Quentin Tarantino's The Hateful Eight

No, I'm saying that a great deal of those films' allure, their entertainment value, is based in violence.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the view of Scorsese may be skewed, that his greatness is overrated. Not that he isn't great mind you, just that that greatness is somewhat reliant on the use of violence or its specter.

In that case, we could not disagree more. There are plenty of violent pictures that are seen as bad by pretty much everyone. Violence is not a factor that makes a picture good. It's merely a story element.

If you really believe that Scorsese is overrated by people, because he shows violence in his pictures, you have simply not studied his films properly. They're pieces of art. The way he moves his camera, his editing style, his use of music, pretty much everything he does really, is freaking phenomenal. You can't cheapen that by saying that his use of violence makes him overrated, because violence somehow "artificially enhances" drama. It doesn't make any sense.

You don't seem to grasp the reason why Scorsese is so loved by cinephiles. It's not because of his use of violence. It's because of the refreshing and brilliant ways he presents his stories (the violent and the non-violent ones). He's a master of filmmaking.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

To which I say Nonsense Poopypants!

Of course I speak as a huge fan, but I think I have put forth enough to show that Scorsese's greatness surpasses the "violence crutch" and there is so much more to his film making capacities. But you seem to have a different view. Which is is fine.

But I wish to ask a question. If a director is known to be great for a certain kind of movie... so what? Does being known for a certain kind of movie detract from a director's greatness? I say no.

Alfred Hitchcock is one of the all time great directors. His influence is far reaching and has influenced many different filmmakers. He is also best known for his psychological thrillers and his later horror films like Psycho and The Birds. Does that mean he is a lesser filmmaker? No. He rose to the the top by being the best at what he does. He made Vertigo, Rear Window, and Psycho. Heck a good chunk of his filmography shows up on the AFI Top 100 Thrillers list.

What about Mel Brooks? The man is one of the funniest human beings to EVER walk the Earth. The man made comedies that were spoofs, satires, and farces. And he excelled at that.

Not every filmmaker has to be a Kubrick who can do an arguable masterpiece in multiple genres. Not everyone can be the walking encyclopedia of film knowledge willing to do other kinds of movies like Scorsese. Not every filmmaker can rise to the level of an Akira Kurosawa when it comes to a filmography. Mel Brooks is very popular for his comedies, people love John Ford's westerns, and people really like Tarantino's various movies with graphic violence. My contention is if you are really really good at one particular kind of film and are highly successful at it, who cares? It should not take away from how good you are as a filmmaker.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

I don't really see much that's very similar between Scorsese and Tarantino, besides the fact that a lot of people like both of them, and that they're both American cinephiles. Besides that, I've never thought to compare the two.

__________________
Mubi

Agreed. I think they only have two things in common, and those are the violence and their great (although different) music taste. I don't see the point in comparing them, if you ask me.

Not unless it is to try and see where Marty may have influenced QT. Other then that they are pretty unique to each other.

The only influence on Quentin Tarantino was Bad News Bears

You both make good points and I agree with a lot of them but I still think violence can serve to artificially enhance a drama. Would, for instance, The Sopranos have been as lauded and loved if it was about insurance salesman?

Speaking of King of Comedy: I believe there's a scene in a pretty empty restaurant where two people are talking and in the background some guy is making strange hand or arm gestures. Can anyone tell me what that was about?

Or a science teacher? I am a little confused by your point. You keep saying violence enhances drama. I keep hearing drama enhances drama. If you feel different I have some home videos of me watching Scorsese movies I can send you.

__________________
Letterboxd

Now you're talking about a TV series that Scorsese had no connection with. It doesn't even make sense. If you think though that Goodfellas is as praised and as loved as it is simply because of the violence, then you're totally missing the point.

I would not know about The Sopranos. I never watched it. But it is hard to make a gangster show without violence. Maybe you prefer Mad Men?

As for The King of Comedy if you are talking about De Niro and Diahnne Abbott's date at the Chinese place I think he was ease dropping on the conversation and thinks Rupert is full of crap.

That's kind of my point. Violence is itself dramatic, transfixing, alluring, more so than many other subjects so it can raise the value of a drama artificially. Don't crowds naturally gather around accidents and fights?

It's not simply because of the violence.

Mad Men is good (or used to be) but I think it would be better--more intense and enveloping--if it had violence.

Yeah, I thought it was being used to mock De Niro's character but I found it very strange, outside anything in the movie or any movie really, and disruptive.

Let me get this straight Bobby De Niro is giving one of his best performances ever and you are paying attention to some guy in the background? You are a strange guy pal.

Bob De Niro's best performance:

Blue Deed you are out of the circle of trust.

Tarantino's films seem to be level A offshoots of yesteryear's B-movies, that he uses the best aspects of them as a foundation on which to build his own creations.

It's just NOT because of the violence.

The violence is merely a story element, because it's a movie about the Italian mafia. There are many reasons why it is praised so much: the energetic editing, the fantastic camera work, the awesome script, the acting performances, the unbelievable use of period music, etc. The fact that the films has a couple of scenes with violence in them is not one of those reasons.

You're confusing the presentation of the film with its actual content. The "Layla" scene, for instance, is not praised because it shows images of dead bodies. It's famous and loved, because it's so exceptionally well executed.

Why the hell are we talking about Goodfellas, The King of Comedy, The Sopranos and The Little Fockers in a thread about Tarantino's upcoming western movie, though?

Sopranos isn't great because of the violence, it's a study of characters operating within a violent organisation. The violence is a tool used to shock us into realisation that these men love their families but can still order the killing of a friend or even a member of their family cos they stepped out of line within the organisation. How many times are you lulled into loving Tony then he does something that makes you jump out of your seat. The whole series is utterly brilliant.

I just am having a hard time understanding the argument. Violence is conflict and all story tellers use conflict. Jesus used conflict in his parables, Shakespeare used conflict in his plays, and Frost used conflict in his poems. When you said these directors used violence as a crutch we had something to debate. When you say they use violence to enhance drama you are just calling them story tellers and I agree.