did he cut himself open in the editing room and bleed all over the neg or something? The thing here is to recognise what TA was going for; it wants to be a thrilling biopic told in the style of a big golden-age era Hollywood movie. Fair enough, but I think the truth is that much as Scorsese loves these old movies and much as he can wax lyrical about them he can't actually make them. The classical style of a Casablanca, a Maltese Falcon or an Adventures of Robin Hood is just not his style. It's not in his DNA, so to speak. The irony is that Clint Eastwood can direct in the classical style with what looks like effortless ease. In fact Clint's direction looks so easy that it's deceptive. Some (I presume younger) viewers look at it and assume that he isn't doing any work at all. But he is, it's just so subtle and so supportive of the story that it becomes invisible. You're not aware of it and that's the biggest compliment you can pay. When it comes to handling cinematic narrative this is what all directors should aspire to. Not noticeability but invisibility.

I don't think this happens with The Aviator at all and the reason is that Marty can't bridge the gap between his style - which, let's face it, goes out of its way to break traditional choices of camera angles, shot selections and editing techniques - and that demanded by the story which demands precisely these old fashioned techniques (curiously enough, Marty ran into exactly the same problems with New York, New York where his style sat very awkwardly indeed with what was supposed to be a homage to big old Hollywood musicals).

One of my criticisms of 'Aviator' was how much damage limitation Thelma Schoonmaker's editing was performing in concealing Marty's awkward camera moves and his selection of angles. Angles which simply didn't cut together in the classically invisible way they should have done. This is a constant problem throughout the movie and if you think I'm joking or being unfair then I urge you to look closely at this when the movie comes to DVD.

The direction isn't the only thing amiss here. Leonard DiCaprio, bless him, acts his socks off but he's too damn young and he looks it. His character is curiously unengaging - which I believe is a fault of the writing - and the script has no real structure or focus. It's a fantastic film - for the first hour - but after that it's all over the place. GoNY has similar problems. Both movies boast brilliant set-pieces and some standout performances but ultimately both movies fail to cohere into something that is fully rounded and satisfying, much less something distinctively Scorsese.

Gangs of New York is filled to the brim with signature Scorsese themes and qualities. In some ways it's the ULTIMATE Scorsese film. However, it's also betrayed by some lousy characters and subplots that rob it a bit. I wrote a lengthy review of the film for DVDTalk when it was in theaters and I stand by my comments about the film's strong points but it's weakpoints have hurt it for me over time. I suspect these compromises are the result of needing someone to pony up nearly $100 mil for the budget.

And films like Raging Bull are NOT small films. A smallish budget does not make a film small. Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, King of Comedy, Last Temptation are enormous films thematically, emotionally, character-wise and in terms of the craft of everyone involved. Just because The Aviator has fancy CG and effects (and a long running time) does not mean it's a progression beyond those films.

if I've read you correctly, I find that to be a very limiting aspiration. above anything, a director needs to establish a unity of form and content in their narrative works. the "visibility" of their direction, or their "signature", at the very least will remain unobtrusive as long as it does not betray the integrity or truth of what's being communicated. at its best, it is indispensable.

btw, welcome to the forum. I look forward to reading more of your contributions to our discussions.

Except for maybe someone pointing out Eastwood didn't direct In the Line of Fire.

I agree. This "the story demands traditional techniques" argument is much too limiting and I hope that any director or would-be director reading it forgets it immediately.

The story doesn't "demand" anything. If the form, style, ambiance, acting, music, etc... coalesce to offer a total movie experience, the technique becomes invisible and you can darn well shoot any story using any techniques you want to.

While I think Scorsese is a great director, I remember seeing The Aviator and afterwards thinking "I hope they don't give him the Oscar for that." It's not that I thought the film was bad, it was quite good IMO. But it wasn't something that he should win for because I got the feeling it was Scorsese trying to get an Oscar as opposed to Scorsese making a movie he wanted to make and receiving a nom. and eventually a win as a result. Scorsese needs to win for making something like Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Last Temptation, or even GONY, because they are without a doubt his films. Aviator seemed like he was just sitting behind the camera and trying to follow a "how to" book for winning an award while making a Hollywood movie.


I really find it interesting that M$B was shot in only thirty-seven days. How lond did it take for Aviator? Thirty seven weeks I would bet. The bottomline, Eastwood did a better job than Scorsese, and he deserved the award. And for whomever said he will only be remembered as "that guy who made westerns", I strongly disagree.

Well, it was probably longer, but anyone can tell The Aviator was a far more complicated film in more practical terms of putting the film together.

Martin Scorsese is one of my favorite directors, i have enjoyed most of his movies. Last year was the first time i ever saw Goodfellas at age 16, and was totally blown away by it. I Love everything about that film, from how it was shot to how it was told as a story. The moving camera, in the dinner was amazing.. After watching that i saw all his other movies like Raging bull, Casino, mean streets, and gangs of newyork. I saw the avaitor and i agree it wasn't his best work but IMHO it was great. I think he does deserve an oscar though, maybe in a few years he will get one.