Let me know what you thought of the excerpts we saw in class this week. Free style.Also, how do the pictures of Martin Scorsese's that we've been watching every Tuesday for the past two months inform your understanding of Goodfellas and Casino now? If you've seen the films before, please incorporate into your response the ways (if any) that your feelings about them have changed.
16 comments:
Matt Fagerholm
I frankly can’t think of any film that has influenced my peers at Columbia as directly as Goodfellas. I never considered myself part of the norm as a freshman, partly because I had never seen any Scorsese film (apart from Gangs of New York). When asked what their favorite film was, nearly every one of my male peers at Columbia (regardless of age or background) replied, “Goodfellas.” No, not just replied it. They exclaimed it with all the passion of that preacher who loudly passes judgment outside Gap Kids on State Street. These guys really, really, REALLY loved it. I finally saw Goodfellas well into my sophomore year of college, and really loved it as well, but was unsure about why my generation had put it on such a holier-than-thou pedestal.
Seeing segments from Goodfellas again in class was exhilarating for me, especially after having seen the bulk of Scorsese’s previous work. It’s easy to see why moviegoers have indirectly labeled it THE Scorsese movie. If it isn’t the director’s best film (which it very well could be) it’s certainly his most entertaining…and in a strange way, his most crowd-pleasing. The film’s opening scene follows a brutal act of violence with Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) slamming a car trunk, with the camera zooming into a freeze-frame of his face, while Tony Bennett croons “Rags to Riches.” It’s enough to make audiences pump their fists in the air with jubilation. Scorsese has succeeded in making the audience feel the seductive excitement a life in crime provides its participants.
The justifiably famous shot of Hill leading his wife-to-be Karen (Lorraine Bracco) through the back of a restaurant provides the key to the film’s appeal. “To us,” Hill narrates, “those goody-good people who worked shitty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean they were suckers. They had no balls.” It’s the escapism his lifestyle provides to audience members living the straight life of “shitty jobs” and “bum paychecks” that makes the first third of this film so seductive. And Scorsese’s encyclopedic knowledge of the lifestyle makes the escapist thrill all the more convincing, organic, and palpably alive. Though the film ultimately shows each of the character’s personal downfalls, I personally feel it is the unapologetic joy found in the film’s first third that makes Goodfellas so popular. Gone is the Catholic guilt that has plagued every past Scorsese protagonist—from Jake La Motta to Jesus. Here, the crucifix around Hill’s neck is a mere materialistic accessory that could easily be replaced with his wife’s Star of David. Even Joe Pesci’s psychotic nature provides some sort of release for the audience. The way he controls the entire population of a restaurant by instilling the fear of his wrath within them is astonishingly cathartic. Finally we’re the ones getting to laugh along with the bully in the room. It’s the best scene in film history, as far as I’m concerned, that gets to the heart and soul of peer pressure. It sure is fun laughing along with Pesci, but when he shifts his aim toward you, it’s no laughing matter at all.
The scenes we watched from Casino lacked the urgency, freshness and youthful thrill of Goodfellas, but were still fascinating in how they dissected an entire society with a documentary-level obsession with detail. Still, one has to wonder whether Pesci is capable of playing anything other than “loose cannon” types. When he stabbed a guy who pissed him off in Casino, the moment felt tremendously familiar. Yet what intrigues me the most about the film (which I plan to see in its entirety) is the relationship between Sam (De Niro) and Ginger (Sharon Stone), which seems to break Scorsese’s tradition of having protagonists’ love lives being controlled by a Madonna/Whore complex. This relationship seems fresh, particularly because De Niro and Stone seem to see themselves as equals. Of course, I could be way off, but that’s what I got from the selections we saw in class.
Other recurring Scorsese techniques I found watching Goodfellas again was the casting of his mother as a caregiver (in her brilliantly improvised scene as Pesci’s mother), as well as Scorsese’s eternal obsession with red. When Hill opens the trunk concealing the dying (but not quite dead) body in Goodfellas’ opening scene, the light omitting from the trunk is a bloody red. When De Niro finishes the job by shooting the body, the entire screen momentarily fades to red (an effect Tarantino ripped off in Pulp Fiction).
I guess I’d have to see Goodfellas in its entirety again to be sure, but it may have possibly surpassed Raging Bull as my own favorite Scorsese picture. Maybe.
I have always thought GOODFELLAS was a great movie. It's not as moving or as impactful as some of his others, but it's just so damn entertaining. It's one of the most entertaining films I've ever seen. Ray Liotta's narration throughout the film is great, the music is great, the shots are great. I think it's one of Scorsese's most manipulative films as far as mood goes. I love the film when it gets into the 80's, everything just starts to fall apart, and since we've just spend the previous hour seeing how awesome everything is, it's an ever bigger fall for Henry.
And Casino's always great. I don't like the narration as much, and I think it tries to be as fast as GOODFELLAS, but I just don't like it as much. Robert DeNiro scares me too much for me to like him as much as Henry, but there is something about DeNiro in the film that's fun to watch. In every scene, it's as if he's about to get pissed.
What I really like about both films is what they say about society. They really seem to trash people. GOODFELLAS ending with Henry living the 'american dream' and it's clearly a terrible life for him. CASINO ends with all the buildings being blown up, and the whole city being reborn, only instead of a younger crowd, it's pretty much just families, mom, dad, and two kids. And it once again sucks.
What I love about both endings is DeNiro in those glasses, in both films he's wearing these really hideous looking frames that are 'old-guy' glasses. There's something about that image of DeNiro wearing 'old-guy' glasses that really seems to signify that the good times are over. Ending CASINO on that shot of just DeNiro in those glasses watching college sports. He's just another old-guy with not much of a life, no family to care for him, no friends to speak of. Just those college sports. He lived such an amazing life and after all that, he's got nothing to show for it.
After having watched Scorsese's films to date and reading all those interviews, I can really see some strong recurring themes in his work, the misunderstood visionary, the youth with no guidance, the breakdown of family because of occupation....But some of his movies, besides his aesthetic style aren't as personal. GOODFELLAS and CASINO are great, but he only witnessed those things, he never lived that life. That's why I think TAXI DRIVER and KING OF COMEDY and RAGING BULL are so great, because he felt what those characters he felt, he went through what they went through, just in his own way.
Goodfellas and Casino
Goodfellas was the first Scorsese film I ever saw and therefore holds a special place in my heart. I remember staying up late when I was young, and much to my mother’s dismay, watching the film with my dad who has been a Scorsese fan for some time now. A distinct memory I have about watching the film at a young age was thinking to myself, “Wow, this is awesome”! Looking back on the film now I believe that this is exactly what Scorsese wants during the first act of the film. As the audience, we need to be captivated by this mob life just as much as Henry is. We want the suits, we want friends with nicknames, we want to come in through the kitchens of restaurants and not think twice about waiting in line, we want it all. We are drawn into the story on another level this way and are almost experiencing the story along side Henry rather than being the all-seeing viewer observing from a safe distance. Scorsese drawing us in like this also makes Henry’s downfall that much more shocking and intense when it comes, as a result it is also that much more effective. I feel that with Goodfellas, Scorsese is in top form as a storyteller. The editing, camera work, non-linear structure, and nearly every aesthetic choice Scorsese makes creates a world, more importantly a world that feels real, for these characters to inhabit and interact with. It gets to a point where I almost feel like I am watching a documentary, and that is precisely how good Scorsese has become at telling a story. It is the combination of making the film so personal for the characters and so personal for Scorsese himself that has this effect on me. It is all about honesty. In fact, there are a few particular moments in the film that feel so honest that they felt like flashes from my own life, not including of course that time I stabbed a guy in my trunk. The moments that ring most honest to me and my life are the slices of Italian life in the film. I am 100 percent Italian with both my mother’s and father’s families coming from Italy and this said, I have a giant family. When Karen is going around and meeting everyone at the wedding it was like every family event I have ever been to. I still have family members that I see every year on Christmas Eve that I draw a blank on their names and exactly how they are related to me, its definitely a trip. Another moment in the film I cannot help but laugh at is the scene with Scorsese’s mother. I am reminded of my own Nana and my mother in this scene so much so that is eerie, but I suppose that the Italian grandmother/mother stereotypes are true and I cannot say that I deny it.
Personal ramblings aside lets move on to Casino. It’s been quite some time since I’ve seen this film in its entirety but of what I watched in class it felt like a new experience, especially watching it back to back with Goodfellas. The two films indeed feel like companion pieces in a sense in terms of their narrative style and form as well as in their presentation. Scorsese presents to us another world of luxury that topples down when the going gets a little too good. In a sense both Casino and Goodfellas are like fables delivering to us the harsh moral lessons of reality by the end. In Casino one thing I did notice was that it feels like Scorsese’s style fits almost perfectly against the backdrop of Las Vegas. He is allowed to be flashy and grandiose as he wants with both his aesthetic choices and camera work while the Vegas backdrop puts them into perspective and almost dilutes them to normality. I have to admit that I need to see Casino again as a whole in order to get a solid hold on it as I am drawing a blank on analysis. After this viewing I guess if anything I have learned to never ask Joe Pesci to borrow a pen.
“Why make another gangster movie?” I don’t know whether it was Scorsese or Pileggi who said it, but in the making of Goodfellas we watched before, I believe Scorsese and Pileggi were asking themselves and perhaps all of Hollywood a very, very important question. Why do it? What story are you going to tell that hasn’t been told in a genre that has been worn down over the last twenty years since the Godfathers? How would you make it entertaining, interesting, informative, authentic, true, factual, and perhaps most important of all, fresh, innovative and invigorating, something we haven’t seen before?
Scorsese and Pileggi would address all these questions by taking a detailed account of the life of Henry Hill from Pileggi’s book Wise Guy. Scorsese would use his unique aesthetic and technical styles from his narrative films, and his love for documentary story telling, weave the two forms in such an attractive and energizing fashion that it’s difficult to turn your eyes and ears (ears are important too!) away from the visuals and sounds of the film. We all know this and I’m sure many of your are going rightfully and more importantly so to go way much further detail in how Scorsese film style masterfully manifests in Goodfellas and its companion piece Casino.
Yet back to the original question. Why make another gangster film? Why do it?
“John Ford made Westerns. We make street movies. Let’s do that.” This is the quote from Scorsese to Pesci that opens the chapter about Goodfellas and Cape Fear in Scorsese on Scorsese, and whether or not Scorsese actually said the quote, it’s relevance it uncanny when addressing the question at hand. John Ford knew westerns. He identified with the world of a western. There was something about him that just CONNECTED to that world, and that’s why audiences connected with the magic of westerns such as She Wore A Yellow Ribbon and The Searchers. The films’ authenticity was spellbinding, and still is to this very day sixty years later!
In 1986, Oliver Stone released Platoon, a Vietnam War film following the accounts of young Pvt. Christopher Taylor and the trials and horrors he and his platoon encountered in the jungles of Vietnam. Platoon won four Oscars. Now, set aside whatever feelings you have for Oliver Stone, positive or negative, because there’s a very important lesson for all film makers, and storytellers in general, to be found hear. This was a very personal and detailed film for Oliver Stone. He served in Vietnam, knew its rice fields and jungles, knew the soldiers and the refugees, knew the smells and the sounds, knew the world of what was the Vietnam War from a grunt’s perspective. So when we saw and heard Platoon, we saw what Stone had seen and heard in those jungles and fields. Again, the film’s authenticity, its ability to get us believe in the world of the film was mesmerizing and magnetic, so that when we saw the tragedies that were unfolding upon the platoon, your just didn’t witness the prices those soldiers paid out there, you felt them.
Why make another gangster film? Because Scorsese, probably more so than any other director at that time or perhaps any other time, found a story within a world he identified with, just as he had in Who’s That Knocking At My Door, and Mean Streets. Scorsese made street films because he was from the streets! He didn’t go to class to on how to write the Street Film or the Gangster Genre. He didn’t have to! He already completed these classes when he was growing up on the actual streets these types of films try to recreate. Here, we have the unique experience of an Italian man who grew up and came out of Little Italy who had some experience in the world of organized crime, and now he’s making a gangster film about a world he fully understands and identifies with.
So when these films spend time on such simple details such as spaghetti sauce, football spreads, and stolen cigarettes, simple things many others directors would forget to include in a film because they never lived even a small facet of the life nor know how to accurately portray it, we believe in the film’s authenticity, its ability for us to believe this is the world that surrounded and encompassed a New York mob soldier in the 1970’s. That’s why you make another gangster film. Because you know what everyone else has gotten wrong and has gotten right… and now you have the story you want to tell. You know the story and its world instinctively and reflexively to where the end result coming out of the screen and the speakers is nothing shorter than film-making magic.
Goodfellas is brilliant. Saying Goodfellas is brilliant is a cliche of modern American pop culture. However, it has never been my favorite Scorsese film and probably never will be. The reason this is true for me is because there is so much more to see from Scorsese. Goodfellas is the catalyst; if you see it and love it (as most people-or men-do), you'll probably look for other films by the director. Slowly but surely you realize the same guy directed Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. Really? The same director? Hmmm. So you dig further and discover Mean Streets and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and The King of Comedy. Wow. The King of Comedy would've been enough to impress you. Ok, so the very same director also made The Last Temptation of Christ? Holy shit! I don't care what anybody says, Last Temptation is amazing. How ironic is it that Christians hate on this film, which is really just about Scorsese trying to reconcile his desire for a materialistic life and a spiritual one. After all, he really was just trying to get to know Jesus better. If people can't accept that everyone's spiritual struggle is their own personal thing-a-majig, then they ain't Christians with love in their hearts and shit. Damn! But maybe this film doesn't cause such a fuss if it wasn't directed by Scorsese. Probably not. Oh, and did I mention Scorsese's documentary films? Come on! This is totally unfair. Even if you chalk up The Color of Money and New York, New York as examples of major cinematic turds, it still takes nothing away from the other work. And that's what it is: work. Work and hustling. Which is what Goodfellas is all about. Henry Hill is the audience's guide through the mafia underworld just as the the film itself guides Scorsese fans through this unbelievably impressive filmography. And Casino? It's funny how the Scorsese interviews had some insight on his motives for making it. There's something about the love triangle in the film which seems to represent to some degree the triangle between Scorsese, DeNiro and Schrader (or even Pesci). Scorsese talks about being surprised to find himself working with the same people again after years and years. Maybe he wanted out of that whole thing. Casino is the third mafia-related film with DeNiro and Pesci. As much as he talks of it being fun and liberating to work with people he trusts, perhaps this is also stifling. After all, he hasn't worked with DeNiro or Pesci since Casino and has only worked with Schrader once, I believe, on Bringing out the Dead. Who knows? I have to watch Casino again to really know how I feel about it, though.
These two films are really a culmination of all the past work, with every film we have seen, weather I like or not I feel as though I am comparing it to Goodfellas. I suppose Goodfellas was my first Scorsese, and it hit me hard, what I understand now is the progression that Scorsese took from being a raw expressive artist to being a raw expressive artist who is in control of the whole instead of just the parts. I recently read a quote from Milt Kahl the great Disney animator, he responded to someone asking him if he got joy from drawing “I actually don’t particularly care to draw it’s always been work for me, what I love, where I get my kicks is to see that performance on screen.” For Milt it seemed that drawing was second nature it never challenged him you could even say it was a nuisance to him what challenged him was the whole, and I think we see this same Idea with Scorsese and Goodfellas it’s as though for the first time Scorsese is only fussing over the whole, the product that comes out isn’t just a great raw piece of expressive art, but a monolithic structural masterpiece which encompasses all the parts that Scorsese had previously dealt with.
Logan M. Futej
I can honestly say that neither of these two films are my favorite done by Scorsese. What I can say about Goodfellas and Casino is that they are the most fun, at least for me. I have, and still can watch these movies over and over again. Not only do they make me want go out and make movies, but they also completely entertain me from start to finish. The first Scorsese picture I saw was Taxi Driver, and it took quite some time for it to grow on me, and for me to gain an understanding of what was going on. I remember watching Goodfellas for the first time in my junior high girlfriend’s basement. That was all it took, I was in love, and it wasn’t with my girlfriend. Taxi Driver had a huge influence on me wanting to make movies, but for me Goodfellas is one of those films that if I’m in a bad mood, I can just sit down, pop it in, and go to a better place.
I think the biggest appeal with Goodfellas is it hits so close to home. Not that I don’t enjoy watching the many many hours of the Godfather chronicles, but it took that lifestyle to a level that most people could never even think of. Henry was just a normal Irish kid, who made himself into a mobster. He was a kid brought into a blue-collar family who said no to “sitting through that good government bullshit”, and became every testosterone filled man’s dream. The up rise and downfall of both Henry and Ace is very clever. Scorsese shows us that this lifestyle is fun, and colorful, but shows us that it usually does not lead to a happy ending. As the cover of Casino states “No one stays at the top forever.”
I truly enjoy the characters and the way they act dress and communicate with each other, but what I think was done so well, is the voice over. It’s not just one person telling the story; but we hear the viewpoints of all the key characters. It’s something that makes the viewer more involved with everyone, rather then one person. I really enjoy when Karen’s voice over is talking about how other women would have run, but she became more attracted to Henry from his violent ways.
From Henry pistol whipping Karen’s neighbor for grabbing her, to Nicky taking a showgirl out to his car while talking about veal to get head, to Henry taking Karen in through the backdoors of the club, and Nicky putting peoples pictures face down because he doesn’t want them looking at him as he robs their place, both Goodfellas and Casino pay homage to classy criminals. Scorsese grew up in this type of environment, and it truly shines through. Both these pictures are so visceral, so real, that we as the viewer, or at least when I watch, want to do the things they do. But in the end Scorsese shows us that maybe sometimes this isn’t the way to go.
I have never seen Goodfellas or Casino before these viewings. They both grabbed my interest immediately. I really like Ray Liotta’s acting. I always have. He brings such honesty to the film that you can’t help but believe every word he says is real.
One of my favorite scenes I saw in Goodfellas was when Lorraine Bracco drives to Liotta’s hang out to bitch him out for standing her up. This is such a wonderful scene that really brings out the characters of both Liotta and Bracco. Liotta originally had no interest in Bracco. Once he sees her audacious behavior in this scene he can’t help but feel compelled. Liotta never breaks his bad ass character either. And this is what gets Bracco in the end. She’s attracted to this mafia know it all aurora. What started out as a slap in the face, quickly turns into a marriage! This quick turn around is what keeps me interested. You feel like you know where the story is leading, but then it goes in a completely different direction.
Goodfellas also has a very ambiguous ending. Liotta stays clear of a jail sentence in the standard sense, but is forced into suburbiaville much like being confined to a prison cell. Most people would be ecstatic that the FBI dropped all charges which would have landed in prison for what could have been the rest of his life. Instead Liotta is almost bitter, deprived from the only way of living for him, life in the mafia. I feel he almost regrets his decision on ratting out the other guys and would rather be behind closed metal doors with his dignity.
Casino had much of the same feeling as Goodfellas did. I was attached to these characters and their lifestyles. This kind of life is something I can only see in films. So it is very intriguing to me, furthermore it was based on actual events, which always makes films more appealing. Speaking of appealing, Sharon Stone, she’s hot stuff. Any film with her in it keeps my attention at its prime!
Scorsese’s earlier films seem to be more personal. These two films are great, but it seems to be missing that extra personal flavor that he usually adds. As far as his first couple movies he was a lot more familiar with the concepts and storylines. He could base most of those films on his own life. Now, he is getting into some bigger issues that his life in New York City did not cover. For instance Casino, he never had any personal experiences with big mobsters owning Casinos and all the business they went through. Scorsese is so good at authenticating his films, that with Goodfellas and Casino it was as though he stepped away from this.
Goodfellas is probably one of Scorsese’s most enjoyable films. The biggest reason for its success at being a fun film is because of its fast paced story telling, stylized editing techniques, and unforgettable characters. This is a modern day gangster film that brings realism and personality to organized crime. This stuff is always talked about in the history books and mentioned in newspapers, but Scorsese brings it life. He makes it real.
I love Scorsese’s use of improve that brings realism to these characters. His mother’s scene in the film when they are eating diner is something right out of his documentary Italianamerican. It truly brings a sense of documentary filmmaking to this narrative film. The use of quick shots and edits brings impact to specific scenes, particularly with deaths. Pesci’s death scene is quick and to the point and very effective. It happens when least expected. That is how a lot of the violence in the film happens. This creates a sense of realism.
Casino felt like a “poor man’s” version of Goodfellas, even though it was made by Scorsese. It felt like Scorsese made an attempt to recreate Goodfellas, that is what makes it kind of fail. It very much has the same style of quick, to-the-point shots that impact the story. It’s not as interesting because it feels like it is forced in a way to look too much like Goodfellas. However, it seems like Scorsese is on top of things when he does personal character studies involving the underside of life like these two films. This is his early work like Means Streets and Who’s That Knocking at My Door to the next level.
Goodfellas is probably one of Scorsese’s most enjoyable films. The biggest reason for its success at being a fun film is because of its fast paced story telling, stylized editing techniques, and unforgettable characters. This is a modern day gangster film that brings realism and personality to organized crime. This stuff is always talked about in the history books and mentioned in newspapers, but Scorsese brings it life. He makes it real.
I love Scorsese’s use of improve that brings realism to these characters. His mother’s scene in the film when they are eating diner is something right out of his documentary Italianamerican. It truly brings a sense of documentary filmmaking to this narrative film. The use of quick shots and edits brings impact to specific scenes, particularly with deaths. Pesci’s death scene is quick and to the point and very effective. It happens when least expected. That is how a lot of the violence in the film happens. This creates a sense of realism.
Casino felt like a “poor man’s” version of Goodfellas, even though it was made by Scorsese. It felt like Scorsese made an attempt to recreate Goodfellas, that is what makes it kind of fail. It very much has the same style of quick, to-the-point shots that impact the story. It’s not as interesting because it feels like it is forced in a way to look too much like Goodfellas. However, it seems like Scorsese is on top of things when he does personal character studies involving the underside of life like these two films. This is his early work like Means Streets and Who’s That Knocking at My Door to the next level.
I can easily say after the past two months exhibiting the life of Martin Scorsese, I have grown a better respect for the film Goodfellas. I never was a big fan of gangster pictures, and especially mobster films. Surprisingly enough even though I am Sicilian just as Scorsese, his films never appealed to me growing up. Perhaps its because I couldn’t identify with his gritty perspective on life, or as a teenager I just wanted to escape when I went to the movies. This is part of the reason I took this class to better understand the icon, which is Martin Scorsese, and try to adapt my pallet for the taste of films I enjoy.
Most everyone I knew growing up loved the film Goodfellas and openly regarded it as one of Scorsese’s best pictures. I tried to force myself to watch it, but the subject matter didn’t interest me. Scorsese’s films didn’t allow me to escape like the other films I enjoyed at the time.
But now that I have an in depth insight to the man behind the picture I respect it for its remarkable presentation. How it has survived over the years and ceased to have aged. It screams Martin Scorsese in ever aspect, from the framing and camera movement to the potent subject matter of the Italian mob in New York.
Now when I watch the film I think about all of Scorsese’s pictures that proceeded it and see how they have all culminated into one film. I understand the movie now, because I better understand the man.
I remember when I was 10 years old living in White Plains, NY. My parents had me wear a suit to a wedding that I stubbornly insisted I didn't want to go to. When I got there I experienced something for lack of a better word different. I was living in my grandparents basement because we didn't have enough money to have a house of our own. My mother brought a toaster as a wedding present. Little did she know that the minimum gift at these gatherings would be ten thousand dollars, and the maximum gift would be a house in the hamptons. I just liked the food, it never stopped, and there was a line of chairs across the back of the room where only old men sat.
Now looking back I can understand there was something "off" about the entire situation. My father never liked the GODFATHER movies, saying that they show Italian Americans in a bad light, that most people come to America to work hard and develop a good life for their families. He hated the way Coppolla romanticized violence in his films. For this reason he never watched Goodfellas even after my assistance.
There is beauty behind this film. Scorsese, the great reteller, attacks the life of Henry Hill, and outsider among the most intrinsic group of people. The film is starkly realistic while equally stylized, there are no hits done in a wide shot while the score kicks in and the hitman walks out of a restaurant and away from what must have been a great meal. Here we end with coke, we end with the destruction of a mind. The only thing ever romanticized in this film is the thought of the mafia Henry Hill has when he is a child. As we watch each grizzly hit we understand the problems with these people, THEY JUST DON'T CARE. There is blood everywhere around them and never a thought passes about the gravity that blood holds. Everything is worked for, sacrificed for here, for this Scorsese deserves applause. He didn't make a movie about the mafia, he showed the mafia, and if you enjoy these scenes of violence then you are pleasuring yourself to true instances of violence and you are a sick person. It may be poetic, it may be dirty, it may be fun to be a goodfella, but only if you think of human life the same way you think of carving a turkey.
Casino/Goodfellas response
I remember the first time I saw Casino. It was the first Martin Scorsese film I had ever seen. At the time, though I didn’t know it was a Martin Scorsese film. This was before I knew anything about the film industry or had taken an interest in film. I was sitting on the couch with my Grandfather and he asked if I wanted to watch a film about the mob. He knew I was interested in that sort of thing so of course I said yes. I had no idea what I was in for. I thought it was just some gambling mafia movie. Then all of a sudden I see Joe Pesci stabbing the shit out of some guys neck. I was just as shocked as Robert DeNiro’s character was at the time. I had no idea what I was getting myself into. I wasn’t that old either, maybe 12? My grandfather then told me that it was based on a true story. He said he remembered it being all over the news and how Joe Pesci’s character was really buried alive with his brother. That blew my mind. Then my Grandfather showed me a book on mafia hit men and there his picture was. For the life of me I can’t remember his real name. It was really close to the name in the movie.
I love the movie every time I see it. The dialogue and the overall feel of the movie is real to me. Well, it’s as real as I know it to be. My Grandfather would always tell me stories about things that happened back in his day. He grew up in an Italian neighborhood in Chicago. He grew up in that whole mess. He tells me every time that he never got involved, but he knew people that were. He told me that this movie is true to what really happened back in the day and I believe him. If anyone knew, it would be him.
I have never seen the entire movie of Goodfellas. The only parts that I had ever seen were the parts we saw on Tuesday. I was really disappointed. Everyone always tells me about how great the film is. I really thought we were going to watch the whole thing. I shake my fist in an inoffensive way. Of what I saw, I liked it. I kept noticing a lot of characters in Goodfellas that are also in The Soprano’s. It’s like The Soprano’s just recycled all of the Italian actors, but hey who am I to complain. I love The Soprano’s. I liked the camera movements and the quick jump cuts that were used while Ray Loyotta what doing drugs. Just like all of his other films it made you feel like you were doing the drugs with him. It gave you a better understanding of what he was going through. There was one thing I liked in this movie that he didn’t do in his other films. He had the main character who is a husband NOT beat his wife. Or at least I didn’t see it in the parts I watched. Even when she flushed the coke down the toilet, he just yelled at her in anger. He never hit her. I was shocked. I was almost waiting for it. Okay, here he goes, he’s going to slap her ass. Yep, now he’s yelling at her, here it comes. Yep, he grabs her arm, he’s probably just getting better leverage. What?!? He didn’t hit her? For real? Okay, maybe I don’t think this guy’s so bad after all. Yeah I don’t condone doing coke and killing people, but at least he doesn’t beat his wife. Finally!
I’m not sure what to say about Goodfellas, because it’s just really good storytelling. You’re told to have an inciting incident, to have turning points every 30 pages, never to use voiceover, watch out for too much improvising, but, in the end, breaking the rules with just the right style is the way to go for entertainment value.
Killing a guy in the trunk of a car on your way to bury him doesn’t exactly look like the most fun part of being a gangster, but just then Ray Liotta chimes in that he’s always wanted to be one. That little bit sets up the film so well. It’s an entertaining moment, and then you realize, “what, someone really does this for a living, and they like it?” I always assumed that every organized crime movie I saw was true, even though every organized crime movie I saw seemed incredibly fake. Scarface makes me laugh, laugh, laugh; it’s so insane. But, you know, that kind of shit happens, I suppose.
But, Goodfellas, no, I really believe it. And it’s because of that monotone voice over and the way this movie shows how it’s about more than money. I always had a hard time buying that being a mobster was something based purely on testosterone. Here, the life feels fun. And that’s what pretty much everyone will tell you.
I do wonder a bit what it was like in the editing room.
“Hey, Thelma, make sure there aren’t any static shots, you know, because the camera needs to be moving. It better be moving. We’re making the audience feel like they’re on cocaine here, okay?”
“Whatever you say, Marty.”
If Scorsese talks the way he does sober, I kind of wonder what he sounded like when he was on uppers.
Anyway, then there’s Casino, which I think is pretty hollow. That movie is about the money, purely. And, come on, I’m sure more entertaining shit happens in Las Vegas. Not that I think Casino is totally boring or anything, but it feels so dark and depressing. And watching the cornfield scene is almost as hard as watching the sex club scene in Irreversible.
But what Scorsese does with both these movies is continue to apply realistic filmmaking with the surreal. The serious music and zombie march of the elderly at the end of Casino feels like a parody of itself, overdone, both serious and silly. The freeze-frames of Goodfellas feel like pauses, like the breath you take between chapters of a book. DiNiro’s body flying through the firestorm feels like… actually, I don’t know, but it’s wacky. And the story matter of these movies is real, but it’s a segment of society we always hear about, see in movies, but rarely see for ourselves. I’ve seen photos of mobsters in papers, but I’ve never seen one in real life. Well, I’m pretty sure I haven’t. What works more for these movies is that droning government claim (which I don’t even know was ever made), “there’s no such thing as the mafia.” Then Scorsese produces two incredibly convincing movies about the existence of a crazy mob life.
If anything is missing from these movies, and this isn’t a direct negative criticism on Scorsese, it’s that they don’t hit anything as deeply as some of his previous works do. I’m sure his films are personal, and his characters are fleshed out and have wants and shortcomings and flaws, but the films themselves feel more like entertainment and less intimate. Maybe it’s just because Goodfellas is so fun to watch that it’s hard to get emotionally drowned in it, or maybe it’s because I can’t relate to gangsters. I don’t know. But the films are entertaining, and why mess with a good thing?
I’m not sure what to say about Goodfellas, because it’s just really good storytelling. You’re told to have an inciting incident, to have turning points every 30 pages, never to use voiceover, watch out for too much improvising, but, in the end, breaking the rules with just the right style is the way to go for entertainment value.
Killing a guy in the trunk of a car on your way to bury him doesn’t exactly look like the most fun part of being a gangster, but just then Ray Liotta chimes in that he’s always wanted to be one. That little bit sets up the film so well. It’s an entertaining moment, and then you realize, “what, someone really does this for a living, and they like it?” I always assumed that every organized crime movie I saw was true, even though every organized crime movie I saw seemed incredibly fake. Scarface makes me laugh, laugh, laugh; it’s so insane. But, you know, that kind of shit happens, I suppose.
But, Goodfellas, no, I really believe it. And it’s because of that monotone voice over and the way this movie shows how it’s about more than money. I always had a hard time buying that being a mobster was something based purely on testosterone. Here, the life feels fun. And that’s what pretty much everyone will tell you.
I do wonder a bit what it was like in the editing room.
“Hey, Thelma, make sure there aren’t any static shots, you know, because the camera needs to be moving. It better be moving. We’re making the audience feel like they’re on cocaine here, okay?”
“Whatever you say, Marty.”
If Scorsese talks the way he does sober, I kind of wonder what he sounded like when he was on uppers.
Anyway, then there’s Casino, which I think is pretty hollow. That movie is about the money, purely. And, come on, I’m sure more entertaining shit happens in Las Vegas. Not that I think Casino is totally boring or anything, but it feels so dark and depressing. And watching the cornfield scene is almost as hard as watching the sex club scene in Irreversible.
But what Scorsese does with both these movies is continue to apply realistic filmmaking with the surreal. The serious music and zombie march of the elderly at the end of Casino feels like a parody of itself, overdone, both serious and silly. The freeze-frames of Goodfellas feel like pauses, like the breath you take between chapters of a book. DiNiro’s body flying through the firestorm feels like… actually, I don’t know, but it’s wacky. And the story matter of these movies is real, but it’s a segment of society we always hear about, see in movies, but rarely see for ourselves. I’ve seen photos of mobsters in papers, but I’ve never seen one in real life. Well, I’m pretty sure I haven’t. What works more for these movies is that droning government claim (which I don’t even know was ever made), “there’s no such thing as the mafia.” Then Scorsese produces two incredibly convincing movies about the existence of a crazy mob life.
If anything is missing from these movies, and this isn’t a direct negative criticism on Scorsese, it’s that they don’t hit anything as deeply as some of his previous works do. I’m sure his films are personal, and his characters are fleshed out and have wants and shortcomings and flaws, but the films themselves feel more like entertainment and less intimate. Maybe it’s just because Goodfellas is so fun to watch that it’s hard to get emotionally drowned in it, or maybe it’s because I can’t relate to gangsters. I don’t know. But the films are entertaining, and why mess with a good thing?
“Then, in 1990, a decade after his masterpiece, Raging Bull, and thirteen years after his critically acclaimed hit, Taxi Driver, GoodFellas proved that he could make art and money at the same time.” – Peter Biskind 1991
Reading again and again about Scorsese’s career as a filmmaker in-between generations I feel that his struggles and failures, the dilemma between making personal films that also do well at the box office, in my opinion resulted in the making of a film that seems so well-crafted, flawless and tediously prepared into the very last detail on screen. GoodFellas successfully combines Scorsese’s approach to filmmaking with a mainstream story about organized crime and the crazy life style.
I remember when I first watched GoodFellas in Germany this movie just completely blew my mind in terms of the way the story is told, the many visual and stylistic choices Scorsese made and the overall feel to the film. I couldn’t help but having a strong desire to make a movie like that myself. Apparently I didn’t grow up in the Lower East Side, and although we had a fair amount of “bad guys” in my neighborhood, of course there wasn’t really the space and the story for me to tell, but I wanted to be a gangster – simple as that. What a great life, plenty of money, you can park your car wherever you want; you just need to “get rid” of people once in a while.
Watching GoodFellas I have to ask myself though where the Scorsese from the previous films has gone. Is that he? Is this the Scorsese who made Taxi Driver and The Last Temptation of Christ? Or is this Mr. Compromise Scorsese; a Scorsese who had to suck up the reality of the business of filmmaking?
Both GoodFellas and Casino are great movies that perfectly fit in the realm of evergreens of cinema in the 20th Century but do they have the same impact of his previous movies? At this point, I have to praise the fact that I can’t watch Raging Bull more than once a month because of its impact, because of the emotions that transcend from the screen to the audience.
If anything, what I’ve learned in this class so far is that filmmaking, if it’s personal and has an honest intention, which Scorsese has successfully embodied as a filmmaker, will always be controversial and will feed discussions and great conversations. And I’m not too sure if GoodFellas and Casino match that level of filmmaking. Needless to say, both films flow as movies should only flow, the aesthetics, camera movements, characters all seems just perfect, although I really don’t like to use that word, but it seems just about perfectly crafted, but I think somewhere along the line, Scorsese lost what makes him in my eyes such a great filmmaker – his true inner voice.
Post a Comment