The Overrated Martin Scorsese

Yet again, Martin Scorsese has released a ridiculously long film (3 hours) about a miserable human being and it is an Oscar contender, highly rated by the critics, and cleaning up at the box office. I am generally baffled. I have seen many of his films and don’t understand the appeal. I have come to the conclusion that Scorsese’s signature as director is similar to Picasso’s signature on a painting; even complete crap is instantly valuable.

Taxi Driver (1976): I saw this a few years ago and was less than impressed. Our hero is a deranged taxi driver who is baffled that a pretty girl doesn’t want to go to a porno movie with him and thinks he can turn his life around by killing an aspiring politician. That plan falls through but he still wants to shoot somebody so he kills a pimp and his goons. Voila! He really is a hero who saved a young girl from prostitution. There were no characters to like in this film. But see, after he killed a bunch of people, he is a changed man. Look how calm and collected he is now.

Raging Bull (1980): This was the first Scorsese film I saw. It was in the theaters as a double feature with The Elephant Man (sheesh, two black and white films!). I was 13 and didn’t like either film. Jake LaMotta was a real jerk and I couldn’t figure why his wife endured him. This from a 13 year old kid!

The King of Comedy (1982): Here is yet another movie with De Niro as the star, this time with the unlikely name of Rupert Pupkin. Rupert thinks he’s a comic genius and has it in his head that he should get a shot on famous late night show (hosted by Jerry Lewis). To pull it off, he kidnaps Jerry. Yes, another mentally deranged character. Though supposedly a comedy, I didn’t laugh. I’ve never liked Jerry Lewis and yet he is the brightest point in this travesty.

The Color of Money (1986): I saw this when it was in theaters and have almost no recollection of it. About the only thing that I recall was Forest Whitaker hustling Paul Newman toward the end. Of course, it is a movie about pool sharks, not exactly folks of high moral character; in other words, right up Scorsese’s alley. He has a habit of glamorizing morally bankrupt people (more on that later).

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988): How did I see this movie? I must have rented it from Blockbuster back in the day when I’d rent 4 movies a week. Well, here is a telling of Christ in which Judas Iscariot proves to be a hero and Jesus skips out on the crucifixion in order to marry Mary and grow old. I like Willem Dafoe but, at this time, he was almost always a villain so casting him as Jesus was impolitic. And, despite being about Jesus, there are no likable characters. How can that be?

Goodfellas (1990): I somehow suffered through this two and a half hour glorification of really bad people. You know, I felt nothing when Pesci got whacked. He was a bad guy. Sure, he could be funny but he’s still murdering scum. Ditto for our other main characters. Am I supposed to identify with one of these thugs? Scorsese sure wants to impress me with their lifestyle. That tracking shot of getting a front table at the posh club was nothing if not impressive. See the special consideration these mobsters got? Isn’t that cool? Stuck in witness protection, Henry Hill misses the excitement of his old life. What, am I supposed to feel sorry for him?

Cape Fear (1991): Here is one I saw in the theaters as an adult, making it the first of his films that I chose to see. I thought the filming was interesting, especially when Nolte was shaving in the foreground and Lange was in the background yet both were in focus. That was cool and the first I had seen of that sort of thing. However, as usual, I didn’t like any of the characters. This was Juliette Lewis’s big break and I was not at all impressed. How is it she had a long career?

The Age of Innocence (1993): Oh, the tedium! Every setting has to be lovingly explained by narration, pointing out the table settings and the tablecloth and the who’s who stuff. It is like lives of the rich and famous in the late 19th century. Worse, our characters are all so staid and proper that seldom does emotion actually leak through the façade. The characters are so stolid and the setting so sterile that it is near impossible to feel anything for any of these characters.

Bringing out the Dead (1999): Dreary and bleak, this movie was hard to watch. Nick Cage plays a depressed emergency medical tech who goes from one disaster to the next, hallucinating on the way. Gee, why am I watching this? Grim and unrewarding. Oh, but he does manage to fall asleep at the end.

Gangs of New York (2002): OMG, it’s still going! When the movie started, I was interested. And when it came to the big finale where DiCaprio is going to knife Day-Lewis, I was still there. And then he failed. And Day-Lewis let him live. And the movie just kept going. And going. Come on, already! At 167 minutes, the movie is just too long. And yet again, all the characters are thugs and villains. Should I root for the bad guy or the bad guy? Roger Ebert once said a good movie can never be too long and a bad one can never be short enough. Most directors try handing in a final film that is near three hours and the studio will demand huge cuts. Not Scorsese. And it doesn’t benefit the narrative for the films to be so damned long.

The Aviator (2004): This film was so enthralling that I never finished it. I watched about half of it then lost interest. Cate Blanchet made a good Kathryn Hepburn. As far as Hughes, I tired of him and changed channels. Here is one of the great achievers of the 20th Century, a man who broke airspeed records, who designed aircraft, who made blockbuster films, who was a successful businessman, a philanthropist, and yet the biopic bored me. Also, as usual, I didn’t like anyone. Why is it I don’t like any characters in a Scorsese film? How does he pull that off, film after film?

Shutter Island (2010): Though I didn’t have a heads up or read any spoilers, I knew the twist to this film in the first five minutes. In fact, I knew he was the man he was looking for when he looked in the mirror with his freshly washed face. I was sitting in the theater trying to figure out if Teddy Daniels could be rearranged to spell Andrew Laeddis. Of course, it didn’t work because his name is Edward Daniels; used Teddy to throw me. Again, the film is way too long, the setting is filled with paranoia (it is a mental hospital), and everyone is under suspicion. When the big secret is revealed, I was nonplussed. Oh, look, another nutbag for our main character. Gee, you’ve never tried that before. Sigh.

Hugo (2011): This was generally interesting and entertaining though overly slow and, in the end, infuriating. We follow young Hugo, an orphan who finds himself winding clocks in a Parisian train station and trying to avoid the comically bumbling policeman and his dog. During this, he attempts to unwrap a riddle with a little mechanical toy his father left him. Slowly we discover that a humble shopkeeper in the train station is Georges Melies, an early pioneer in film. Suddenly, the film becomes a paean to Georges Melies! Huh? I first learned of Georges Melies in From the Earth to the Moon (HBO Series) and was truly impressed by his achievement. Clearly, Scorsese shares my feelings. However, why not just make a film about Georges Melies rather than this meandering mess that concludes with a thumbnail sketch of the great filmmaker? I suppose this is one of his least bad movies since I liked Hugo well enough.

The average length of a Scorsese film is 133 minutes, he often tells stories about the mentally deranged or criminals, and doesn’t do an effective job of creating empathy for them. Clearly, I am in a minority on this. What amazes me about Scorsese is that I don’t like any of his films. I generally dislike Jim Jarmsch films (Limits of Control was tedious and Dead Man was unwatchable) but I really like Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai. The same goes for several other directors but not Scorsese. Somehow, I dislike all his movies, at least the ones I’ve seen.

What do you think? Am I totally wrong? If so, please explain.