Without question Martin Scorsese’s greatest achievements in films all take place within the city and that city is invariably New York. Unlike Woody Allen’s obvious love affair with New York, most noticeably in Manhattan and Annie Hall, Scorsese’s city is a place that the great man loves and hates in equal measure and it is this paradox that lies at the heart of his films.
The city is where everything happens, it’s where the deals are made, it’s where you fall in love, it’s where adventure is to be found. Pictures like Mean Streets, New York New York and Gangs of New York, portray the city as the playground for Scorsese’s protagonists. The land of opportunity!
On the flipside, Scorsese’s vision of the city as hell metaphor is almost legendary, as thinly veiled as possible in the climax of Taxi Driver, and also more than prominent in his other films as in Bringing out the Dead. “You have to be strong to survive in this city” Patricia Arquette’s character tells Nicolas Cages’ Frank Pierce, “the city doesn’t discriminate, it’s out to get everyone” replies Pierce. The list goes on in films like Gangs of New York, Mean Streets, and the tough world of the Goodfellas.
Over the decades, Marty (as he prefers to be called) has made a total of four films that are commonly regarded as modern day classics (Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas). The city is almost like an additional character in all four of these films, which focus constantly around the issues of the street and of men and masculinity.
Goodfellas was made in 1990 and since then Scorsese has released a number of pictures that were considered poor by his standards both commercially and critically. First was the heavily underrated Cape Fear, a remake that had far more substance than the original or what the critics recognise in it. This was followed by The Age of Innocence a critical success but a picture that many Scorsese’s aficionados couldn’t relate to or understand.
Then came Casino. An epic sprawling film about the world of Las Vegas in the 1970s, and its relationship with organised crime, it was here that the first sign of cracks in Scorsese’s creative armour seemed to appear.
Written by Nicolas Pileggi (who also wrote Goodfellas) Casino shared many other similarities with the earlier film and not just in writer, director and leading men (De Niro and Joe Pesci). The content was also similar, addressing issues of organised crime, jealousy and corruption through power. The film was received well by critics and did a tidy piece of business for a Scorsese picture at the box office but the film felt like a rehash of his past success.
Casino was quickly followed by Kundun. An intimate quiet story of the Dalai Lama and how the Tibetan people had to deal with the constant threat of violence. Like Age of Innocence it was a strange choice, even missing Scorsese’s trademark camera flair, which baffled his supporters who, like with the earlier film, couldn’t relate to the subject matter. Kundun was not a commercial success by any means.
Next up was Bringing out the Dead. Scorsese was back in his element, dealing with themes of sacrifice, Catholic guilt, anguish, temptation and most importantly of all, was back in the city of New York. While the film again failed to bring in much money at the box office, critics recognised that Scorsese’s considerable directing talent was still clearly visble. His excellent use of pop music was once more employed (so important in his earlier pictures) along with innovative camera work. This was a world that Scorsese had grown up in and understood far better than the world of Tibet, Las Vegas, or upper class 19th century New York. But there was something else that eluded Scorsese – not since Robert De Niro in Cape Fear had he been able to entice a brilliant performance by his leading man. In Bringing out the Dead he found it in the shape of Nicolas Cage as the tormented and haunted Frank Pierce. However, the critics weren’t impressed. They rightly pointed out the similarities to Taxi Driver and questioned whether the director was running out of new ideas and had merely resorted to his past glories.
Then in 2000, circumstances finally opened up for Scorsese to make the film that he had wanted to make for over 25 years: Gangs of New York. The stage seemed set for the director’s fifth modern day classic film, a film that would surely answer his critics. He was due a hit, back in the city that he loved, dealing with the subject matter that he understood better than any other director. Daniel Day Lewis was tempted out of retirement with the lure of being able to work with Scorsese again, while Leonardo DiCaprio was again starting to receive critical accaim by successfully tackling strong, challenging roles and was, at last, starting to lose the ‘pretty-boy tag’ that he had had to carry with him since 1997’s Titanic. Finally, there was Cameron Diaz, who had recently managed to mix films that gained large commercial success with ones that were lauded with critical praise in a way that would make Tom Cruise envious.
However, from the outset there were problems. The production was reported to be dogged by daily arguments between Scorsese and producer Harvey Weinstein, over the spiralling budget of the film, its length and even the plot. Rewrites were said to be happening almost constantly and there were even rumours inside Miramax that the film was confusing and didn’t seem to be marketable to any specific target audience. To cap it all, the release date was put back by over 18 months, for a number of suspicious reasons.
Finally on December 9th 2002, Gangs Of New York premiered in the US to lukewarm critical response and healthy box office business. Was it the next classic Scorsese film that we had all been waiting so patiently for? Unfortunately no. It was still a brilliant piece of storytelling. The excellent photography from Michael Ballhaus showed every inch of the astounding recreation of the Five Points, so perfectly realised by Scorsese and created by Ferretti. Every performance was nigh on perfect, especially that of Day-Lewis who cemented his reputation as one of the greatest actors in the world. His Bill the Butcher is one of recent cinema’s greatest villains, in turn so brutal and animalistic yet almost poignant and full of regret. His “I never had a son” speech that he laments to Amsterdam is a truly amazing moment in the film and shows a tragic side to Bill that provides the viewer with a deeper insight into the character. Diaz was fine as Jenny Everdeane and DiCaprio played his part with the right amount of intensity and innocence.
However, the problem with the film lay mainly with the central story. The book barely features Bill or Amsterdam, instead focussing more on the draft riots and the poverty of the five points. It is the history of the turn-of-the-century New York that attracted Scorsese originally to the material and less so the genre tale of one man trying to gain vengeance on another. The film is at its best when dealing with the larger picture of the time and its relevance to modern America. Scorsese clearly sees the “hands that built America” belonged to people in the older generation of the film like Bill the Butcher, Happy Jack (John C Reilly), Boss Twead (Jim Broadbent) and Priest Vallon (a Liam Neeson cameo). Every character in this generation is interesting and you just know that for every scene that features DiCaprio or Johnny Sirocco (E.T’s Henry Thomas), there is a more fascinating one happening somewhere else with one of the older generation.
Scorsese is clearly fascinated with the history of this world, more so than with his characters, and in how this period affected modern day America and specifically his city. Scorsese’s films always revolve around it. It would be interesting to read an early draft of the script to see how much Amsterdam Vallon’s character features then compared to in the finished film. Indeed Harvey Weinstein is suspected to have made more of the love story than was originally there, simply for commercial reasons. It is this reason why the film doesn’t work as well as it probably should. There is rumoured to be a fuller four hour version out there somewhere. If this is the case, there can be no doubt that it would play down the love story and DiCaprio’s generation, focussing more on Bill the Butcher, the rules of the street and the wider historical context that clearly drew Scorsese to the project all those decades ago.
The film was heavily pushed for the Academy Awards by Weinstein and won ten nominations. Inevitably a film about the violent and corrupt beginnings of modern America didn’t go down well with academy members and this coupled with Weinstein’s annoying over- promotion of the film, meant that it came away empty-handed. Scorsese has famously never won a best director Oscar and in all fairness, this shouldn’t have been the film to end this run. Maybe he will get another chance in the not so distant future.
The next project he is slated to direct is The Aviator, a biopic of Howard Hughes, one of Scorsese’s favourite directors. This will see him reunite with DiCaprio who takes on the challenging role of the legendary director, and will also star the talented Cate Blanchett as Katherine Hepburn. Also recently announced is the ‘Bob Dylan Anthology Project’, a documentary about the musician who also figured prominently in one of Scorsese’s earlier projects The Last Waltz. It appears that both films will again be a labour of love for the director and ‘The Aviator’ especially should go down very well with academy members as Howard Hughes is one of Hollywood’s original golden directors. Could this finally give Scorsese the Oscar he so richly deserves? The film world awaits what the world’s ‘greatest living director’ will come up with next.
About the Author
