“Taxi Driver” is arguably director Martin Scorsese’s best film. While I admire “Raging Bull” a lot, will watch “Hugo” with my kids anytime they want to watch it, and will put on “Goodfellas” when I want a Scorsese film to entertain me and make me laugh, “Taxi Driver” is the one that sticks to my brain the most.

Written by Paul Schrader when Schrader was coming out of the tail end of a hellish personal period when he was drinking too much and going to porn theaters, “Taxi Driver” is a brilliant portrait of a damaged mind rotting away into the ugliest thoughts a mind can have.

The lead character, Travis Bickle (in what’s arguably, Robert DeNiro’s greatest performance), is an ex-Marine who can’t sleep and decides to deal with his insomnia by being a taxi cab driver in NYC. However, Travis purposely seems to go the worse areas of NYC, specifically Times Square and 42nd street, for fares.  As the unreliable narrator, he spits at this world and predicts that one day a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets.

But Travis can’t help subjecting himself to this world, even spending time in low-rent 8mm and 16mm porno theaters on his off hours.  His vision is so warped that  he convinces Betsy, a beautiful blonde campaign worker (played by Cybill Shepherd) to go on a date with him, but  takes her to a fancy porno theater because he thinks it’s a classy date.  He could be naive … or he could be wanting to subject her to the same filth he’s subjecting himself to … in much the same way emotionally crippled people put potential lovers through the ringer to prove their love for them.  Betsy wisely ditches him, which sends Travis further down a downward spiral.  Notice how the camera pans away from Travis while he’s on the phone.  It’s almost like we can’t watch him being rejected because it’s too painful.

Travis then becomes obsessed with a teen prostitute named Iris, played by Jodie Foster and decides he wants to rescue her from her pimp, played by Harvey Keitel.  He also becomes obsessed with the political candidate Betsy is working for.   Travis starts buying guns and working out.  The conclusion is troubling to say the least.  Below is a scene where Travis in the middle of his madness is quietly watching “American Bandstand” with jaundiced eyes … especially watching the interracial couples dancing while pointing his gun at the TV.  The song playing is Jackson Browne’s terrifically sad “Late for the Sky”:

“Taxi Driver” is the flipside and middle finger to the mid-1970s Charles Bronson urban revenge blockbuster “Death Wish.”  DeNiro’s Travis character is not only nuts, but racist and sexually twisted.  However, the way that Scorsese directs the film (with brilliant editing by Marcia Lucas), you can’t help but feel for Travis while also being repulsed by him.

Of course, by now, everyone knows that “Taxi Driver” was the film that inspired John Hinckley Jr. to attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in order to impress Jodie Foster.  While this is (hopefully) a ridiculous notion to most of us, the film is so brilliantly made and gets you so far inside the mind of a gone individual, it really does seem like a blueprint for being a psychopath if one were not in the right frame of mind.

But that’s the problem with great art.  By conveying the darkest parts of the human soul in a realistic and convincing manner, you run the risk of encouraging those in a similar frame of mind to identify a bit too deeply with what you’re trying to express.  However, you can’t begin to understand such dark souls without realistically looking into the heart of darkness that beats in many lost souls that wander through our culture.

Music (Original Score)

• Anna Karenina (Dario Marianelli)
• Argo (Alexandre Desplat)
• Life of Pi (Mychael Danna)
• Lincoln (John Williams)
• Skyfall (Thomas Newman)

John Williams has been nominated for a whopping 48 Academy Awards and has won five times, so I feel bad counting him out, but the money seems to be on first-time nominee Mychael Danna.  Williams and Newman will be in contention, but Life of Pi seems to be the frontrunner for this award.

Music (Original Song)

•  ”Before My Time” Chasing Ice (J. Ralph)
• “Everybody Needs a Best Friend” Ted (Walter Murphy and Seth MacFarlane)
• “Pi’s Lullaby” Life of Pi (Mychael Danna and Bombay Jayashri)
• “Skyfall” Skyfall (Adele Atkins and Paul Epworth)
• “Suddenly” Les Miserables (Claude-Michel Schonberg, Herbert Kretzmer and Alain Boublil)

Before I explain my selection, let me talk about the song from Les Miserables.  As a lifelong fan of the musical, I think it’s a shame that they had to write a brand new song for the movie to be included in this category.  While the song is very good, it is not the best song from the film, nor the best representation of the film as a whole.  No one left the theater going “Man, that Suddenly song was the best song in the movie.”  So, despite this being the first time the Broadway mainstay has been depicted in film, songs like “I Dreamed a Dream,” “On My Own,” “One Day More,” and “Bring Him Home” were ineligible for recognition, despite being both fan favorites and some of the most emotionally resonant songs of the film.  With all that said, I am leaning toward Skyfall in this category since it was very well received and was in one of the best Bond films of all time.

Animated Feature

• Brave (Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman)
• Frankenweenie (Tim Burton)
• ParaNorman (Sam Fell and Chris Butler)
• The Pirates! Band of Misfits (Peter Lord)
• Wreck-It Ralph (Rich Moore)

Typically I would say whatever Pixar film that is up for this award would be a no-brainer, and move on.  However, Wreck-It Ralph was very well received, and so it could easily take the award as well.  Given that it’s a neck and neck race, I’m still giving the nod to Pixar on principle.  Either one is surely deserving.

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

• Argo (Chris Terrio)
• Beasts of the Southern Wild (Lucy Alibar and Benh Zeitlin)
• Life of Pi (David McGee)
• Lincoln (Tony Kushner)
• Silver Linings Playbook (David O. Russell)

Given that no one in this category is a previous winner, the prediction here is a little difficult.  I found Silver Linings Playbook and Argo to both be very well written, but I think Lincoln is going to take this award, which is also deserving.  The dialogue was very well done, and considering how much of the movie is Lincoln telling anecdotes, they have to be well written for the movie to be as highly regarded as it was.

Writing (Original Screenplay)

• Amour (Michael Haneke)
• Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino)
• Flight (John Gatins)
• Moonrise Kingdom (Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola)
• Zero Dark Thirty (Mark Boal)

This seems to be a two-horse race between Boal and Tarantino.  Both have previously won for screenwriting, with Boal winning for The Hurt Locker and Tarantino winning for Pulp Fiction.  Given that Tarantino won the Golden Globe for screenplay and he’s gone nearly 20 years without an Oscar win, I would put him in the driver’s seat for this award.  Keep an eye out for Wes Anderson to sneak in if Boal and Tarantino should split the vote.

Actress in a Supporting Role

• Amy Adams (The Master)
• Sally Field (Lincoln)
• Anne Hathaway (Les Miserables)
• Helen Hunt (The Sessions)
• Jacki Weaver (Silver Linings Playbook)

While Field and Hunt are both Academy Award winners, and Adams and Weaver have been previously nominated, this is almost a no-brainer for Anne Hathaway.  She was generally regarded as the best part of Les Miserables, and she delivers a powerhouse performance.  It would be very surprising if any of the other nominees take this award instead of Hathaway.

Actor in a Supporting Role

• Alan Arkin (Argo)
• Robert De Niro (Silver Linings Playbook)
• Philip Seymour Hoffman (The Master)
• Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln)
• Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained)

This is one of the most interesting categories in the whole show, as every nominee is a previous Oscar winner.  Also, considering Waltz won the Golden Globe and Jones won the SAG Award, that means the voters are somewhat undecided as well.  You can also never count out De Niro, and given the fact that he hasn’t won since Raging Bull, the Academy could reward him for his best performance in years.  I really feel this is a three-man race at this point, with Arkin being just behind those three (while I found Arkin’s performance to be very good, I personally felt Bryan Cranston gave the best supporting performance in Argo.  That could be a Breaking Bad bias, but I truly felt if anyone from Argo deserved recognition, it was Cranston).  I’m giving Jones the  nod, but wouldn’t be surprised at all if Waltz or De Niro won this award.

Actress in a Leading Role

• Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty)
• Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook)
• Emmanuelle Riva (Amour)
• Quvenzhane Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild)
• Naomi Watts (The Impossible)

This is an interesting category as well, considering that there is a 9 year old nominee and a 83 year old nominee.  However, I think it’s a two-woman race between Lawrence and Chastain.  Either one could take it, and either one would be deserving.  I personally enjoyed Lawrence’s performance just a tad more than Chastain’s, but I would be happy with either one taking the Oscar home.

Actor in a Leading Role

• Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook)
• Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln)
• Hugh Jackman (Les Miserables)
• Joaquin Phoenix (The Master)
• Denzel Washington (Flight)

Daniel Day-Lewis has been the favorite for this award essentially since he was cast as Abraham Lincoln, and he delivers an outstanding performance.  I think he will win, but I would like to talk about the other three nominees that I’ve seen, because they deserve descriptions as well.  I felt Washington was good, but just sort of an average performance for him, which is still very good, but I wasn’t blown away as I have been some times with him.  Cooper does a fantastic job, and I feel it’s his best performance to date.  However, Jackman is the real standout of those three, in my opinion.  Truly the best performance I have ever seen from him, and it’s a shame that he’s going against such a powerhouse performance, because he would have a great chance to win in most other years.

Director

• Amour (Michael Haneke)
• Beasts of the Southern Wild (Benh Zeitlin)
• Life of Pi (Ang Lee)
• Lincoln (Steven Spielberg)
• Silver Linings Playbook (David O. Russell)

I think Ben Affleck is going to win because…….oh, that’s right.  He’s not nominated.  Well, that absurdity aside, I think Spielberg pretty much has this award locked down.  Don’t get me wrong, he totally deserves to win as well.  He is one of the greatest directors of all time, and I feel he doesn’t always get the credit he deserves, but I think given the fact the other four best picture nominated films’ directors are absent all but guarantees another Oscar for Spielberg.  Lee has an outside chance, but I’d be surprised if Spielberg doesn’t take it home.

Picture

• Amour (Margaret Menegoz, Stefan Arndt, Veit Heiduschka and Michael Katz)
• Argo (Grant Heslov, Ben Affleck and George Clooney)
• Beasts of the Southern Wild (Dan Janvey, Josh Penn and Michael Gottwald)
• Django Unchained (Stacey Sher, Reginald Hudlin and Pilar Savone)
• Les Miserables (Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Debra Hayward and Cameron Mackintosh)
• Life of Pi (Gil Netter, Ang Lee and David Womark)
• Lincoln (Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy)
• Silver Linings Playbook (Donna Gigliotti, Bruce Cohen and Jonathan Gordon)
• Zero Dark Thirty (Mark Boal, Kathryn Bigelow and Megan Ellison)

The two frontrunners seem to be Lincoln and Argo, and I have a feeling that Argo is going to take it.  While really all the nominated films I’ve seen have been very good and deserving of nominations, I think it’s going to come down between those.  Argo has been the one winning the lead-in awards, such as the Golden Globe and the SAG, so I think it’s going to be the one that goes home with the award. So, those are my predictions for all the awards at the Oscars.  We’ll see how accurate they turn out to be.  Hopefully they’re more accurate than my Emmy predictions, but we’ll see.

Hope you liked this post, and I hope you like what else I have to say.

There is much to love about a good sports film with its grit, resolve, ruined relationships, heartache and victory – better spend 90 minutes watching that than edging back from the brink of the Les Mis hopeless, gloomy drama.

Most movies focus on team sports (American football or Basketball), motor racing or boxing but fire up The Flying Scotsman, the story of world champion cyclist Graeme Obree. The script of his life has many of the qualities of a box-office hit – personal turmoil, troubled past, steely determination, and unorthodox approach.

Obree is bipolar so the film tracks how this psychological condition affects his chase to be a champion. His is no mug though, the Scotsman made things happen for himself, he set goals and he achieved what he wanted, overcoming bullies, uncertainties and disappointments to get there.

Graeme Obree’s Old Faithful bike (Photo credit: Rab’s Da)

The physical hardship he endured naturally features too. Obree was competing at the same time as Chris Boardman and Miguel Indurain. He had the records of Francesco Moser, Ercole Baldini and Eddy Merckx to inspire him. To become a World Champion you have to beat the other competitors and you have to not allow yourself to lose.

But contemplate this; Obree did it all powered by jam sandwiches, no steroids, peptides or illegal performance enhancing drugs. At this moment in time it is difficult to think of professional cycling without conjuring up images of Lance Armstrong or his name struck off the role of honour. The stench of the shame of his deception, the extent of his betrayal and the lengths he went to to cover-up still hangs in the air but now the focus has shifted to the breaking news of a drug scandal that seems to be rife through Australian sport. Police there are investigating how organised crime units have been supplying banned drugs to athletes, fixing results and influencing betting markets.  The findings of a year long investigation by the Australian Crime Commission have been revealed in part to show the current unethical and illegal behaviour across many codes and disciplines, which were described as still evolving. In a nation that takes so much pride in sporting endeavours and successes, these exposures will hit the people, fans, supporters and the country’s reputation very hard.

It is a far cry from World champions fuelled on marmalade sandwiches.

10. Oh Dae-Suh vs. Henchmen (Oldboy)

In a work of tour de-force filmmaking, Chan-wook Park crafts one of the greatest fights in film. Our protagonist on a gritty journey of vengeance is trapped in a tight hallway with a number of heavily armed henchmen whom he does battle with single handedly. The camera never takes it’s eye off the action and never changes it’s shot as we venture down the hall through all the carnage. It quenches blood thirst and showcases truly great filmmaking.

9. Jake LaMotta vs. Sugar Ray Robinson (Raging Bull)

Raging Bull is Martin Scorsese’s raw and brutal masterpiece of man, a boxer no less. Where his violent tendencies are helpful in the ring, the same can’t be said about his life outside of what he was born to do. The greatest scene in the film takes place between the protagonist Jake LaMotta and his boxing rival Sugar Ray Robinson. In their final fight Robinson may be announced the winner, but after seeing this brilliant scene, I leave it up to you. Who really won?

8. Rick Deckard vs. Roy Batty (Blade Runner)

Rick Deckard is a Blade Runner who loses his gun and falls prey to the powerful and philosophical replicant, Roy Batty. Roy toys wit him the whole time before showing him the value of life. Who is Deckard to take it away? What makes a human a human? Roy delves into this after proving his worth over Deckard’s. Their final meeting in the rain on the rooftops is what makes Blade Runner the glorious and profound masterpiece that it is.

7. Maximus vs. Commodus (Gladiator)

Gladiator takes it’s viewers on one of the most epic and satisfying journeys ever filmed. We follow Roman General Maximus as he falls into slavery eventually making his way into the Colosseum as gladiator. The climax of Maximus’ beautiful quest comes in form of a sword fight between the heroic gladiator, Maximus and the pretentious scum that is the Emperor of Rome, Commodus. It’s impossible not to love Maximus and hate Commodus. To see them finally clash swords is breathtaking.

6. King Kong vs. T-Rex (King Kong)

In order to protect Ann Darrow, the mighty Kong does battle with a troupe of ferocious T-Rex. This is just a beautiful realization of the magic of movies. We feel for this giant ape and his character, he’s a protector here and we root for this mighty beast to conquer over these flesh-craving fiends. The scene is just awesome. It grabs hold of you and puts you in that theater again as a kid, a kid just sitting back and taking it all in. Peter Jackson’s King Kong is an unspoken epic and this moment is a testament to its excellence.

5. Arthur vs. Projections (Inception)

Inception is one of the most memorable and fascinating movies ever made. You’d be hard pressed to find a moment in the film as memorable as the now classic hallway scene. Arthur is left to fend for himself in the second level of dreams and he’s very able to hold his own against Fisher’s trained projections. Fighting becomes an interesting task when you’re not only fighting on the ground, but on the ceiling, the walls and in the air. Christopher Nolan holds no punches in his reality-bending, science fiction masterpiece.

4. Obi-Wan Kenobi vs. Darth Vader (Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith)

The Star Wars saga doesn’t particularly hold a special place in my heart. I enjoy Star Wars and I always will, but I’ll always be more of a Lord of the Rings man myself. My favorite Star Wars movie is actually Revenge of the Sith and the reason is this scene. This is far and away the greatest lightsaber fight ever filmed. Not only is it an extravagant action scene that thrills with every passing second, it also has the emotional gravity. This is a master and an apprentice fighting for their lives. It was all leading to this and the spectacular scene makes Revenge of the Sith the only redeeming quality of the atrocious new trilogy.

3. Batman vs. Ra’s Al Ghul (Batman Begins)

Like slot number four, this scene also follows a fight between a master and an apprentice, but it’s far more beautiful here. Ra’s Al Ghul is personally responsible for the training of the warrior that would become Batman. Ghul believes in a less merciful brand of justice than Batman does and their differences lead them to a train and the greatest scene in Batman Begins. Ra’s Al Ghul is a fantastic character and the relationship between him and Batman is established flawlessly. It all culminates to their final confrontation and it is miraculous.

2. The Bride vs. Bill (Kill Bill)

Kill Bill is Quentin Tarantino’s perfectly epic, blood-soaked and gorgeous tale of revenge. There is one thing that our protagonist needs and it’s in the title of the movie. A bloodlust drives our deadly hero and she will stop at nothing to accomplish her goal. As I said before I didn’t want to use two different fights from the same movie and take up two spots. If I had I certainly would’ve had the Showdown at the House of Blue Leaves on this list, but it’s basically just tied for the second slot of the greatest fights in film with the fight the entirety of the four-hour epic is leading to, The Bride’s confrontation with Bill. Like all brilliant Tarantino scenes, tension is built through dialogue and the payoff is extraordinary.

1. Batman vs. Bane (The Dark Knight Rises)

There are two fights between Batman and Bane in The Dark Knight Rises that exemplify the war that is waged between these two titans throughout the entire movie. The two fights themselves represent the two greatest fights in film. If I had to pick one, I’d lean towards the beautiful war in the snow in which the stakes are made clear and hope triumphs over despair. Don’t get me wrong however, the scene in which Bane breaks the Bat far surpasses any movie fight I’ve seen, but as I said I would I choose one. Their first encounter is drawn out and brutal as Bane inflicts as much pain and damage on Batman as he can before literally breaking him (physically and mentally). When Batman conquers over Bane in the end, Batman doesn’t have that time. It’s a battle of efficiency and realism. Batman has faced this monster of a man before, he’s gone through a journey since and it’s the result of this fight that decides the fate of Gotham. It’s the greatest fight in all of film.

Actor Robert De Niro places his hands in cement during a hand and footprint ceremony at the TCL Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. —Photo by Reuters

LOS ANGELES: Double Oscar winner Robert De Niro cemented his place in acting history on Monday by placing his hands and feet in concrete in front of Hollywood’s historic Chinese Theatre.

De Niro, 69, gave a short thank you speech with a few punchlines of his own.

“(Actor) Joe Pesci always said I’d end up with my feet in cement. I don’t think this is what he had in mind,” said De Niro, referring to the many gangster movies he has filmed over his 40-year career.

“They say everyone in the film industry has three homes – the home where they live, the home where their first wife lives, and Hollywood. I love New York, and I’m proud to be a citizen of Hollywood. Thank you for this honor and thank you for making me feel at home here,” he said.

De Niro, who founded the Tribeca Film Festival in 2002 in a bid to revive lower Manhattan after the September 11 attacks, is in the running for a third Oscar this month for his supporting role in comedy “Silver Linings Playbook.”

Billy Crystal, who played therapist to De Niro’s insecure mob boss in the 1999 film “Analyze This”, praised the New York actor for his ability to bridge comedies like “Meet the Parents” and dramas such as “GoodFellas” and “Taxi Driver.”

“Even in his darkest performances, even in ‘Raging Bull’ … he could make you laugh, and that he did in spades in ‘Analyze This.’ … I’m not used to playing straight for anybody, but it was a thrill of a lifetime to be on the opposite side of that genius,” Crystal said.

“Silver Linings Playbook” director David O. Russell praised De Niro’s sensitivity in taking on the role of the father of a bipolar son in the movie.

The hand and footprints of Robert De Niro are seen following the ceremony. —Photo by Reuters

“When we first read the script together he cried because he has known people who struggled with PTSD or bipolar disorder. … Many families are no stranger to these challenges and they have to find the magic and the love that Bob brought in his soul, and he did bring his soul to this movie,” Russell said.

De Niro won Oscars for his lead role in “Raging Bull” and his supporting turn in “The Godfather: Part II.”

His handprints and footprints in the courtyard of the Chinese Theatre are near those of Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, Brad Pitt and George Clooney.

Let battle commence…

Space

Star Wars vs 2001: A Space Odyssey

Winner: Star Wars

Let down by its lack of plot and painfully dull pace, 2001 was always going to be second best to the thrilling rollercoaster ride of the Jedi.

Boxing

Rocky vs Raging Bull

Winner: Raging Bull

It’s a knockout blow for Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro, picking up maximum points for their efforts. 

News Broadcasting

Anchorman vs Network

Winner: Network

Tough going for Anchorman.  It was always going to struggle against this oscar-nominated 70s classic.

Lo0k out for more Movie Top Trumps battles in future posts!

CONTRIBUTED BY JAKE THOMPSON

A director is vital to the making of a movie.  The director is responsible for getting the best possible performances from the actors.  The director is responsible for bringing his/her vision to life through his/her collaborations with the director of photography, writer(s), production designer, makeup designer, costume designer, and all of the other departments (unless he/she is simply a work-for-hire director brought in by the producers to just direct the actors, but even in that scenario a good director should still have some kind of vision for the film).  Every now and then, a director that turns in an extraordinary work gets snubbed by the Academy on the day the nominations are announced.  It didn’t take me very long to find five major snubs.

One major snub is Alfred Hitchcock for 1958’s Vertigo.  Hitchcock’s tale of tragic love and extreme obsession became one of the greatest movies ever made.  Hitchcock was able to get great performances from his actors (including James Stewart, Kim Novak, and Barbara Bel Geddes).  His choices for shot compositions and use of cinematography were creative and inspiring (not to mention effective).  It’s such a shame that he wasn’t nominated for his work here.  Hitchcock is a five-time nominee (5 Director nods for 1940’s Rebecca, 1944’s Lifeboat, 1945’s Spellbound, 1954’s Rear Window, and 1960’s Psycho).

The actual nominees at the 31^st Academy Awards were:
Gigi – Vincente Minnelli (*Winner)
The Defiant Ones – Stanley Kramer
Cat On A Hot Tin Roof – Richard Brooks
The Inn of the Sixth Happiness – Mark Robson
I Want To Live! – Robert Wise

Another major snub is Martin Scorsese for 1976’s Taxi Driver.  It’s just unbelievable that Scorsese did NOT get nominated for this film.  He did a great job getting all those terrific performances from the cast (especially Robert DeNiro’s powerhouse performance, and the improvisational stuff he did with Albert Brooks was inspiring).  He didn’t just develop the performances of the actors, but the flow of the narrative as well (he had the order of some of the sequences changed, slightly altering writer Paul Schrader’s vision for the story).  His contributions to the film made it the masterpiece that it is.  It’s too bad he wasn’t nominated for this film.  Scorsese is an 11-time nominee (7 Director nods for 1980’s Raging Bull, 1988’s The Last Temptation of Christ, 1990’s Goodfellas, 2002’s Gangs of New York, 2004’s The Aviator, and 2011’s Hugo, 2 Adapted Screenplay nods for 1990’s Goodfellas and 1993’s The Age of Innocence, 1 Picture nod for 2011’s Hugo, 1 Director win for 2006’s The Departed).

The actual nominees at the 49^th Academy Awards were:
Rocky – John G. Avildsen (*Winner)
Face To Face – Ingmar Bergman
All the President’s Men – Alan J. Pakula
Network – Sidney Lumet
Seven Beauties – Lina Wertmuller

I actually found two major snubs from the same year but could not choose just one of them.  First, there’s Akira Kurosawa for 1980’s Kagemusha.  Kurosawa, who spent years trying to get the film funded, until George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola finally stepped in to help secure the rest of the funding.  Kurosawa did an excellent job getting such great performances from his cast, especially Tatsuya Nakadai (who replaced Shintaro Katsu at the last minute).  He heavily used dust, steam, and mist to give the film an artistic feel (it was only his third film in color).  He had painted hundreds of full color storyboards of the script in the years prior to the making of the film.  It’s a shame the Academy didn’t nominate him for his work here.  Kurosawa is a one-time nominee (1 Director nod for 1985’s Ran).

Next is Stanley Kubrick for 1980’s The Shining.  Kubrick’s direction here was just incredible, from all the terrifying (and terrified) performances from the cast to the look of the Overlook Hotel, allowing it to become a character (and quite a “performance” it gives).  Kubrick’s shot compositions and careful direction turn what could have been a mundane adaptation (in the hands of a different writer and director) into something much more powerful and horrifying.  It’s no surprise that the only horror film directed by Kubrick would be one of the best horror films ever made.  It’s a shame he wasn’t nominated for his work here.  Kubrick is a 13-time nominee (4 Adapted Screenplay nods for 1964’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, 1971’s A Clockwork Orange, 1975’s Barry Lyndon, and 1987’s Full Metal Jacket, 1 Original Screenplay nod for 1968’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, 4 Director nods for 1964’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, 1968’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, 1971’s A Clockwork Orange, and 1975’s Barry Lyndon, 3 Picture nods for 1964’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, 1971’s A Clockwork Orange, and 1975’s Barry Lyndon, won Visual Effects for 1968’s 2001: A Space Odyssey).

The actual nominees at the 53^rd Academy Awards were:
Ordinary People – Robert Redford (*Winner)
Tess – Roman Polanski
Raging Bull – Martin Scorsese
The Elephant Man – David Lynch
The Stunt Man – Richard Rush

One final major snub would be Christopher Nolan for 2008’s The Dark Knight.  Many were surprised by this snub, including myself.  Nolan had made one of the best films of 2008, extracting excellent performances from the cast (including Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, and Heath Ledger in his final complete performance, which won him a posthumous Oscar).  Nolan’s behind-the-scenes work ensured that the film’s story would be plausible in a real-world setting (as much as possible anyway).  Nolan’s work here was simply fantastic, and the Academy should be ashamed for nominating Stephen Daldry for The Reader over Nolan.  Nolan is a three-time nominee (2 Original Screenplay nods for 2000’s Memento and 2010’s Inception, 1 Picture nod for 2010’s Inception).

The actual nominees at the 81^st Academy Awards were:
Slumdog Millionaire – Danny Boyle (*Winner)
The Reader – Stephen Daldry
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – David Fincher
Milk – Gus Van Sant
Frost/Nixon – Ron Howard

Other directors that were considered include John Ford for 1956’s The Searchers, Tim Burton for 1994’s Ed Wood, and Guillermo Del Toro for 2006’s Pan’s Labyrinth.

The biopic of the troubled prize fighter Jake LaMotta is story of triumph and success, but also a tragic one of jealousy and downfall. Raging Bull was released in 1980 and was directed by legendary director Martin Scorsese and starred Robert De Niro as Jake. The film received mass acclaim from critics and was nominated for eight Academy Awards and ended up winning two for best actor for De Niro and best film editing. Raging Bull details Jake’s life through the 1940′s up through the 1960′s after he had retired from boxing. The film depicts his glory in the boxing ring as well as his struggles at home with his family and friends. The film takes place in the Bronx in New York. The rough neighborhood illustrates the crude manner with which people often engage with each other. People typically yell at each other on a regular basis and fights were common in the neighborhood. Jake meets an attractive woman named Vicki at the pool one day and ends up getting into contact with her through his younger brother Joey (Joe Pesci). Vickie and Jake get married and have a few children. As Jake continues to experience success with his boxing career his family life at home appears to be content for a decent amount of the film. Jake’s irrational paranoia begin to destroy his family and relationships with everyone who is close to him. Jake’s persistent jealousy take control of his thoughts and he gradually comes to believe that his wife is sleeping with every man who looks at her or touches her in greeting or leaving. Jake ‘s uncontrollable rage consumes him and he starts beating Vicki based on his delusional belief that she is unfaithful. Jake goes so far as to accuse his own brother Joey of sleeping with Vicki and storms over to Joey’s house and violently attacks him. As the film progresses we continue to follow Jake’s downward descent into loneliness as he isolates himself from those who love him. Jake then lets himself go and gains an immense amount of weight as he retires from boxing, his only solace from his unhappy life. Vicki leaves Jake and Joey loses hope in him as well. Jake ends up opening a club and goes on to get arrested. The misery that his life has now become is heartbreaking to watch. The film is beautifully shot in black and white cinematography and incorporates a touch of swirling orchestral accompaniment for many of the film’s passages. The gritty and violent portrait of Jake’s life in the Bronx initiates a sincere sense of raw emotion and sympathy for the downfall of LaMotta. The boxing sequences are stylistically manipulated and often shot in slow motion to give a surrealistic sense of disengagement from the real world. The boxing ring acts as a dream-like setting in which Jake can truly channel his rage into the fight and escape the miserable reality of what his life has become. De Niro’s incredible performance channels the rage and misery of LaMotta and even led the actor to gain 60 pounds for the ending of the film, when Jake is older and retired and at rock bottom. Raging Bull is a gritty account of the idea that trust is one of the most important qualities a person can have. Jake destroys his family because of his utter lack of trust. Trust allows you to experience happiness and to believe in those you love and that surround you. Fighting is only effective in the solace of the boxing ring, outside of it trust is the winner.

Alvaro Orlando is charming as an unusually shy fighter attached to his dog but awkward when it comes to women.  Counterpunch might have been a better, more satisfying film had the character not been a boxer at all, as the film’s treatment of the sport and the figures who operate around it offers little new to the genre apart from peppery, bickering Cubans and the boring novelty of an attractive female fight promoter. Camila Banus is never really convincing as someone who would live in this grimy world, but does have a chemistry with Orlando and might have been better utilized in a more fully developed romantic storyline.  Danny Trejo, contrarily, has the perfect type of hardened features for a study of the demimonde of broken lives that is boxing, but Trejo has little to do in his meager and undemanding supporting role as a friendly orderly in a mental institution.

Counterpunch‘s biggest mistake where the hard-hitting boxing melodrama is concerned may be its insistence on being blandly uplifting (including the obligatory climactic comeback knockout) where downbeat defeat would be more realistic and faithfully tragic.  ICA’s advice: see Fat City or Requiem for a Heavyweight instead.  2.5 of 5 possible stars.

Ideological Content Analysis indicates that Counterpunch is:

7. Anti-slut.  Apart from the unfavorable depiction of Emilio’s mother (Yeniffer Behrens), there is a scene in which a woman having sex in a parked car becomes the target of gang members looking for group action.

6. Feminist.  ”If I’m going to be a female boxing promoter, I gotta work twice as hard,” resourceful promoter Talia Portillo (Camila Banus) says, suggesting that the sexist professional deck is stacked against the distaff.

5. Anti-drug.  Emilio attempts suicide after drinking heavily and smoking a joint.  His alcoholic mother is a mess and suffers at the hand of her druggy boyfriend, who is eventually murdered in a dispute over a dime bag.

4. Christian.  ”God’s last name is not ‘Damn’,” Emilio’s Grandma Daisy (Ivonne Coll) reverently reminds his Uncle Frank (Oscar Torre).  When Emilio questions God’s existence, Grandma Daisy placidly reassures him, saying, “God gave me you.”  Uncle Frank sends Emilio a Bible for comfort during his institutionalization.

3. Class-conscious.  Emilio says he comes from a part of Miami no one ever sees.  He lacks the promotional backing of established fighter Teddy (Jilon Ghai) and feels uncomfortable at a trendy dance party attended by beautiful, well-dressed people.

2. Diversity-skeptical.  Cuban street thugs (who call each other “Nigga”) react with hostility to encroachments onto their turf by “dirty Haitians”.  After Emilio’s gang, the Jack Boys, beat and rob a Caucasian, one member taunts him, “A’ight, Mr. White Man, pleasure doing business with you.”  ”I hate the way people look down at pitbulls just because of the way they look,” Emilio reflects suggestively at one point.  Though never made explicit, there is a racial tension to his rivalry with white fighter Teddy.

1. Pro-family.  Emilio’s mother repeatedly lets him down, but his Uncle Frank and Grandma Daisy are dependable and a source of strength.

The classic sci-fi film Blade Runner is set to have a sequel sometime soon

Within the past few months, a lot has happened in Hollywood.  Producers are planning new sequels to classic films like Raging Bull and Blade Runner, plus there’s going to be a reboot of Star Wars.  This inspired today’s question: what’s your take on sequels?

I’m very uneasy about them.  Sequels tend not to turn out well typically and can often be disappointing (Indiana Jones 4).  The sequel to Raging Bull, now titled The Bronx Bull, is not likely to be a success since neither Martin Scorsese nor Robert De Niro is involved with the project.  While Blade Runner 2 will be directed by Ridley Scott,  I’m not sure he can conjure up the same magic as the original, which ended perfectly.

I’m more hopeful for Star Wars Episode VII, mostly because it’s in the hands of not George Lucas but J. J. Abrams, who has proven himself worthy of the genre through his reboot of Star Trek and Super 8.  I don’t know how it will turn out, but I do think it could be potentially good.

But what’s your take?

Goodfellas and The Sopranos actor Frank Vincent is world famous for delivering some of the best, wise-ass lines ever heard in mob films and on TV. His character Billy Batts gave new meaning to the word “shinebox.” Most recently, Frank Vincent joined forces with Marky Ramone and Brea Grant to appear as Sally “Sno-Cones” in the hit comic book series Alan Robert’s Killogy (IDW Publishing). Here’s your chance to put some words in Frank’s mouth! Enter the Killogy “What’s Frank Vincent Gonna Say Next?!” Contest by simply posting what you think he should say in the comic panel.

Facebook: Post a comment for the comic panel, located here: http://on.fb.me/UQf6oX

Twitter: Hashtag #Killogy with your tweet

Contest ends on Friday, February 1st, 2013, 4pm EST. The winner who posts the funniest, wise-ass line of dialogue gets an original sketch and autographed comic by Killogy creator Alan Robert. For more info on Killogy, visit the official website: http://www.killogycomic.com

Now some of you naysayers out there may question why the cartoon looks nothing like Al Pacino, well there is a clear legal reason why we can’t do that – have you ever seen Fanboys? Well whatever the reason the statue in that film couldn’t look like Kirk … that’s what we are going with… nothing to do with drawing abilities…

Anyhoo, if you are interested in learning more about how great actors can stoop so low, give this article a read:

“WHEN THE LURE OF THE ZEROS WAS SIMPLY TOO MUCH”

Play Misty For Me, Dog Day Afternoon,  Raging Bull, Taxi Driver - good god the seventies looked like THE TIME for film. That’s right folks, the best is over, and now we are left with the elderly remnants of those halcyon days. Yet, just because the stars got old, that doesn’t mean they automatically make crap right? Well, not always; Clint Eastwood seems to continue challenging himself – and we don’t just mean by arguing with empty chairs – but what about the others? Here we take a look at the work of two greats from the past – Robert De Niro and Al Pacino. 

Enjoy/hate that, whatever you feel – just remember to maximise those minutes.

Godspeed and good luck,

-OMG!Apocalypse

In this example, movement that would take 1 second in real-time takes 2 seconds when projected through the projector. This creates a sense of slow motion.

Now, capturing 20 frames per second (FPS) and projecting them at 10 FPS is not very typical and probably not a very good idea, since projecting film frames in such low frame rate would result in jerky movement.

Better and more typical is to shoot at 48 FPS or 120 FPS (and project later at 24 FPS). Nevertheless, shooting at higher frame rate and playing the footage back at lower frame rate is completely meaningless and pointless if you don’t know why you are actually doing it, so the question is: What would be the reason to play with various frame rates and distort thus the perception of reality?

POV (click! )

POV shot is one of the best reasons and opportunities to distort, manipulate and play with the perception of reality. Thanks to POV shot, we see what the character sees. But not only that, POV shot gets us inside the head of the character, so we can experience what and how he feels. We literally see/hear the world through his eyes/ears.

A lot of the shots in the film had different degrees of slow motion, but notice that all of them were preceded by close-up of Jake La Motta, telling us unmistakably that this is his POV.

Slow motion shots appeared both in boxing ring as well as in his domestic life. Scenes (and slow motion shots) inside the boxing ring were already discussed at length (see the links at the end). Therefore, we’ll focus on the slow motion shots that appear outside the boxing ring.

Watch the video below to experience how is to see the world through the eyes of Jake La Motta – self destructive paranoid violent ambitious possessive suspicious volatile explosive angry and jealous character.

Now, we know why Martin Scorsese used slow motion shots throughout the movie, but what does it actually mean? What does it portray?

1) Fetishisation

Slow motion may be used to indicate a fetishisation of the subject. A way of suggesting that the subject is able to hypnotize the viewer with his or her actions (1). This is what happened when Jake sees Vickie for the first time at the neighborhood swimming-pool. The problem is that he doesn’t see her as a person, but as individual parts (eyes, cheekbones, legs). He sees her as a sexual trophy.

2) Increased awareness

Later in the film, slow motion serves to different purpose – to emphasize the raptness of Jake’s attention and awareness. This happens during the scene at the St Clare’s Church dance, when we are given slow motion POV shots of Vickie and of Vickie and Salvy as Jake looks across the room, and of Vickie and Salvy as Jake follows them from the dance and watches them drive off in Salvy’s car (2).

3) Paranoia and jealousy

Finally, slow motion gives more credence to his escalating paranoid state (3) and jealousy. He sees the world in slow motion and interprets every minute detail. To Jake La Motta’s paranoid mind, people’s actions always require pessimistic interpretation. “Anything is possible,” as he says several times. His eye for detail, as shown via slow motion shots, causes multitudes of possibilities to furiously zigzag and crisscross in his mind, often causing him to suspect people of wronging him and sullying his masculinity (4).

24 FPS sound

It is interesting to note that during the slow motion shots we hear real sound, the actual 24 FPS sound. This gives the slow motion shots slightly disturbing feeling. It builds tension and increases Jake’s paranoia towards the end.

During my preparation for this article I came across many interesting articles and books, but this one stands out: Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull. Just read it.

References

1. www.othercinema.com/otherzine/otherzine5/speedramp.html
2. www.atlantisjournal.org/ARCHIVE/29.1/2007Grist.pdf
3. www.craigerscinemacorner.com/Reviews/raging_bull.htm
4. www.jtbrandt.com/essays/slow-motion-misogyny-in-raging-bull

Links

• Cinematography of Raging Bull
• Roger Ebert on Raging Bull

Exclusive sneak peek.

Midnight Marauder is a BLURPPY regular.  His Criterion Collection Series is exceptional and he describes himself as a “freelance designer specializing in film posters and prints“.  He churns out work at an incredible pace but somehow managed to find some time for BLURPPY’s first 2013 exclusive. (For which I am eternally grateful).  Now, sit back read along and find out what makes MM tick.

BLURPPY:  How would YOU describe your style or how would YOU like it described.  You always get OUR/ BLOGGER point of view, let’s hear from YOU.

MM:  Style … Boy I’m not sure I have a style of my own yet. I have been raised on Kubrick films and i have kept that sharp vision of his on everything i do, what i mean is i feel like Kubrick walking on set in the morning with his view finder to block his shots. Takes me longer then he ever did to compose. Finding the right aesthetic to each design. I am a freak for detail. so my work is very detailed.

BLURPPY:  I disagree, I absolutely think you have a style.  I see one of your posters and I immediately identify it as MM.  “Gritty” or “raw” might be the words I use How did you get started in the “poster” scene?  What was your FIRST print?

MM: I started out working on Criterion Collection covers just for fun, with the hopes of someday working on the real thing. On the flip side I’d been collecting traditional gig posters for years. Guys like Print Mafia, Rob Jones and Allen Jaeger just to name a few.  First official print was my Raging Bull Poster based on one of my Criterion covers.

BLURPPY:  What are your 3 favorite pieces that you have done that you feel really show off your talent or truly capture a subject you love. 

MM:  That’s a tough one! I have hundreds that I like. I will have to go with my Prometheus Posters. In all fairness I just have too many so I have included a few medleys of Criterion designs that represent my body of work.

2 Images from Midnight Marauder’s Prometheus series.

Criterion Collection Medley

BLURPPY:  I knew, given the amount of work you have amassed in your portfolio, that that was going to be a tough one for you.  I think it is important to point out to first time viewers of your work that this is only a small portion of your work.  I can’t BELIEVE that your LOOPER print didn’t get in there!

Hands down one of my all-time favorite prints of 2012.  I have been trying to get you to produce that one for SALE since you launched it! (FYI, I’m STILL waiting for this one to go on sale!)  What would be your dream project?  What would you KILL to work on? This can be a real project or something crazy like “design the next Death Star for Lord Vader.”

MM:  I would go ape shit to work for Criterion on any given project, but the dream project would be on a Robert Altman or Sam Peckinpah film for Criterion !!

BLURPPY: I could see you doing something spectacular for Quintet, The Gingerbread Man or even Secret Honor for Altman and there are too many good ones from Peckinpah to pick just one or two. (That being said, I LOVED Convoy when it first came out and Invasion of the Body Snatchers with Sutherland scared the sh!t out of me.)  What is your process like?  How do you get started?

MM:  My process, I can’t say I really have one. It just never ends up being what I set out to make. Through error and mistakes it always ends up better in some respects.  I do a lot of research before I get started, I seek out as much as I can on any given film but I always start off by picking a director I like.

BLURPPY:  Whose work do you follow, love, crave?  Any specific pieces by these artists that stand out to you?

I like many artist, too many to list. Chip Kidd is my go to guy when I need a visual guide on how it’s done. Recently I have been introduced to this insane artist working in the film poster world her name is Akiko Stehrenberger  she is an amazing artist, her work just blows me away !!

Client: Warner Independent
Art Director & Illustrator: Akiko Stehrenberger” Official One Sheet
Key Art Award Finalist 2009

…but here are a few of my favorite pieces.

1) The Getaway – Japanese Poster (I love to collect Japanese movie posters. They all have this structure to the photos and collage that is magnificent)

2) Haywire – Kellerhouse (Love is too weak a word to describe Kellerhouse’s work)

3) Rocky Horror Picture Show – Japanese Poster (Amazing !! )

4) The Kills – WeareyoungMonster (genius!!)

BLURPPY:  Wow.  I have to say, one of the best things about this 7 Artists X 1 Interview series BESIDES getting inside YOUR heads is the amazing new artists you guys are turning me onto. How do you see the whole “pop-culture poster craze” evolving?  What is your hope for it?

MM:  If it continues the way it does, then certainly it will end very soon.  Let me explain why.  The film subjects and themes have not evolved much other then pop culture subjects. There needs to be an evolution of the genres that are currently chosen. Sophisticated and lost films need to be taken on in order for it to survive and reach a larger art form and audience. Another sad aspect to this movement is the rotation of artists, more artists need to be given a shot!

BLURPPY:  I agree and disagree. I think that more artists need their shot but I think that is coming.  I think that the way this “craze” continues is with new artists stepping up or being given a chance to give you a totally different perspective on beloved classics as well as obscure gems.  I think that the Mondos, Bottleneck Gallerys, Spoke Arts, Gallery 1988s of the world control whether or not this insane addicton fans have for pop culture art continues or not. I have a feeling that this trend of new artists will really take hold this year.  What is your “can’t live without possession?”….NO KIDS or PETS!

MM:  My entire collection of Hot Toys Iron Man series, I am a huge hot toys collector …. if Hot Toys is reading this, hit me up !!!

BLURPPY:  What is your favorite guilty pleasure?…..ham, Honey Boo-Boo, Junior mints, American Pickers, coffee ice cream, long walks on the beach….etc…

MM:  My guilty pleasure would be listening to a wonderful commentary track and working on a poster or criterion cover. It doesn’t get better then that for me !

BLURPPY:  Spoken like a true movie enthusiast / artist.  How is 2013 shaping up for you so far?  Any projects/ shows/ collaborations you can talk about or tease?

MM:  I am working on a few gallery pieces that will be dropping soon, wish I could plug them now, but can’t … top secret.  My main focus this year is to freelance as much as possible!! whether it’s the limited poster game or traditional film poster business.  I am available day and night ….

BLURPPY:  I know this to be a fact.  I have e-mailed you at all hours and to my surprise, I almost always get a response regardless of what time it is.  Probably the reason you have such a huge portfolio.  You NEVER stop working!  What is your favorite movie of all time and why?

MM:  My favorite film of all time is Robert Altman’s The Long Goodbye and Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner.

BLURPPY:   I love your Blade Runner series.  Yet ANOTHER one that I am waiting for you to SELL!  We gotta get you a gig on the upcoming Blade Runner flick.  Ridley…look no further, I have your guy!  OK, pick one from each line as your favorite:

Peanut butter and jelly or Ham and cheese : PB and J
Whedon’s AVENGERS or Nolan’s DARK KNIGHT RETURNS : Neither, Favreau’s Iron Man !!
Summer on the West Coast or Fall in New England : Summer West Coast Style
Kubrick’s The Shining Movie or King’s The Shining Book : Kubricks
Morning or night : Night
Pizza or sushi : Pizza !
Justin Bieber or Gangnam style : None of them
Cats or dogs : dogs
Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd : I truly love both bands, but I am more of a Black Sabbath guy !
Charlie Brown Christmas or It’s The Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown : The Great Pumpkin

I would like to thank Midnight Marauder for his time and continued support of BLURPPY.  Let’s summarize what we learned about MM today.  He loves Japanese movie posters, thinks that Black Sabbath is better than Zeppelin or Floyd, is a huge Kubrick fan, and really needs to put his Looper and Blade Runner series up for sale.  Do yourself a favor and check out his site HERE to see the massive amount of impressive work he has done.  (Go to the ARCHIVE section.)  You can also follow him on TWITTER.

]]> http://davesstrangeworld.com/2013/01/14/the-king-of-comedy-1982-dir-martin-scorsese/ Mon, 14 Jan 2013 04:07:27 +0000 Dave's Strange World http://davesstrangeworld.com/2013/01/14/the-king-of-comedy-1982-dir-martin-scorsese/

“The King of Comedy” was Martin Scorsese’s follow-up to his legendary Jake LaMotta biopic “Raging Bull.” “King” flopped with audiences and got mixed reviews from critics. However, I think it’s one of Scorsese’s best films and as I much as I admire “Raging Bull,” I would watch “King” before “Bull” any day.

This movie seriously rubbed many the wrong way, because “King” did not resemble the typical Scorsese film. (There’s no gangsters, rat-a-tat dialogue and editing, or violence.) And star Robert DeNiro, as obnoxious autograph hound and wanna-be comedian Rupert Pupkin, likely really repulsed people. Granted, Jake LaMotta and Travis Bickle were scary characters, but let’s be honest, people love scary characters. Pupkin is the delusional loudmouth that most people go out of their way to avoid, let alone avoid seeing a movie about.  But DeNiro really brings it in this role, as well as Jerry Lewis as talk show host Jerry Langford and Sandra Bernhard as DeNiro’s arguably more demented cohort Masha.  Berhnard’s “seduction” of Lewis’s character is absolutely hilarious and frightening.

But I think time has been really kind to “King.” Uncomfortable, queasy comedy (i.e. “Curb Your Enthusiam,” “Louis”) has attained a certain kind of cache and if you like Larry David and Louis C.K., you should really give “King” a chance. “King” is one of the most brutal critiques of celebrity culture / worship ever created. It’s extremely uncomfortable to watch, but also very darkly funny.

This Thursday the Oscar nominations were announced and today the Golden Globes will declare their winners.  This inspired this week’s question: what do you think about award shows in general (be it the Oscars, Globes, or Emmys)?

I usually don’t try to become to invested in them and prefer the critics’ circles choices.  The problem I have with many of the big award shows is that they often favor bigger and more popular films over smaller ones.  There have been many great films that didn’t win, like Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull, Citizen Kane, or GoodFellas.  Plus there have been some classics that weren’t even nominated, like 2001, Vertigo, or Do The Right Thing.  Some legendary directors like Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock, and Orson Welles never won Best Director.

But anyway, what do you think?

[Click images to enlarge]

BERLIN: A Berlin museum will Wednesday open what it called the first exhibition worldwide dedicated to the work of veteran US film-maker Martin Scorsese, who opened his vast archive for the show.

Featuring relics such as Robert De Niro’s shirt drenched in fake blood from “Cape Fear” and his battered boxing gloves from “Raging Bull”, the show at the Museum for Film and Television offers an in-depth look at Scorsese’s half-century of cinema.

The 70-year-old Oscar winner was unable to attend the gala opening because he is editing “The Wolf of Wall Street”, his fifth picture starring Leonardo DiCaprio, whose filming was delayed by Hurricane Sandy in October.

But he said in a video message shown to reporters that he was honoured to be the subject of a show at a museum whose permanent collection is devoted to the work of icons such as Marlene Dietrich, Fritz Lang and F.W. Murnau.

“Some of the objects you will see have literally been taken off the walls of my house and my office,” said Scorsese, who also narrates the show’s audio guide.

“I hope these objects and the exhibition… help give you an idea or convey my lifelong passion for film.”Scorsese made available his personal collection of scripts covered in hand-written notes, vintage posters and photographs for what the museum called the first exhibition devoted exclusively to Scorsese’s monumental output.
The show offers up crowd-pleasers such as Cate Blanchett’s mustard-yellow evening gown from her Academy Award-winning turn as Katharine Hepburn in “Aviator” and DiCaprio’s ragged 19th century suit from “Gangs of New York”.

But it also gives aficionados a chance to scrutinise the master’s notoriously exacting method with the help of letters between De Niro and Scorsese about developing indelible characters, and hand-drawn storyboards from “Taxi Driver” and “Mean Streets”.

“The one bit of direction he gave us for the exhibition was not to focus too much on violence because his work is often reduced to that (by critics),”co-curator Nils Warnecke said.

“And it’s true – if you look at the entire body of work, it really represents only a minority of the films.”The show is broken into three sections starting with a focus on Scorsese’s home neighbourhood of Little Italy in Manhattan where family was a source of orientation in a rough world as well as the nucleus of organised crime.

His parents’ kitchen table, curios and wedding pictures are among the highlights.

The second section looks at Scorsese as a passionate curator of cinema history who has worked tirelessly to restore classic pictures. The final chapter focuses on the Scorsese aesthetic in his feature films and music documentaries.

The museum’s cinema is showing a retrospective of the director’s best-known films until January 15.

The exhibition, which will run until May 12 then continue on to Turin and Geneva, is opening just weeks before next month’s 63rd Berlin film festival.

First off, I really like the idea of it being shot black and white. To me it feels that it makes it seem more “historical” in a sense, since it was based off a true story. The black and white can also sort of define the “truth” or “realness” in the world around these characters. I say this because they only time you ever see color is the time-lapse between 1943 and 1947, when both Joey and Jake get married and Jake has kids with Vickie. It seems to me those were the only really “good times” they had, or it was the visual fantasy of the good life that Jake wanted. The black and white makes sure we see through all the bull-shit that is going on and get to the truth. If it wasn’t in black and white, I don’t think it would have the same effect as it does now.

Second, the truthfulness to the world in this story. It’s not fluffed up to be suitable for all ages yes. It’s violent and aggressive, but it’s truthful to the story and makes it more interesting than the same stuff we have seen before. Such as the first fight where Jake La Motta loses because the judges favor over the other player. Do you think just having the audience boo but politely clap be effective at all? It may be suitable and pleasing, but this film is not to please everyone. It’s to bring you into a certain world with it’s own language, it’s own history, and it may have disturbing content. It’s to WAKE YOU UP to what’s going around and how important a scene may be. So have La Motta lovers start picking fights, throwing chairs, trample over women, make other bleed. That will sure walk up the audience and bring you in so you can find out more what happens in this twisted story.

And finally, the flawed Jake La Motta draws people. He is brutal, for he abuses his loved ones and he only thinks for himself. Yea sure he’s a cocky prick who loses his temper when he gets extremely jealous or when things don’t go his way. He thinks he’s the best and that he deserves to have everything he wants. So we love to hate him in that respect. But in a way we want to root for him and also have him turn around. Showing us Jake in the beginning fat, we wonder “gosh what did he do to get like this?” As the movie progresses, we say ” oh yeah. I get it now. I guess he kinda deserved it. But he seemed nice in the beginning. Will he change anyway?” So by having the first shot set up, we already want to root for Jake. We see him do terrible things and then forgive him when he does something sweet. But the last scene where he pounds on the jail cell wall, crying out “why” and screaming in agony: that’s when we all feel for him. We understand how he feels in that moment after seeing what he went through and we feel bad for him cause we know he’s a good guy. And in that moment all our predictions for Jake come true. We know he’s a good guy, he’s just done a lot of mistakes in the past. So we forgive him. He may be a bit of a bastard, but we forgive him and root for him anyway.

I give this 4 out of 5. The filming in black and white and great choice, the real world of this story really pulled us in, and watching Jake going through trial and error to realize his mistakes was well worth it in the end. If you want something real and true, check it out. You won’t regret it.