Comments on: A Fine Mess: I’m a Mook? What’s a Mook?

By: The Mick536

The Mick536 — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:08:02 +0000

Duct tape.

By: Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO

Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:57:09 +0000

[20] Agreed! De Niro was never better than as Rupert Pupkin, one of the great losers in cinema history. The scene at Jerry Langford’s country home is so awkward and uncomfortable to watch.. I read somewhere that Scorsese and De Niro would tell anti-semitic jokes between takes to get Jerry Lewis riled up..not sure if true but Lewis does a slow burn that is just awesome in that scene.

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:20:28 +0000

[21] Let me add and perhaps qualify that I think it’s absolutely wrong to take the artist’s intent/opinion as the definitive one, which some people tend to do.

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:19:21 +0000

[21] Right, I’m just saying I don’t necessarily think that puts them in a worse position to critique than anyone else. We’ve all got our hang-ups.

By: The Mick536

The Mick536 — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:34:56 +0000

Is that because he copied the character or because he made up a version. I also add in the additional aspect of his opponent, a man of style and class. Then there was Carmen Basillio.

By: lroibal

lroibal — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:32:43 +0000

{18} If it’s the word “objectively” that you object to, you’re right, we all bring our own perspective to a work, but for an artist to detach themselves from the process and see their own work as art is inconceivable.

By: Alex Belth

Alex Belth — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:27:12 +0000

Yeah, I don’t think protagonists have to be admirable but I tthought DeNiro’s LaMotta was a creep and a bore.

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:15:20 +0000

[13] I should reiterate though There Will Be Blood does not follow the exploits of an admirable man.

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:13:26 +0000

[16] I don’t think that anyone can objectively critique other people’s work either.

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:12:36 +0000

[13] I thought Hard Eight was okay, I liked Boogie Nights, disliked Magnolia (for the most part) and liked Punch Drunk Love. That being said, There Will Be Blood is in a completely different class. Personally I love it and was blown away. It’s a great movie. But I think even if you dislike it it’s worth watching.

As someone who liked Anderson’s movies more or less, I still think he turned the corner with this one.

By: lroibal

lroibal — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:12:19 +0000

Artists can’t objectively critique their own work, nor should they.

By: The Mick536

The Mick536 — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:51:45 +0000

[6] Sorry. See after Hours again. Holds up. Also recently checked out the King of Comedy, Very undervalued, I must say. DeNiro made me laugh. Jerry was outstanding, too. Sandra played herself very well.

As for There Will Be Blood, I loved the final scene. It may be happening right now in some lobbyists bowling alley. Don’t score it Donny.

By: The Mick536

The Mick536 — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:46:06 +0000

Have seen the Coppola movie in all its carnations, many times. Used to know the dialogue. Loved Brando in the village, though I am alone in that category as usual. Only watched Raging Bull once. Thought about that after seeing Shattering Island. No the latter is no classic, but it is troubling. And, as the review in Time this week noted, it has another certifiable Scorcese mad man.

“It is not enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure: that when the last dingdong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in his last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice still talking.”

Faulkner lived on another level. No wonder he had Johnny Barleycorn for a friend. Brahams for the rest of the afternoon.

By: Alex Belth

Alex Belth — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:29:16 +0000

I didn’t see There Will be Blood. I didn’t really care for P.T. Anderson’s other movies, though I admire his talent. Is it worth seeing?

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:26:24 +0000

A character as potentially unappealing as LaMotta presents problems for traditional viewers but I for one am grateful for high quality films that mix it up in regards to archetypal protagonist jive and stuff like that. I mean There Will Be Blood is basically about the villain; not every movie has to have an admirable main character. Maybe it would get fatiguing after a while if there were more of it but as things now stand, it’s a breath of fresh air.

By: Alex Belth

Alex Belth — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:45:17 +0000

Yeah, I think ultimately, I have more problems with DeNiro’s character and performance than I do with Scorsese. And after working in the editing world of the movies I had a profound appreciation for the editing and especially the sound work in that movie. So inventive and expressive yet true to that crazy paranoia and jealousy of LaMotta.

By: matt b

matt b — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:40:40 +0000

[9] I think there’s also that tenderness hidden in there that Schickel writes about. And, also, as part of the whole of Scorsese’s career – the lives of Italian-Americans, particularly working-class ones.

By: Alex Belth

Alex Belth — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:38:10 +0000

Maybe I’m too traditional and stuck on wanting to feel any kind of empathy to the protagonist, who, in this case, is beyond caring about for me because he’s such an asshole. And the real LaMotta had a lot of sympathetic elements to his upbringing that they didn’t bring up in the movie. But you are right, the examination of brutality, of street intelligence, of abuse, is still valid and interesting in this movie.

Though it does have an element of Who Cares? for me. Kael hit on that in her review when she said something like, “One guy says, ‘You dumb fuck,’ and the other guy calls him ‘You dumb fuck,’ and I’m thinking to myself, ‘What am I doing watching these two dumb fucks.”

LOL

By: matt b

matt b — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:36:18 +0000

[6] I haven’t seen AFTER HOURS in ages, but if memory serves, it has sort of a Polanski vibe, too. The funny, but still scary Polanski of CUL-DE-SAC.

By: matt b

matt b — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:34:29 +0000

[5] You make a good point. I think the film has plenty to say beyond the issue of whether or not LaMotta/DeNiro achieves his epiphany.

I still say the baseball version Raging Bull is waiting to be made – the Denny McLain story.