"Scorsese Stuns Cannes with 20-Minute 'Gangs' Viewing " (1 Viewer)

[Ike]

Scorsese is one of a large handful of directors who've not been honored by the academy. Who cares? Other American directors who have not won for their directing:
Alfred Hitchcock
David Lynch
Robert Altman
Stanley Kubrick
John Cassavetes
Jim Jarmusch

The Academy is not a judge of true quality, but a fashion show for casual movie fans.

 

[Luc D]

I actually hopes he never wins it. He's better than the Academy who's notorious for missing the point when it comes to film as an art. Hitchcock, Kubrick, and Altman were ahead of the game, ahead of the audience. It's the same with Scorsese. His films are generally too rich and complex to fully appreciate with one viewing. His films get better with time. If Gangs of New York does win Best Picture, then he's probably done something wrong.

 

[Holadem]

The Academy is not a judge of true quality, but a fashion show for casual movie fans.

Yet come next fall, you and hundred of the "Academy sucks" crowd will be betting on nominations and offering predictions, only to go back to bashing the Academy once your favorite movie doesn't make it :rolleyes.
--
Holadem - casual movie fan.

 

[Ike]

Yet come next fall, you and hundred of the "Academy sucks" crowd will be betting on nominations and offering predictions, only to go back to bashing the Academy once your favorite movie doesn't make it :rolleyes.

Really? I offer you to show me one Oscar prediction I made. I watched 10 minutes from the last ceremony before turning it off. Just because you like it doesn't mean I do.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

I actually did not watch it either. Just read about the winners the next day in the newspaper.

 

[Luc D]

Not sure if this was posted already, but this appears to be the new preview:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/mirama.../trailer2.html

 

[oscar_merkx]

here is the link of Link Removed that has pics of the lim press book

 

[Anthony Thorne]

Miramax apparently won't live or die on the blockbuster success of GANGS. Weinstein mentioned in a recent interview that they had already done pre-sale deals with a lot of foreign territories, and if the movie made more than $40 or $50 million theatrically in the States, they'd break even. Granted, some of these pre-sale deals might have been initiated in an attempt to shield Miramax from any heavy losses in case GANGS did tank, (and it means Miramax won't make quite as much from the film if it's a huge hit internationally) but it does mean that Scorsese, Weinstein and co. can already be fairly comfortable about the film at this point. Of course, if GANGS does turn out to be a blockbuster in the States, Miramax will make some big profits...

 

[ShawnCoghill]

ITs Scorsese ,He has a BIG part of Control over this film,if he wants it R it will be. For craps sake This is Scorsese ,you dont tell Scorsese to turn his film into PG-13,if he dont want to.The Weinsteins know that,and they WILL NOT PUSH IT AT ALL,,Bob and Harvey want money,but We all know if people think it is a possible AA winner,they wont try and make him do anything to hurt that,The best possible situation is Big money and big Wins.But they will take either if they cant have both.

 

[Anthony Thorne]

Well... Scorsese had limited say on the release of KUNDUN and was unhappy with how it was marketed, he had to cut CASINO to get the R-rating, and he reportedly only became satisfied with the current length of GANGS after 'repeated' discussions with Harvey Weinstein changed his mind from preferring a slightly longer length. I don't doubt that Scorsese is now happy with the movie as it stands, but I have a suspicion that if Weinstein had wanted a 4-hour cut, Scorsese wouldn't have been conversely arguing for the shorter length. Anyway, however the decision was finally nutted out, they both seem to be in agreement now. Let's hope the final product enthuses audiences as much as it currently seems to enthuse them. I'm quite curious to see the finished movie.

 

[JonZ]

Isnt this film now a year and a 1/2 late? Seems like its been delayed forever.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Well I was defending the Oscars, they are actually a pretty good judge but as a contest that is also based "in the moment" you are going to have people left out that are deserving, especially upon reflection.

Remember that Hitch films were seen as popular cinema at the time, and this was by the "elitist bastards" of the time just like us who think the Oscars reflect mainstream crap (well, I don't think this).

2001 and Citizen Kane both left MANY reviewers (film snobs) turning up their noses at the time.

The problems with the Oscar winners reflects more the changes in film appreciations over the years, the difficulty in comparing performances, etc. Not to mention TIMING of the competition and social mood at the time.

But I dispute that they just march out crap for the masses. The masses DIDN'T love American Beauty and WOULD have handed Hitch plenty of Oscars for his popular films.

Raging had Ordinary People to go up against. Plenty of people were put off by the film being just a swear-laden violence celebration. Ordinary People did go for deep emotional issues and was well-regarded at the time. The masses would have given it to Empire Strikes Back, the snobs gave it to Ordinary People. Who was left to back Bull? That is a case of tough competition and a change in views of the 2 films. Me, I would have gone with ESB (not nominated), but it would be close.

Taxi Driver did lose to the popular choice, Rocky, but the film was both popular AND critically praised. Choosing it appealed to all fronts, while Taxi Driver's dark themes alienated many viewers. The awards must take in to account ALL tastes. BTW, Network and All the President's Men were pretty tough competition too. Perhaps they split some votes. Both films stood the test of time, as did Rocky. Network won the Golden Globe and I can certainly see the point that it is the better film. I call it pretty close, but I love TD and would have picked it. Hardly a crime here though. Rocky is neither retarded, a hooker, or boring. In fact, by that complaint you would have to say that Raging Bull is MORE of a Oscar darling with its disfunctional family than Rocky's.

Keep in mind it also lost the BAFTA too One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest which is very reasonable indeed.

Color of Money over Platoon. Come on.

Last Temptation, well this just really alienated too many people. Again the snobs are angered with Rain Man winning (though I think the film is great but prefer Cruise over Hoffman for acting effort). But Accidental Tourist, Mississippi Burning, Working Girl and Dangerous Liasons are all pretty solid. Rain Man, like Rocky, was well reviewed AND made a ton of money.

Goodfellas losing to Dances with Wolves is tough, though I agreed at the time. I love both and consider this a tough call. I suspect that had Goodfellas won then we would be talking about how DWW is underappreciated and "what's the big deal" with Goodfellas, simply because people slag DWW in ways that I just don't get. It seems to be total backlash at times.

I guess DWW is supposed to fall into the "boring" catagory?? I didn't get that from this film and still love it as a beautiful film. Also note that Grifters and Awakenings got dissed, yet I thought mental problems and hookers (or similar to that) were "Oscar gold". Hmmm.

Cape Fear over Silence of the Lambs, again come on.

Age of Innocence. Well this just proves the whole hooker, retarded or BORING theory wrong. Not that I'm saying it's boring, but it falls into the talky, period piece catagory that is supposed to win, right? Well hello Schindler's List. I'm sure now you will add yet another catagory to the "Oscar gold" theory...hookers, retarded, boring, or jewish...oh and popular, except when another film is so boring that it beats out the popularity. Good theory, keep adding and it will be foolproof till the next Oscars. Did I mention killing people in Rome as the new addition to the theory.

BTW, it was also up against Remains of the Day, The Piano, The Fugitive, What's Love Got to Do with It and Philadelphia. Tough year to compete for an award.

Casino, don't get me started. A rather poor rework of a subject he already covered. I appreciate it for the things he explored here (he has discussed Ford going back to the same actor - Wayne - subject, setting to look at things differently), but it was no Oscar winner.

Bringing Out the Dead I really like but it wasn't all that well-received. I have no problem with AB winning (as i mentioned) but might have leaned toward the Insider. I would easily hand either the award over Dead.

So maybe the weakest year was Temptation, but that film was so pushed to the outside that there was no way it was going to win. Not to mention that it is more "boring" than Rain Man...oh, I forgot the theory. Hookers, retards, boring, jewish, popular, but not if there is a film that is more BORING than it is popular. So I guess that tells me that Temptation wasn't boring enough.

I know we didn't want to go down this alley, but I get sick of Oscar bashing. I think it sucks that Martin has never won, but sometimes you gain greatness by bringing it again and again. Winning an Oscar is worth something to me, but I would say that being nominated or having parts of your films (acting, etc) nominated again and again is a BIGGER indicator of greatness.

The Academy HAS nominated Scorsese and his films many times. If we discount their taste does that also discount those nominations as being crap too?

He's either getting a lifer, or he will win for some "undeserving" film down the line as a makeup vote. Then we can bash the Academy for GIVING him an award after bashing them for NOT GIVING him an award. How ironic.

 

[Andrew_Sch]

Seth, I agree with Dome (I think it was Dome who said this originally). You really need to say something just ONCE to make us all feel better about ourselves.

 

[Eric F]

This decade's Heaven's Gate or Scorsese's new masterpeice?

Will it even make it out this year?

Ah, nevermind. I posted this as a new topic and I didn't notice this one. At any rate you get the idea.

 

[oscar_merkx]

most likely it will be a masterpiece

 

[DerrickRemmert]

The masses DIDN'T love American Beauty

Well, it made 130 million at the boxoffice. The masses must have found something to like about it. How many times has the Oscar been awarded to a boxoffice flop?

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

How many times has the Oscar been awarded to a boxoffice flop?

Addressing only the question at hand, that depends on what your definition of a box offfice flop. If $100M is your benchmark then a few films come to mind including The English Patient, Braveheart, The Last Emperor ($40M), Amadeus and Chariots of Fire.

~Edwin