It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Pages in Variety are nothing compared to the M$B ads the LA Times is running under the label of news and commentary.
Warner has shown that the true way to win is free media, not paid media.
Don’t know why Miramax is going hyperdrive on the big oscar spots. Didn’t help Cold Mountain.
Remember the mother in TWISTER who finally forgave her daughter for chasing tornados around the country and said: “I know. It’s just what you DO, dear?” (Or words to that effect.)
Well, this is just what Miramax does. Even if they knew it would backfire, which it has, from time to time, I don’t think they could stop themselves.
The free media should end up killing M$B because I
cannot see how that film can survive the truth
coming out. At some point soon, someone will
spill the ending, and this film should be DOA. Again;
Zombie movies are more plausible (and that’s a strecth
and two-thirds) than this flick. Utterly mind-boggling
how this film can be considered for best picture.
Sideways definitely not my cup of tea but at least
that flick does not pull something from left field
all of a sudden (The big woman and her man are not
really a surprise).
Oy with that flick. Aviator should win. If the
Academy are like the critics and need the ACHE,
then they should throw a bone to Finding Neverland
or Sideways. If they want to honour a genius, then
it has to be Ray. Anything but Humpty Dumpty the
boxing movie. Anything but that…
I saw an AVIATOR spot on KTLA this morning that uses the Intermezzo from Cavalleria Rusticana (aka the theme music from the opening credit sequence in RAGING BULL). I would guess that for most film fans, that music is inexorably tied to RAGING BULL. Nice ploy on the part of the marketers to try to spread the subconscious message of “You didn’t reward Marty for RAGING BULL, now here’s your chance to make amends!” 🙂
if ur in it, u may as well try ur best
Sigh. I think the only thing that could kill THE AVIATOR’s chances is a backlash caused by Miramax trying to shove it too hard down the Acadamy’s throat. The message you point to, Jason, is hardly going to be subconscious to most people. Rather than trying to guilt-trip the acadamy about the RAGING BULL “snub” or making claims that Scorsese is a genius who MUST HAVE HIS OSCAR, they should be pushing the film for the fun, dazzling and yes, often thought-provoking flick that it is.
could be worse. he could have got it for gangs of ny
Actually, the Raging Bull music might be a cross-promotion for the Raging Bull DVD special edition that came out today.
The AVIATOR spot never mentions RAGING BULL by title–it just has the music playing over the ad, which features quotes from several critics.
I didn´t liked the aviator at all. I can´t even believe Martin Scorsese manipulated the audience on such a cheap way. I seriously don´t want him to win, and he is my favourite director of all time (well, him, Stanley Kubrick and David Lean)
I don’t think Miramax has been shoving The Aviator too hard at all. Most of their ads tout the films 11 Oscars including best picture. One ad I saw touted the films action, adventure and romance. Just in time for Valentines Day.
I find it strange that anyone could HATE The Aviator. Sure, you can not like it, but what’s to hate about it?
It sure as hell isn’t manipulative! What is it manipulating us into thinking. That guys to pee into jars aren’t crazy…?
a tough movie to hate unless u got a problem with marty or hate leo.
Last night on Leno, Eastwood was on as a guest and made a very good impression. Just when I was thinking, “damn, he’s sewing it all up. How could you not want to give this modest, charming, sexy old goat another Oscar?” they cut to a commercial. Of course, it was the AVIATOR ad! I was suddenly back to thinking, “no, I still like AVIATOR more.” So the race is still a tight one as far as I’m concerned.
After Eastwood, left, Thomas Hayden Church came on, also to shill for Oscar votes, and seemed more annoying than ever. I don’t think he won anybody over, actually. He seems just like the character he plays in SIDEWAYS. If anything, he might have hurt himself with his appearance. Why would someone vote for an actor who’s essentially playing himself in a film, especially with a brilliant Morgan Freeman performance on the ballot?
“At some point soon, someone willspill the ending, and this film should be DOA. Again; Zombie movies are more plausible (and that’s a strecth and two-thirds) than this flick. Utterly mind-boggling how this film can be considered for best picture. Sideways definitely not my cup of tea but at least that flick does not pull something from left field all of a sudden”
It’s definitely a jarring twist, but I would stop far short of calling it a ‘left field’ twist. I don’t want to ruin anything, but if you think about some of Freeman’s earlier narration, what happened to Freeman, Clint’s hesitance, etc. I think that there is a decent amount of foreshadowing.
How is the “out of left field” twist in M$B supposed to sink its Oscar chances? I don’t think it deserves to win Best Picture but not for that reason. (And as C points out, there is, in retrospect, some foreshadowing.) TERMS OF ENDEARMENT had a similar third-act twist that sort of blind-sideds the audinece, and it swept the Oscars that year…. How is this different?
“TERMS OF ENDEARMENT had a similar third-act twist that sort of blind-sideds the audinece, and it swept the Oscars that year…. How is this different?”
And, not that I thought that it deserved to win, but the same could of course be said for “A Beautiful Mind.”
Even without “foreshadowing”, one could argue that life throws people sudden curve balls that, in one jarring moment, change everything for them. How is a film bad for showing how that happens. I think it’s about time we looked beyond the official Sid Field template for Good Screenplay Structure.
Hayden Church may have been playing himself, but how is Freeman’s performance anything special? He can play that kind of role in his sleep. I like Freeman, but I was not impressed at all with his work in M$B. I won’t say he phoned it in, but it’s not exactly a stretch for him or a very challenging role.
If you see it again, look at his eyes (and not just the one with the “blind-eye” contact lens). He does very subtle work with his eyes, and also his voice. I don’t care what anyone says, vocal acting is one of the hardest things there is, and Freeman’s voiceover narration was a masterpiece of vocal acting: tone, cadence, modulation. It’s subtle, but it’s clearly a finely sculpted performance.
Hopefully we can all agree that Alan Alda shouldn’t even have been nominated. What’s that all about, especially with Peter Sarsgaard doing such good work in “Kinsey”?
we’ve seen freeman do that role 20 times already. church played a character. a great part. a great performance. he deserves the oscar and i think he’ll get it. guys like pitt and clooney have to be pissed they turned it down.
As is the Miramax M.O. these adverts are not to boost box office. These ads are for the express purpose of
BUYING AWARDS!!!!!
BUYING AWARDS!!!!!
BUYING AWARDS!!!!!
After all, Harvey Weinstein was confronted one year at ShoWest (theater owners’ convention) and correctly accused of “Oscar Payola”.
Oh, come on, Charles. It’s not quite THAT simple. This is the peak period for box office potential for THE AVIATOR. Unless it totally sweeps the Oscars with 11 wins from 11 nominations (or at least 9 for 11), once the cermony is over, the film will be considered yesterday’s news and will drop off at the box office. The only real chance Miramax has of getting that film past 100 mil, which will allow them to sell it for more money to ancellary markets, is to push it now and push it hard. Besides, you don’t think Clint Eastwood went on The Tonight Show last night simply becasue he just loves talking to Jay?
I don’t think I really missed anything in Freeman’s performance. I just didn’t care for his narration and he’s done much better work. It’s a fairly thin character.
Nobody buys awards. Why shouldn’t they take out ads or go on talk shows and publicize their achievements? Its not like Harvey Weinstein is writing bribe checks for votes.
“Million Dollar Baby” is structurally unsound only if you look at it as a boxing genre movie.
It seems to me that the script was teasing the audience with genre conventions– the grizzled old man, the hopeful youngster, the chance at the title– as a means, in part, of leaving the audience unprepared for “the twist.” We sort of expected her to get a shot at the title, and then win, because that’s what good little genre movies do: they abide by the formula.
But the final third made it apparent that the movie is not really about boxing at all, and it never was. As a father-daughter character piece, the script’s structure is very simple, and it works very well.
You just can’t let the surface elements distract you. You need to step back and see the whole shape of the movie, rather than just what you thought it was as you experienced it in the theater.
I think they’ll throw Sideways a bone and give them the two supporting awards and screenplay.
Funny how Weinstein is the one who has the reputation for buying Oscars. He seemed to acquire this reputation after Shakespeare in Love upset Saving Private Ryan. What no one bothers to mention is that Dreamworks spent MORE on advertising that year than Miramax. I wonder why that is?
Perhaps people aren’t willing to acknowledge that Saving Private Ryan, while technically well done, was HORRENDOUS in the screenplay department with cardboard characters? Or that another World War II film, equal (if not greater) in the visual department, would split the vote.
I think it is that Spielberg was such a part of Hollywood that he was expected to win out of some kind of entitlement, or sentimentality towards WWII veterans, and Weinstein was considered an upstart for daring to challenge that with his small film. I don’t see why Shakespeare In Love is unworthier than Annie Hall. Allen’s effort was funnier and stylistically daring in certain way, but SIL had a phenomenal screenplay that used highbrow and lowbrow humor in service of a very original love story. The acting was great as well.
Harvey loves movies. Loves making them, making money off them, and helping them win awards. What the fuck else is a producer SUPPOSED to do?
Sorry, don’t know why I used “unworthier” instead of “less worthy” above. I’m not that stupid.
This is unrelated to the Oscars, but in regard to the front page NYTimes link…I’m pretty sure “lede” is not a word.
I like what Eric said about M$B. And “lede” is an old journo rubric, a real word… honest.
Harvey does it right as a Producer. Thats why everyone wants to work with him even if they can’t stand him.
So Stella, who do you think deserves Supporting Actor then? Alda did a walk through, Owen was very one-dimensional in CLOSER, Fox is going to get it for Actor so they’re not going to give him this one for Supporting, and Church was basically operating at the level of a sit-com. And his one big scene, where he’s begging Giamatti to help him get the wedding ring back, was an embarrassment!
So do you think Freeman deserves it, or you just don’t think anyone else does, so give it to him by default? I think Foxx gives a much stronger performance, but you’re right, he has no chance of winning in that category.
I really don’t know who I’d give it to off hand, if I could give it to ANYONE who gave a supporting performance last year… Out of the five, I’d say Freeman should get it and I don’t know if it’s quite right to say he wins by “default”, more that he was the best of the nominees. My other problem with giving it to Foxx, other than that he’s sure to win for RAY, is that he was the LEAD in the Mann film. I’m really sick of all these people getting Oscars for SA when they had more screen time than anyone else in the film.
How is Clive Owen’s performance one dimensional? His and Natalie’s were more varied and contained more depth than most leads I’ve seen. It’s only in retrospect, after realizing that Owen’s character is an asshole, that would lead you to think he’s been one the whole film. The guy who is typing stuff in a chat room is NOT the guy who charms Julia’s character after the disastrous meeting, who is NOT the guy that has the brutal break up scene, who is NOT the pathetic open wound that sees Natalie in the strip club, who is NOT the guy who cruelly breaks Jude Law’s spirit at the end of the film.
Is that enough dimensions for you? This guy deserves the supporting Oscar more than anyone I can think of in recent memory. Freeman is getting a fucking pity award, much more so than Scorsese will be if he wins.
I’d definitely be voting for Clive Owen. Just PHENOMENAL. and I think I spelled that wrong, but whatever. Morgan Freeman was good in M$B but as it’s been said, he’s done it before and better (take a bow, Shawshank Redemption).
And onto Harvey Weinstein…
“BUYING AWARDS!!!!!”
er, if he were actually doing that then he would be throwing money (or, less conveniently, checks) at AMPAS. He is not. What is so wrong with promoting a movie with as much money as he can? If he feels for the movie and wants to spend the money on it (while acknowledging it’s 11 Oscar Nominations) what’s the problem. I’d much rather more movies like The Aviator reach $100mil than stuff like Troy or Meet The Fockers! Wouldn’t we all?!
And I thank the person who ackknowledged that Shakespeare in Love was actually the better film to Saving Private Ryan. LOOK AT THAT SCREENPLAY! Wow. SiL’s screenplay was brilliant. Those performances were spot on (Gwyneth didn’t deserve to win, but she WAS good) and technically it was gold gold gold! Just wonderful. SPR was decent but maybe it’s just be natural disposition to not really liking war movies.
And on the “out of left field” plot development in M$B I hardly consider it out of left field for a boxing movie to have the so called “twist” that it does. If that happened in, oh, say, Spanglish, then yes it would be.
gombro u have a screw loose. church gave the best performance of the yr. sitcom level? i guess u haven’t watched much sitcoms lately
Nice to have a second vote for Shakespeare in Love, but I believe Gwyneth deserved that award as well. How many women in Hollywood would be able to tackle Shakespeare, for one, and make it credible? How many could even pull off a good British accent? Then how many could play a woman playing a man playing a woman? Tricky stuff, if you ask me. Gwyneth has shown a pretty amazing range, and emotionally has ALWAYS been able to plumb the depths of some unknown sadness. She’s one of our best (Sylvia recently proved that AGAIN), even if she’s easy to hate and has made some questionable choices as of late (View From The Top)?
Cate Blanchett was great in Elizabeth, but I don’t know that the role was anywhere near as challenging. She’ll get her due.
Not to sound like a broken record, but I have yet to hear anyone make a convincing argument here that “The Aviator” is anything more than a mediocre, anonymous piece of work. All I keep reading here ultimately comes down to “C’mon, let’s hear it for the greatness of our overlooked hero, Marty!” And while many here continue to belittle “Million Dollar Baby” as an overwrought, simplistic film, all I can say is that no other film this year so vividly struck me as coming from the director’s passionate heart and soul (with the possible exception of “Ray”). I am convinced that is why “Million Dollar Baby” is receiving so much deserved directorial acclaim, and why Scorsese will again leave the Kodak Theatre empty-handed.
We can all debate and disagree about which films we liked best, but I do find it discouraging that few people here are willing to concede that Scorsese’s auteurship has diminished considerably over the years. Scorsese’s genuine artistic achievements have always come from a deep, dark place, and that sort of work becomes increasingly difficult as an artist’s comfort level and Hollywood lifestyle set in. Finally, what’s the deal with his seemingly endless ongoing relationship with Leonardo DiCaprio? Two films so far with a miscast pretty-boy actor, and now they are moving on to a third consecutive project together, “The Departed.” This partnership, perhaps more than anything else, is indicative of how Scorsese’s once-passionate vision has been derailed by his need for popular recognition.
Who said Aviator is second rate? I said its not in the league with the great Scorsese films but its still a pretty good movie and deserves its place in the top 3 of the year with Baby and Sideways. Got a great performance from Leo, good support from the females and Alda and Baldwin, and had a long but entertaining story. To call it mediocre? No way.
Chester, what in God’s name are you talking about? What Hollywood lifestyle is Scorsese living? Does he even live out in Los Angeles? His earlier films were darker and edgier (although Bringing Out the Dead was both, and recent), but why can’t the man broaden his palate? How is making a valentine to the studio system and Old Hollywood (something which has ALWAYS been an influence on Marty) selling out?
And you can say what you want about Gangs, but it was not your typical Hollywood fare. Sure it was a rough, bloody mess, but it contained more artistic ambition and edge than the entire filmography of most directors. So what if the whole was less than the sum of the parts? Show some fucking respect. If the man was too comfortable in the system his films would be a lot more watered down, and he’d be winning awards.
It’s also very clear that you have a chip on your shoulder regarding DiCaprio. I’m forgetting which European director said that only in America do people think beauty and talent are mutually exclusive, but you’re being pretty damned judgmental. Leo has acting chops; deal with it. The Aviator was HIS personal project and it’s pretty clear even to its detractors that he put a lot of heart into it.
“Seemingly endless ongoing relationship”? They’ve made TWO films together. They’re making another. Were you criticizing Scorsese for working so much w/ DeNiro? How about Truffaut working with Jean-Pierre Leaud? Who the fuck cares?
You need to get over your resentment of Leo’s looks and try for a little objectivity.
“Seemingly endless ongoing relationship”?
Yeah, that’s a beaut. Film history is filled with directors hooking up with certain actors or actresses with whom they enjoy working repeatedly: Jimmy Stewart and Anthony Mann, Alfred Hitchcock and Cary Grant, Pedro Almodovar and Antonio Bandaras, Ingmar Bergman and Max von Sydow, John Wayne and John Ford. Maybe it’s just that Leo’s so pretty that the thought of the two guys being so close is bringing out some homophobia!
Hummm… Cocteau and Marais, Visconti and Berger, Pasolini and Davoli, Scorsese and Decaprio…. Naaah, I just don’t see it.
(Not that I’d blame Marty. Damn, that Leo’s a pretty piece of boy meat!)
Lazarus, I don’t know where you got the idea that I have an issue with DiCaprio’s looks. I have an issue with his talent. You are free to disagree with me, but I think DiCaprio rarely projects much depth. He had far better instincts when he was a teen actor in films like “A Boy’s Life” and “Gilbert Grape.” Nowadays he’s all surface, and, unlike an actor like Robert Redford in his heyday, he fails to plumb what’s underneath that perfect skin. DiCaprio’s a competent character actor, but I don’t think he’s ever shown he has the chops or even the physical presence to carry an entire film. The most satisfying part of his performance in “Titanic” was watching him sink to the bottom of the Atlantic.
You are also welcome to delude yourself that “The Aviator” is a valentine to the studio system, but that makes no sense whatsoever. If anything, the film was quite clear that Hughes had to work independently outside of the existing system, which absolutely scorned him. If you want to say it’s a valentine to Old Hollywood, fine, but that’s been done countless times before and far more interestingly. The scene at the premiere, which I’ve seen you cite in earlier postings, was no more striking than the one Howard Stern attended in “Private Parts.”
You asked about Scorsese: “Why can’t the man broaden his palate?” Of course he can. It’s just that the results of his efforts so far totally suck.
Finally, you told me to “try for a little objectivity.” Go to a mirror and try to take a look at your nose. At first, you won’t be able to see it. When you remove it from Scorsese’s ass, you can then lecture me on objectivity.
Chester I strongly disagree. DiCaprio easily carries The Aviator. I enjoyed every single second of his performance. I was quite impressed when the credits rolled. I wasn’t sold on him walking in since I didn’t care for his performance in Gangs of New York at all. But he is excellent in The Aviator. And while it may not be a masterpiece or Scorsese’s best film, I was thoroughly entertained. It’s a solid piece of filmmaking.
My dad, who doesn’t see many movies and doesnt, I think, even have much of an idea about who Leonardo Decaprio is, was amazed by his AVIATOR performance. He followed that whole story back in the 40s and 50s and told me that Decaprio was dead on as Hughes. Maybe it just takes fresh, unprejudicial eyes to appreciate the performance.
chester u got some balls saying martys films suck. can u back this up? i didn’t think so. and u are a little obsessed with leo’s looks. the guy can flat out act. seems u never saw gilber grape or the aviator or romeo and juliet or even titanic
Francois Truffaut once said that all great films will inevitably express the “joy or the agony of making movies.”
Some of Scorsese’s movies express the agony of pulling up dark, painful feelings out of your guts and throwing them up onto the screen: RAGING BULL, TAXI DRIVER, LAST TEMPTATION. Others express the joy of making movies: AFTER HOURS, COLOR OF MONEY and, of course THE AVIATOR. I guess alot of people only think they should give awards to people who show a bunch of agony in their work. That may be why there’s all this disssing of Benning and Scorsese, and all this over the top love for Swank and MDB. “God, they showed so much agony, A-GO-NEEEE” (as Bugs Bunny would say.)
It’s like bit from the end of ROAD TO MOROCCO where Bob Hope starts flailing around and crying and screaming and Bing Crosby says: “what are you doing?”
“Trying to win an Oscar, of course,” says Hope.
No, I’m not looking for agony in Scorsese’s work, Gombro. I loved “After Hours” and “The Color of Money.” But, in case you haven’t noticed, those films were a long time ago.
If you guys would stop kneeling before The Temple of Scorsese, you’d almost certainly realize what a mediocre piece of junk “The Aviator” is. If Scorsese’s name wasn’t above the title, most of you would probably be arguing about what a flagrantly unworthy nominee the film is, just as you are about “Finding Neverland.” To objective filmgoers, especially people who don’t even know who Scorsese is, you are all making fools of yourselves.
Actually, I think anyone who can say, with a straight face, that there is such a thing as an “objective filmgoer” is the one being foolish. Also, there is a real logical fallacy in suggesting that because COLOR OF MONEY and AFTER HOURS were made a long time ago, that somehow proves that THE AVIATOR is a bad film.
I know you’re trying to suggest that Scorsese “lost it” a long time ago, but that’s just falling for the myth that people “have it” then they “lose it” and it never comes back. First of all, I’d say KUNDUN, which wasn’t that long ago, was one of the two or three best-directed films of its year. Second, even if he hadn’t made a good film in fifteen or twenty years, that means nothing about THE AVIATOR. Hitchcock had long stretches of mediocrity before surprising everyone again with a masterpiece like FRENZY, same with John Huston (PRIZZI’S HONOR being his first good film after a huge drought). I could go on and on.
To me and many others, in our, yes, subjective opinion, THE AVIATOR is a dazzling, light-on-its-feet winner about the ways in which American madness and American achievement are always utterly intertwined. Sorry if you didn’t see that in it, but you’re inability to see the deeper if lightly sketched themes of the film doesn’t make those of us who disagreed with you “fools”.
Chester, you’re starting to go off the deep end here and make some pretty foolish statements. I am no die-hard Scorsese fan. He is not my favorite director. Not even close. I’m not nearly as crazy about Goodfellas as most people are (I hope I don’t start another argument here). But The Aviator is a good film, and I am certainly not only saying that because Scorsese directed it. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. If he never gets an Oscar, I will not lose any sleep. I will not be outraged. But I liked The Aviator a lot.
Gombro, with all due respect, the forced strain in your postings is really beginning to show. Honestly, I’ve come to expect better of you. I brought up “After Hours” and “The Color of Money” only because you previously invented the false and shocking assertion that I didn’t appreciate those films, and that I am someone who “only think[s] they should give awards to people who show a bunch of agony in their work.” You don’t know me personally and those were just shameful, made-up lies on your part, the types of conveniently manufactured arguments I’ve come to expect from other loose cannons on this page, but not you.
And a spin phrase like “deeper if lightly sketched themes of the film” is just another way of saying that Scorsese took a meaty subject and converted it into a string of banalities. Thanks for your help there.
As for your overstated assertion that “THE AVIATOR is a dazzling, light-on-its-feet winner about the ways in which American madness and American achievement are always utterly intertwined,” please demonstrate to me where the film shows that Hughes’ madness intertwined with his achievement. Don’t just tell me they’re both on display. Show me where one catalyzed the other. In truth, all the film provides about Hughes’ mental problems is the gauzy, dime-store explanation that it was the product of a mother who insisted that he wash his hands a lot. As depicted in the film, his condition doesn’t even make sense. How could someone too terrified to make physical contact with a public doorknob have been such a poon hound? At least Jack Nicholson in “As Good As It Gets” recoiled the first time Helen Hunt embraced him.
Anyone who can try to tear down Martin Scorsese has a screw loose somewhere in that brain. He is the best director living today. Chester the Molestor has brought no worthwhile points in his arguement that Scorsese is not a great director. How is the Aviator not one of the best films of the year? It is a dazzling achievement. Thats Martin Scorsese. Stop comparing it to classic of yesteryear. It is a 2004 film. Compare it to Million Dollar Baby and Sideways.
I certainly don’t expect you to get this, but thanks, Aneglus, for reinforcing my point about the blind, ignorant Cult of Scorsese. Everyone else understands why.
Sorry, Chester, but I wasn’t thinking of you specifically at all when I compared films that show the agony of cinema (TAXI DRIVER) to ones that show the joy of cinema (AFTER HOURS).
It is a well-known dynamic that heavy painful films are more highly acclaimed than buoyant and lighter films. That’s why Fassbinder got more awards in his lifetime than Jacques Tati. I think you’re taking things far too personally if you think my comments are directed to you personally at all.
One of the most important lines in THE AVIATOR, I think, comes at the beginning when the mother tells Howard about all the germs that can make him sick and she talks about the quarantines that existed on “colored peoples” houses. I think that’s a pretty subtle way of suggesting that the other side of the good kind of American drive for an ideal of “purity” (say, in the airplane hulls that Hughes thinks can’t even be “contaminated” with bolts that stick out half a centimeter) is the kind of “American madness” represented by racism in that same period. I’m not saying that Hughes was a racist, but the kind of dynamic to “transcend” the nastiness of the real world (flying “above the weather” as Hughes puts it) is just the good side that has its nightmare reflection in segregation.
Hollywood itself, in that period, perpetuated an ideology of transcendence–with its Aryan stars and the like. If anything the film is a very ambivalent “Valentine to Hollywood.” It’s almost a deconstruction of Hollywood. In ten years or so, that might be more clear to people. When VERTIGO first came out, after all, everyone thought it was just a dull thriller with stiff acting and a bad structure.
Gombro, I hardly think you can blame me for thinking the comments were directed at me personally when I’m the only one here actively criticizing Scorsese. But point taken.
As for how history will view “The Aviator,” obviously only time will tell. I would love there to be another addition to the canon of great films—even if that addition renders my current opinion about “The Aviator” foolish. I’m still not convinced that is likely to happen, and think most of what you are reading into the script is a huge stretch derived entirely from your own rationalization. But, believe me, in a lot of ways I’d ultimately rather be proven wrong about all of this. That’s one of the reasons I like engaging in these debates. I usually find the most interesting opinions to be well-considered ones that are the polar opposites of my own. That’s one of the reasons I prod people here to make and really fully develop their cases. Unfortunately, some of the most visible people here would rather dash off mindless blather, toed party lines or cheap potshots than engage in a fair, properly informed discussion.
But Chester, you haven’t been entirely fair, claiming that all those who like The Aviator are blinded by their love of Scorsese. That’s just ridiculous. I am not trying to avoid a good discussion or resort to cheap potshots. But as I already pointed out, I am no Scorsese fanantic and my admiration for The Aviator has absolutely nothing to do with who directed it. Nothing whatsoever.
Blind cults? I think we all can appreciate great classics here. And Martin Scorsese has had his hand in many of the ones I and probably you consider classics. Is The Aviator one of his top efforts? Not on the level of his greats but it is still very good and one of the top films of the past year. You still haven’t mentioned why you hate it so much other than Martin Scorsese fans love it.
And Chester, you can hardly blame me for getting defensive when you suggest I’m “making a fool out of myself” and then make sarcastic comments like “thanks for your help there.”
Still, I like Blogging with you, Chester, and I do understand your point about uncritical “auteur worship” and how someone like Scorsese might benifit from that. I’d never argue that GANGS (or CASINIO, or BRINGING OUT THE DEAD) deserved much praise–though I still wonder if Harvey Sissorhands didn’t ruin GANGS by forcing Scorsese to cut it down so much. One really gets the feeling that we’re looking at the fragments of a much better film when watching GANGS.
To be honest, I don’t think THE AVIATOR will go down as a major classic, but in a weak year, considering the other nominees, I’d give it my vote for best director. Sorry, but I just don’t think MDB is that good.
And in case you think I have some sort of animosity toward Eastwood, I’ve said here and elsewhere that in my humble opinion, there have only been five deserved best picture winners in the last 40 years: MIDNIGHT COWBOY, THE GODFATHER, THE GODFATHER PART II, ANNIE HALL, and UNFORGIVEN.
Five out of 40? That seems real low.
Chester wrote: “As depicted in the film, his condition doesn’t even make sense. How could someone too terrified to make physical contact with a public doorknob have been such a poon hound?”
So you’re saying the irrational behavior that results from an irrational disorder doesn’t make sense? Why not ask how a germophobe could be so filthy? It’s about patterns and rituals.
Don’t quote Chester. She obviously has no clue what you’re talking about.