Martin Scorsese

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.

Moderator: DarkImbecile

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Maltic
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:36 am

Re: Martin Scorsese

#426 Post by Maltic » Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:43 am

hearthesilence wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:58 pm
therewillbeblus wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:53 pm
All I know is that my friend who is not a cinephile, but who would absolutely get something out of Fellini, called me the other week to mention he read that Scorsese article and was motivated to start seeking out Fellini's work. So yeah, I'm not an acolyte of the filmmaker either, but if anything gets more people to see La Dolce Vita and Juliet of the Spirits, can't we just let that happen?
You'd think so. To go back to the Bergman piece, I always wondered if Dave Kehr suggested Rosenbaum to the NY Times. (Kehr was writing their DVD column, which at the time was published with much more regularity.) Unlike Rosenbaum, I'm not sure if Kehr's ever praised any of Bergman's films because he was vocal and consistent about his distaste for his work. Anyway, the content wasn't a surprise, but it just feels dumb in retrospect why anyone (whether it was Rosenbaum, the editorial board or maybe Kehr) felt a "corrective" like that was needed. Whenever any major artist dies, the tributes are generally kind, but there are also even-handed assessments that go about it in a better way - even before that op-ed, more than a few obits pointed out that Bergman wasn't universally acclaimed and fell in and out of fashion. It's really difficult to relate to the whole thing - for example, I absolutely hate Rush's music, but it didn't bother me the slightest when I see one article after another gush over Neil Peart. Why would I want to piss on their fans and kick Peart right after he's passed?

EDIT: I could see Rosenbaum going after Scorsese for slighting Godard, which I mentioned earlier. I do agree with him that Godard's post-'60s work is overlooked and wrongly dismissed.

Kehr wrote a very positive review for Fanny and Alexander in the Reader, but it might be the only one. It's in one of the volumes with collected reviews he put out some years ago. I guess that other auteurist hobby-horse, "late style" won out: There are also positive reviews of Huston's The Man Who Would Be King and Wilder's Fedora, late works by two other directors he had often dismissed.

I agree with what you say.

Rosenbaum and Scorsese arguing over Fellini at this point would be very boomer, btw.

Edit: There's capsule for the F&A review:
Ingmar Bergman's 1982 feature, condensed from a much longer TV series, is less an autumnal summation of his career than an investigation of its earliest beginnings: through the figure of ten-year-old Alexander (Bertil Guve), Bergman traces the storytelling urge, developing from dreams and fairy tales into theater and (implicitly) movies. The film doesn't so much surmount Bergman's usual shortcomings—the crude contrasts, heavy symbolism, and preachy philosophizing—as find an effective context for them. Tied to a child's mind, the oversimplifications become the stuff of myth and legend. As in The Night of the Hunter, a realistic psychological drama is allowed to expand into fantasy; the result is one of Bergman's most haunting and suggestive films. With Ewa Fröling and Gunn Wållgren. In Swedish with subtitles.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#427 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed May 12, 2021 11:35 am

Reportedly this project has been shelved by Netflix, following Facebook posts from Joe Flaherty stating he confirmed with the producer

beamish14
Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 3:07 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#428 Post by beamish14 » Wed May 12, 2021 11:57 am

therewillbeblus wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 11:35 am
Reportedly this project has been shelved by Netflix, following Facebook posts from Joe Flaherty stating he confirmed with the producer

That's insane. The reunion was already taped, and it needed to be pieced together with interviews/archival material. What a tremendous shame. I was more excited about this than Killers of the Flower Moon!

User avatar
jazzo
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:02 am

Re: Martin Scorsese

#429 Post by jazzo » Wed May 12, 2021 1:21 pm

I was in the audience for the taping, and my wife and I both considered it a magical experience. I hope it materializes for the rest of the world someday

User avatar
jazzo
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:02 am

Re: Martin Scorsese

#430 Post by jazzo » Wed May 12, 2021 1:26 pm


User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Martin Scorsese

#431 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed May 12, 2021 1:31 pm

Yeah I read that, and wouldn't be surprised if the plan all along was to release it side-by-side with the SCTV catalogue so that viewers could transition to ingest the show. If they couldn't secure the rights to the show, it also might seem like a trivial investment for Netflix, to have viewers to watch the doc and then desire to seek out the show and not be able to access it via their platform. So maybe they're still holding out, or maybe they're just not prioritizing it because they failed to get the series, or maybe Scorsese is too busy and doesn't want to keep editing it.

Post Reply