HR:“You don't make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets. You do it at home. All the rest is bullshit and you know it.”

“You don't make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets. You do it at home. All the rest is bullshit and you know it.”

These words open Martin Scorsese’s Mean Streets (1973) one of the most personal and visceral of all of the new Hollywood films to emerge. It fulfills every single promise made by Scorsese’s earlier film Who’s That Knocking at My Door? (1967) and explicitly states who and what he was.
This is one of the films that knows how to speak “movie”. It knows the “reel” power of film inside and out and joyously exploits every trick it can. The story is minuscule points of life strung together into a more cohesive whole. It is a representation of a time and place in America.
It is so visceral and so vibrant and so energetic one can easily parallel the French New Wave. However, I believe that Scorsese was actually the only American New Wave filmmaker in this entire period. He made what he knew into movies with the same passion that he had for them. When the characters are in trouble or don’t know what to do with themselves-they go to a movie. When they are in turmoil and torment, they are in Roger Corman’s The Tomb of Ligeia (1964) which is the most tormented of his Poe adaptations.
The Catholic guilt Scorsese is famous for is present here, but it isn’t really about religion overtly. Religion is supposed to be a guide and Charlie just can’t find any guidance in it whatsoever. Yet, he will continually test himself over the flames both physically and mentally.
Since the 1970’s Scorsese has never made any films as visceral as Who’s That Knocking At My Door?, Mean Streets, and Taxi Driver. This is not to say that his later films are bad, but that they are completely of a different nature. His good films in the modern day and age all have the hallmarks of his earlier more cinema verite work. He needs to make movies to express the giant movie in his head. This I can completely associate with. I’ve never been to New York, but I can connect completely with what he is trying to get across. This is because these early films completely use every single frame to communicate with the audience in a completely direct way. Marty was coming from New York into a completely closed off world in California and has always really remained the other guy who makes passionate films.
There is a moment in Mean Streets that is almost a throwaway moment that has stayed with me ever since. It is such a simple moment where Robert DeNiro is supposed to come into a bar with two girls. Harvey Keitel watches intently. Anyone else would have just presented the scene normally, but Marty has the bar just completely bathed in red light and DeNiro comes into the bar in complete slow motion and you can just feel the ambiance and Keitel’s frustration. The soundtrack kicks in with Jumpin’ Jack Flash from a 45. The entire film is completely of a homemade quality because it really was done that way. The opening credits are 8mm home movie footage of the actors just goofing around. And it just works.
Scorsese had learned how to make an official feature on Boxcar Bertha (1972) for Roger Corman. This was really his first true movie of his own that was an official production. And it shows. It flawlessly blends the innovation and liveliness of Who’s that Knocking with the studio technique of Boxcar. Yet it is one from a personal place and this maintains the feeling of real life on the streets. Scorsese even participates in the film himself as both a gunman and the speaker of the opening narration with which I opened. Those words are not just scripted, but from the heart.
Since Taxi Driver, Scorsese’s films have been nowhere near the energy level of his debuts. The great ones have a more realistic grittiness; The King of Comedy, After Hours, The Last Temptation of Christ, Bringing Out the Dead. Goodfellas hearkens back to Scorsese’s childhood experiences with the Mob and all of the things that surrounded his existence. However, it has always left me out in the cold somewhat. Casino is often referred to as the lesser Goodfellas yet it has so much more to experience as a film. It is long (nearly three hours), convoluted, visually stunning, massive, and just full of so much to chew on that you could essentially get drunk on cinema.
When was the last time that you could actually claim you did that? Movies are an experience. Scorsese’s best works are a testament to that. The rest is bullshit. And you know it.

Apocalypse Returns

The new Apocalypse Now Blu ray will be the best the film has looked on home video. We finally will get the original 2.35:1 aspect ratio left intact, and a brand new transfer of the Technicolor IB negative for Redux. This source will be used for both versions of the film.
My only gripe is that the original film wasn't mastered separately, but that's me being nit picky...also they could have included the original 70mm mix from 79...
The Digital Bits posted an interview with the team producing this new release, and it is extremely refreshing to hear that people want to preserve a film the way it was intended to be seen and not to make it look like digital video.
check it out at: digitalbits.com
Original 2001 transfer:


new 2010 capture of the same IP:

HR: The complete death of the Hollywood Renaissance-The Two Jakes and The Godfather Part III:

The Two Jakes presents us with a Jake Gittes that is older, heavier, and still consumed by what happened in Chinatown. He has been through the war, and seen LA morph into a caricature of the movie world it creates. This is one of the major problems with the film. It allows the period setting to dominate the feel and thus everything becomes unrealistic and very structured. The magic in the original film was in containing the action to central locations and completely infusing them with the prevailing sense of doom. It is not really Nicholson’s fault as a director that this is not achieved, but what he does is provide an extremely stable hand so that the film is allowed to lumber onwards with at least some support.
It is nearly impossible to understand this film without having at least some knowledge if Chinatown. Yet they are almost completely unrelated. Two Jakes is more of a spiritual sequel instead of a direct one. We see the same Gittes just more successful and even more tired of wallowing in other people’s filth. Throughout the course of the film he is on a journey. We never really realize what this is for until the final moment where he tells someone that the past never goes away. The entire point of The Two Jakes is that Gittes regains himself. The ending of the film presents us with an older and wiser version of the man who appeared at the beginning of Chinatown. Up until that point Gittes existed only as a shell; with a membership at a country club, a worthless fiancée, a plush office and firm which are all the contrivances awarded someone who plays the game as dictated by society. He knows what he is but can’t live with it.

The Harvey Keitel character also being named Jake is no coincidence. He and Gittes begin to relate to one another almost immediately and this leads to a deepening relationship that reveals how they are like two halves of the same whole. The demise of one Jake leads the other to question himself and the motive of murder, if there ever was one at all. The film itself is flawed and meandering, but eventually like Gittes gets to a self realization that will keep in your brain for ages.


The best parts of Godfather III are those that deal with seemingly un-cinematic moments-those being the simple reactions from Michael and how he carries himself in his older years. The most gripping confrontation is not between Mafia chieftains, but between Michael and Kay after all these years. What Al Pacino and Coppola do with Michael nearly 30 years on is riveting. That is the reason why Part III is worth watching. If you could strip away the other superfluous elements you would be left with a vastly superior film.
The director’s cut streamlines some things and rearranges others so that a vastly superior narrative emerges. Originally the film opened with Michael involved in discussions with The Vatican. The new version does not. From that change onwards the overall experience is heightened. This is not to say that the film is great or rescued by any means. The subplots are generally uninteresting and we constantly reminded of this every time we are arrested by Pacino’s performance as Michael. To simplify things Coppola should have focused entirely on Michael since that is both the only thing that works and the thing that audiences most want to see.
Both of these films share numerous parallels that it becomes almost as if they were somehow linked. Both were released by Paramount Pictures in 1990. Both are sequels that occur 16 years after the previous installment. Both are over two hours and so full of detail that prior knowledge of events is mandatory. One closes a trilogy and the other was meant to be one. Both are carried by a single performance by a great actor. Both are set in a historical period. Finally, both were released with critical backlash and relative financial failure. Part III did moderately well mostly due to the fanfare and notoriety of the franchise. The Two Jakes failed to even make its budget back.
It is strange to see the products of such a creative time as the early 1970’s appear so much later and be so similar. The union between themes and tone I believe stems from the fact that everyone had become tired of the industry and the failure of the Hollywood Renaissance to change anything. It is astonishing to compare the audiences of today to those of 20 years ago. Back then, we were expected to accept works such as these that while flawed, presented us with great morsels to chew upon in our minds. Our patronage was rewarded with actual concepts and ideas. Today we are lucky to get even a glimpse of substance amidst the CGI jungle that is the Hollywood of 2010. One of the biggest hits of 20 years ago was The Hunt for Red October. To even suggest making an “action film” that had the intellectual content of Red October today would most likely get you thrown out of the conference room.
I’d sure like to be the one to suggest finishing the Gittes trilogy. I’m reminded of something Kirk Douglas once said to Stanley Kubrick about how Paths of Glory (1957) would likely make no financial returns: “Stanley, I don't think this picture will ever make a nickel, but we have to make it”. (1)
I think the overall bloated production for these two films and their ineffectiveness and their failure is what officially stated that the ideals and leaders of the Hollywood Renaissance were dead. This is the final nail in the coffin.

(1)-Paths of Glory DVD insert, MGM Home Video-1998.
(Kudos to Paramount Home Video for releasing these films in respectable transfers with original audio mixes intact. Godfather Part III was given light work after the previous two were painstakingly restored by Robert Harris and now has a warmer color palette. The Two Jakes looks light years ahead of the old worn VHS I saw many years ago. I was very surprised to find it on DVD in a Special Collector's Edition.)

Upcoming stuff

Sorry for the lack of posts, but now I'm getting everything up and running.
There will be posts made this semester on the New Hollywood period. These posts will be designated with the heading NHR (new hollywood renaissance).

Just how hard is it to get your classes scheduled? It's as if they don't want you to go at all...