hurrah! liz penn returns. my gut-feeling to avoid The Aviator seems to be supported by the slog you report slogging through.
(oh, take note of typo "huge group EFFORT....") I think your mom has the right idea. link us up, lizzy.

Yes, sadly you are right about Scorsese. This DiCaprio alliance he's formed is quite disturbing. I never saw Gangs of New York because I simply can never believe any roll that DiCaprio attempts to play. Catch Me if you Can was probably him at his most believeable--a seventeen year old chronic liar. When I first saw the trailer for The Aviator, I scoffed and moaned, and then when the annoucer said "by Martin Scorses" I choked back the tears. I used to be excited when he released films. Now... well at least I can always watch his older moives on DVD.

And I guess I am alone in my love of "Brining Out the Dead." Perhaps it was opponent process that shaded my opinion, because all my friends told me it was horrible, but that movie really worked for me.

I think it's sad that you will let this dullard prevent you from seeing a very well made film. Aviator was very good, and very ambitious. Dicaprio was excellent in the role, and held his own throughout.

How sad to see jaded morons like you knocking a movie you haven't even seen. You sit there from your bully pulpit and throw empty gestures of witless criticisms. How do you know what a good film is? How the hell would you even tell? You think you're intelligent, but your ignorance of film and media is painful to read. Please stay home and watch tv, because obviously you are too much of an add ridled viewer who can't sit still for more than five minutes to pay attention.

Wow, Seth, you have me pegged. All of my artistic shortcomings seem to be indexed and at your fingertips. It's amazing that you could deduce everything about my tastes from just a few sentences I wrote about some overrated actor and a once-great director. So I'm taking your advice and will buy a Tivo first thing in the morning.

You know, you could have just defended the movie and explained why it should be seen, but no, you went straight ad hominem. What does your great insight tell you about someone who needs to berate the tastes of others just for some superiority fix? And, yes I realize that by claiming you need a superiority fix I am extrapolating as much as you did of me--based on as little information--but, what the hell, right? It's the Internet, and anonymity breeds assholes.

Oh crap! I realized I just called it a "movie" and not a "film"! Please don't tell anyone I'm not as sophisticated as you!

There is one thing you said that I do agree with... Liz you are such a dullard.

Speaking of this Scorcese-DiCaprio alliance (and to veer off on a slight tangent), what have you, Liz, to say about the to-be-released-in-2006 The Departed, the American remake of the excellent Infernal Affairs, which has this not-so-dynamic duo at the helm? IMHO, it's blatant plagiarism and why remake a well made, contemporary film with an all-American cast (read:White)? Because 80 percent of America cannot be bothered with subtitles and thus, Scorsese stands to make a quick buck without the effort of thinking up his own ideas? Why indeed is Mr. Scorsese making movies?

You asked a question, "Why was The Aviator made?" and I'll do my humble best to try and come up with an adequate answer.

I genuinely believe that Scorsese feels a great deal of empathy for this man. Both are ambitious, driven men who are focussed (perhaps too much) on details. The Scorsese movie that _The Aviator_ most resembles is _Casino_, also about the rise and fall of a control freak. They also both share a scene where the protagonist is rescued from a fiery wreck and a line is said which serves as the keystone of the film (in _Casino_, "Mister, you sure are lucky", in _The Aviator_, "I'm Howard Highes, the aviator!").

_The Aviator_ is a tragedy, without any of the oomph of loss one expects. For a story about a man whose character is eventually distorted by madness, it's necessary to have a strong sense of the hero in the first place - but that's where the story is lacking (after reading several Hughes biographies and seeing this movie, I still can't figure out why Hepburn and Hughes were together for so long). So many of Scorsese's strongest movies have dealt with characters (from Travis Bickle to Jake LaMotta) who are in many ways deeply unsympathetic, yet who the audience eventually sympathizes with. To pick one aspect, the racism of these characters was more honestly and openly dealt with than in most other movies - a striking contrast to the removal of the unsympathetic elements in _Gangs of New York_ (the burning of the black orphanage in the draft riots) and _The Aviator_ (Hughes was just a straight-up bigot - his outraged letter about seeing James Earl Jones and Jane Alexander kiss on TV is funny, funny stuff).

Given that the part he's playing has been streamlined into a conventional hero mold, I think DeCaprio does good work. The scenes I most vividly remember are him limping after his meeting with Senator Brewster and the multiple readings of "The way of the future" - pathological, prescient, tragic, resigned.

If anyone can tell me where I can find a "Toccata and Fugue" done with strings (like they have in the movie), I'd appreciate it. No, it's not on the soundtrack.

Good work on the Carson eulogies.

Liz, I agree it's not first-class Scorsese (and nothing has been for awhile) and I'm pretty much with you most of the way on the film.

However, I saw it before Christmas. If you had posted this review earlier we could have mutually bitched about it with fresh memories.

But what the hey; I, too, am a firm believer in sticking with work that pays bills.

Thankfully, I have a back-up system, in that I put down my little thoughts elsewhere and I reproduce them here:

The Aviator pulled off something astounding for a Scorsese film. It was the first movie I've ever seen by him where I spent half of it going "Who fucking cares?" I never thought that about Travis Bickle or Jake LaMotta or Rupert Pupkin or Henry Hill; these characters and their lives engage you immediately. Howard Hughes, on the other hand, is little more than just this bundle of obsessive/compulsive tics. I thought, "What is this? The Early Life of a Guy We All Know was Pretty Weird to Begin With?" It had no purpose. The movie was brilliantly shot and all that, but Scorsese didn't seem to know what he was doing or what he was trying to say.

Thankfully, he figured it out in the last hour, at which point it becomes

-- and this, Liz, is my answer to the "What's all about, Marty?" question --

a very powerful story of a guy who was a dreamer and a visionary who had the enormous courage to face down his accusers in a very public forum -- one of the rare moments in his life when he conquered the personal demons that would eventually win in the end. And DiCaprio, Alda, and Baldwin are all brilliant. But up until then the movie just blows.

P.S. Am I alone in thinking that the recent news of a projected Taxi Driver sequel is the worst idea imaginable?

me no understand. me no read good.

Is there anything that touches Goodfellas? He virtually creates a cinematic language with that film, to paraphrase Pauline Kael. It was on cable last night and as much due credit Raging Bull gets, nothing touches the utter mastery of Goodfellas. I'll keep giving him a pass with movies like the Aviator and Gangs of New York because when you've climbed the mountain as many times as he has it's borderline impossible to re-invent the form again.

dear liz,
don't let those guys hurt your feelings, you're not a dullard!

I personally would love to see a _Taxi Driver_ sequel. How funny! Julia Roberts, Paul Giamatti?
Mark

Frankly, I enjoyed "The Aviator".

It was an above average piece of Oscar baiting, in my opinion. As another comment touched upon, it shared a theme with Goodfellas. That being the spiritual cost of worldly success. Scorsese has dealt with those issues in his own life (cocaine addiction, I believe). It is natural that he returns to stories that feature characters under stress that have bad stress management techniques. Maybe it is just me, but watching a film about a control freak with addiction issues made by a control freak with addiction issues is almost always interesting to me.

The big flaw was less in the purpose of the film (or even the pacing which was at minimum much better than Gangs of New York), but with the odd sexlessness of the movie. Hughes was fixed upon both hygeine and sex. We have lots of scenes showing his obsessive cleaning and more than a few about the effect of his sexual behavior on his personal life, but we get no sense at all of his inner life as fetishist. Like "Chaplin", I was left wondering why you would even bother raising the issue and then being so demure about it.

Better to leave the perverse parts of his sex life out all together, rather than divert from the main story just long enough to show you are aware of it.

The waiting killed it for me.

I was waiting for something to happen- for Scorsese to reveal something about Howard Hughes that would speak to- well, anything. God knows Di Caprio wasn't about to pull something surprising out of this character like Ray Liotta in Goodfellas (with a different lead, it wouldn't have been nearly as good a film). It just boggles my mind that they couldn't do more with the world in which Hughes' progressively enclosed himself. We rarely get a chance to see the world through Hughes' eyes- the women who came in and out of his life were visions of beauty to us, what did they look like to Hughes? Did every women eventually come to rememble his mother, as the opening scene might suggest? I didn't find myself really understanding or caring about the person behind the cariacture of Howard Hughes that we're all familiar with.

The one performance that did stay with me was Alan Alda as Senator Owen Brewster. His reaction when Hughes accuses him of creating a monopoly just made me cringe...who knew he could play so evil?

I hope it's clear that I was joking about the dullard thing. I just found it so hillariously weak of an insult from Seth that it couldn't go by uncommented upon.

addendum:

To offer an answer to the question Liz raised as to why Scorsese made The Aviator, I can only suggest that he is crying for help- maybe we can figure out what he wanted to do with this character.

I think what's missing from this film is the question every great film maker dares to ask when making a film, especially one about such a controversial figure from history. We're not asked to weigh some truth the artist dares to raise- just sit back and enjoy the scenery. I don't think fans of Scorsese are used to this.

no offense taken, jeff. and sean, i agree that goodfellas is a terrific movie. i'm not trying to be down on marty for the hell of it; i just think he's been underachieving these past few (OK, ten) years.

hey, anybody here watch CSI (the original)? i know sherm is a fan. i'm working on a piece for slate about the mysterious appeal of william petersen's character, gil grissom. any thoughts, research suggestions, etc.? he is strangely fascinating and i haven't yet gotten to the bottom of why.

Thanks for the Vidal essay. How about that last paragraph? Strangely comforting to know that the USA (not to mention Vidal's criticism of it) is as it was.

THE AVIATOR'S garbage, of course. Elsewhere Gore Vidal has called movie directors "bright technicians" (generously) and "huckster-plagirists" (less so). The brush might be a bit broad there, but if any director deserves such treatment, its Scorcese. If Edith Wharton or Paul Schraeder writes the story, the movie is OK. When John Logan writes the story, well, then, we get THE AVIATOR.

kid blast, you so crazy. i always appreciate your comments, but i take exception to the idea that film directors are mere hacks and that a film is defined primarily by who wrote it. edith wharton provided the story (and the huge, endless, mind-numbing swaths of voiceover narration by joanne woodward) of 'the age of innocence,' and it still managed to blow big-time. i don't think a movie can (usually) be great w/o a great script, but the reverse can certainly happen -- a movie can have a great script and still not be great. directors do something, and something very important, however overblown the auteur theory may be in its excesses.

i haven't actually read the end of vidal's essay on hughes, because the only place i could find it (the nyrb) was a paid site that only gave the first couple of grafs. anyone know where to find the whole thing online?

Kid Blast: All praise and honor to Paul Schrader, who made one of my own favorite movies, Cat People. But I don't, on the other hand, think that highly of his script for Taxi Driver. It raises that old question of whether the script is the most important element of a movie, because I could easily see it being very mediocre if it were made by anyone but Scorsese or starring someone besides Robert deNiro at his most volcanic. It's a great film, but it's great because of the director and the star.

schrader is an incredible screenwriter. there's a movie he both wrote and directed called 'light sleeper', with willem dafoe as a drug runner in 80s new york, that i always think should be better known than it is. but it's kind of one of those examples where the direction doesn't live up to the script -- great characters, great mood, but somehow if doesn't completely come together.

i haven't seen taxi driver in a really long time. should watch it again and see if it still holds up. i'm just never in the mood to revisit something that emotionally harrowing - same w/ raging bull.

meanwhile ... anyone have a thought on gil grissom?

Yeah, that was my opinion on Scorsese as well. My first really big let down was Casino. I went into it thinking, "Cool this'll be just like Goodfellas" and I left thinking "Shit that was just like Goodfellas." I really did like Bringing out the Dead, it had kind of a fairy tale quality that I didn't expect and it just clicked for me. But I'm fairly alone in liking it, I know.

A few friends and I watched Taxi Driver and Raging Bull last summer. I think Taxi driver holds up a bit better because for some reason Travis is more likable than Jake. Well, maybe "watchable" is better word than "likable". Though Raging bull has some better sequences, like the fight montage. The best of last summer's marathon was Mean Streets, but maybe it was because I have seen it a lot less than the other two, so I actually didn't remember a lot of it.

As for Gus Grissom, for starters, he's got a great character name. What's it called when the first letters of both words are the same? I had a professor who used to use the word all the time, but I can't remember it now. Anyway, "Gus" is just a down home name--that no one his age really has--and it harkens back to an America that's a bit fresher smelling than the one we inhabit. It's one syllable and not short for anything I can think of. It's the kind of name that a sidekick should have, but since he carrys the show, it makes him OUR sidekick. American longs for a good sidekick. And "Grissom" just flows from Gus, because of the first letter thing that I can't remember the word for.

As for the character, I don't know, I never watch the show, but my parents always seem to be watching it on their replay TV, so there's certainly something to it.

Aw shit, it's Gil, not Gus, that changes everything.

Hey Everyone, this is my first post so go easy on me! I've been lurking for awhile but decided it was time to step lightly into the fray.

It's funny you mention Gill...I've wondered the same thing. I read an article about Peterson (Esquire?) where he TRASHES the other CSI's to no end and will more-than-likely NOT renew his contract with CBS.

That being said...I think people enjoy him so much is because he is a total geek while being slightly mysterious at the same time, if that makes any sense. Men perhaps like him because he is ALWAYS the smartest person in the room (and doesn't need to tell everyone that fact) and women because...hmm...ah...er...maybe the mysterious part?

In addition he manages to make the Crime Lab (perhaps it's JB's influence that does that?) look like it was the hidden room at the Bat Cave with the dark lighting and cool toys.

And it probably helps that he gets to work Catherine (Marg) everyday!!

Oh, and Gus Grissom was a 'pilot' (as referenced in 'The Right Stuff')

I'll be seeing the Aviator this weekend!

THANKS!

I think Grissom is an endearing character because in the family structure of CSI, he comes across as the well-intentioned father who can't fully express himself. With his battle with blindness and a dating history that makes me look like George Clooney, he lets his vulnerability fly; he's a workaholic who's great understanding of, well, everything doesn't quite translate to his average existenc. Peterson is an amazing performer, who can't play anything without huge chunks of complexity and like James Garner and James Gandolfini, he's a brilliant performer who was lost in the character parts offered him in films and found his defining role on television.

But I think the reason he's so well-liked is the same reason people really like the show: he's all business. He's unsentimental and uncompromising; a man who wears his obsessions proudly. He's not a neurotic mess like Monk or D'Onfrio(sp) character on Criminal Intent. All successful fictional crimefighters reflect a hope that the sudience has as to how a hero who should be and how they hope heroes really are. He's Batman without the suit and the millions of dollars. The audience wants to think that there are crazy obsessesed guys who fight for good. Grissom is the best one on television right now.

Light Sleeper is very much in the same vein as American Gigolo: a guy living on the margins, trafficking in sleaze (one a male prostitute, one a pusher) gets set up for a crime and barely escapes. I didn't think much of either, although Gigolo is interesting as a period piece, and as Exhibit A in the iconography of Richard Gere.

I whole-heartedly despise Dicaprio. Ever since that "I'm the king of the world" crap in Titanic.

Gil Grissom is compelling because he is mysterious as well as smart and proffesional. His character is one of the main reasons that I enjoy CSI Vegas over any of the other spin-offs.

oops forgot to thank you for the links.

I think the great thing about Gil's that he can be so completely obsessed with death and pain and so completely removed from anything emotional.

Gus Grissom was one of the first people in space. NASA. 1960s.

Anyhoo, Liz, I didn't at all understand the appeal of The Aviator when it was released - meaning, why would we want to go see a biopic of Howard Hughes? What was there to be interested in? I pretty much assumed it was long and boring, which is why I didn't want to see it, and you have confirmed as much to me with your review (which was, as usual, intelligent and hilarious). Since I pretty much agree with everything you write (on here and Surfergirl), your opinion is good enough for me.

In any case, I agree that Scorcese has fallen off over the years. I have to disagree slightly on Age of Innocence though only because I thought Winona Ryder was brilliantly subtle in that movie, one of her best performances, and she was robbed at the Oscars by little Ms. Paquin.

But I don't dislike Leo nearly as much as you and many of your readers seem to, although I think it's only because I like his offscreen persona. I don't see his films typically, but he has, in life, become somewhat a decent, generous human being and an all around nice guy. So I can't knock him too hard. And by the by, he hated Titanic too - and all his idiotic dialogue in it. He used to complain about it during filming itself. He and his lovely and talented costar don't tend to remember the Titanic experience fondly, even if they don't quite say so directly.

Gil Grissom... couldn't tell ya. I've only watched one ep of CSI. William Petersen aint all that, though, so I really have no clue.

melissa: i'm in the midst of a gigantic csi marathon on dvd right now. still haven't pieced together the mystery of gil grissom, though to my mind, petersen kind of _is_ all that. i have no animus toward the offscreen leo, and i adore kate winslet, but there's at least one other thing you and i disagree on: that winona ryder was good in the age of innocence. more on that later. anyway, thanks for your kind words.

Sean- great analysis of Gil Grissom and William Petersen's acting chops.

I am also reminded of Thomas Magnum from, Magnum PI, as another character who, while projecting an aura of cool professionalism about his job, nonetheless had to confront and find a way to live with his demons- noteably women and the Vietman war. I would give props to Tom Selleck for his very nuanced performance. I also feel it was wise of the show's creators to set it in Hawaii where - much like the Las Vegas of CSI - there is a lot of darkness underneath all of the glamour.

I might also read (or re-read) Thomas Harris', Red Dragon, to gain some more insight in to the character of Gil Grissom. As you may know, Petersen was in the Orignial screen adaptation. I have a feeling that the creators of CSI may have been inspired by the book as well as Petersen's turn as there are many similarities. In a nutshell, Will Graham's conflict is that he sees much of the depravity of the criminals he pursues within himself. In order to catch the evildoers, he must find ways to 'safely' tap in to his own evilness- fulfilling the oft-cited quote by Friedrich Nietzsche

Battle not with monsters
lest ye become a monster
and if you gaze into the abyss
the abyss gazes into you.

Gil Grissom: Come on folks, it's that too-clean, vaguely unsettling beard. It's oddly fascinating. He's quite simply creepy as hell.

Gus Grissom was NASA's first high-profile casualty. Died in a very bad launching pad accident. NASA's first real crisis of confidence followed. Still some bad blood/unresolved issues, apparently. Who was at fault, etc...

Vidal's comments re film directors stem from his own experience in Hollywood in the '50s, before the rise of the director/auteur. "The inmates are running the asylum" he quotes an old school producer (nicknamed "The Wise Hack") as saying in the early '70s. Vidal's nostalgia for the studio system is not unlike his nostalgia for the USA's vanished Republic- quaint. That said, his comments fit Scorcese well. Without a strong script that severely curtails his penchant for technical trickery and visual clutter, as well as streamlines his (lets be charitable) idiosyncratic sense of tempo, Scorcese movies are a chore to watch. That the best- TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, THE AGE OF INNOCENCE- started w/ strong writing, isn't a surprise.

Thomas Magnum and Freidrich Neitzsche in consecutive comments...this place is great.

Thanks, kid blast, I knew I knew the name Gus Grissom from somewhere.

But actually, the controversy was about his landing during his Mercury mission. Some thought he blew his hatch too soon, and therefore, lost the capsule, though he was rescued. The official ruling was that he was not to blame, but not everyone believed that. He died in '67 while testing equipment in the Apollo capsule. It was mechanical error when a switch sparked a fire in the pure oxygen environment killing him and his two crew. The only controversy about his death is from those who believe the whole Apollo program was faked. Had he not died, he most likely would have been on the first mission to the moon.

Great review. The Aviator had moments, especially when Blanchett was on screen, but the thing that shocked me most was how unScorsese like it felt. Up until the plane crash, if someone had run out and screamed "OH SHIT! WE SCREWED UP! IT'S A SPIELBERG FILM! SORRY!" I would've believed them. Stylistically, it was elegant, but nothing more. Entirely missing was Scorsese's usual manic edge.

And did any character besides Hughes and Hepburn have ANY depth? John C. Reilly could've been replaced by a quarter-lever machine that just says "Sorry, bud, you're out of money on _______ project."

Honestly, even though Gangs of New York had some serious flaws, I thought it was a better movie, and certainly closer to what I want from Scorsese, than this high flying claptrap of a movie.

Gil Grissom is understated- something badly needed in primetime on network (ne, all of) television. But he's not as understated as the late great Lennie Briscoe. And so in his memory I will continue to prefer L&O.

Now, onto Chris Noth's reunion with Dick Wolf....

Basically, he's great because of To Live and Die in L.A.

For whatever reason, I always get him confused with Jeremy Piven. Piven seems like a young Petersen... they have such similar tendencies. Sure, Piven is a little wilder and more comic, but they're both wiry, electric dudes who aren't scenery-chewers but still manage to be incredibly captivating in almost any role.

did you see the new york times piece about jerry orbach's pinochle club continuing to meet w/o him, with his mets pennant on the wall behind them? i miss him too. but gil's a whole different piece of work, a fascinatingly sick puppy to lennie's salt of the earth.

the gil grissom piece finally went up on slate, just in case any high-signers are interested:

http://www.slate.com/id/2113347/

Nice piece on Gil Grissom, Liz. I never made the Spock connection myself, but, outside of Boo Radley: Crime Scene Investigator, I think Spock's a pretty logical choice for a proto-Grissom.

I definitley wouldn't add Lenny Briscoe to that class. He's obviously channeling Billy Flynn for some of his finer Law & Order moments- my favorite being when he sank every ball on the pool table while questioning a witness, then handed him his stick.

Jeff... the word is...
al·lit·er·a·tion: The repetition of the same sounds or of the same kinds of sounds at the beginning of words or in stressed syllables, as in "on scrolls of silver snowy sentences" (Hart Crane). Modern alliteration is predominantly consonantal; certain literary traditions, such as Old English verse, also alliterate using vowel sounds.

Marty+Leo=duh
com'on, Marty, all that money for the craps like Gang's and Aviator?
Leo is better off with other roles,
he is no bobby, who lucked out with a cab and a bull, don't get me wrong, i like leo and watch everything he's in, but the dear boy has limitted range, exactly the way Liz described.

Am I the only one who hated the old Scorsese? The director who never met a bludgeoning he didn't like? Really, I got tired of leaving my theatre seat during vast parts of Goodfellas and Casino. I go to the show not to be repulsed but entertained, and found The Aviator to be a terrific movie. I liked Scorsese depiction of manic compulsion and loved how DeCaprio played it .Of the current batch of young actors, couldn't think of anyone who could have played it better.

Thanks, mem, I thought it was alliteration, but my old prof always used it in reference to consonate sound and not the sylable, so I didn't know if there was another word, but no, I can still hear him droning on, usuing "alliteration" about 5 times a lecture.

And, Susan, yeah... it's just you...

hey jeff, what about assonance? or consonance? or onomatopoeia? I'm having flashbacks to 8th grade, heh.

yeah, susan, I think it is just you. I get what you're saying about old scorsese flicks and how sometimes the scenes were difficult to sit through. but those moments of violence don't need to overshadow the films as a whole. casino, in my opinion, had one of the worst violent scenes ever. ever. seeing you brother beaten to death with a bat. almost being beaten to death with one yourself and then being buried alive... yeah, that's about as bad as it gets. but you know it was realistic for the characters, and appropriate for the film and its subject matter. if you have a hard time processing those kind of scenes, well, then I guess you just have to chalk it up to your own preference rather than the lack of talent of the filmmaker. some of scorcese's old stuff may be intensely violent, but it belongs.

hey liz, not long ago I read your better late than never, m-f review of "Fergie's" debut on the late show (I miss stuff so I always end up reading archived articles). HILARIOUS stuff. gave it to my husband as an example of why I read you.

later-

The violence in Casino did get pretty gratuitous though. (The guy with his head in the vice, for example.) Saying "hey, these are violent people" will only take you so far; it reached a point of excess.

Of course, this is all very subjective, as I had zero problems with the violence in Raging Bull or Taxi Driver or Goodfellas. I just think that by the time Scorsese reached Casino a lot of the blood-letting had begun to look like something of a Scorsese cliche.

Rodney, I think you're right on in your critique of Casino and Scorsese would agree with you. I think Casino is his last word on the screen violence that he innovated. The final murder of Joe Pesci's character and the brother is perhaps the most harrowing view of violence in any of his films. It's almost Pasolini-like in the way it seeks to torture the audience. To be forced to watch a moved one's murder and that Scorsese does not flinch from it at all. When I saw it in the theater, the audible gasps were astounding. Gangs... is also violent but Scorsese seems to be working from a more traditional palate of screen violence, more John Sturges that I Spit on Your Grave. I don't think you can immerse yourself in that darkness for so long. It may behoove Scorsese, the man, to move from those visions. The jury is still out if this is this is best for his art.

i think i agree with rodney that what made sense in the earlier films felt gratuitous in casino. that joe pesci death scene was brutal and harrowing, but i remember resenting it even as i cringed at it, because it felt unearned by the movie, which had zero character development or story construction. the narrative laziness of casino drove me absolutely crazy -- the way we knew, say, that a character was an unstable psychopath with a mother complex was that another character would chime in helpfully in a voiceover declaring, "mr. x. was an unstable psychopath with a mother complex." pesci's live burial and sharon stone's pucci pantsuits are the only things i remember about the movie.

hey melissa, i'm so glad you liked the craig ferguson marathon piece! by the end of that week, i felt like no one was following it anymore, but it was a journey of obsession that had to be seen through to the bitter end. i was surprised (and impressed) that slate would let me do something that weird.

I'll disagree with the Spilotro death in _Casino_ being too gratuitous - I think it is very difficult to watch, but must be in order for it to be truly effective.

So many violent scenes of Scorsese provide a frisson or at worst, a catharsis, where none is intended (chief example, _Taxi Driver_). Here we have one of the most repugnant characters in the film, a wife beating, torturing, murdering simpleton, the audience perhaps expecting some satisfaction when his life is snuffed out. Instead, we are repelled by the beating itself, forced to see how difficult it is to kill a man, as Hitchcock showed in _Torn Curtain_. The audience cannot take any satisfaction from the power of the mob (as you can in the killings at the end of _The Godfather_). The sound of a bat against the skin, a bloody pile of skin pleading for the life of his brother, these keep us from any facile emotional response.

On another note, I see a lot of posts which mark Scrosese's decline as taking place with _Age of Innocence_. Does anyone else here like _Kundun_?

I enjoyed it a great deal, especially the ending, the unconventional story, and (despite mixed feelings about a lot of his work) the Philip Glass score. In general, I find Scorsese's spiritual pictures tend to be overlooked, and look forward to his adaptation of _Silence_.

Kundun is a fine film although it feels like a King of Comedy-type minor work. What am I talking about, King of Comedy rocks, there's nothing minor about it. But you may know what I mean, there are Scorsese films that don't feel like his films. King of Comedy, After Hours, Color of Money - these are all solid films and a case could be made for King of Comedy being his greatest misunderstood work, but they are films that don't really feel like his. They are films that are showcase a change in tone or are transitional works. I'd put Kundun and Bringing Out The Dead in this category. Denisov, Liz, Rodney(or anyone that would like to take part), what are your personal favorite Scorsese films that aren't the usually considered masterworks?

I actually *like* Gangs Of New York---the DiCaprio stuff is blah, mostly because of DiCaprio himself, but if you treat it as a movie about the power struggles of Bill and Boss Tweed, it becomes a really interesting movie about how authority is created and established. In general, actually, the thematic wholeness of Gangs saves it, for me, from the blandness of Leo 'n' whatsername.

The Aviator, though, has exactly the problem you describe---we never really understand what's important about Hughes. If anything, I sense studio meddling---I suspect Scorcese originally planned for a much less sympathetic Hughes, closer to the monster protagonists of his classic movies, and was bullied by Harvey (of whom he was asking, admittedly, a whole buncha money) into forcing it into a little-guys-triumph.

Of course, that's a risible reading of Hughes---I find it fascinating that one of the most memorable moments of the film, the dinner at Katherine's house, has the falsest line of the movie:
"We don't care about money"
"Well that's 'cause you've always had it."
But of course, Hughes money was just as inherited. I think this is a revealing mistake---there seem to be multiple movies jostling for position here, and none of 'em got fully made.

It's a shame, really---I think with some judicious editing and a little reshooting, The Aviator could be a really enjoyable and interesting 90 minute movie about this crazy businessman loosed on golden-age Hollywood. Phantom Edit time, anyone?

I'm also a fan of Gangs. While it's not perfect, Bill has such an incredible magneticism - as much to Lewis's credit as Scorsese's - and the technical excellence on the film is pretty jaw-dropping. With such a detailed, large-scale set, the world that was created was incredibly convincing, making the period part of the film one of the most interesting I've seen.

I should probably try to watch Gangs again. I was fighting sleep all the way through it, and I'm not sure that was the movie's fault.

Sean,

Among lesser Scorsese, I think I most prefer After Hours. I think that was the last purely entertaining film Scorsese made, and that whole "one damn thing after another" type of story is one of my favorites.

i agree that after hours' shaggy-dog structure is very appealing (and i love griffin dunne as an actor -- what happened to him?). i don't know that i'd call king of comedy a "minor" scorsese film in any sense -- it was pretty well-regarded when it came out, wasn't it? jerry lewis is great in it, and the unbearable rupert pupkin is one of deniro's best inventions. i'm embarrassed to say i haven't really followed scorsese's career in recent years -- haven't seen kundun, bringing out the dead, or gangs of new york. i sort of hope he wins the oscar for this leo thing so that he can go back to making smaller, weirder movies and stop being such an oscar size queen.

Agreed on King of Comedy -- I think it's a major Scorsese work, and one of those movies that really taps into the whole celebrity culture. And Liz inadvertently points out something Roger Ebert said about it: there's something to be said for a movie where, years down the road, you still remember the character's name.

Liz,

You should really see Bringing out the Dead. The reason I liked it is it was a smaller, weirder movie than Scorsese had been doing. With the exception of my two smartest friends (we all saw it together and loved it), all the rest hated it, but no one has ever been able to tell me why. If someone in this thread can mount a convincing attack against Bringing out the Dead, I'd sure like to hear it.

And, I liked the King of Comedy, but--and does anyone else see this?--it felt like a comedy remake of Taxi Driver. Loner becomes sociopath--does bad stuff--ends up as hero. The two make for a great double feature.

If giving Scorsese an Oscar will get him to leave his quest for Academy recognition alone, once and for all, then by all means - give it to him. But really, of all the films he's made, why should he be awarded so highly for this middling piece of aimless, populist entertainment? (though it's a notable purpose for some films, I use that word as pejoratively as possible here.)

And will giving him the statue get him on to (hopefully) smaller and better things? Darghis and Scott at the Times pointed out that it seems to have worked for Eastwood, but I'm not sure that Scorsese, having tasted Oscar success, wouldn't just push further into his Miramax-financed, King-of-the-World mode. Maybe he just needs to fail again in order to realize that this is not what people love him for.

Eastwood's making smaller films since his Oscar? If the NYT is talking about BLOOD WORK and ABSOLUTE POWER, sure. But...

Scorcese may in fact be affected one way or another by the Oscar he may or may not get. Clint Eastwood was not.

All cynicism aside, he may not actually care about winning an Oscar. He may just really be interested in the kind of films he's doing now.

It's easy to accuse someone in the film business of doing what they do just for an Oscar, but this is mainly because we who do the accusing are narcissistic, frustrated little artists-types, who--though we'd deny it up and down—desire to be in a room full of well-dressed assholes and bitches wildly applauding us as we hold some golden idol in our hands that supposedly objectifies our greatness. Why the hell wouldn't everyone want that?

If you've ever heard Marty talk for even five minutes you know that he really, really loves movies. The job he is fortunate enough to have is to make them, and I have to believe that he sets out to make the movie that the geek in him would most like to see. We can't all be where he is all the time and have the same artistic, or entertainment desirers. Most directors never even produce one great film, and here's a man who has several under his belt. Everyone here knows that he has several more greats just waiting bubble out of his head or we wouldn't be so disappointed every time his vision falls short of our ideal of how great his vision should be.

Count me out, Jeff. I have no such knowledge. The last thing I heard is he's talking about a sequel to Taxi Driver with DeNiro, which besides sounding like the worst imaginable idea, really smacks of desperation -- as if the only new idea he has is to recycle is an old one. Maybe Scorsese's best days, like DeNiro's, are behind him.

I don't, on the other hand, think The Aviator is representative of where Scorsese's head is at, artistically. He has said in recent interviews that it was an "assigned" project. It's not like it was some dream film of his.

Overall, I thought this a great take on the personalities and careers involed in this film.

The Scorsese-Leo alliance affords Scorsese the giant budgets he needs to make the epics he has always dreamed of alongside the "Raging Bulls" and "Taxi Drivers." As for the pacing, when has Scorsese ever been a slick studio storyteller other than "Goodfellas" or "Cape Fear?" His first epic, "New York, New York," suffers from all the problems that "Gangs of New York" and "The Aviator" do. I think Scrosese's intensity is watered down over the long haul, like Hemingway's when comparing short stories to novels.

By the end of "The Aviator," I had no more sympathy with screwloose, violent Howard Hughes to be in charge of euro-air travel than Juan Trippe (Alec Baldwin) and his political-corporate combine with Alan Alda. I mean, which side is doing ME any good?

Btw, the movies Hughes obsessed over (except Hawks' "Scarface") don't work in concept or execution anymore than the Spruce Goose itself, and I wish that analogy had been shown in his quest to rule commercial air travel as much as his cinematic innovation was compared to his plane design. James Ellroy's take on Hughes in several novels, esp. "American Tabloid," is my favorite.

Your take on Leo is dead-on. Cate Blanchett is the best actress I know of to play Hepburn, and in saying that I thought she was ok but they could have gotten Martin Short and done just as well.

Ben

Did not meant to use the word "obsessed" but rather "labored" over. I meant the films he made, not classics like "Ice Station Zebra" or "Scarlett Empress," which HH screened multiple times.

Ben

James Elroy's American Tabloid and The Cold Six-Thousand are brillant depictions of Hughes' later years. Elroy's novels are the principle reason I've been avoiding seeing the Aviator. When I saw the theatrical trailer I leaned to my friend--who's also read the books--and said, "Unless this movie tackles the issue of Howard Hughes' love for Mormon blood transfusions, I'm not seeing it."

Judging from the reivews I've read, it seems Martin Scorsese has decided to not address Mormon blood transfusions. Sad really.

Scorsese's decline in 1993? What? No love for Kundun, one of the most underrated films of the 90s? Or the aforementioned Bringing Out the Dead? (I think I may be the only person who can overlook Casino's cringe-niducing violence, largely because, as Sally Denton & Roger Morris' The Money and the Power makes perfectly clear, the people who ran Vegas really WERE some of the most savage barbarians of the 20th century.)

Maybe it's a sign of aging or an increasingly cheery disposition, but I fucking loved The Aviator. Where Gangs of New York was marred by one of the strangest cinematic distinctions in recent memory (an out-of-control vanity project being recut by Harvey Scissorhands), The Aviator marked a return to form, even if it involved not so much the "New York as hell" metaphor, but an uncharacteristically sunny biopic not unlike Francis Coppola's overlooked Tucker.

I'm extremely curious, Ms. Penn, why you consider this to be phony. You make a very abstract case. Is it phony because it's a mainstream tale about ambition? Is it phony because of Cate Blanchett's crowd-pleasing Hepburn imitation?

If the quibble here is why we are bothering to follow Hughes' life over the course of three hours, that Hughes is as nebulous a symbol as Travis Bickle (yet isn't it interesting how BOTH characters are guided by imaginative impulses?), then I would argue that where Bickle serves as the isolated Vietnam vet, Hughes is the very antithesis, the kind of brash figure ACCEPTED by America. And yet he's just as troubled in his own way as Bickle, just as ready to explode within his own private confines. But here's s a man who not only advances aviation, but the way that cinema is made.

I think Scorsese's done a ballsy thing exposing the frayed edges of a significant figure and juxtaposing this against how he was portrayed by the media and his peers. Oddly enough, not unlike Bill Condon's slightly neglected Kinsey, which also rolled subversive meditation within a audience-friendly biopic. Sure, the political/trial stuff struck me as the sort of optimistic Frank Capra nonsense that today's movies really shouldn't be concerned with. (And will someone please tell Marty Brest to knock this shit off with all of his late-career gilded turds.) With this, I'll agree with you.

But why CAN'T Scorsese make a mainstream epic? Besides, there's plenty of vintage Scorsese here. The bulbs bursting on red carpet, the exciting opportunity to see what Scorsese does with a mammoth special effects budget, and Scorsese's remarkable ability to actually get a performance out of Leo "Smoking is my motivation" DiCapprio by NOT having him smoke and forcing seering looks of intensity from his eerily cherubic skull. Not an easy task.

If there's any quibble I have with the movie, it's that not even Scorsese can prevent Alan Alda from using spastic hand gestures. I like Alda, but I think I was the only audience member who kept seeing a slightly older Lester from "Crimes and Misdemeanors" where I shouldn't have.

How can you criticize Scorsese's work from the last 10 years if you haven't seen kundun, bringing out the dead, or gangs of new york?

i think we are all falling victim to auteur theory here, assuming that scorcese must have had some grand plan. but this project was all leo and scorcese was just the technician. leo had apparently been trying for years to get this project off the ground and scorcese said in an interview that he wasn't interested in it at all, and finally they wore him down. which i think is why it feels to me like scorcese phoned it in. and i read a manohla dargis review of the film where she said that it was probably difficult for scorcese, a hell's kitchen scrapper, to relate to a privileged guy like hughes, which i personally think is probably right.

There it is again, "relate to..."

I saw SIDEWAYS yesterday and clicked on here afterwards to read whats been written. Someone mentioned that (I'm pararphrasing) appreciation of the movie might be enhanced by the extent to which the viewer related to Miles. Cynthia, above, posits that THE AVIATOR's weaknesses may be related to the director's inability to relate to the main character. Audience and artist should relate to character(s).

The 11th grade gum-snapper explaining that she likes THE GREAT GATSBY b/c she can relate to Daisy but hates MOBY DICK b/c she can't relate to anybody might be apocryphal, but but she does seem to embody our prevailing aesthetic. As creators and entertained alike, we need (demand?)to see, or find, ourselves in the objects of our attention. Crass narcissism, or a realistic appreciation of our abilities?

(Forgive the long-windery. SIDEWAYS got me to thinking. Which ain't bad.)

Re Scorsese and preventing Alda's spastic hand gestures: I humbly disagree, Scorsese is the definitive American director of spastic hand gestures, check out DeNiro's Rupert Pupkin in "King of Comedy" (arguably a parody of the manic Scorsese himself), many Scorsese interviews, performances, and his recent Kodak film commercial.

As for Manohla Dargis, she has fundementally misunderstood Scorsese if she feels he is an East Side scrapper of any sort. He was severely asthmatic, bedridden kid who fantasized about being a scrapper and did quite well with "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore," "King of Comedy," "Age of Innocence," and "Kundun." Scorsese is also a man of privelege himself these days. I think maybe what he could not identify with was a filmmaker like Hughes who worked with unlimited budgets.

A sensible comment re THE AVIATOR's Oscar chances, from THE ECONOMIST:

"(It) certainly has the right subject- the father of modern aviation and the father, w/ his 1930 film HELL'S ANGELS, of course, of modern action movies. Who, from Tinseltown's perspective, could be more relevant to the 21st century?"

good point about scorcese not being a scrapper, but i don't think being a bedridden kid who fantasized about being a scrapper is that much different--either would, i'd say, have difficulty relating to/caring about a guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. scorcese may be rich now, but new money is very different from old money.

DiCaprio continues to be the latest in a string of Hollywood Emperors Sans Clothes. He's cursed by his looks, and his stunning inability to pull off an accent; watching the film I kept thinking of the kid on "Family Ties", dress up like Howard Hughes to go trick-or-treating. Not to be insensitive, but playing a mentally handicapped person does not a thespian make. If it did, agents would be lined up at junior highs across the nation, waiting to sign the bullies who make the girls laugh with their impeccable impersonations of the kids who ride the "short bus". Watching him brings to mind Peter O'Toole's classic line in "My Favorite Year": "I'm not an actor, I'm a movie star!"

Cynthia: it's probably not fair for anyone to try and get into Scorsese's head too much. Hitchcock filmed lots of murders and I don't know that he ever killed anybody. Scorsese did make "Age of Innocence," as far as the rich folks angle goes, but he is currently making a Bob Dylan documentary, and this is a man who says he never even wore jeans until Woodstock. I tend to agree with Liz Penn's argument that he just hasn't made a masterpeice in a long time.

I was watching "Million Dollar Baby" about two days after I saw "The Aviator" and I realized a crucial difference in the two films. Clint Eastwood's characters are driven to an extreme action by moral circumstances while Scorsese's are driven by obsessive behavior. It's his main theme, from favorite movies like "Vertigo" or stories like "The Gambler" to most of his own great films -- people carried away by internal forces they can't control. As hokey as M$B is, it's hard to look away because Eastwood creates an emotional connection I don't get in Scorsese's films anymore. Scorsese's "obsessed" characters are incapable of caring about what they do to people around them. When it can't register in them that they need to change or that something's even wrong, his characters tend to hit a brick wall for me. Scorsese rarely provides resolution, so you hope for an interesting ending a la "Goodfellas" or "King of Comedy." I gave up on Howard Hughes the way you give up on someone who simply doesn't want to stop drinking. I just let go, and was actually rooting for Alan Alda.

we needn't try to get into scorcese's head because he said himself in an interview that he wasn't interested in howard hughes or this project and leo eventually changed his mind. he hasn't made a good film in a long time, it's true, but that's less interesting to me than why he wasn't interested in this project.

WHEW!
As a HAL 9000 might say: "Look, Seth, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over."

Seth, Liz gets PAID to review films. You don't have to like her opinion and you have a right to say whatever you want about her opinion. However, if you are using Windows, there are several ways to not be subjected to her or other's assessment of a film or TV program.

If all else fails, pull the plug.

wait ... i get paid for writing the high sign? my paycheck must be really, really, really late.

are y'all watching the oscars sunday night? should we gather in this space and co-heckle? could be the most comments ever, beyond election day even ...

Seriously, no one feels cheated about the lack of Mormon blood transfusions in The Aviator? Without that, you're not even scratching the surface of Hughes' character.

Liz, I'm absolutely watching the Oscars. I never miss it. Hope to comment during or after.

wait .. mormon blood transfusions? tell me more.

Isn't it only women and gay men that watch the Oscars? That's the rumor, according to Chris Rock, anyway.

Honestly, I can never stand to watch the ceremony myself. It's pompous, arrogant, and about as interesting as the last Hillary Duff movie, only three times as long. It's like high school graduation, only everyone already has ultra-high paying jobs and instead of a doddering, wanna-be cool principle, you get Billy Crystal (or this year, Rock).

I don't care what they wear or which acting professor they forget to thank; I just want to know who won, and there are plenty of places where I can find that out without 4 hours of nauseating self-congratulation.

But for those of you that do watch, I'm all for posting as much heckle as can be mustered. I'd love to read it, even if I don't want to watch the thing myself.

Heckle the Oscars? Too easy. Fish in a barrel. Rock is an intersting guy, though. Watching him try (hopefully unsuccessfully) to play nice for 4 hours might be worth it.

jean-luc godard 'devotes' a moment in 'histoire(s) du cinema' to 'howard hughes', wondering what would have happened if melies had owned both gallimard and sncf.
mentions the weekly saturday pleasure trips that rko actresses had to take with hh in his limo, at two miles an hour, so their breasts wouldn't bounce.
notes that hh died in a manner that defoe would not have dared for robinson.
and asks "everyting belonged (appartient) to him, but what is important is to know to who he belonged."
does the aviator ask (such) questions?

Yeah, good ol' Mormon blood.

When Hughes went reclusive he became so obsessed with germs that would only associate with the cleanest, most physically pure specimens he could find--Mormons. And, as any insane billionaire can tell you, to increase one's health and vitality, you want to get frequent blood transfusions from the heartiest stock available. So, the Mormons got to run Hughes' vast financial empire, and Howard got yummy Mormon blood. Win-win.

I cannot fully attest to the validity of this. Hughes did associate with Mormons for hygienic reasons, and I have heard the transfusion rumors in various places over the years—The Simpson’s have made a couple references to it with Burns as the Hughes surrogate. I've never cared enough about the guy to actually learn about his life.

James Ellroy uses Hughes as a peripheral character in many of his books. Specifically, in American Tabloid and The Cold Six Thousand you see Hughes in all his vampiric glory as he and the Mormons pioneer the corporate takeover of Las Vegas from the mob. Now, surely, there's a movie worthy of Scorsese in that.

I'd just like to pick up on kid blast's comment about the difference between _Sideways_ and _The Aviator_, and to what degree our enjoyment is dependent on our sympathizing with the characters. I think in many cases, the characters of great fiction share many of our desires and obsessions, yet heightened to a degree which provides dramatic momentum and sheds light on our own drives. _Taxi Driver_ (and its predecessor, _Notes From the Underground_), tap into the fear and anger of those who feel helpless and isolated in the city or the world, the lunacy of Travis forcing us to look at our own frustration towards our circumstances. As an aside, I find the lack of sympathy for Ahab in _Moby Dick_ rather strange, since I always thought his quest was to look behind the veil and see the essence of this life, a quest that all humanity share in.

The failure of _The Aviator_ is not that Hughes is obsessed and the rest of us are not, but that there is no sense of a man consumed by his obsessions at the expense of himself. For a comparison, look at Truffaut's _L'Histoire d'Adele H._, where Adele Hugo starts out as woman passionately in love and ends in madness. There is a sense of tragedy, of something lost.

As for Ben Schwartz's comment about Scrosese's characters motivated by obsession rather than moral circumstance, I would say that with very few exceptions (such as Rupert Pupkin), all of Scorsese's characters are aware of when they are doing wrong, and often must repent or are punished accordingly. Many of the conflicts in his films deal with what is the truly "good" action to take, while others deal with those torn between what is just and what they want. The contrast with _Million Dollar Baby_ is unusual, since that movie's moral dilemma is dealt with in...

*SPOILER ALERT BEGIN*

...the conclusion of _Bringing Out the Dead_.

*SPOILER ALERT END*

Cynthia, I think it's a little difficult to attribute _The Aviator_'s problems because Scorsese was a hired gun, since on many of his best movies he was brought in either late in development (_Taxi Driver_) or as a hired gun (_Raging Bull_). One of his weakest movies, in my opinion, was _Gangs of New York_ and he had been developing that for 20-25 years, including one incarnation with music and acting by the Clash.

The Oscars: don't own a TV, so enjoy.

Denisov: When did Travis Bickle, Jake La Motta, or Henry Hill ever have a moral quandry about what they were doing? Travis is insane, Jake doesn't know how to respond to life except through violence, and Henry only gives up crime after it gives up on him.

Ben

No gold for Scorsese this year.

I thought at the beginning that this was going to be the year of The Aviator; with the awards for art direction, costume design, editing, and Best Supporting Actress locked down, it looked like it was in for a sweep. But Million Dollar Baby knocked it out cold -- look for a lot of TKO metaphors in tomorrow's headlines -- in the huge categories where they went head to head: picture, director, Best Supporting Actor, not to mention Hilary Swank winning as Best Actress. This is only fair. It was a better film.

Nicest surprises of the evening: the screenplay awards both went to the right films -- Sideways and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Biggest disappointment: Virginia Madsen loses to Cait Blanchett.

Most entertaining portion of the entire show: what else? Chris Rock's monologue, especially the joke about Bush working at the Gap and noticing he lost $70 trillion when he cleared the register.

Best speech: Jamie Foxx. I was especially impressed with him talking about all the spankings he got growing up. Everyone took it well, although I'm sure 99 percent of them were thinking he was a product of child abuse.

Watching the megalomaniacal Sean Penn stagger drunkenly up to the mic to defend The Horribly Wronged Jude Law was pure bliss. Speaking for the rest of us lowbrows, Mr. Penn, we really loved you in "Shanghai Surprise".

Ben,

Travis is insane in the sense that his moral compass is totally disconnected with reality. However, he does genuinely believe he is doing good by "saving" Iris from her pimp. He is deeply conflicted about his attraction to Iris, pushing her away when she goes down on him.

A crucial and (very difficult to watch) scene in _Raging Bull_ is when Jake LaMotta allows himself to be beaten by Sugar Ray Robinson after his fight with his brother. He knows he has done wrong and punishes himself for it.

Henry Hill is a tougher case to make, but his reaction to Spider's death is far stronger than as portrayed in the book. He does seem to feel genuine moral shock at the shooting, that this is going too far.

I've been holding a contest with friends about comebacks Sean Penn should have made about the Jude Law quip. The best I've come up with:

"Know what? _Pootie Tang_ would have sucked even with Denzel."
"This year's host is Chris Rock. Bigger. Blacker. Unfunnier."

Oh Lord, I would have loved to see Penn try to play Rock's game, if only for the sheer joy of seeing Rock demolish him in return.

hey y'all, sorry i couldn't chat during the oscars. i was watching them away from home, and couldn't seem to get wireless access on my friend's network for some reason. but here's my brief item on the ceremony for slate, which focused on the antonio banderas song butchery:
http://www.slate.com/id/2114131/

the final word on sean penn's humorless defense of jude law was jon stewart's impersonation of penn on the daily show last night -- anyone see it? he got that jeff spicoli lip curl down perfectly as he riffed on penn's inability to take a joke: "no, mr. youngman, i would not like to take your wife, as i already have one of my own. and mr. seinfeld, in re your query regarding 'the deal with airplane peanuts' ..."

oh, and to rodney: the screenplay awards were very satisfying. maybe eternal sunshine didn't get as much recog as it should have, but at least it got the _right_ recog -- charlie kaufman's victory was a fantasy moment for writers everywhere.

also: lynda obst, a hollywood producer who wrote on the awards for slate w/ david edelstein this year, has a good insider's take on the east coast/west coast movie wars that may have gone into marty's major dissing by the academy. see here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2114004/entry/2114123/

gee, I've been missing all the fun.

Jon Stewart did a great Penn. I was impressed. I loved the "economies of scale" line. He delivered it perfectly.

I didn't actually see Rock's monolouge, but I could tell that Penn was needlessly making a moment awkward when he did it. I did catch on to the whole Antonia Bendaras dis. I loved it. I couldn't watch Antonio sing that song. It was just too silly.

About the whole east-west thing: until Scorsese make a movie that rivals Goodfellas or Raging Bull, he does not deserve to win. I never saw Ordinary People, so I can't comment on 1981, but I did see Dances With Wolves. I was in my late teens and Costner's victory was my awaking to the fact that the oscars are full of shit. We all know that unless Scorsese wins for a movie of the calibur of Goodfellas or Raging Bull, it will be a hollow victory. It would be the academy being like an NBA ref making up for a missed call by calling whatever happens on the next play as a foul. I hate it when they do that. Make the effort to call it right the first time. If a call is missed, it's missed. No make ups. The academy screwed up with Goodfellas, but they shouldn't have to give Scorsese an award to make up for it. Marty has to do it again. He has to make another great, and hope some rangless hack actor doesn't pick that year to pretend he's a director.

Wow, wouldn't it be the irony of ironies if the next time Scorsese really makes an endearing work of art is the year thar DiCaprio decides to direct his first peice of crap? Guess who's gonna win?

And I meant rangless hack as a dig on Costner and not Redford. When I was 10, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid was my favorite movie, so I am biased when it comes to Robert.

Isn't it getting odd now that Scorsese always loses to directors who used to be actors of limited range? Scorsese himself has a broader acting range than Eastwood.

Regarding Eastwood's best actor nom - for fun, do this: watch "MDB", then pop in a copy of "Heartbreak Ridge". I half-expected Frankie to utter/growl the immortal line, "Why don't you go hump someone else's leg, before I push yours in?"