criterionforum.org

Nope, there's only been one cut. Was it a 35mm print? It's always possible that somehow that whole chunk was cut out of the print (like it was severely damaged and they never bothered to replace that portion). Dreadful if it was, but possible.

That’s what I thought.

Pretty sure it was a new DCP restoration.

Aging is hard…

Scorsese released a statement when Robbie Robertson passed away, but Rolling Stone just published something lengthier from Scorsese, complete with personal Polaroids.

FWIW, I remember him mentioning the Thanksgiving dinner with Antonioni as part of his tribute op-ed for the NY Times when Antonioni died - had no idea Robertson was there. ("I crossed paths with Antonioni a number of times over the years. Once we spent Thanksgiving together, after a very difficult period in my life, and I did my best to tell him how much it meant to me to have him with us.")

It loses all credibility putting Bringing Out the Dead in the sewer

At least the #1 pick is worthy/a surprise

It’s a solid list and besides Bringing Out the Dead (which is written about positively at the very least) being put near the very bottom, all of the films do make sense to why they were put where they were. Also I’m just glad they talk so positively about all of his films, after witnessing the dumpster fire of Mr. Greene’s article, it’s a welcome surprise.

Casino not in the top 5 is fucking crazy. One of the most endlessly rewatchable and entertaining films I’ve ever seen, and it eschews all the rules of modern Hollywood story structure

FrauBlucher wrote: Thu Oct 19, 2023 11:09 pm Indiewire ranks Scorsese's films. Surely this will lead to dissent

And here's Everything Martin Scorsese Has Ever Done, Ranked.

Disappointing to see Bringing Out The Dead this low in both lists especially when a bore like Color of Money is given slots above it. I need to watch Wolf of Wall St; I've kind of avoided it until now. Happy that Silence is getting more consideration after what felt like a muted reception at the time though I'd have still swapped the casting of Garfield and Driver around. FWIW, my current top Scoseses are Taxi Driver, Bringing Out The Dead, The King Of Comedy, Mean Streets, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Silence and Goodfellas, with honorable mentions for The Irishman, Casino, The Age of Innocence and two thirds of Shutter Island.

FrauBlucher wrote: Thu Oct 19, 2023 11:09 pm Indiewire ranks Scorsese's films. Surely this will lead to dissent

Maybe this is nitpicky, but referring to Scorsese and Schrader as “lapsed Christians” reveals either a lack of research (neither of them is lapsed) or a lack of understanding of the word “lapsed.”

How about ranking Scorsese's filmmaking decades? For me its, from best to worst: 1990s, 2010s, 1970s, 1980s, 2000s.
Here's my ranking of the films I've seen:

The Real Deal: Goodfellas, Casino, Cape Fear(marred by horrible, offensive staging of rape scene--please find some other way to film that!), The Irishman, The Wolf of Wall Street, Scorsese's direction and camera movements on The Age of Innocence (never mind the somewhat enfeebled and denuded material)

Decent Thriller with a Stupid Twist that ruins everything: Shutter Island. and, in a similar vein/level of quality: Solid Conventional Biopic with Admirable Touches: The Aviator. and, somewhat similarily, Fun, too Flashy, Puerilely and Adolescently Macho, and Overrated: Raging Bull

Overrated Misses and Lacking in Lasting Value, but with lots of surface/incidental assets: Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Taxi Driver

Dull and Unconvincing Fake Realism: Mean Streets (Kent Wakeford may be the worst cinematographer I've ever encountered)

Hysterical, Repellently Obsessive, Incredibly Messy and unappetizing and Probably Completely Meaningless: Gangs of New York, New York, New York

obnoxious, puerile, pretentious, distasteful trash: The Departed & Arid and Empty and Useless: After Hours

Haven't seen the rest!

FrauBlucher wrote: Thu Oct 19, 2023 11:09 pm Indiewire ranks Scorsese's films. Surely this will lead to dissent

Is it me or is the marketing push for the new film way bigger than for his last efforts? It's like these past few weeks I've seen Scorsese everywhere, from career retrospectives and best-of lists to interviews about Barbie and TikToks about sex slang. I don't recall a studio pushing his films as hard as this before.

It's most likely because the stars of the film are unable to do any press for the film due to the actors strike, so they gotta push Scorsese out there.

yoloswegmaster wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 11:49 am It's most likely because the stars of the film are unable to do any press for the film due to the actors strike, so they gotta push Scorsese out there.

Pretty much. That's happening with a few other films as well - Todd Haynes, Richard Linklater and especially Sofia Coppola are doing a ton of publicity (though Coppola was able to get the stars of her film to appear at NYFF - I guess they got a waiver).

yoloswegmaster wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 11:49 am It's most likely because the stars of the film are unable to do any press for the film due to the actors strike, so they gotta push Scorsese out there.

Makes sense. I guess it's working then, because this seems to be getting way more press than The Irishman or Silence, which were released without the limitations of a strike.

Randall Maysin Again wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:48 amCape Fear(marred by horrible, offensive staging of rape scene--please find some other way to film that!)

Marred? It's incredibly effective. It's absolutely terrifying. How is it "offensive"?

Okay, maybe I can't really fault Scorsese morally for filming it the way he does, It just happens to greatly exceed my level of what I can tolerate when I'm enjoying a good relatively lightweight genre film, and I'm sure there were other filmmaking options, that could still be pretty horrifying, without being so sickeningly explicit. It's just my preference is all. I guess Scorsese isn't really doing anything wrong with this scene, other than the in his case, quite possibly incorrect assumption that with many male filmmakers, showing some poor actress's most vulnerable body parts being bitten, or hacked off, or whatever, is the first resort, rather than the last. It's just something to be avoided, if one can, you see.

Randall Maysin Again wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2023 3:16 pm Okay, maybe I can't really fault Scorsese morally for filming it the way he does, It just happens to greatly exceed my level of what I can tolerate when I'm enjoying a good relatively lightweight genre film, and I'm sure there were other filmmaking options, that could still be pretty horrifying, without being so sickeningly explicit. It's just my preference is all. I guess Scorsese isn't really doing anything wrong with this scene, other than the in his case, quite possibly incorrect assumption that with many male filmmakers, showing some poor actress's most vulnerable body parts being bitten, or hacked off, or whatever, is the first resort, rather than the last. It's just something to be avoided, if one can, you see.

Nonsense. The scene with Illeana Douglas is short, sharp and shocking - and incredibly effective. As for 'most vulnerable parts being bitten, or hacked-off' - there is nothing titillating about it, nor does Scorsese linger on her body in any exploitative way. In fact, if I recall, there is no nudity at all in this scene.

You fellas are pretty defensive of Scorsese! I'm barely criticizing him at all, you know. I'm definitely not saying the scene crosses the line into being exploitative. To each his own, but surely you don't maintain that the scene has to be filmed the way it is.

Mr. Deltoid wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2023 5:40 pm As for 'most vulnerable parts being bitten, or hacked-off' - there is nothing titillating about it, nor does Scorsese linger on her body in any exploitative way. In fact, if I recall, there is no nudity at all in this scene.

These two things are not exactly the same. You can just honestly, unflinchingly and head-on depict a big tattooed yucky guy tying up Illeana Douglas and biting into her ear, or any other especially sickening violent event, but why do that when you can convey the horror effectively without making your audience really uncomfortable and lose their lunch? There are certain kinds of violence that I really can't stomach and really turn me off of a film, though I overall still really enjoy Cape Fear, and I wouldnt' equate Scorsese with a Lars von Trier type. That kind of douchy provocativeness doesn't permeate the entire film, or even the any of the violent events themselves. I just think Scorsese is being forthright about everything, and I would just much prefer he be more discreet on the rare/one occasion (I've never seen a comparable moment in any of his other films) he depicts this kind of violence. You're perfectly right Scorsese doesn't do what you said he doesn't do. And I'm not saying ears are nudity. Scorsese's a pretty moral filmmaker, my caveats in this regard are just nitpicking in the grand scheme of things.

Randall Maysin Again wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2023 6:08 pm I'm barely criticizing him at all, you know.

"obnoxious, puerile, distasteful trash"—I didn't like the rat either, but barely?

I always thought how the scene was done undermines the scenes that follow. Douglas’ refusal to press charges because she knows first hand that the system is rigged against rape victims rings pretty hollow after we just watched her get part of her face bitten off. If there’s one thing male police officers, judges, and juries would easily believe, it’s that a woman wouldn’t consent to having chunks of her face bitten off and her arm dislocated. That kind of obvious brutality transcends institutional sexism.

To this day, I’m amazed that Cape Fear didn’t earn an NC-17 rating as a result of that scene

okcmaxk wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2023 7:13 pm "obnoxious, puerile, distasteful trash"—I didn't like the rat either, but barely?

Okay, but to be fair, and in retrospect, I would just direct that at the stoopid material, not Scorsese. Although..i guess I could probably use those same adjectives to describe the look of the film, which also sucks, and maybe that was more Scorsese's doing, I don't know.

Mr Sausage wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2023 7:16 pm I always thought how the scene was done undermines the scenes that follow. Douglas’ refusal to press charges because she knows first hand that the system is rigged against rape victims rings pretty hollow after we just watched her get part of her face bitten off. If there’s one thing male police officers, judges, and juries would easily believe, it’s that a woman wouldn’t consent to having chunks of her face bitten off and her arm dislocated. That kind of obvious brutality transcends institutional sexism.

I guess it's a testament to Illeana Douglas's performance that I totally bought it.