I'm having trouble mustering any excitement about this one. But I've read a few critics talking like this is the movie to beat, and that this is Scorsese's year... making up for the disappointment of Gangs of New York.

This poster does nothing to change my mind.

DiCaprio still has the face of a young teenager, and I haven't ever found him engaging as a leading man. Leading boy, sure. Supporting actor, definitely. But never as the leading man. Maybe he'll change my mind this time around.

Anyway... you can hear the Oscar machine engines starting to grind.

The writer: John Logan. Credits: Gladiator, The Last Samurai, Star Trek: Nemesis. That doesn't help either.

The supporting cast: Cate Blanchett, Kate Beckinsale, Gwen Stefani, Adam Scott, Kelli Garner, Ian Holm, Alan Alda, Alec Baldwin, Gavin Black, Frances Conroy, Willem Dafoe, Edward Herrmann, Jude Law, John C. Reilly, Brent Spiner, Loudon Wainwright III, Martha Wainwright, Rufus Wainwright.

Okay, okay... it's gonna win something.

Wait... Jude Law?? That makes FOUR movies this fall!

Just remembered. Jude Law will be doing the narration in Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. That makes SIX.

And I am actually enthused to see The Aviator, but that said I also really liked Gangs of New York.

I liked Gangs too, but mostly due to the production design, Daniel Day-Lewis, and nice supporting work from Brendan Gleeson and Henry Thomas. Iti was confidently directed, but Scorsese needs to demand more complicated and interesting scripts.

I think I said in the 'Trailers' thread that the trailer for this film gave me the impression that Scorsese was trying to make a Spielberg film ...

Well, if Scorcese / Mirimax are on an Oscar hunt then this is the year to do it. No Lord of the Rings, very few epicy type films on the horizon and there's *always* that make up for past Oscars being stolen away... No reason why it shouldn't be Scorcese's year as long as he can deliver this one without picking up negative buzz for it along the way.

It actually does look pretty good, too! Although, according to Jude Law, his Errol Flynn role amounts to little more than a cameo. Hopefully we'll see a little bit more of the rest of the cast, nothing more irritating than a film of big names *all* doing one scene cameos...

Phil.

I have to agree with Peter that this trailer makes the movie look like a Spielberg film... it even evokes memories of Coppola's Tucker (which had a brief appearance of Howard Hughes, come to think of it). For me, Leo just doesn't carry the weight or have the presence to pull off a character like Howard Hughes. Yes, he may resemble the man, but Hughes was such a mythic persona (even in his own time), that when I hear Leo deliver lines like, "He doesn't own the sky!" in that squeaky voice of his, I can't help but roll my eyes and supress a giggle. And don't get me wrong... I like Leo in a lot of movies... but I've never cared for him in the "street smart - I can give as good as I get" roles that he's constantly cast in. I didn't buy his character in Gangs of New York, and from what little is shown in the trailer, I don't see him as Howard Hughes. At least not the Howard that grew up to be Dean Stockwell and later Jason Robards.

I see Michael Mann is one of the producers, has he ever worked with Scorsese? That would be an interesting mix.

169 minutes. Wheew! Just got my screening invitation, and it looks like December 1st is gonna be a long night.

169 minutes? That's a big red flag, if you ask me.

Jeffrey Wells says the buzz, although it's very initial, is that the movie has problems with its second half. And no wonder. By the time you get the halfway mark of a 169-minute movie, you instinctively feel the movie should be wrapping things up! Not in all cases, of course, but 169 minutes for a bio pic? Good heavens.

I'm glad you're going, and not me. My anticipation of this film is declining markedly.

Christian wrote:
: Not in all cases, of course, but 169 minutes for a bio pic? Good heavens.

That's still shorter than Alexander!

And both films are shorter than my fave true-life story of all time, Lawrence of Arabia -- but I guess a film that covers only two years of a man's life ain't really a "biopic".

How can you say this is a "big red flag" without having seen the film in question? I can say that there are films that I've felt were too long (the well loved Magnolia among them), but I don't think one can make an arbitrary statement like that. I for one lament the loss of patience in today's society. Would Peter's much loved Lawrence of Arabia be a hit today? Probably not, given the subject matter and run time. The Aviator may well end up being too long and meandering, but you can't tell me that the 169 min run time is automatically a death knell. Many of my favorite films are OVER 3 hours (Return of the King, JFK, etc.).

Anders, you've named two of my favorite 3-hour-plus films, too, but those aren't bio pics, which was the point I was trying (ineffectively?) to get across. I said the run time is a red flag, but that doesn't mean that I think every 3-hour-plus bio pic is terrible. As a general rule, however, I find that movies of that length could be trimmed without doing harm to the film.

I certainly don't lack patience. In fact, I find myself gravitating more and more to films that are part of the "cinema of contemplation." But a big Hollywood bio pic isn't really in that category. These films can be good, especially when a good director is at the helm, but they can also be ponderous.

Complicating things, Scorcese's last film, which clocked in at a similar length, was a problematic film. Not a misfire, exactly, but it shows that he has some weaknesses with stories of that length. And "Kundun" -- a Scorcese bio pic of sorts -- certainly felt long, even though it wasn't in the 3-hour range.

I think I understand what you're saying. My comment was partly fuelled by the fact that I worked at Blockbuster for a better part of the last three years and one of the things that I would always get from people is "It's too long." What they really meant is that it's "gonna be boring." It's not that there aren't any bad, boring long movies, but rather a symptom of our culture where anything that's too long isn't worth our time. Worse yet, it encourages the Harvey "Scissorhands" Weinsteins of the world to insist upon cuts from artists, not based on artistic merit, but rather on trying to get more butts into seats. That's all I really meant, and I'm relieved (not that I really thought you did) believe much the same.

Not to look too far ahead, but his Infernal Affairs remake called The Deparated should be a complicated and interesting script. I don't know about the screenwriter... he's also written Jurassic Park 4 (yikes) and a film for Ridley Scott about the Crusades. It should be alright though; I'd think it would take effort to screw it up.

Fox News entertainment gossip gives the film Oscar-worthy praise.

My sum-up of what will probably happen (although I still haven't seen Phantom of the Opera or Million Dollar Baby or Finding Neverland):

BEST PICTURE: The Aviator - It will be nominated, and it has a good shot at winning.
BEST ACTOR: Leonardo DiCaprio - He could win, and I think he deserves it. Even over Jamie Foxx.
BEST DIRECTOR: Martin Scorsese - He will win, at last, and I think he should win.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Cate Blanchett - She'll be nominated, and might win.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Alan Alda. If he's not nominated, I'll join the mass of torch-bearers headed toward the Academy.
BEST SOUNDTRACK: Howard Shore - Should win.
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: Robert Richardson - Will be nominated, and I wouldn't mind if he won.

And probably more besides.

In other words, it's the best Scorsese film in a long, long time, and DiCaprio has his best role ... and gives his best performance ... since Gilbert Grape. His stuck-in-adolescence voice is a bit distracting, and he just looks so young, but it actually suits the character, who seems kind of "stuck" in boyhood in many ways.

Blanchett doesn't look much like Hepburn, but she sounds and moves just like her. She pushes her performance to the edge of caricature, but it works.

In fact, the whole film leans in the direction of a cartoon. I'd go so far as to say this is the closest thing to a comedy Scorsese's done since After Hours. John C. Reilly gets the funniest punchline I've heard this year. It's a very funny movie, and yet it somehow manages to be a compelling character study and, at times, almost a horror film (as Hughes' madness sets in).

A few other notes:

Rufus Wainwright has a memorable cameo.

Alan Alda is hilarious. He's got my vote for Best Supporting Actor.

Alec Baldwin could score a nomination too. He's hilarious, and gets the best use of an expletive all year.

The flying sequences are exhilarating, especially at the beginning.

Howard Shore's score is really impressive, and doesn't sound a bit like his Lord of the Rings stuff. He's quite a versatile composer.

Anyway, I'm off to update my Top Ten list for the year.... You can all look forward to a three hour movie that's worth all three hours.

Color me surprised. BUT...

I remember getting pretty excited about Gangs of New York after your initial review here, so I'm trying to contain any enthusiasm for The Aviator.

Jeffrey Wells has an interesting take on Todd McCarthy's rave review in "Variety," accusing McCarthy of overplaying the flying sequences, which Wells says look very CGI:
--------------------------------
Since the Aviator cat's out of the bag with last Wednesday's rave review by Variety's Todd McCarthy, it's okay to respond to his praising of the film's CG-bolstered aerial photography sequences. They're not "eminently satisfying," as he described them, because over and over they reach out from the screen, grab you by both lapels and shout, "Hard drive!" McCarthy says "it's not that you can't tell when a flight is being digitally rendered, but it's all done amazingly well -- the degree of artifice surrounding the entire picture allows the computer work to fit in gracefully rather than to stick out." This is emphatically not so. The aerial shots of Hughes flying those World War I biplanes, the H-1 Racer, the XF-11 and the Spruce Goose constantly demand that the viewer foresake any semblance of belief in what is supposed to be organic reality. More than once these planes fly right into the lens...nothing but flagrant CG show-off crap. The rule is the rule: CG must be invisible or it's nothing. That shot of Lenin's statue being helicoptered across the Berlin skies in Goodbye Lenin, for example...totally believable.
-------------------------------

Do you find any areas of agreement, Jeffrey?

I'm seeing this on Monday. Are there any older, "classic" Hollywood films that get referenced in this film, that perhaps we critics or viewers should see beforehand?

There is heavy emphasis of Hughes' involvement with Hell's Angels and with The Outlaw.

Regarding the CGI: Yes, it is painfully obvious. But to tell you the truth, I agree that it's not that big a deal, at least to me, in this film. Because, as he says, there is a lot of obvious artifice throughout the picture, and because at times scenes are played for comedy in a slightly exaggerated way. It's not Moulin Rouge, but this film does mix whimsy with realism quite effectively.

The fiancée and I saw this one yesterday and liked it quite a bit. Definitely Martin Scorsese's most "entertaining" film (which is not necessarily to say his "best") since at least 1990's Goodfellas, and possibly earlier. Almost certainly his funniest since at least 1985's After Hours, as I think Jeff mentioned. (I say "almost" because I have never seen 1986's The Color of Money.)

The Citizen Kane parallels almost go without saying -- boy is haunted by memories of his momma, inherits wealth, spends money wildly and says he doesn't care how much he loses, has two major romances, ends up isolated and removed from all those people who could have loved him... The very, very ending, however, in which [spoiler]Hughes talks to his own reflection in the mirror[/spoiler] reminded me just a bit -- JUST a bit -- of the ending of Raging Bull.

Leo is great -- and he especially disappears into his character once he grows the moustache. It's interesting, actually, how very few of the actors actually RESEMBLE the Hollywood stars they are supposed to be playing. Cate Blanchett does a swell, superb job of imitating Katherine Hepburn's voice and mannerisms, but does anybody really think she LOOKS like Hepburn? Kate Beckinsale gets a few of Ava Gardner's mannerisms, and her make-up artist gets the hair just right, but otherwise doesn't really look the part, either. And I never for a moment thought that Errol Flynn was anything other than Jude Law with a moustache.

Jeffrey Wells's point about the effects has some merit, I think -- there is at least one shot, as the Hercules gets ready for its trial run, where the CGI is so low-rez that you can see the lines on the computer screen (or whatever it is they use to transfer the CGI to film). But I honestly wasn't bothered by that. I wouldn't want to overstress this point, but in some ways, this film is more about the DREAMS people have than the actual accomplishment of those dreams, and Scorsese does a superb job of conveying what it means to HAVE these dreams and to PURSUE these dreams. The SPIRIT of the film is conveyed so beautifully that I don't care if the nuts and bolts aren't perfect.

In fact, now that I think about it, that's the very point of the film right there, isn't it? The one line that stood out to me as I watched this -- the one line that I think sums up the point of the film -- is when Ava Gardner tells Howard Hughes (paraphrasing from memory), "Nothing's clean, Howard, but we do our best." There is a quest for the impossible, a quest for perfection, that lurks behind Howard's obsession with germ-free environments and streamlining his planes so that there is not so much as a single rivet building up any wind resistance. And in stark contrast to Howard Hughes's almost insane quest for absolute perfection, Scorsese has made a film that doesn't mind if we see a few rough edges. I like that.

Peter, I'm in complete agreement with everything you said. The more I reflect on this film, the more I'm impressed with it.

Ebert & Roeper say the Best Picture contest is between The Aviator and Million Dollar Baby.

Ebert gives the edge to Eastwood's film.

My review is up at Looking Closer.

Amazingly, the only one of Hughes's films that our public library has is Scarface (1932), so I picked that one up. Yup, there's lots of machine-gun fire here. And I'm sure there are lots of stories one could tell about Hughes's battles with the censors -- apparently the film was completed in 1930, but got held up for two years! I wonder if a pre-censored version of the film will ever come out.

I can't help watching all the nightclub scenes and thinking that the nightclub bits in The Aviator might have been influenced to some degree by them.

I saw it this weekend, and was quite impressed. Leonardo DiCaprio was surprisingly good and deserves an Oscar nomination. I don't know how accurate his portrayal was, but his boyishness really brought out a dimension of Howard Hughes that I hadn't seen before, that his whole life was a permanent adolescence.

You can really sense the thill during the flight scenes, which brought out the pure fun of flying. Here, Howard was living any little boy's dream. His brash business decisions were based on the blind faith that a child has, that everything will work out somehow. He got to play with cool toys and hang around with beautiful women. And this led to his downfall, that he didn't have the maturity to deal with his wealth and power. His immaturity coupled with a mental disorder, led to his increasing paranoia. He seemed to be an extreme version of the archetype of many young sports stars and music stars who get a lot of money at a young age and don't have the maturity to deal with it.

I loved watching Cate Blanchett's performance. She lit up the screen. And Alec Baldwin was humorously swarmy. The acting and cinematography in general seemed to be period-appropriate, evoking the feel of Hollywood's "Golden Age".

YES. Exactly!

I'm surprised at the lack of dialogue about this film so far. I keep wrestling with it, and I'd love to hear others' opinions.

A) To you think the film inappropriately *glorifies* Hughes' achievements? Would a responsible storyteller have focused more on the damage left in the wake of such reckless ambition?

What do you make of the film's ending? While it will require spoilers to discuss it, I found the last shot and the last lines a rather interesting choice. What do you think we're supposed to come away with, after that scene? It's such a deliberate choice, to end right there. Why did they choose that?

C) Going back to the opening scene, what do you think we are to assume about Hughes' life based on that rather shocking exchange between he and his mother? (There was something rather sexual about that scene, and I assume we're supposed to see a mother/son dynamic in his romances later in life.)

D) Did anybody else think "Mr. Hughes is not going to like that" was the funniest punchline of the year?

E) Was Alan Alda's performance a great performance, or merely a caricature?

F) Scorsese has always insisted on showing the *cost* of glamour and fame and fortune. Do you think he portrayed it responsibly here?

I tried to e-mail a reply to the Looking Closer review, but that address seemed to bounce?


Maybe. And maybe Scorsese was attempting to show the damage, but in discussing the film with the group I saw it with (my DH and another couple, one of whom also occasionally reviews films for a Christian website), the consensus was that the glitter may have gotten away from him. Thinking about it now, Aviator seems like the film equivalent of Hearst Castle--it's spectacular, it's tremendous, but why? Because he can! That's probably too harsh...


There certainly are some mother/son resonances in Hughes' later romances, and the scene was fairly Freudian, but I thought it was supposed to [spoiler]portray the origin or trigger of his obsessive-compulsive disorder. The metal soapdish & soap in the opening scene are the same (or very similar) to the one(s) Hughes carries with him and uses to obsessively wash his hands in later scenes. Interesting how the mind works, if I'm right, since Hughes OCD as portrayed in the film seems more related to stress, not conflicts over sex.[/spoiler]


I don't think I can answer that without knowing more about the person he was portraying.

Did you send your reply to LookingCloserReview@msn.com?

The address changed a couple of months ago. No more AOL.

Re: whether the film glamourizes anything, I wonder how well anybody remembers the subplot involving that "girlfriend" that Hughes hired -- my fiancée liked the film but often brings up the "creepy" interview scene, and quite often, when discussing this film with people, I find that I virtually forget that scene until she brings it up. It's not the first thing I focus on, but the very fact that I don't focus on it so much may be due, partly, to the way it isn't as emphasized within the film as other things.

The damage shown is done to Hughes himself, and the film pulls no punches there. But, is the damage due to his ambition or to his mental disorder? And I think his grand achievement, the "Spruce Goose" was flashy, but not of any practical use. In the same way, his life was shown to be one of style over substance.



Certainly his obsession with cleanliness can be traced back to this scene, and the feeling of being "quarantined". I saw this as more prominent than anything overtly sexual. I do wonder how true to life that scene was.

I think in his romance with Hepburn, Hughes looked to her as kind of a mother figure, due to her being such a forceful and dominating personality. After such a romance ends, an insecure man may descend into further insecurity. But, I don't see a real pattern in Hughes' further relationships shown in the film, one of which is a creppy Lolita-style relationship, and his romance with Ava Gardner, who is just a typical Hollywood starlet. Neither of these relationships are explored in depth, but I don't see a mother/son pattern continuing to hold.



Knowing nothing about his real-life character, he appears to be a typical ambitious senator who has been bought by a special interest. But, since this film is about Hughes and not the senator, there is no opportunity to build any depth in the senator's character, so he comes off as one-dimensional. But, I thought Alda did the best he could with the character.

The final scene, [SPOILER]with Hughes repeating “The Way of the Future” over and over again [/SPOILER], indicated to me that [SPOILER]the future[/SPOILER] was all he could comprehend. He had nothing else to base his life on, no inner life. He was so insecure that he was uncomfortable in his own skin, which could account for his obsession with cleanliness and germs.


With regards to the cost of glamour, I think the ultimate cost to Hughes was that he lost himself in pursuing his achievements. This was the tragedy of his life. Even though the film had some comic touches, the tragedy of Hughes downfall was portrayed responsibly.

Didn't like this one much at all. Couldn't find the hook, the appeal. Seemed a fetish film about shiny possessions, big fancy clubs and parties, huge sums of money, longer distances, higher speeds, wealth and influence. I didn't see that the guy had a single relationship that mattered - which might have been fine if the movie minded that there were no relationships. I'm not sure it even noticed. There were lots of other characters, but they had functions and characteristics rather than connection.

There's long and there's long. This was LONG. Felt that way partly because the story is so ploddingly linear - there's just no complexity, no decent set-ups and payoffs. It just moves along chronologically with little sense of build and no sense of pacing: another business crisis solved by bigger spending, another woman, another new plane, another bout of neurosis, repeat cycle.

I didn't hate it, but I couldn't find much to like. Cate did a fine Kate. The dinner scene at the Hepburn estate sparked, captured that snooty brash culture wonderfully well. Not much else worked. This movie was one big, lumbering Spruce Goose that could barely get off the ground and wasn't worth all the time and money invested in it. I have no idea why people are standing on the shore cheering. The billionaire's got no clothes. Misguided waste of talent and resources.

Next.

Saw this on Friday, and Ron we differ here (unusually). I didn't love it, and certainly 11 oscar noms is a bit OTT, but it was good,and nice to see a Scorcese film with so little blood and gore.

anyway:

: CGI
I never really thought about the CGI, or even that it was CGI. Generally I don't really notice it. I'm getting better at it, but actually I'm not sure I want to.

: Mr Hughes not going to like that
Yeah that was very funny - I can't remeber the Baldwin expletive that you remember, but I thought he was excellent, particularly compared to..

: Jude Law as Errol Flynn
which was totally unconvincing. I mean Law is no more of a star than Blanchett, but it took me a while to suss it was her, whereas Law neither looked nor acted like Flynn for my money (although his "actually I'm tasmanian line was great)

: Long film
All the best films are long IMHO, well maybe not all, but I frequently find myself thinking that.

Also I had to strongly resist the urge when I went to the bathroon at the interval not to ask one of the other random people from our theatre to pass a towel. I was laughing hard inside.

No-one yet has mentionned the scene at the enquiry, after the long and disturing scene in which he's going loopy, and then suddenly he's at the enquiry kicking Aldas butt. I thought that was an amazing scene, and as testimony to Hughes it was mighty fine. That said I didn't think the film glamorised Hughes overall. In fact a few times I thought to myself "Mr Hughes would not like that" either.

Matt

MattPage wrote:
: Also I had to strongly resist the urge when I went to the bathroon at the interval . . .

"Interval"? Did they break this film up with an intermission on your side of the pond?

If so, is that a common thing? The ONLY brand-new film I can think of that has had an intermission in the past, say, ten years or so is Kenneth Branagh's monstrous four-hour Hamlet (1996). All the other films with intermissions that I have seen in mainstream theatres have been revivals of films like Spartacus (1960) and Lawrence of Arabia (1962), which were produced in the era BEFORE multiplexes and crowded lobbies which offer patrons the opportunity to lose their way and/or sneak into the wrong film at halftime, etc.

well it doesn't happen in most places, or for most films - but it seems to be making a comeback since LOTR - this cinema is very old-school, so there's less chance of sneaking happening - not that I can really see who would really benefit from that unless you saw the first half of one, sneaked into another one at halftime, and then after the second film ended sneak back in for the second half of the original film.

By the way, I didn't really rate Alda's performance - just seemed to be playing Alan Alda (v.similar to his part in What Women Want)

I'm late to the party but I have a couple of ideas to throw on the pile, and I think they're actually good ideas, so here goes...

Cate Blanchett was amazing. It would be tough to see her turned down for the BIG AWARD....

But come to think of it, DiCaprio was great, too, as were many others...

I really, really enjoyed myself at this film tonight. It is a great date movie, simply put. It’s not a film I wish to write about as much as a film I wish to talk about, but of all the Oscar nominated films I’ve seen (which is everything but Ray), I’d certainly barrack for this one, although, only a couple of years away from A Beautiful Mind, one has to wonder if it's too soon for another paranoid/schizophrenic/obsessive compulsive theme.

And now, due to the influence of The Aviator, I will find every film I possibly can that doesn't fit into the category of date movies: Hell's Angels, The Killers, Mogambo, Morning Glory, Little Women, etc. Does anyone have any others that I should be considering in the wake of The Aviator?



Yes, and more. The hearings toward the end were nothing if not a direct nod to Welles himself (see the courtroom sequences from The Lady From Shanghai). It's as uncanny as the image Jeffrey found in The Return that resembles that of Ordet's Johannes, walking in the fields and prophesying.

I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately about that moment when you're a director, and you're in the middle of the action, and everything is being captured so perfectly, whether planned or not. The scene in The Aviator that sums this feeling up so well has got to be when Hughes is filming Hell’s Angles from up in the plane. The anarchy, the out-of-control nature of trying to capture this chaos, is the model for examination to explain this unearthly feeling a director gets, like entire worlds are coming together in your pursuit of the perfect scene. He’s waited eight months for clouds, and now he’s filming from his place in the plane, and capturing everything that represents exactly what he’d hoped for. It’s an exhilarating adventure where he is the commander of the creation, living in the moment alone, capturing more than an image, but rather, a feeling to be held for much more than just the seconds in which it took place. It was the moment when everything he was trying to express came together, and eight months were now only equivalent to the footage he could render. It was the perfect display of all that goes into the making of Truth in art, and it was positively wonderful. All I can see are planes whipping around everywhere; all I can feel are the roaring vibes they left me with.

The Aviator left me with the feeling that it’s OK to be both entertained and informed about a history I have little to do with, and in the process of discovering that history I find that the art that I love is still at work within me. I'll look forward to one day catching up with all the great filmic references from this work alone.

One continuity issue: Peter, did you notice in one of the restaurant scenes that Faith wasn’t eating her ice cream right? There were some obvious bad edits happening when the Pan Am (Baldwin) guy visited their table and talked business. One shot, she's eating, the next, she's not, when she should've been eating the whole time... That one scene did look very amateurish.

-s.

My review.

Yes!! I remember noticing that!

I've been noticing continuity errors in Spidey-2 lately, as well. There's a bad one when Parker is visiting Octavius and his wife at their home. The wife is sitting up straight, leans over, and then from another camera angle she's still sitting up straight. A small thing, but very distracting.

Yeah, the ice cream thing rings a bell here, too.

I more or less agree with people's judgement of this film. It was F.U.N. I'm a bit of a plane geek, and so absolutely adored the enthusiasm so well captured by DiCaprio that Hughes had for planes. It was incredibly contagious.



I wouldn't say that he is glamourised, so much as certain aspects of his character - his ingenuity, his frankness, his recklessness - are admired. As for the above, it was the only moment that I felt that the film paid too much attention to the wrong parts of Hughes' life. This interview, this girl, was one of many he had. I can't help but think about those young girls who came to Hollywood and whose naive ambitions were manipulated to become Hughes' sex toy. I think that's something that Scorsese endeavours to do in all his films - reduce judgements to understanding, and I don't think he necesarily achieved it with this particular aspect of Hughes' life. Perhaps it's because these girls weren't that important to Hughes - if this be the case then that this is more or less overlooked is pretty... well... dubious. Or perhaps it's because there isn't as much testimony about these occurences as there is for his engineering endeavours. In that respect, I can't fault him. But it does leave a niggling doubt in your head as to whether, really, anyone could understand this conundrum of a man. Never mind in a 3 hour movie. That Scorsese overall manages to quash this is very much to his credit.

And yes - I would agree with the assessment above about the scene before the court. It is absolutely fantastic. DiCaprio's performance excels in this scene, as does Scorsese's direction and Thelma Schoonmaker's editing. It is, for me, the most crucial moment of the film. And as for the supporting roles - with the exception of Kate Beckinsale - wow! You're right about Cate Blanchett being borderline caricature, but then that's the point isn't it and she gets away with it with style. But then Scorsese has always been one for good supporting roles.

I think it's sad and fitting that this is the film that is gonna win Scorsese the Oscar (I seriously doubt that it will go to anyone but). It's his best "Hollywood" film, but I feel perhaps his least personal. After all, he wasn't that enthused when he took the project on board and apparently it took a lot of convincing on the parts of Michael Mann and DiCaprio for him to come on board.

gigi wrote:
: I think it's sad and fitting that this is the film that is gonna win Scorsese the Oscar (I
: seriously doubt that it will go to anyone but). It's his best "Hollywood" film, but I feel
: perhaps his least personal.

That's kind of fitting, though, in a sort of ironic way, because it has happened a few times now that Scorsese has got a career boost -- and an opportunity to explore more personal subjects -- from taking on projects that were designed as Oscar-bait star vehicles for OTHER people. If Ellen Burstyn had not tapped him to direct her to an Oscar-winning performance in Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974), he might not have made Taxi Driver (1976); and if Paul Newman had not tapped him to direct him to an Oscar-winning performance in The Color of Money (1986), he might not have made The Last Temptation of Christ (1988).

Come to that, the driving force behind Raging Bull (1980), at first, was Robert De Niro -- although in that case, it's much easier to see how Scorsese connected with the project on a level that was personal to HIMSELF.

Anyhoo, in that light, it makes sense to me that Scorsese might finally win an Oscar for making a film that he did as a for-hire job, and not so much because he felt passionately about it. Not only is it a Hollywood trend in general, but there is something specifically Scorsesian about it.

Heh... yeah. I get what you mean. Not only in terms of his past experience, but also in terms of the split he admits: the need to be accepted into and make films loved by Hollywood versus making films that stay true to his personal vision. I think it's the dialogue between the two that make his films interesting. Perhaps, also, what adds depth to the Aviator - name another director (besides Oliver Stone - and less so as time progresses) of that scale who is so prominent in the audience's mind throughout the film? I know I definitely read it in terms of Scorsese (visually and narratively) and not DiCaprio whilst I was watching it.

Also, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that this was just a filler to keep him busy before he embarks on his next pet project. What a filler! Also it's another Miramax film for Scorsese, Miramax is Disney owned, maybe he's still doing payback for Kundun? It is worth commenting that he's done 2 overtly populist movies back to back after possibly his least well received at the box office (Kundun & Bringing Out the Dead) since his early days. So yeah, I'd agree with the argument that he's creating a little space to move freely for himself, and yes it does fit that he be awarded along these lines. It's still sad though, would leave a bitter taste in your mouth...

It is kind of sad how it works that way ... just the way it goes I guess.

I really liked The Aviator, but it's not a film that will stick with me for a long time or anything.

I kind of get tired for those career Oscars they like to give out ... even the Lord of the Rings which to me seemed basically for the whole trilogy rather than the one film.

gigi, do you really think Gangs of New York was "overtly populist"? Like The Last Temptation, that was one of those films that Scorsese had wanted to make since the 1970s, if I'm not mistaken -- it was very much a pet, personal project on his part, and I'm not sure I could say that it was designed to appeal to audiences the way The Aviator is.

Yes I do! As rich and layered as the background is, the narrative is horrendously simple and full of awful awkward dialogue and naive characterisation that makes it a clumpy beast. Furthermore, I think that the 20years in the making really weakens the film in some parts - there are gestures that are far too grandiose in scale to actually work. I'm thinking of, for example, the gone-with-the-wind scale scene where they take the church and the crucifix looms behind a yellow/red halo'd wall. Sometimes, Scorsese is just to Roman Catholic for his own good... or for the good of his films at least This is the film where he melds the two: personal passion with populism for the very simple reason that it couldn't have been made if he did not. Despite Weinstein's many proclamations to the contrary, I am sure that his fingerprint remains on this - grubbying the surface of the film, if you like, and not in as much depth as Scorsese's himself.

Funnily enough, though, I got the DVD the other day and was going to sit down and watch it right now! I shall report back after the second viewing.

Gigi,

I agree completely with all your specific criticisms of Gangs of New York (indeed, I made many of these precise points at the time), and with your feeling that the amount of time Scorsese spent on the project was itself part of the problem (my feeling is that Scorsese's labors wound up draining all the inspiration out of the film until in the end all he had left was his passion for the material). I'm only perplexed that you find it "overtly populist." What's "overtly populist" about "awful awkward dialogue," for example? It's BAD, but how is it populist?

I'll reply quickly because I actually have the DVD in my computer, and the burning title screen behind internet explorer.

Firstly, it's not that I believe that bad dialogue is popular. However, there is a cause/effect thing with films that ATTEMPT to be popular on a mass scale and bad dialogue.

In Gangs of New York, I would say that the overt attempts at popularity lie in two areas which, to me, are the main things that spoil an otherwise great film.

a. The casting choices. DiCaprio & Diaz are horrendously miscast and not up to their roles in the slightest. This may also be due to the reason two.

b. The romance plot. I believe it to be completely unnecesary and a bad attempt at inclusiveness towards female audiences. Firstly, where else is Scorsese so concerned with romance? Secondly, it doesn't fit with the gangster story of the film. Thirdly, this is where most of the bad dialogue is concentrated (and perhaps a reason for the lacklustre on screen chemistry). Fourthly - does it not remind you oh so slightly of that other monolith (which, again, is admirable for technical qualities) Titanic in this respect? This is where Hollywood relearnt it's lesson about historical epics - the money comes from the women who come back for repeat viewings to see little Leo take his top off. Take this element out and you have a truly admirable film, but - and I know I speak generally but generalisations are often true when cinema attendance is concerned - no women to go see this otherwise male-centric movie. And to be honest, the dialogue in those bits is soooooo bad it's like Jay Cocks couldn't even be bothered to try to cover this fact up. This is where Weinstein's marks are left, I think. Maybe I'm wrong but it just doesn't fit otherwise.

Anyway - now to the DVD. I may repent and take all this back in 3 hours time!

gigi wrote:
: Firstly, where else is Scorsese so concerned with romance?

Rather famously, in The Last Temptation of Christ.