Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay [NOTE: Follow the link here to read “Part One” of this blog.] The Aviator (2004)
I have a theory. Some of the best directors in cinematic history, like Spielberg or Scorsese, reach a point in their filmmaking careers where the audience expects greatness whenever they make a movie. As a result, even if the movie is fantastic it can often be more mildly received in comparison to the “instant classics” that came before. Subsequently, that fantastic flick can easily blur into the background of their filmography to the point that it tends to get almost forgotten about in five years or less. If my theory is correct, then these next four Scorsese movies (maybe with the exception of one) aren’t often talked about as some of his best. But, in my humble opinion, they are. Let’s start with The Aviator, a historical biopic starring Leonardo DiCaprio (in his second collaboration with Scorsese following Gangs of New York) as the early-20th century entrepreneur Howard Hughes. Knowing very little about the subject matter (including the subject himself), I went in pretty cold to this film and was pretty stunned by the end. However, it wasn’t the kind of cathartic experience I get watching a psychological drama like Taxi Driver or a violent crime saga in the vein of Goodfellas. At the same time, though, there’s an impressive nature to the craft on display in The Aviator that most filmmakers never quiet achieve in their careers. And yet, nearly four decades into his career by this point, Scorsese hits that mark of greatness so effortlessly. Admittedly, The Aviator is not my absolute favorite of his films. Mainly because there isn’t much specific about it that draws me back into watching it. But that doesn’t diminish how good of a move it is. In my humble opinion, the standout is DiCaprio’s central performance. While he relies on his signature charm & winning personality that he uses in many of his roles, I appreciated how unlikeable Hughes ends up being. While he’s sympathetic due to his struggle with OCD, much of his “fall from grace” comes about as the result of his poor decisions regarding his investments and personal relationships. And DiCaprio does a surprisingly good job at playing a character that is never fully good or bad; he’s just human. On that note, the film is also not the traditional biopic in some important aspects. Notably, writer John Logan makes the bold yet impactful creative decision to end the story on a bittersweet note with Hughes still struggling with his mental health and lacking any genuinely helpful outlet for it. Despite trying to find comfort and stability in his various business ventures, his life remains unfulfilling and he never truly redeems himself or rights the wrongs that he’s committed over the course of the nearly three-hour runtime. At a time when so many biopics try to make you fall in love with the protagonist after seeing their downfall, I respect & appreciate Scorsese’s direction that allowed the audience to see Hughes for something more akin to a real person. Is The Aviator a modern classic or a powerful commentary about mental health? I don’t think so, but it’s an exceptionally well-made film that immerses you in that time period and the intricacies of Hughes’ eccentric and unfortunate life. Again, it isn’t my favorite Scorsese flick but it’s a pretty damn good one. Hugo (2011) I don’t think anybody would be surprised to learn that Scorsese doesn’t really make family-friendly movies. Thus, many of his fans (or just movie lovers in general) may have completely overlooked the Best Picture nominee Hugo for just that reason. Which I think is a crying shame because it’s a really heartwarming movie without being overly sappy or sentimental (a difficult balancing act for any filmmaker). Watching the first half of Hugo would convince any viewer that it’s a spirited adventure movie centered on the burgeoning friendship between the orphaned wannabe clockmaker Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) and a toymaker’s goddaughter Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz). And that would be a fair assessment. It may also explain why those who tend to gravitate to Scorsese’s style of filmmaking avoided this one. But, if you go into this movie not expecting a typical Scorsese movie than I think you’re more likely to enjoy it than not. I was particularly impressed by the performances & chemistry of the two child leads. While I’ve seen Moretz shine in some roles later in life (The Miseducation of Cameron Post and Nimona stick out in particular), I’m always taken aback by younger actors who excel in a dramatic story even if their role isn’t particularly dramatic. But what really makes Hugo great in my mind is how Ben Kingsley emerges as the “secret protagonist” in the second half. Playing Moretz’s elderly godfather, his character is revealed to be the innovative French director Georges Méliès who made some of the most important movies (A Trip to the Moon and The Impossible Voyage) in the early days of cinema. Essentially, once Kingsley’s performance dominates the runtime Hugo turns from a child-focused whimsical adventure to a celebration of film history (very much inspired by Scorsese’s own dedication to the preservation of cinema) it is elevated to one of Scorsese’s better modern movies. And I think that’s because Scorsese (alongside writer John Logan) treat the narrative as mature and emotionally complex despite starring children and being a film that kids can watch & enjoy. For Kingsley’s take on Méliès confronting his own legacy and place in history while realizing that some people out in the world have not forgotten him nor his contributions to cinema. Simply put, Hugo is an undemanding and lighthearted movie that isn’t trying to stir controversy or explore the darkest depths of the human psyche. In that sense, it’s a very different movie for Scorsese. In a different sense, though, it comes straight from Scorsese’s heart as a man in the latter years of his filmmaking career honoring the contributions of those who came first as a way to help the audience fall in love with the movies all over again. I think there’s perhaps no higher aspiration for an artist than to tell a story that reminds the person consuming that art why they love it in the first place. The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) Even if you’re not the biggest fan of the last twenty or so years of Scorsese’s directing career, I think you have to agree that there is one movie he’s made in this century that has stood the test of time and cemented itself as not only a modern classic but one of Scorsese’s best movies to date. And it’s not The Irishman. 😊 Three years after his fourth collaboration with Scorsese, Leonardo DiCaprio takes center stage as former stockbroker, financial criminal, and current motivational speaker/author Jordan Belfort to tell another impeccable “rise and fall” story that (shockingly) competes with Goodfellas. With the grimy and corrupt world of Wall Street as his backdrop, Scorsese weaves a big-budget cinematic epic that also remains one of the best black comedy movies ever made. Its unabashed embrace of raunch in portraying the surreal antics of filthy rich bastards with such creativity and artistry makes The Wolf of Wall Street (in my humble opinion) an absolutely fantastic movie. Of course, I can’t share my love of this movie without highlighting DiCaprio first and foremost. As the leading man/unreliable narrator Belfort himself, he takes everything that audiences love about him and makes it slimy. From his disarming good looks to his ineffable charm, DiCaprio leans into his star-studded image to craft an almost unbelievably scummy financial magnate who takes advantage of virtually everybody in his life. Within the immense three-hour runtime of the film, DiCaprio squeezes every ounce of charisma out of his performance to ensure the audience stays on his side for as long as possible. And then the narrative hits a point that you can’t help but laugh at his expense rather than alongside him…and it’s so satisfying when that happens (if you’ve seen the movie, you know the scene I’m referring to). Fortunately, Scorsese assembled such an outstanding cast for this film that DiCaprio is elevated & propped up by so many great characters. While there are several actors worth spotlighting, there are three I want to focus my love on (in no particular order). Unlike some of his prior roles in more straight-up comedies like Superbad and 21 Jump Street, Jonah Hill builds off of his dramatic chops from movies like Moneyball as Belfort’s best friend and business partner Donnie Azoff. Not only is his physical comedy throughout predictably excellent, but his line delivery is pitch-perfect from start to finish. Another noteworthy supporting performance comes from an (at the time) relative newcomer to Hollywood: the Australian actress/producer Margot Robbie. While her undeniable physical beauty contributes to making her an excellent leading lady, Robbie approaches the character of Naomi (Belfort’s second wife) with such humanity. In other words, she elevates Naomi to a three-dimensional woman who suffers emotional & domestic abuse but stands up for herself while also having severe characters flaws independent of her relationship with Belfort. Simply put, this role put Robbie on the map & I think the movies are all the better for it. Arguably the most memorably supporting role, however, is portrayed by none other than Matthew McConaughey who utterly maximizes the little screen time he gets with one of the best bits of acting that Scorsese has ever captured with a camera (again, if you’ve seen the film you know the scene). Despite his lack of significant screen presence, McConaughey’s Mark Hanna arguably serves as the inciting event of the film as Belfort’s first mentor who gives him the knowledge & tools he needs to succeed on Wall Street (but also spiral downward in a haze of drugs, sex, and moral corruption). Like any Scorsese flick, however, the accomplishments of those behind the camera are just as important as the performances of the actors being filmed. With any great movie, the foundation of its greatness can be found in the screenplay. And Terence Winter’s Oscar-nominated script brings to life Belfort’s time on Wall Street scamming thousands of regular people with a breathtaking degree of care. His story never gets completely lost in the “high-life” experiences of the victimizers because it remains grounded by the federal government’s efforts to nail Belfort and his cronies and serve righteous justice to these white-collar criminals. Equal to Winter’s screenplay is Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing which does an excellent job of pacing a three-hour film by using the cuts and camerawork to humorous, dramatic, and cathartic effect in a perfectly balanced triad. Her technical prowess is emblematic of all the behind-the-scenes work that deserves more praise than movies typically get, because the work they did to bring Scorsese’s vision to life allowed The Wolf of Wall Street to represent Scorsese at the top of his game. It’s unforgettable in the best ways, and sometimes I even consider it better than Goodfellas. Even the fact that it hits that level proves to me that it’s easily one of Scorsese’s best films while also cementing its status as one of the greatest movies of this century. Silence (2016) Sandwiched in between the insane black comedy The Wolf of Wall Street and the epic gangster drama The Irishman is a Scorsese movie that might just be his most underrated modern movie to date. It doesn’t involve any of his “go-to” actors & actresses, which I can see some fans of his being turned off by. Yet it features two of the best younger actors of their generation in the leading roles with some great supporting performances. Furthermore, it’s one of Scorsese’s most beautifully shot films that fully embraces the natural & political environment of its setting to tell an intimate, meditative, and thought-provoking story about faith. Unlike The Last Temptation of Christ, Scorsese’s first major thematic exploration of religion, Silence lets the character-driven narrative propel its examination of ideas rather than the inverse. And it does so by ignoring many of Scorsese’s signature cinematic tricks (namely, the kinetic soundtrack cues and the reliance on performances toying with melodrama). The film’s two lead roles, Sebastião Rodrigues (Andrew Garfield) and Franciso Garupe (Adam Driver), are anything but overly dramatic. They are very restrained, which greatly reflects the tone of the movie as a whole. And this approach works for this kind of story that isn’t focused on over-the-top action set pieces or orgies on a plane. Rather, Garfield and Driver make up the heart & soul of Silence that is an intimate character study about two Jesuit priests trying to find their missing mentor Cristóvão Ferreira (Liam Neeson) while also spreading Catholicism to the native Japanese with the help of a converted man Kichijirō (Yōsuke Kubozuka). And they do so incredibly well (Garfield in particular). But, in my humble opinion, the most prominent hero of Silence is cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto. His eye for angles and lighting beautifully captures the natural landscape, rural villages, and Tokugawa-era iconography of Japan. It brings this time & place to life for a Western audience that is mostly unfamiliar with this history of Christian persecution in East Asia. Prieto’s gorgeous work earned an Oscar nomination and easily should’ve won (sorry, La La Land) because it’s some of the best cinematography that I’ve seen in any Scorsese movie. It may not be his most iconic, entertaining, or fun movie, but Silence is a masterful exploration of faith that, to my surprise, was utterly engrossing. The violence on display is punctuated due to how Scorsese restrains it for dramatic effect, but the most meaningful aspect of the movie is how it offers differing perspectives on some of the biggest questions of the human experience without harshly judging those willing to find answers peacefully. Conclusion I hope I’ve convinced you that Martin Scorsese is one of the greatest living filmmakers (and arguably one of the greatest of all time). Hopefully, you didn’t need to read this two-part blog to be convinced of that. Just watching a small selection of his movies will be more than enough evidence to sway you. With all that being said, here is the official ranking of my ten favorite Martin Scorsese films (not including Killers of the Flower Moon…because I haven’t seen it yet 😊):
What is your favorite Martin Scorsese film? Is there a movie of his that you feel is massively underrated or overrated? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|