Martin Scorsese, super genius

It would be if he ever responded (would not surprise me if he put me on ignore by this point) so it's basically a rhetorical question I threw out there because the idea of being overly concerned that a revisionist Western addressing Native American issues might "lean into SJ" is patently absurd. So what if he never answers.

I also think the de-aging was a statement of intent from Scorsese - he could cast younger actors like he did in other movies, but to use the same actors only adds to the idea of the whole thing being De Niro's character reflecting on his life during his final years so even at his youngest his face is lined with years of regrets (and speaks to his own dullness that he imagines his peers the same way). Distracting, perhaps, but I can at least see there being an artistic rationale there (the same thing also happened in Spike Lee's Da 5 Bloods where older actors had flashbacks where they looked the same while standing next to a much younger Chadwick Boseman as if to emphasise the fact that his character died young while they had to live on).

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Considering the film is about an actual social injustice, I can’t see how it wouldn’t lean a little hard into that theme, regardless of Wounded Knee and all (what’s that even supposed to mean anyways, invoking an actual massacre?)

It may have been his intent, but in my opinion, it simply did not work. The digital de-aging technology was not convincing. The actors appeared younger, in an artificial way, but the body movements were consistent with a much older person, so watching it felt distracting and disorienting.

Setting aside the digital de-aging of DeNiro, which the only problem I saw was the already mentioned movements not matching, the story itself is pretty captivating. Heck, even with the de-aging process, they still nailed their performances (Pesci, Pacino, Keitel were all at the top of their game here).

Are you sure about that? I remember when home video became a thing. My family would gather around the TV with popcorn and soda and we watched together. We pushed all the way through. Pauses were, at most, just temporary breaks. We were gathered as a little tribe and we watched our movies in one sitting. We did not watch one half of an hour and then agree to watch the rest tomorrow. The movie was an event, a unit. When I watched VHS movies with my friends, we would watch all the way through (unless we decided to abandon a film altogether). Hell, even when I hung out at a video store with a friend and had every movie in the shop available with the equivalence of streaming (who library all at once, no late fees, no two-day rental), it was just understood that a film is a thing that you watch in one-sitting.



Are you sure you're not conflating what we've been able to do with what we actually do? Because I never go to a streaming service and think "Hey, I'm going to watch half a film tonight!"

And I would say that standing in ignorance or contempt of the general sociology of viewing is something a director does at her own risk.

Or the audience will just say, "Err, a four-hour movie? Yeah, I'll pass."



And Roger Ebert is not quite right when he says that no great movie is never long enough. A great movie is great, in part, because it is NOT too long. You can only "leave them wanting more" if you don't exhaust the audience. Having sat through the Star Wars OT back-to-back in 70mm to get the original trilogy experience in one helping, I can vouch that committing one quarter of a day to watch Star Wars becomes the Bataan Death March at a certain point.

Don't worry, in a few more years, they're just going deep fake everything.



We will have character loading screens at the start of our movies. For another $3 you can select the protagonist to be a young DeNiro or an old Chalamet or if your vanity pleases... ...you. S1m0ne (2002) was more a prophecy than people realize.


The audiobook labor market is likely to get shaken up. After all, I can have Sir David Attenborough narrate my 40K lore.

I only quickly skimmed this thread and didn't read the bulk of it. So this is not about anything any of you may have said...

Personally I'm hesitant to watch a four hour long movie, especially if it's casting big Hollywood stars in what seems to be a serious historical event, that's not well known. Replace DiCaprio with someone who does more character acting like Michael Shannon and maybe, just maybe I'll watch it. And no I'm not a DiCaprio hater, I actually like him in entertainment type movies. I do like the subject matter of the film, I once seen a little known documentary about killings on a native American reservation, I wonder if this is the same story.

It's hilarious that you continually equate an artist following their creative instincts with contempt towards an audience.



For the billionth time, not all art is for everybody. I don't like superhero films, but directors who make them aren't holding me in contempt. So why would we assume the opposite to be true, that when your general audience isn't being catered to, it is suddenly some kind of insult to them personally. It's ridiculous. The only way that makes any sense is if you believe these more esoteric type films are only made to aggravate the people who don't like them, and not to entertain or enrich those who do. Which would be the point of view of a solipsistic idiot.



If there is ever any contempt in these conversations, it always seems to be coming from spoiled rotten audience members who are insulted by the notion that not everything is made for them (even while almost everything already is), and who are hostile towards the notion that there are people out there who enjoy different things than they do. Which is why I suspect your advice to artists who dare follow their own heart and make the things they want to 'do so at their own risk' sounds like a threat. It's pretty clear to me where the contempt is coming from.

I just watched Lagaan: Ince Upon a Time in India, and even though it is nearly 4 hours long, you do not feel it’s length. Or at least, I didn’t. It’s an entertaining film, Bollywood dance scenes aside.

At some point, I’m going to have to start tackling the longer films that exist. Lav Diaz, Bela Tar and so on. War and a peace is staring at me on the Criterion Channel (I have it saved for future) and once I’m able to find the time, I’ll be tackling it as well.

Time is the biggest issue. I only have two days off during the weekend and not all of it is spent indoors watching cinema. I like to go to the beach on occasion, or visit friends. I like to travel somewhere for vacation.

All that being said, I still will make time eventually for these longer epics. Because sometimes you’re rewarded with a film like Seven Samurai, The Irishman and The Godfather.

A four-hour film is a big ask. If your film is long enough that it would have had an intermission in the Cinemascope days, then you have to start considering practical impingements on viewing (e.g., bladders, attention spans, kids at home). You have to consider the audience as flesh and blood viewers. If you make a 15 hour film for the sake of making a 15 hour film, you're a schmuck.

Creative instincts need creative checks. Seeing as how films are made for audiences, we must also consider the audience as a check, and not as passive supplicants kneeling before the revelation of the Holy Word.
But art is made for an audience. The audience is not passive or simply "made" for the film. Rather, the film is made for the audience.

And the greater the art is, the wider its appeal. Great art transcends and pulls us together, and thus approaches "everybody" as an asymptote. Scorsese, presumably wanting to make great films, would well-advised not to get too carried away in terms of ambitions for "length."
No, that's my job.
Specific audiences have the same kinds of needs as a general audience. The needs of a specific audience are just balanced in a different proportion. And Martin Scorsese in making a film for his fans should recognize that they too have limits and expectations. If he wants us to watch films in theaters (and not on cellphones), then he should consider the logistical proposition of asking his fans to arrange their entire evening, one quarter of the waking hours of their day, around viewing his film. Longer run times means fewer theatrical windows for viewing at theaters, making it harder for the audience to get into the theater to see it. The real world exists. General audiences live in it. So do special audiences. Time is a real-world consideration.
Nice strawman. Moving on.
There it is. Let the hate flow through you. How did you put it? You are nourished by your hatred?
You have a rock-solid alibi for any movie. You didn't like it? So what?!? It wasn't made for you! Why did YOU expect to like it? There are dozens of us who love the 10-hour cut of The Big Chill. DOZENS OF US!!!
I have no power. How can I threaten? I can only stand like the harbinger and warn. And yes, if you double-down on "art for art's sake" with no regard for the audience (general or specific), then you do so with a disregard for the basic contract of storytelling (adjusting ideas to people and people to ideas). Art is NOT about the pure expression of the artist, but the artist connecting the audience with the symbol. It's a dance and we all have a part to play. Your mythology of the passive audience is the chained tyranny of the flickering shadows of Plato's Cave.

I gotta laugh, you two really do keep swimming in that same old fishbowl...this is your guys' anthem.

Crumb does his best to resist my various provocations which are typically not addressed to him, or aimed at him, or made in his threads.

For some yes. And for others it's a pleasure. And either way it's not Scorsese's issue if you cant find a babysitter. Or is a four hour film now holding those with children in contempt? That's how that word works, right?









The fact that your immediately assumption about a fifteen hour film is they made it 'just because' is telling towards your constant condescension towards art that doesn't speak directly to you.



Sometimes yes. Maybe most of the time, yes. But it should never ever be dictated by any person who doesn't know what they are talking about. Just like I don't want a cashier at a grocery store giving my surgeon advice on where to make an incision, Scorsese doesn't need your advice on how long his movie should be.


Oh, that's right. This is probably more contempt to fill your soul. The horrors of being made to realize you know considerably less about filmmaking (or even being a member of an audience) than Martin Scorsese.



But what audience?. Is it only the audience that you identify with that needs to be placated? Or does it always have to be the audience that is the biggest? Does everyone else just have to get on board what you deem the right way to make a film. Is there any way they can see what they want to see without you invoking the notion of audience contempt?





An artist hopes for an audience. They do not exclusively cater to it. It doesn't work that way. Read a book on art history sometime and learn that most of the innovations in art were made by artists who had no idea if there would be an audience for what they were doing. They took a leap of faith. And somehow it resonated with people.


Even something as clearly marketable and culture shifting as Star Wars was made by a man who didn't think anyone would want such a spectacle during the times of The French Connection and Last Picture Show. He had to hope that audience was out there. And it was. And he didn't find it by catering to some needs he imagined they had.



Lol. No. Some great art appeals to many, some appeals to a few. The notion that something can't be great if it only profoundly impacts a smaller group of people is nonsense. Once again, this smells a lot more like contempt towards the audience than anything Scorsese is doing with a four hour film. But I guess because it's a smaller audience, that doesn't matter to you. Those epiphanies through art don't count.





Or they won't be great? What the **** are you talking about? He's done fine without you and all this wonderful advice of yours. Go tutor a philosophy freshman or something. Scorsese doesn't need you.


Um no they don't. Everything you say is proof of this difference. You have zero interest in the needs I have as an audience member. And you don't have to. That's fine. But when you join the chorus of complainers who cant deal with anything that subverts their expectations as a viewer, this whinery makes it that much harder for artists to produce work unless it caters to you. And **** that. I'm tired of those who already have almost everything being made for their sensibilities, angry and trying to delegitimize any film that they don't think is for them. Tough shit. Pretend it is contempt all you want. You are the one with popular opinion behind you. You are the one who actually has power in numbers and are the ones who movie studios are aiming to please. You've already got it real good so stop being giant selfish babies.



It's a strawman argument to try and understand the weird psychology of your basic argument? I'm just speculating how contempt comes into the picture. I suspect my theory has some legs. But who knows. Maybe you waving the possibility of this away for your usually very noble reasons



I'm pretty straightforward about my temperament. I'm not here for the hugs. But it's hardly hate, even if you can't properly interpret a self deprecating joke I made in another thread.


But this isn't about YOU having to like it. Or me having to like what you like. That is such an irrelevance it is annoying it always comes back to this with you. I do not ****ing care what you like. Or dislike. I care about talking about the movies I do like, and why I like them, and trying to explain my unorthodox reasons for appreciation. This does sometimes come to a head with me frustrated how the movie industry is structured, and why I think we need more voices outside of it...but I am primarily concerned with things I like. And I would like there to be more of them.


And who cares if only ten people like something like a ten hour But Chill (which I would also be partial to). It matters to those ten people and that is what is important. Should it not exist because it's not enough fandom for your tastes?. What is your stupid obsession with numbers anyways?


I said it was written like a threat. Which I found funny considering how you try and play like your some kind of victim anytime a movie you disagree with on some level dares to exist.


And I know you have no power. Another reason why what you wrote was so funny to me.



What exactly are you warning Martin Scorsese about. You think you know something he doesn't.


You're weird




You and your ****ing dance.


FTR there is no shortage of directors who have paid minimal attention to the whims of audiences who have still somehow built lifelong careers out of that indifference. And if they had listened to you (shudder) they likely would have had nothing. They would have made a kind of movie they probably didn't know how to make, or didn't want to make.


But, thankfully, because they trusted themselves, they eventually found an audience who were passionate about watching them be passionate about the movies they were making. Movies that maybe finally said things other films didn't think we're worth saying. Movies that meant something to them, even as the rest of the world just shrugged at their existence


I know this is an astounding revelation, but art is not always just about placating some person who only half cares about movies anyway, and who is resentful the movie is half an hour longer than they'd prefer it to be, and distracted by the possibility the babysitter has eaten their children. Art is also about bearing witness to the joy of creating. Of watching someone reach out with the hope that someone else understands what they are trying to say. It's not just something to pass the time or divert you from life. It's a lot of different things that you never ever seem to even recognize as existing.



And that's is where my contempt comes into focus. Not because your taste sucks, because so does mine. Not because you're stupid, because you're not. But because you absolutely refuse to even acknowledge the reasons why someone like me might love something you think is a waste of time. And because your always so ****ing focused on the debate, you ignore absolutely everything everyone tries to say to you in earnest.


It's super annoying

There is also the fact that everyone else appears to be gone, so who else can I wall of text rant at?

Fair point.

I would be excited for the next Scorsese movie if it was 90 minutes, 240 minutes, or a limited Netflix series. Maybe that’s just me.

__________________
Letterboxd

I'd like to reflect a bit here. Why is there so much bickering and arguing in this thread? It seems to me like this is a pretty simple issue that shouldn't ideally provoke this much controversy. Some feel that a 4 hour movie is too long, most others don't. Why get upset over this? I think we should arguably all be able to have a civil debate on an issue that is not by its nature fraught with emotional peril. I don't get it!

Quoted for truth!

Isn't it though? Doesn't he want people to watch films in theaters? Doesn't he want us to buy tickets? Doesn't he want to please some audience?

If we're being honest, we must admit that some art is crap, some artists are pretentious hacks, and yes, some audiences are horrible. And if there is such a thing as a hack artist (there is) who makes bad art (it exists), then we can speak hypothetically of an artwork which is made long merely for the sake of "being long." It's not to say that it is impossible for a 15 hour film to be of high quality, but rather that the air is getting so thin at those heights that prospects for success are very slim.

The procedure of the doctor should interact (be checked by) the informed consent of the patient. If the patient does not want to endure a four-hour surgery to remove a mole, she might visit another doctor who can do it in 90 minutes. Superlong surgeries might be great, but you're practice might not be open very long if your competitors provide a similar service in half the time.
And why did we decide that he is an expert? Because his films made money. Why have his films made money? Because little people like you and me have paid to see them. Why did we pay to see them? Because we were entertained. The audience is part of the process of canonizing the director as an "autonomous" talent.



You're leaning pretty hard into the Ad Verecundiam here. "How dare you speak of these matters, mortal. Scorsese is a God!" I don't have to be on a par with Scorsese to legitimately note that time-length is not an arbitrary variable, but that there are real limits which limit film length. If we had to be as talented as the filmmaker to warrant talking about the film, we would only be allowed to speak of Uwe Boll films in this august forum.

An intentionally targeted audience large enough to be relevant (if you, your mom, and her cat love your latest film, that's not really culturally relevant). Defining this is difficult, however, it is easy enough to note that a film is (among other things) a commercial endeavor, and should turn some form of profit for investors. Scorsese is a major filmmaker playing with a lot of money, so his film needs to connect with a lot of people to be commercially viable. If his four hour film flops at the box office, in whole or in part, because it is too long for this audience, then we can note the failure of Scorsese to recognize an important check.

No.
No.

Only to the extent that I'm right.

If a film turns a small profit, pleasing its intended audience, that's the bare minimum for not holding the audience in contempt. We might criticize the film for not being as could as it could have been, but a film is only in contempt to the extent that it disregards the interests and desires of the very group for whom the artwork is made. Art for art's sake is, by definition, contempt for the audience.

All of these artists worked by implicit rules. Great artists know these rules and when they break a rule, they know why they're doing it. These rules are the conventions governing the production of that which is pleasing to others. There is no making of art with an audience in mind.



It is possible to make great art without intentional/conscious regard for the actual audience. The artist, however, will still be attempting please some implicit audience (e.g., himself, God, some lost village lost to time). It is possible to make art which succeeds even with a conscious intention to fail the audience, to offend them. Holding the audience in contempt is merely something one does at one's own peril. It is possible to make a great book without any regard for the those who will consume the book, but a great writer is a master of connecting audience with text.

And the greatest art transcends and endures. The greater art is, the more it reaches out into the great common mass of humanity. Does that disgust you a bit? Do you recoil at the thought of the unwashed masses enjoying Shakespeare or Beethoven?

I am not offering him advice. I am not saying anything that radical! Having an eye towards one audience is not subversive.

Read the sentence that follows. Same basic categories of need, but in different proportion. No one has "all the time in the world," so yes, "time length" is a consideration for everyone. Some people love a 3 hour film. Almost no one has the time or the physical capacity (e.g., staying awake) for a 30-hour sitting of a film.

Yawn.

Sure you are. Come on. Bring in it. Let's do this. You aren't so bad. I'm not so bad. It's not your fault. Set down your burden. I am here.

But it is about SOMEONE having to like it.
The movie industry does, because it is an industry. An audience that small is unprofitable and culturally irrelevant.

We're talking about that moment where the mass of opinion serves as an intersubjective standard of taste. That ten people like something is not proof of anything. If I tell you that ten out of 360 million people liked the ten hour cut of The Big Chill, I have offered you no grounds to expect that there is a "there there" with that liking (i.e., that it is beyond anything beyond idiosyncratic). If, on the other hand, enough people kept buying copies of Blade Runner on VHS after it flopped on initial release to make money for retailers, that is a sign that there is a "there there" that Blade Runner is worth another look despite flopping at the box office.



It's not about whether it should exist, but whether it can serve as a criterion of correctness in our critical discussions (such as the one we're having now).

Art is always about the audience, the dance, the interaction. Art is cultural. To have cultural impact it must circulate. To circulate it must be something that audiences appreciate. The. Audience. Always. Matters.



I think you think I am saying things that I am not actually saying. I am all for loving lost causes. I don't begrudge you your taste. If, however, we are speaking of the production of art, there are considerations we cannot ignore entirely. I think you find such considerations low, repulsive, etc., because they are not pure (in the sense of pure expressivity). I think you love that which is transcendent about art, and that fine. My point is that to get to that transcendence, the artwork must offer a footbridge. And that is pedestrian.

I don't know. It might be too much to ask that he not only make really good, four hour long movies, but also keep tabs on the babysitting schedules of local teenagers.


It would probably be fair to say most art is crap. At least by my standards. What matters most is that people keep making it. No matter if it's good or not.

In the case of the movie I mentioned I was watching today, it took the guy ten years to make. He could have easily made a two hour movie in the fraction of that time, with more likelihood of a profit, or more people willing to at least sit through it. But, for whatever reason, he chose to make a fourteen hour movie.

You act like just choosing to make a really really long movie just happens. That it is a lark. But does anyone spend ten years of their life making something really long, simply for the sake of it being long. Is it that hard to conceive that maybe some people simply believe in what they are doing. No matter how firmly people like you keep shaking your head and saying it is stupid and pointless.

I guess I don't disagree with this

Not even bothering with this. This is "Yarn is ****ing weird" territory. I hope you don't get an infection at your next Circle K appendix removal.


Stop.

I'm pretty sure you aren't even qualified to talk about Uwe Boll films.


When has that ever happened?


Am I supposed to just accept this as a fact? Can we just declare things now?

So...exactly what I said. Just sometimes a smaller audience than you are comfortable with.

scary!

I'm sure you're aware that a lot of art that you would disapprove of has already transcended and endured, right?

Keep pretending I'm against the 'common person'. It's hilarious that you think I'm not very much a member of the unwashed masses that you are apparently trying to align yourself with. I'm a white trash thoroughbred. And Shakespeare sucks.

He knows people like the movies he makes. He knows people trust his instincts. So I imagine by just making the movie he wants to make, he is simutaneously keeping an eye towards his audience.

So I guess you're right.

You're telling me! You think I'm boring, imagine what it's like reading you!


I will counter that we are both terrible.

Sorry, zoned out.



I probably have something of value to say to this, but I'm tired.

Even. If. They're. Stupid?

Yeah, transcendence is a fair word for what I'm looking for. And a footbridge is exactly the kind of things that kills that (what's a footbridge?)