Find us on facebook

Showing posts with label Martin Scorsese. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martin Scorsese. Show all posts

Sunday, March 9, 2014

"The Wolf of Wall Street", the Cult of Money

The Wolf of Wall Street

Funnily enough, it has had to be Martin Scorsese, not a thoughtful documentary director or an artie/indie filmmaker far from the industry the one to show what an aberration current capitalism is. And Scorsese has done it in a flamboyant, orgiastic and sardonic way. He has filmed “Goodfellas 2” in a bigger, bolder and stronger way, replacing the “traditional” mob for 90s Wall Street’s mafia. Arguably some of the most despicable human beings on Earth.

The Wolf of Wall Street is quintessential Scorsese. Although is based on the true story of Jordan Belfort, who rocketed from an ambitious college graduated dreaming big with Wall Street to a megalomaniac, obnoxiously wealthy stockbroker living an out of control high life, involving himself into a neverending spiral of crime, corruption and vileness, this juggernaut tour de force that goes on for three relentless hours without never losing its punch and path couldn’t be filmed by anyone else.

This is a beast of a film. The tale is outrageous but you’ll probably laugh. Characters are so near of becoming a caricature with their gross behaviour, filthy language and over the top attitude, you are sort of expecting the movie will fall, and become a silly, incongruous parody. But it works, oh my, how it works. It’s a crude, raw and deformed mirror Scorsese forces to look at (the speeches at the office are so puzzling and frightening). He had done that before but the difference here is that while the majority of his villains acquire some sort of glamour, the characters on this movie are simply repulsive, repugnant people. It’s a monster’s parade.

Praise the actors for jumping aboard this bonfire of human values, specially Leonardo DiCaprio as Jordan Belfort and Jonah Hill as Donnie Azoff, his right-hand man, playing the Joe Pesci’s role without throwing a punch. And we shouldn’t forget Margot Robbie as Naomi Lapaglia, Jordan's second wife. As gorgeous as complex and ambitious role, very far from the usual mannequin. Actors unleashing their talents in performances without a net.

But let’s conclude with Scorsese. I’m still shocked by his unparalleled narrative pulse, which imo makes “The Wolf of Wall Street” a director’s masterclass. I think of films that wanted to be “bigger-than-life” at the same time that aimed to be “state-of-the-art” works, like Brian de Palma’s laughable “Scarface”, Oliver Stone’s boring “Any Given Sunday” or the seriously empty “American Hustle” (review coming soon) to name just a few. But here the farce, the obscenity, the vulgarity and the sardonic humour all serve a purpose: to show how awfully wrong our societies are without delivering an indigestible, too depressive drama to assimilate. As a Spaniard, I just have to take a look to our suit & ties criminals, our corrupted, vile politicians and the cast of bankers and corporate leaders they serve. Are they glamorous, professionals to learn a lesson from, enterpreneurs (the ubiquitous stupid word)? No, the vast majority of them are people without any scrupulous. The mafia of the last 3 decades wears expensive suits and deals with “the market”. The American dream (and the Spanish, and the Russian, etc, etc) is a depraved one… Capitalism is greed and addiction. Is the cult of money. Nobody escapes it’s attraction, and choosing the right side (oh these jaw-dropping scenes on the subway and the tennis court) is never easy, and poorly rewarded. But it’s our choice, still. Our responsibility.

SCORE: 8/10

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

"A Decade Under the Influence", filming the 70's

A Decade Under the Influence

"A Decade Under the Influence" has many points of attraction and interest. A serious documentary trying to examine the decade of the 1970s in what regards to cinema, giving the voice to some of the most relevant filmmakers (plus some actors, producers and industry heavyweights) from that period (many of them still among the best directors nowadays) to talk about their movies, their meaning and the changes that American society went through on that period of time. It has all the elements to be a memorable work on the so-called New Hollywood era, but it has two serious issues that undermine the film as a whole.

The first one is quite simple: this is not a dynamic film. Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for special effects or these sort of documentaries where the visual tricks are the recurrent solution to fill the narrative gaps or just extend the length of the work to the usual standards. But Ted Demme (who sadly passed away) takes the most straightforward option. Mixing the opinions of the directors with little additional footage, some historical and some directly from the films. The result is a slow-paced documentary, that can be boring for audiences without a particular interest on it. That's sad because the opinions of Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, Peter Bogdanovich, William Friedkin, Dennis Hopper... and a extraordinary long etc is what makes this movie a must-see. Julie Christie, along with Altman and the great and also forever missed "Sidneys" (Lumet and Pollack) are the ones with the smartest and clearest minds.

And the second one is another proof that some topics are, almost, 90% infallible. How many times have you heard or said that the book is better than the film? "A Decade.." has a much more complete, challenging and interesting competitor in the form of a book. Of course, I'm referring to Peter Biskind's monumental "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls". Everything on the 70s, and much more (dark, poignant and scary), is there. After reading that book watching this documentary seems like a Disney's version of the New Hollywood's decade. Sure, this film is not cheating: wants to grasp the opinion of the filmmakers and artists who were there and with that choice compound a collective tale of the decade. But are the starring characters telling all they know? I'm afraid not. Believe me, please read the book and you'll figure it out.

If you are interested in the 1970s, on its turbulent, contradictory and exciting times (rebellion, activism, hedonism, sexual revolution, civil and counterculture movements, drugs...), and how there was an art, cinema, that tried to reflect that social turmoil for a new generation of moviegoers, but finally gave up, you MUST watch this movie. If you want to discover a time when we weren't forced to watch another crap film after another crap film after another crap film, and directors wanted to show and talk about stories and not the next visual effect, this documentary should be a turning point to make you watch dozens of unforgettable movies. But  if you really want to know about the 70s American cinema,.then remember that there is a book waiting for you. "A Decade" should be just a noteworthy starting point.

SCORE: 6,75/10

Thursday, January 10, 2013

"Easy Riders, Raging Bulls", 70s' movies, drugs & egos

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood- Peter Biskind

"I did a lot of drugs because I wanted to do a lot, I wanted to push all the way to the very very end, and see if I could die." Martin Scorsese

"The cocaine problem in the United States is really because of me. There was no cocaine before Easy Rider on the street. After Easy Rider, it was everywhere." Dennis Hopper

"Popcorn pictures have always ruled. Why do people go see them? Why is the public so stupid? That's not my fault." George Lucas (on Star Wars)

These are true sentences, said by some of the most well-known directors-actors on cinema history. These are only three little excerpts taken from "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" a book that is so full of this sort of ... well, let's say statements, you'll need a couple of weeks (at least) to start reading something else after finishing this book. They also serve to summarise what you are going to find inside this absorbing encyclopedia of the movies that were done on the 70s, the so-called "New Hollywood" and the people behind them. But if I had to choose just one expression to define what this book shows it would be "a monster parade". The most scary I ever read about. Because they were and are real people.

I assume the new directors arising on late 60s really had artistic aims, even a revolutionary spirit to bring substance and interest back to cinema, to integrate movies with the counterculture of that age, a period were Hollywood was agonising and ideas severely lacking. It's depressing to realise that's where we are exactly nowadays. And after reading Biskind's book is even more appalling to find out our current "creative desert" has its origins on the failure of  the exciting "New Hollywood".

Don't want to make this review very long, because in my opinion, every person who loves cinema should read this book, but "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" is a ridiculously detailed account of the work of talented young filmmakers like Scorsese, Coppola, Robert Altman, Hal Ashby, William Friedkin, Roman Polanski or Peter Bogdanovich. But while explaining how those films were made Biskind reveals much more. Basically that it was a horrible and constant battle of egos, a dangerous wild ride of people living out of control, with little rules and even less humanity, and a genuine miracle that some of the movies became the masterpieces that now we venerate. Being honest, even personal heroes like Scorsese, Altman, De Niro, or Ashby doesn't look very well in this picture. Guys like Spielberg or George Lucas confirmed my suspicions: just a couple of egomaniacs (add Coppola here) with an unbelievable greedy mind.

I have read some reviews that salute Biskind's book as "a unabashed celebration of the 70s". I couldn't disagree more. This is an overwhelming work on the worst of mankind. Some people believing and behaving as if they were some sort of Almighty God just because they had a successful movie. Others forcing the people who surrounded them (wives, girlfriends, brothers, long-time friends, etc) to share their miseries and frustrations. Sex, alcohol, drug abuse to impossible limits, delusions of grandeur and surreal situations abound on the book, all related with accurate and puzzling precision. I'm mesmerized by the amount of information gathered by Biskind, but also why his freedom to paint such an ugly picture of a decade. Worse than that. The epilogue is a devastating summary of what legacy Hollywood's last golden age left us.

Please don't miss this book, but also proceed with care with what you're going to read.

SCORE: 8,5/10

Sunday, January 6, 2013

"Woody Allen: A Documentary", life through a camera

Woody Allen: A Documentary

I already wrote this: I owe a lot to Woody Allen, not only in terms of "cultural education" but also in terms of humour and a certain view of life. I was sixteen when a friend of a friend passed me a couple of films. The first one was Truffaut's "The 400 Blows" (Les Quatre Cents Coups). It grab me and shook me as very few things before. But it was nothing compared with the impact of the second film. I'm referring, of course, to Allen's "Annie Hall", that not only remains as a fundamental movie for me. I know that will "remain with me" forever.

This personal introduction explains why it was virtually mandatory for me to watch this documentary, even though I suspected there wasn't going to be a lot of new information for me on the director (seen it all, read it a lot). The surprise was that for a while, "Woody Allen: A Documentary", it does proof to be a quite revealing and very entertaining film.

Seems that director Robert Weide has had access (which is remarkable) not only to deconstruct the career of the Brooklyn artist, but also to film a bit of his daily life and creative process. During its first half, we have the chronicle of Allen's rising from teen writer to stand up comedian, TV star to a movie writer-director praised as an iconic auteur. For any devoted fan, the archive footage of his monologues and jokes on TV, along with the opinions of the people who are (look at his film credits!, always the same people) "Allen's gang": Jack Rollins, Charles H Joffe, Letty Aronson...is hugely enjoyable. But the contrast with his opinions on camera, his memories of childhood, and his writing habits (the scenes when he shows his working desk, his impossibly outdated German typewriter, and the scrapped notes he keeps that then will become scripts are precious), make this documentary A MUST-SEE.

Seriously, it could have been close to perfection. We start the recap of his filmography going movie after movie for a while (nice to see Martin Scorsese sharing his views on Allen's career). There's another precious chapter (it couldn't be any other way) with the apparition of Annie, or better said, Diane Keaton. Yes, as the movie says, count me among the ones that felt in love with her in this movie. There's one wonderful scene, with Allen incapable of not laughing in front of her, that it reveals much more than any declaration on their level of connection. But after "Stardust Memories" Weide changes the film structure. Gone is the idea of going film-by-film, and everything seems to be rushing from there on. A glimpse on the Mia Farrow-Soon-Yi scandal, although it is remarkable Allen share a thought on that too, a very quick jump into the 90s, another one on his late "lost period", and then his unexpected success with the charming "Midnight in Paris", all mixed with opinions on his legacy, and how actors (Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, Penélope Cruz, Scarlett Johansson or Naomi Watts among others) enjoy his peculiar way of directing them. Too much in too little time, forgetting too many things...

Now I have found the film I've just seen is the cinema-release version of a PBS documentary which originally clocks at 191-minutes. That is an enormous difference in length (almost 80 minutes) which might help explaining why the second half of the film looks more disjointed and pressed. I'm sorry to say that if that's the case, well then it seems that, again, business defeated cinema. A commercial decision (reducing the film length) was prioritized instead of consistency and coherency of what potentially was a superb documentary on one of the most important directors, if you allow me to say, ever. I know that I will end watching the complete documentary sooner or later, so I'll let you know... For now, a recommendable documentary that could have been a must-see.

SCORE: 6,25/10