Beholden To Marty, Part 3

email this story
read comments (42)
post a comment

Two significant reactions have been posted in response to my 2.15 "Rally Round" piece in which I predicted deferential responses to Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island because of a "give Marty a pass as long as the film isn't too bad" impulse that many older critics seem to hold dear. One is an Auteurs piece by Glenn Kenny called "Carrying Marty's Water"; the other is a piece by Marshall Fine called "In The Tank for Scorsese?."

Ben Kingsley, Leonardo DiCaprio, Martin Scorsese and Mark Ruffalo during filming of Shutter Island.

Significant Kenny quote: "If I say that I actively try to find things to like in Scorsese's films, does that make me a strong Scorsese man, or his patsy, or his water-carrier? I responded very strongly to Shutter Island -- but a lot of that had to do with my state of being when I saw the film twenty-two days ago. Is my reaction illegitimate?

"I attended the New York press junket for Shutter Island a couple of weeks ago (the fruits of my labors in this respect are here). Breakfasting with the cream of the television and online video critic crop, I have to say -- in all honesty! -- that I did detect a note of obligation in their words as I overheard many of them discuss the film. As if they didn't particularly like it, or 'get' it beyond its plot machinations...but that they were going to give it a pass not just because Scorsese's a revered American filmmaker but because Leo's a movie star.

"I don't, however, detect much of the same thing going on in the print reviews."

I wrote the following to Fine after I read his piece: "I'm not questioning your integrity, Marshall. I'm saying that rooting for an admired director and perhaps bending over backwards to be nice or at least understanding is very human. We all do it. I've certainly done this with the Coens (except in the cases of The Ladykillers and The Man Who Wasn't There). Everyone is prejudiced in one way or another. Nobody is impartial. The best you can hope to be is fair-minded in your dispensations."

To which he replied: "Thanks, Jeff. I guess what I'm saying is that, while recognizing that no one is impartial, it's still possible to be honest. Of course, I hope that each Scorsese film (or Coens or Cameron) is great; but I'm also not going to avoid expressing disappointment if it isn't.

"I don't take this stuff personally; I don't take the movies personally either. But I think you do and that's what makes your work what it is. Indeed, what I find most entertaining and occasionally infuriating about your writing, Jeff, is your absolute sense of being right.

"I have strong opinions and am not afraid to air them, but I guess I stopped worrying/caring about always being right. There is too much evidence in the world at large -- and the movies in particular -- that suggests that no one cares (and nothing is going to chance because of) what I think. It doesn't mean I'm going to stop sharing what I think or believing in it, just that I no longer feel that outrage that I used to over what is an immutable fact of life. So who's the cynic and who's the idealist?"

Feel Left Out<< previous | next >>Wall Street Looksee

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 19, 2010 at 10:42 AM

comment #1

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

The Man Who Wasn't There didn't need a "pass" from you. It was an awesome movie in its own right. Intolerable Cruelty and Burn After Reading were a bit mezzo-mezzo (by their standards!)-- to use your pet phrase -- but other than those (and the aforementioned Ladykillers), they have been remarkably consistent filmmakers throughout their entire careers.

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at February 19, 2010 11:15 AM

comment #2

Floyd Thursby says ...

If you want inconsistency to test the most rabid watercarriers, look at Huston, Preminger, and Altman. Few directors made so many great and godawful films.

Posted by Floyd Thursby at February 19, 2010 11:20 AM

comment #3

Gaydos says ...

Absurdity alert: everyone who writes about movies here, including El Jeffe, looks the other way when the warts on their favorite films are pointed out.

We better get a bigger tank.

There are several major Oscar contenders this year, just as the last several years, that have deficient scripts, are witless, pretentious, heavy-handed, predictible, poorly executed on many many fronts and the minute any flaws are pointed out the outrage starts flaring with hurled insults and threats to send the offending voices out out to the cornfield.

In other words, what the hell does "in the tank" mean?!!??!!

I see more self-enforced myopia here than in a herd of ostriches.

So people who like Scorsese's work find qualities in a film that others don't fathom.

Isn't that what's happening left and right on virtually all of these films?

In the words of the great clothing designer Mugatu: " Doesn't anybody notice this???I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here!!!!!"

Posted by Gaydos at February 19, 2010 11:20 AM

comment #4

Floyd Thursby says ...

"There are several major Oscar contenders this year, just as the last several years, that have deficient scripts, are witless, pretentious, heavy-handed, predictible, poorly executed on many many fronts."

Slumdog, Juno, Babel, Little Miss Sunshine . . . .

Posted by Floyd Thursby at February 19, 2010 11:30 AM

comment #5

drbob says ...

I quite liked Burn After Reading. As a matter of fact, I have a soft spot for most of the Coen's zany, screwball comedies, ala Raising Arizona, Hudsucker Proxy, O Brother, et al. I don't put these movies in the same league as Fargo, Miller's Crossing, & Barton Fink, but they have their own merits.

Posted by drbob at February 19, 2010 11:37 AM

comment #6

Mark says ...

Jeffrey turned on Wes, Crowe, and everyone else when warranted. (Everyone strangely except Neil Labute, and maybe Tony Scott.) So he is not an easy lay; where Jeffrey gets in trouble is for being cross-armed and prude in regards to certain fan favorites when not particularly warranted.

BTW drbob, Raising Arizona is not just the best Coen Bros. movie, but it remains the best movie of alltime. I don't think there's any point even debating this. (And this is more proof that most directors make their masterpiece in their 2nd outing.)

Posted by Mark at February 19, 2010 11:45 AM

comment #7

Eloi Manning says ...

I thought Burn After Reading was hilarious. I didn't enjoy Intolerable Cruelty though.

The Man Who Wasn't There is absolutely outstanding. Although perhaps I am thinking more of Deakins' photography and Burwell's score.

Posted by Eloi Manning at February 19, 2010 11:50 AM

comment #8

TL says ...

Third-ing or fourth-ing for "The Man Who Wasn't There." I'm not that into the Coens, but that's one incredible movie, only sightly eclipsed by "No Country." And "Intolerable Cruelty" is a perfectly agreeable mainstream movie for the first two acts, but goes retarded in the third.

Posted by TL at February 19, 2010 12:55 PM

comment #9

Gordn27 says ...

Every five to seven years, the Coen Brothers make a crime masterpiece. Miller's Crossing was 1990, Fargo was 1996, Man Who Wasn't There was 2001, and No Country was 2007.

They've made other great movies (and I know some people would add 'Blood Simple' to that list, and it would fit). And they've made a few stinkers. But, yeah, 'Man Who Wasn't There' is a masterpiece, plain and simple.

The odd thing is, of all of their movies, that seems to me to be the one that rewards being "in the tank" for the Coens the most. It's so Coens-y.

Posted by Gordn27 at February 19, 2010 1:26 PM

comment #10

Sam says ...

ladykillers is at least excellent.

and intolerable cruelty is probably the best romcom of the last 20 years (seriously, what's snappier / sassier?)

and glenn k is fast becoming awesome in my book. hell, he even saw how good the fountain was on his first viewing.

and all this shutter island talk is hot air... it works perfectly.

i guessed the twist in the first minute or two and I was still gripped.
i just sat back and marveled at how well the red herrings were placed and how carefully the intrigue was ladelled out.

there's a reason why a major supporting player never gets in anyone's eyelines... it's so at the 80 minute mark audiences reared on fight club wonder: 'wait a minute, is he even real??" DEFT WORK!

to me, SI is the last tick of the puzzle / twist movie cycle started by the sixth sense and memento 10 years ago.

and even after the twist it stays compelling. christ, what more do you want??

Posted by Sam at February 19, 2010 1:39 PM

comment #11

Gordn27 says ...

"christ, what more do you want??"

Internal logic from the story.

Or maybe I should add, "internal logic without a bullshit cop-out that was added to the twist so that various cinematic things could be added willy-nilly".

That said, also, I kind of want a moratorium on dream sequences for a while. I was sitting in the theater trying to think if there had ever been a good dream sequence in a movie; well, okay, you've got comedic ones, they're not as bad, but a serious dream sequence? I could only think of 'Brazil'. I'm sure a few examples will be offered up in response here, and I grant that it's not a 100% universal rule, but dream sequences always seem to me like way lazier writing than voiceover (which works well roughly 20-25% of the time).

Posted by Gordn27 at February 19, 2010 1:46 PM

comment #12

JapAdapters says ...

I don't understand people who are dogmatic about filmakers. I mean I LOVE Scorsese to the point that he's probably my favorite director of all time, but that didn't excuse GANGS OF NEW YORK (bloated, REALLY bad casting choices) or THE AVIATOR (flat) for me. I like THE DEPARTED as a genre film but I think he made his last great movie in 1990 and, while I may enjoy certain aspects of all of his films, I don;t let my WANT for his movies to be great make them so.

I really have to give THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE ANOTHER SHOT.

Posted by JapAdapters at February 19, 2010 2:09 PM

comment #13

lipranzer says ...

I wasn't crazy about SHUTTER ISLAND (if you'll pardon the expression), but I did find it sort of entertaining in a batshit crazy kind of way. If that makes me "beholden" to Scorsese, so be it.

And yes, THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE ranks among my favorite Coen Brothers films as well.

Posted by lipranzer at February 19, 2010 2:56 PM

comment #14

Gordn27 says ...

I can't tell whether being in the tank for Scorsese made me like the movie more or less. It's entertaining enough, but I can't imagine ever wanting to watch it again. A few cool scenes (Ted Levine and Patricia Clarkson).

But I *loved* 'The Aviator'. Best Scorsese of the decade for me, and the best Dicaprio performance I've seen.

Posted by Gordn27 at February 19, 2010 4:02 PM

comment #15

Baron Munchausen-by-Proxy says ...

"I don't think there's any point even debating this."

Much as I love RA, and the Coens, there's plenty of points to debate that statement. Though I suspect this is just standard hyperbole.

"(And this is more proof that most directors make their masterpiece in their 2nd outing.)"

Okay, that's even sillier. There's a good reason that the widespread term "sophomore slump" exists.

Posted by Baron Munchausen-by-Proxy at February 19, 2010 4:11 PM

comment #16

Gordn27 says ...

Baron - I think there's a kernel of truth in the idea that you're refuting... but I think that "sophomore slump" vs. the second film masterpiece is the difference between being a guy who made a great film and a guy who's a great filmmaker. The great ones don't peak with their first (in fact, many of the great ones, their first film is not good).

Posted by Gordn27 at February 19, 2010 5:08 PM

comment #17

Alboone says ...

Trust me I truly hate to admit this within the deep recesses of my heart...but this movie SUCKED!

Not only did I see the ending a 100 miles away, but I couldn't believe the right off the bat telegraphing of the plot twists and the lack of ZIP POW energy the whole affair had. Yeah it had atmosphere and all, but the suspense was shockingly anemic. We're talking about Martin Scorcesse here. I'm stunned.

And don't get me started on Dicaprio. This movie proves to me once and for all that he is truly a 2 dimensional actor with two stock expressions. The coiled frown and the eye popping out of their sockets look of surprise. What happened to the kid from 'What's eating Gilbert Grape'?

Not only was I bored throughout but I kept thinking 'Holy shit, Dennis Lehane must've got stoned one night and popped in a rental of William Peter Blatty's The Ninth Configuration and said fuck it, change a couple of things around, and I got my story, no one will notice'. Yeah well I did motherfucker. His story is not only a complete ripoff of Blatty's far more superior tale of mental woes, but a disjointed one as well. If any HE readers out there haven't seen The Ninth Configuration then I suggest you put it on your netflix cue and just watch in awe at the similarities.

I'm sorry but anyone who heaps high praise upon this flick is just drinking the Kool-Aid. Marty fucked up, big time. Cape Fear reigns supreme over this steaming pile of cow shit. Sucks I can't get my money as well as my 2 hours and 30 minutes back.

Posted by Alboone at February 19, 2010 5:46 PM

comment #18

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

So did ya like the film, Alboone? lol

In all seriousness, ouch. Makes me not wanna see it (although I will...can't even see the Polanski thing around here this week, goddamnit).

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at February 19, 2010 6:51 PM

comment #19

Eloi Manning says ...

SHUTTER ISLAND = AWESOME. You know this.

Just got back and can't be arsed to write too much, but it was fucking excellent. And DiCaprio was outstanding. I basically entirely disagree with Alboone.

Posted by Eloi Manning at February 19, 2010 7:51 PM

comment #20

Chinaski94 says ...

I'm not in the tank for anybody, and I loved Shutter Island.

My credentials for being unbiased are as follows:

Didn't like Gangs of New York. Didn't care too much for Aviator, although it wasn't bad.

This movie worked.

Posted by Chinaski94 at February 19, 2010 8:28 PM

comment #21

reverent and free says ...

Just saw it. I can't remember the last time I was so disappointed by a movie I was anticipating. The audience I was with seemed to feel the same way: the theater was packed, and when the credits began people started laughing and groaning. Word of mouth is going to be toxic for this film.

I was worried I spoiled the film by reading the book, but actually having read the book and knowing where it was headed was the only thing that kept me interested. I couldn't imagine anyone walking in cold and knowing what the hell was supposed to be going on, what they were supposed to think, or feel any suspense at all. And the murder scene was Wicker Man bad. Williams is Razzie worthy.

Posted by reverent and free at February 19, 2010 9:39 PM

comment #22

Terry McCarty says ...

Re Floyd Thursby's dis of LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE:
I was with the film for the most part until it opted for the it-probably-read-better-on-paper climax of all the family members getting up to dance onstage at the pageant.

Posted by Terry McCarty at February 19, 2010 10:03 PM

comment #23

Terry McCarty says ...

reverentandfree wrote:
Word of mouth is going to be toxic for this film.

Please elaborate as to where you saw it; this may
play a role re whether it was an "in the tank for Marty" audience or, say, the audience that rejected EDGE OF DARKNESS because they didn't get the TAKEN-esque blowout the trailer promised.

Posted by Terry McCarty at February 19, 2010 10:08 PM

comment #24

reverent and free says ...

The audience I saw it with was mixed. I'd say an equal part boomers and 20 to 30 year olds. Men and women.

Posted by reverent and free at February 19, 2010 10:21 PM

comment #25

Chinaski94 says ...

The audience I saw it with seemed to like it. I overheard people saying as much as we walked out of the theater. I don't know of a single person (outside of so called cinephiles) that didn't enjoy it.

Posted by Chinaski94 at February 19, 2010 10:22 PM

comment #26

reverent and free says ...

And btw, I saw Edge of Darkness in the exact same theater a few weeks ago and the audience loved it. A few people clapped.

Posted by reverent and free at February 19, 2010 10:24 PM

comment #27

Scott Mendelson says ...

My wife and I had the same problem with Shutter Island

SPOILERS...
.
.
.
.
Since the big twist was telegraphed so early on (and in the trailers), plus several minor twists were all-but highlighted, not only did we know where the story was likely heading, but we also had a feeling the entire time that we couldn't really believe our eyes for much of the second and third act. When you know you're being duped in nearly every scene, it's impossible to stay involved in the narrative. Why bother to pay attention if you know it's all a lie that will be wiped away in the final reel?

Posted by Scott Mendelson at February 19, 2010 11:19 PM

comment #28

mtgilchrist says ...

i would sincerely be interested in wells' response to fine's observation that jeff feels the "absolute need to be right."

Posted by mtgilchrist at February 20, 2010 1:08 AM

comment #29

lawnorder says ...

Scorsese = the most OVERRATED director in history. And THE MAN WHO WASN"T THERE was absolute shit. Okay, the cinematography was pretty, but the rest of a self-indulgent, pretentious mess of a film.

Posted by lawnorder at February 20, 2010 3:23 AM

comment #30

Alboone says ...

To Scott Mendelson: you just completely nailed it. That is why this movie was so shockingly bad. SHOCKINGLY bad. Uggh...painful to even think about it.

Posted by Alboone at February 20, 2010 5:26 AM

comment #31

Eloi Manning says ...

Jesus, the anti-SI crowd are melodramatic. "SHOCKINGLY bad." "razzie-worthy". Come on.

Posted by Eloi Manning at February 20, 2010 6:18 AM

comment #32

Scott Mendelson says ...

No Eloi, just an ambitious, well-cast, and visually stylish genre picture with a couple fatal flaws that undermine everything else. It happens.

Posted by Scott Mendelson at February 20, 2010 6:50 AM

comment #33

JulesWinnfield says ...

Watched "The Man Who Wasn't There" again last night and the photography on that is spectacular! No needs for a pass.

Posted by JulesWinnfield at February 20, 2010 7:37 AM

comment #34

reverent and free says ...

Ok, having slept on my original impression, I may have been a little hard on it. I didn't hate the movie, and there were a lot of good scenes and performances. But considering the director, the cast, the period, and the fact that it's set on an isolated island asylum during a dark and stormy night, it's not half as gripping or suspenseful as it should be.

Posted by reverent and free at February 20, 2010 8:57 AM

comment #35

Gordn27 says ...

rev - what I'm trying to figure out is if the movie would've been better off without Scorsese; on the one hand, I wouldn't have had the high expectations but, on the other hand, it wouldn't have been as well directed and the stuff that was awesome probably wouldn't have worked as well in anybody else's hands.

Except maybe De Palma. Scorsese should leave the Hitchcock stuff to De Palma.

Posted by Gordn27 at February 20, 2010 10:48 AM

comment #36

Floyd Thursby says ...

Just got back from Shut-ins' Island and agree with reverent and free. OK but not good enough.

If the ghosts in Turn of the Screw are real, it's just a ghost story. If they aren't, it's about much more. SI is just a ghost story when it could have been a metaphor for paranoia, guilt, self-delusion, life in midcentury America, etc.

Posted by Floyd Thursby at February 20, 2010 11:17 AM

comment #37

theboywho says ...

A.O. Scott and Jeff be damned! Didn't matter that we knew the general sense of things to come, it was the unfolding and more importantly the emotional stakes of the characters that propelled it. It was all motivated not with a last second Shyamalan reveal but with a slow drip that is not a cop out but leaves the audience questioning everything. Is that so bad? It is not just a thriller but it is a very moving drama that propels it. And Dicaprio, especially in those last scenes...simply...nuanced and heartbreaking. Every time I think he's slightly "lazy" you realize that he is a subtle, intelligent actor he is. I was more than pleasantly surprised as I think this elevates the genre more than cape fear did, especially with that wacko over the top ending with DeNiro as Freddy Krueger.

Posted by theboywho at February 20, 2010 11:47 AM

comment #38

Eloi Manning says ...

Agree with theboywho.

Did anyone find it quite funny that Scorsese employed professional DeNiro-alike Elias Koteas to basically play Robert DeNiro in that one scene? Do you think DeNiro had to drop out of a cameo at the last minute, and Koteas was the next best thing?

Posted by Eloi Manning at February 20, 2010 3:01 PM

comment #39

theboywho says ...

funny Eloi....thinking the same thing about Koteas.....Bobby D # 2!

Posted by theboywho at February 22, 2010 9:11 PM

comment #40

wenwen says ...

ed hardyed hardy

Gucci HandbagsGucci Handbags

Louis VuittonLouis Vuitton

Columbia SportswearColumbia Sportswear

Links Of LondonLinks Of London

Posted by wenwen at February 26, 2010 9:31 PM

comment #41

how to make money says ...

nice post i loved it a lot worth readable and very informative thanks for sharing with us. keep the job up
Very good job. I just found your blog and wanted to say I really enjoyed reading your blog.
make money

Posted by how to make money at September 4, 2010 8:11 AM

comment #42