Doomsday's Andrei Tarkovsky Love Fest

Miami Vice is the other bad example of TV-to-Movie adaptations. Instead of mockery, it goes ultra serious and also loses what made the show a success.

I just finished watching the pilot (or TV movie) of Miami Vice and it's basically the 48 Hours / Lethal Weapon formula. You take two cops from opposite ends and pair them up in a story about drug dealers and revenge. What made the show standout was its Miami location and the use of Billboard Top 40 songs in the soundtrack. Outside of that, it stuck very closely to the formula. If you're gonna make a movie just make Lethal Weapon in Miami. It's not rocket science.

If you want to Nolanize it, just do what Sicario did. Use the formula but cut out the humor.

To some extent, you can see a lot of unofficial trilogies in Scorsese's career.

There's the "unhinged guy in New York" trilogy (Taxi Driver, The King of Comedy, and Bringing Out the Dead)

The "voice over crime narrative" trilogy (Goodfellas, Casino, and The Wolf of Wall Street)

The "religion" trilogy (Last Temptation, Kundun, Silence)




And if I want to stretch a bit you could also come up with

The "experimental genre movie" trilogy (NY NY, After Hours, Shutter Island)

The "commercial remake" trilogy (The Color of Money, Cape Fear, The Departed)

and the as of yet unfinished "tortured famous person biopic" trilogy (Raging Bull, The Aviator, and the third would have been that Frank Sinatra biopic he couldn't get the rights to)

And now the continuation of....

Doomsday's Exploration of the Scorsese Filmography

Gangs of New York (2002)

View count: Several times



Gangs of New York can probably be considered the inaugural installment of the 'modern' era of Scorsese filmmaking. It's his first movie of the new millennium. It's the first of a series of movies featuring his most recent key player, Leonardo DiCaprio. It marks a return to the large, prestige, borderline awards-baitey movie that he has yet to really stray from since. It signals the start of a continuous line of films that, while I might not entirely agree on all points, have for the most part been met with unanimous praise and solidified his reputation as one of Hollywood's most consistently entertaining and quality filmmakers for the past 5 decades. As for Gangs of New York though, I first saw it in theaters in the winter of 2002. It was my first theatrical go at a Martin Scorsese movie and while I enjoyed it and was at an age where you're supposed to like everything there were still things that rubbed me the wrong way. I've watched it many times since and I admit my opinions on the movie have fluctuated. When sitting down to watch it again for the first time in a few years there was only one initial question I wanted to answer; does it hold up? The answer is a little bit of yes, a little more no.

When Gangs of New York was released it was looked at as a 'return to form' for Scorsese. His past two films had been bombs at the box office and it had already been the better part of a decade since Casino. It was also an opportunity for Leonardo DiCaprio to shake off the Titanic/The Beach/teen heartthrob label and establish himself as a serious actor. It was a good vehicle for both; a savage, violent gangster(ish) movie set in the mid-1800s slums of New York. Cameron Diaz lent a hand as DiCaprio's love interest and there were some other good turns from actors such as John C. Reilly and the always too brief role by Liam Neeson. The most memorable, talked-about performance though came from Daniel Day Lewis as Bill The Butcher Cutting. He's as patriotic as he is bloodthirsty and DDL holds himself back at the perfect moments while unleashing himself when the movie calls for it. What's funny is that while his performance is the most standout of the movie there are other performances in his career that stand above it. That speaks more to his talents than his performance in the film but like other villainous characters in movies from the 2000s it helps give Gangs of New York the extra fuel it needs. I'm speaking pretty highly of the performances because they're appropriate for the tone that the movie sets. That tone is stylish and makes the movie go at a good pace, but it doesn't work on every front.

Earlier I said that some things still worked in Gangs of New York while others did not. The things that work are those surface level elements that tease your senses. It's entertaining, it's fun to look at, it's an almost three-hour movie that seems like it goes by in half the time. What doesn't hold up is how the movie really feels. The first thing that comes to mind after watching Gangs of New York is that it's the Scorsese movie that most feels like a cartoon. Everything seems exaggerated, colors seems blown out and by the time you reach the anti-climax with one of the worst CGI elephants ever put to film it seems like a movie that finally threw off the yoke off taking itself seriously. As entertaining as Bill the Butcher is to watch he's not a serious character. He's a racist with a glass eye who kills people in public, is a literal butcher who coincidentally has the last name Cutting, and is an expert knife thrower. He almost seems like a comic book villain rather than the antagonist in a period drama. In an effort to make the streets of New York seem as chaotic as possible every setting, every alley, every building, every social gathering has people fighting. It seems like all but a handful of scenes incorporate someone punching somebody else in the face. Scorsese's longtime editor, Thelma Schoonmaker, also adds her touch throughout the film with the quick, jarring cuts that are meant to heighten the suspense and emphasize that raw, gritty feel. It's used to such effect in this film however that it's almost distracting. The opening scene is a battle with the American-born Natives vs. the Irish immigrant Dead Rabbits. What could have been used as a bloody set-up to a long gestating journey of vengeance instead feels chopped and forcefully stylized as they try to give a scene set in the 1840s a modern-day Scorsese feel. What once looked pretty cool in 2002 now seems out of place, dated and dare I say it, cheesy. The more I watched of Gangs of New York, the more I felt this same feeling wash over me.

Thematically you could say that Gangs of New York is simply a revenge movie.  You wouldn't be wrong as the entire movie revolves around DiCaprio's Amsterdam seeking revenge against The Butcher.  This story is set against the backdrop of a pretty turbulent time in American history, right in the thick of the Civil War.  Bill's Natives spend their days harassing Irish immigrants just coming off the boats with Cutting even saying if he had the guns 'he would shoot every one before they step foot on American soil.'  The movie features the conniving Boss Tweed and the corruption of Tammany Hall while they seek votes from the most recent citizens to arrive and finally reaches the New York draft riots where racial tensions, and tensions between the gangs, boil over.  It was interesting seeing the story play out in the way that it does, with one group of immigrants set against clearly racist Natives 'born right-wise' and worthy of the rights they wish to deny to the Irish.  The juxtaposition between the gangs and the political turmoil in New York works better than I think it should have and that's owed to a script that I think deserves more credit than I initially gave it.  It's interesting if not a little scary that there are shades of that conflict in our present American society right down to the fights between rival groups but if there's one thing you can count on America doing it's learning the same lessons a couple times over.

Gangs of New York isn't without its merits. The performances are great, the set design is unique and vibrant even if a bit overblown, and it really tries to stand apart as a film. Nevertheless my reservations that I had before watching again seemed to be confirmed. For a movie that tries to be a fiery period piece a lot of the grit has translated into camp over the past 15 years. Like I said, it seems like a movie that seems like it's trying its best to be gritty and violent rather than just being gritty and violent. The movie was nominated for 10 Oscars for the year it was released. In hindsight it seems silly that this movie received such high esteem. If you take a step back though and look at it as a crime movie in and of itself what you're left with is a good film and, what's more important, it works.

I do think that would have been interesting, but given how much of a passion project Gangs was for Scorsese, I don't see him letting it go.

I'm not following. GONY has problems but I don't see how an injection of Spielberg's sentimentality is the cure and New York sectionalism and crime doesn't strike me as a theme that would jump out for him. As for CMIYC... that movie's fine as is.

Day-Lewis wouldn't have done the movie if Spielberg was directing, surely.

And fuck tha haters - Bill the Butcher is one of the most memorable characters of the 00s and DDL is mesmerising in the role.

He blew me away.

DiCaprio, as much as I love him, was made to look an amateur in comparison.

Who did?

Adrian Brody for The Pianist.  There was probably vote splitting that year between him, Day-Lewis, Jack Nicholson for About Schmit, and Nicholas Cage for his double role in Adaptation.

And now the continuation of....

Doomsday's Exploration of the Scorsese Filmography

The Aviator (2004)

View count: Three or four times



The biography of Howard Hughes is a fascinating story that people have been chomping at the bit to tell for decades. He was a filmmaker, aviator, billionaire, and famously a recluse with many a tall tale attributed to him. Also attributed to him are the numerous attempts to tell his story on the big screen. Warren Beatty, Michael Mann and Brian DePalma are among the long list of filmmakers who attempted to get his story off the ground (no pun) with varying degrees of success. Martin Scorsese's The Aviator is the most renowned and well-known biography of the American icon and touches on most of the elements that defined Howard Hughes; wealth, celebrity, and his obsessive compulsive nature. Rather than make a run of the mill biopic which would have been easy and highly marketable, Scorsese uses those elements to make an engaging and often uncomfortable biography through some of his most tumultuous years. The end result is one of Scorsese's best films with one of his best performers giving the performance of his career.

The Aviator can be considered a tribute to Hughes, to the modern pioneers of aviation, to old Hollywood and to the titans who helped build them. The film opens in the late 1920s with Howard Hughes in his early twenties and in command of the fortune and company left to him by his parents. He controls the largest private air force in the world as he films his movie Hell's Angels, a production seemingly without end. At long last, upon completion at a then-record setting cost, he meets Katharine Hepburn (Cate Blanchett in an Oscar-winning role) who supports Howard as he breaks aviation records, buys control of TWA and grows his aspirations for success. The outbreak of World War II earns him government contracts to built the massive Hercules 'flying boats' and spy planes whose timeframes fall victim to Howard's OCD and ultimately the war's end. Howard finally finds himself in a final fight against Pan-Am as they seek a legal monopoly over international flights putting TWA out of business. The effects each of these events has on Howard has far reaching consequences, from his personal relationships with Hollywood starlets to his management of his companies. The accomplishments of Hughes the icon can be contrasted with his descent into illness; as he conquers Congress and finally gets his Spruce Goose airborne he descends lower into his illness that would haunt him to the end of his life.

Like Raging Bull and Kundun, The Aviator is another pass at the biopic for Scorsese. The Aviator might be a little more in Scorsese's wheelhouse in terms of subject matter; a successful, ambitious person in the eye of Hollywood looking to cement a legacy and constantly chasing recognition, esteem and a chance to leave a lasting mark. By this point in Scorsese's career he was in his early sixties. Film had changed from when he was a young, hungry director making a name for himself with Taxi Driver and Mean Streets. His last few attempts had either failed (Bringing Out The Dead, Kundun) or been glossed over by the film community when it came time for recognition (Gangs of New York). In a few ways The Aviator seemed like a safe bet in terms of securing both financial and critical success. Biopics are usually critical darlings and Scorsese would be teaming up again with Leonardo DiCaprio, an actor whose star was streaking ever higher with Gangs of New York and Spielberg's Catch Me If You Can under his belt. I'm not the biggest fan of the biopic or the set formula that almost all of them go by but that's because most of them follow a fairly clear-cut character arc. A character is introduced, they establish themselves, they fall almost to complete failure, they pick themselves up and the movie ends. Usually a love interest is thrown in there too. The Aviator does much of this but does it in segments while showing that while Howard Hughes is a successful person he's also not terribly relatable. He's a very flawed character, not because of his OCD but because of the illusion that he has to have it all, whether it's a world record, women, money or just acceptance. It makes for a very engaging experience because we constantly want to know how it will work out for him. It gives us a character-propelled movie where you can't predict how Hughes will fare, an achievement for a movie that sits in the most predictable of genres.

Naturally The Aviator was another prestige picture released by Scorsese in his quest for Oscar glory. The film was given a healthy serving of Oscar nominations in the same year that Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby was in the running. The early to mid-2000s was a little comeback of sorts for both filmmakers. After a few years of less than successful movies Scorsese released Gangs of New York, The Aviator and The Departed to much acclaim. Eastwood also entered the new millennium with Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby and his World War II duo Flags of Our Fathers and the much superior Letters from Iwo Jima. Many regard Mystic River as one of the best movie's of Eastwood's career and was also a major contender at the 2004 Academy Awards. While it picked up some acting awards for Sean Penn and Tim Robbins, it was steamrolled by the Return of the King juggernaut that would tie the Oscar record. Eastwood's follow-up the next year, Million Dollar Baby, was given the Best Director/Best Picture Oscars over The Aviator that in a way might have been a makeup for Mystic River losing the previous year, much to the dismay of Martin Scorsese and The Aviator. I always looked at those few years as ones where Oscar politics were massively in play especially because I think a lot of people consider The Aviator to be a better movie than Million Dollar Baby. After all, when was the last time anyone sat down to watch Million Dollar Baby? Then again, the history of cinema is replete with films that were snubbed by the Oscars and many would contend that it's an honor that's not to be taken that seriously anyways. You could also say that the movie that finally did garner Scorsese Oscar gold, The Departed, is his lesser achievement that was given to him to make up for his more deserving movie that was passed over, but more on that when we get there. In short, The Aviator was, in my opinion, a victim of Oscar politics where voters tried to award people and not necessarily cinematic achievement. Many of the wins felt like they were making up for something else and a lot of times that meant better movies fell victim to films that might not have been as good. After watching The Aviator again I think it brings more to the table than Million Dollar Baby and probably did deserve it more but at the same time it doesn't diminish the quality of Scorsese's and DiCaprio's work.

I think it might be safe to say that The Aviator is Martin Scorsese's master achievement of that decade. I know some would disagree and say that his follow-up gangster film would hold that title but I would have to disagree and I'll share those points when we get there (I watched both films back to back). But back to The Aviator, it's a film that really shouldn't have been as good as it is. The transitions from Howard Hughes producing films, pioneering the industry of aviation and standing up to Congressional hearings while battling a condition that wasn't even understood at the time are tied together seamlessly with few hard stops to bring us into the next chapter of his life. Martin Scorsese gave us the Howard Hughes biopic that so many filmmakers have tried to put on screen for so many years. I think it will have to take something very, very special to top this.

Shrek 2 is the best movie of 2004. Where is its Best Picture Oscar?

The scene of Ariel being eaten by the sharks deserved it's own Oscar.