The academy is flawed anyway, what if shitty movies came out for one year, they'd just vote the best of the shit.

Which was itself a remake of an american movie.

That's fine, time will tell.

It's terrible that Bergman has no Oscars (out of 3 Director nominations and 7 overall nominations), but it's even more incredible that he only has that many nominations.

Directing and writing films like these, it's amazing he hasn't been nominated more:

The Seventh Seal
Wild Strawberries
Autumn Sonata
Scenes from a Marriage
Cries and Whispers
Fanny and Alexander
Persona
Winter Light, etc

Obviously it already has. The guy's a flat-out legend, pretty much on par with Bogart, Wayne, Cagney and Grant. That's not an exaggeration: We're talking about Clint friggin Eastwood here!

Let me be clear about this: unity of form and content in mainstream narrative is exactly what I'm all in favour of. Unity of form and content is what you got in 'Million Dollar Baby'. A directorial style which merged so harmoniously with the material that it became all but invisible. When that happens it's a truly beautiful thing to experience. The trouble is I don't believe Scorsese was anywhere near as successful with 'The Aviator'.

As far as mainstream narratives go (and 'The Aviator' is certainly that) the story is the thing. Marty's direction fails to gell because his style and the movie's narrative style are pulling in different directions. Schoonmaker does her best to paper over the cracks but she can't entirely hide them (and that's without considering the additional woes of central miscasting, structural defects and general lack of focus in the last hour).
You make it sound as though I'm advocating that for everything. Certainly not! But it evidently was a requirement for the script of 'The Aviator' - a big, old-fashioned Hollywood epic that was going to be directed in a big, old-fashioned Hollywood style. My argument is that Marty's 'signature' style is not really suited to that and as another example I'd cite the movies lack of passion. 'The Aviator' is unquestionably beautiful to look at but there's no fire in the thing. It leaves audiences, in the main, unmoved. People admire it but they don't love it. Why do you think that is? IMO, it's because the director hasn't got a proper handle on the material. By contrast most people feel passionately about 'Million Dollar Baby'. Why? Well, I would argue that, script and performances aside, it's because Clint's style was perfectly in tune with the material in a way that Scorsese's wasn't.

In mainstream cinema the style (which is, after all, simply the way in which you do something) is largely determined by content not the other way round. Only an inxperienced (or idiotic or suicidal) director would attempt to weld a completely arbitrary style onto a story crying out for somthing else.

Actually I never said he did. DIT: Strike that, actually I did (well, sort of .. I'll change it to 'actor/director' how's that? And well spotted!

No kidding. Even without his directing career, the man is one of the most recognizable famous movie stars of all time. Saying people will think of him as "taht guy in those westerns" is like claiming Humprhey Bogart is that guy in those black and white movies.

Eastwood is definitely one of the Grants/Bogarts of this generation. With a solid acting career spanning so long (like 40 years?), so many classics he's been in (GBU, dirty harry, unforgiven, MDB, etc..), and then there's his directing (unforgive, mystic river[not a fan but still highly regarded], now MDB, and more to come)! How many others have had such an enduring and quality career?

Love for the era of filmmaking.


You go on and on about such obtuse, meaningless, and flatlining topics as "unity of form and content," yet you fail to successfully process the point of my comment?

The keyword here being "mainstream". I would agree. I misinterpreted what you said as being applied to cinema in general. I would even add "mainstream Hollywood cinema" because it's much more formulaic (ok Bollywood is worse ) than mainstream cinema in some other countries. But that's a whole other ball of wax.

Just like in comparing Eastwood to Scorsese as a director, Eastwood as an actor never, ever reached the heights that those legends you list did. Yes, he's a screen icon because of the Leone films, Unforgiven, and Dirty Harry. Yes, the Westerns are classics that will hold up over time, but will the Dirty Harry films? I don't think so. They're already pretty much forgotten, except for the catchphrases. His legacy lies in those Westerns, and those films aren't close, quality-wise or importance, to the Westerns of John Wayne, James Stewart, or Randolph Scott. How many members of this site, not even mentioning the average movie-goer, know who Randolph Scott is today? He was a huge movie star for decades, at least as big as Eastwood, and I doubt twenty people here could identify him. Because of how weak Eastwood's filmography as an actor is overall, I think over time the same thing is going to happen to him. Apparently no one agrees with me, but that's fine.

Anyway, back to the directing side for a minute. Sid talks about The Aviator as leaving audiences unmoved, well, who the hell was moved by Blood Work? Or True Crime? Or Absolute Power? Who feels passionately about Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil or The Rookie? These aren't films of an artist, or one of the finest American filmmakers, they're well-made, but instantly forgettable near-studio hack work propped up by high-minded critics who want to find "subtle, invisible style" when there's nothing there. If you look at Eastwood's total career, films like those make up the majority of his filmography. There are a few good-to-great films mixed in here and there, admittedly, but does consistency count for nothing?

Ahh, but what movies they were. I'll take Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas and even Mean Streets over any of the movies Eastwood has made. I don't really see what difference it makes whether or not they were made 5, 15 or 30 years ago.
I don't know if Scorsese will ever make another movie that can equal those. But I don't see why his failure to do so should diminish his reputation. I find it quite amazing that any one director could be responsible for the quality that can be found in those movies.

Consistency? Its not like Scorsese didn't make movies that didn't suck. Eastwood's movies are getting better with age while Scorsese's aren't really getting worse just pretty much staying mediocre. Gangs of New York, again not worth the acclaim it got. Though Daniel Day Lewis was terrific and I thought he was robbed, the movie itself had many flaws. The Aviator, I believe was nominated because it was a weak year. Last year's nominees were all better films. Scorsese is still one of the greatest directors of all time. Taxi Driver is probably one of my top 3 favorite movies. While Eastwood has yet to make a film that would crack my top 20. Having said that, I look forward to new Eastwood way more than the next Scorsese/DiCaprio epic.

Eastwood is a fantastic actor on a classic scale. He doesn't telegraph his emotions and it's taken a while for audiences and critics to really appreciate what he does. He takes stoic characters and runs a deep current way, way beneath the surface. That's how he directs as well. And don't think for a second that those other legendary actors didn't make stinkers FAR worse than Dirty Harry. In fact, here's a piece of Cary Grant dreck that I reviewed... As for Dirty Harry, just because it's pop-culture legend and spawned many sequels doesn't devalue it as a film. His performance there is brutal and unique. Why knock it? There are many different kinds of characters.

Why compare The Aviator to those other films? Why not compare it to Million Dollar Baby? That's what the award competition was supposed to be about anyway. Were audiences moved by MDB? I should say so.

Scorsese's legacy as a DIRECTOR is secure and supercede's Eastwoods, no doubt about it. But what bugs people is assuming that Scorsese deserves to always win over Eastwood based on that and not on their nominated films.

That makes zero sense.

Whats your point? Scorsese has a few clunkers in his closet. We are talking about the Aviator.

So what if Scorsese did a movie about the golden age of Hollywood? To me it sounded like pandering for an Oscar. Scorsese should have definitely won in 1990 with Goodfellas. Take a look at the other contenders that year: Picture:
"DANCES WITH WOLVES", "Awakenings", "Ghost", "The Godfather, Part III", "GoodFellas"

I know some folks like Dances, but I think it is an overlong piece of tripe. Ghost? Awakenings? Godfather 3????

eastwood has come back with his past two movies. i remeber people and critics after blood work saying that eastwood should just retire, boy what a mistake that would have been.

I still don't see why that makes him the only director capable of helming 'The Aviator'. Many directors adore Hollywood cinema of that era, Quentin Tarantino and Clint Eastwood to name but two. Scorsese is hardly unique in that respect. Again I ask you why it is 'ludicrous' to suggest that a dozen other directors could have produced exactly the same movie?
That's because I'm not a total Scorsese fanboy and I can't get worked up by auteurist
drivel like 'Scorsese's blood is in these films'.
But William, the dialogue, the character and the movies are a part of popular culture. The Dirty Harry movies are constantly repeated on television all over the world, attracting a new generation of fans with each showing. They've become big sellers on DVD, there's revival nights at movie theatres and so on and so forth. It's well known that Eastwood had difficulty persuading Warners to finance M$B because the only thing they were interested in from him was another Dirty Harry. Clearly therefore, the interest has not waned - at least from a commercial standpoint. Oh, and there's just been a press release announcing a DH video game. So, forgotten movies? Well, hardly.
Randy Scott was primarily identified with westerns and if he's forgotten today then that has more to do with the genre's unpopularity than anything else. But with Eastwood the western is only a part of his image. He's equally well-known as Dirty Harry, the guy who starred alongside an orangutan(!), a screen icon and somone who, with M$B, is delivering the best acting work of his career. He's also an Oscar winning director and one of the great American filmmakers. Winning Best Picture and Best Director twice within 12 years and directing four actors to Oscar gold two years in succession is an astonishing track record. And who, apart from you, is saying that Clint's best westerns don't match those of Wayne, Stewart or Scott? Both Josey Wales and Unforgiven are regarded as the best westerns of their respective decades and two of the best westerns ever made.

I think the breadth of Eastwood's achivement will ensure that his acting is never forgotten and it should be pointed out that despite his limitations Eastwood has tremendous screen presence. Unless action movies somehow fall totally out of fashion in the future it's hard to see how Clint'll ever be forgotten as an actor.
Even if I agreed with you (which I largely don't) your argument doesn't make The Aviator any better. All it proves is that both Clint and Marty can deliver sub-standard movies.
That sounds like a description of The Aviator to me. :-)
Well what did you think of Play Misty for Me? Or High Plains Drifter, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Tightrope, Bronco Billy, Unforgiven, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, The Bridges of Madison County, Bird and White Hunter Black Heart? Consistency? I think he's been pretty damn consistent in directing good-to-great movies.

Eastwood has an amazingly varied filmography. The prattlings of blind Scorsese fanboys aside, no one can deny that. Scorsese is a master, too. Maybe his next film will be classic. This one doesn't quite fit the bill. Where's the harm in saying that? Was Bringing Out The Dead the best film of 1999? It wasn't even in the top five, in my opinion!

And Scorsese is integral to my loving film. When I was 14 I had three movie epiphanies: I saw Do The Right Thing in the theater, followed soon by Goodfellas and then (on laserdisc) Raging Bull. Scorsese made me love film. When Cape Fear came out I was 17 or so and I was firmly a Scorsese fanboy. I couldn't believe that it didn't win every award. Now that I've grown up and figured out how to look at things with a more critical eye I see that Cape Fear is a fine thriller with some excellent filmmaking and acting but isn't on the shelf with Raging Bull, Taxi Driver and Mean Streets, not to mention Unforgiven and Josey Wales. By being able to look at Scorsese's films with a critical eye you can better appreciate what's GOOD about them and not just fawn over every compression shot and crane shot. That's why Gangs of NY is so interesting: It's the best of classic Scorsese and the worst of nouveau Scorsese all in one film.

Uh...Do The Right Thing was Spike Lee.

I don't think he was implying it was Scorsese's, just that Scorsese was central in his growing love of cinema.

I really believe the love for Scorsese has less to do with this accomplishments as a director (which I admit are great) than with his chosen genres. Why else is there all the fanboy love for Goodfellas but not for Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore? Why is Scorsese so highly regarded among internet movie fans, when compared to the equally great Robert Altman, a man who has directed films that equal the best Scorsese has made, and whose recent output is probably better. Admit it, guys - too much of the love given to Marty is because his movies feature tough talking actors like Robert de Niro and Joe Pesci, and not because of the admittedly breathtaking visual qualities of his work.

Of course. I was assuming that everyone here knew that.

wendersfan, sadly you're onto something. Alice is brilliant. Goodfellas is a great film but I place it a slight notch lower than Raging Bull, Taxi Driver and Mean Streets. Casino is wheel-spinning that I doubt I'll ever feel the need to see again. Taxi Driver, however, I could throw on and watch right now.

Clearly you're not going to get this. Or even want to for that matter. I say do some homework, then come back and tell me that Scorsese wasn't the ideal choice, "the only" filmmaker working today who could've made THE AVIATOR. True, any monkey could've made the film (if we must get that literal), but nobody could've infused the production with the passion of the era like Scorsese. It baffles me that you, an alleged film fan, would argue that point. Are the examples not clear enough for you?

Since when does Tarantino proclaim himself a definitive lover of 1930s-40s cinema? Eastwood too. I must've missed their 4-hour documentaries on their personal love of the era, and their recreations of the era in many of their productions. Oh wait...

Put it this way, I wouldn't want Eastwood to make KILL BILL, and I wouldn't want Scorsese to make UNFORGIVEN. Every director has his or her strengths.





Man, that's your hang up, not mine. If you want to approach cinema that coldly academic, that's your prerogative. I disagree with that outlook, as with any INTANGIBLE art form. This thread has gone bonkers chasing an answer that doesn't exist.


Good luck to you.

Spielberg could have made it. Cameron could have made it.

Spielberg could NOT have made Million Dollar Baby. The thought makes me shudder.

By the way, none of the above could have made Raging Bull.

Well that depends if you're tallking about knowledgeable film fans like us, or just joe six packs that watch a few movies a year.

To them, Bogart is just "that guy in those black and white movies" and Eastwood will be "taht guy in those westerns" to them.

But who cares about their opinions anyway.

[QUOTE=Sid Yobbo]That's because I'm not a total Scorsese fanboy [QUOTE]

I agree, it appears you're a total Eastwood fanboy.

...some people like Eastwood---> some like Scorsese.
...some people like Star Wars----> some like LOTR
...some people like chicken----> some like fish.


...some of us like both.

Anyway congratulations to Eastwood because M$B was a great movie.