The Scorsese Conundrum

With COVIDtine lasting who-knows-how-long, I figured now was a good time to get to my backlog. I’ve already cleaned my basement and gotten more use of my Twitch account, but I guess it was inevitable that I sit down and watch one of the most-hyped movies of last year: The Irishman. I was initially hesitant for two reasons: 1. It’s extremely long. 2. I’m divided on Martin Scorsese’s filmography. Still, better now than never!

Since I don’t have much to say about the movie-it was okay-perhaps I’ll elaborate on that second point: Scorsese got into hot water last year over his remarks on Marvel movies. I’ve already said my two cents on the matter, but the timing of The Irishman’s release couldn’t have been poorer-timed with this fiasco. I say that not only because it’s unfair to both Scorsese and The MCU, but also because I feel guilty for having thoughts on Scorsese’s body of work. And I do. Though, sadly, they’re not exactly positive.

Now, I don’t think Scorsese’s films are bad. I happen to really like Hugo, considering it one of the best movies of 2011. Scorsese doesn’t make “bad” movies, but even at the best of times he doesn’t inspire me. I don’t connect with his oeuvre because his characters don’t resonate with me. And that’s disappointing for such a prolific master of cinema.

Take Taxi Driver. Containing one of film’s most-famous moments, it follows a Vietnam veteran who drives taxis and is a bit of a loner. The film’s premise is that the world around Travis Bickle’s so broken and corrupt that it turns him into a sociopath, but nothing really screams that. Travis doesn’t snap so much as go into “hero mode” to save some underaged prostitutes from an abusive pimp, and while I’m expected to “believe” that “he’s going mad”, between the bad acting, choppy direction and stale voiceover work, I’m unconvinced. It says a lot when Joker, a cheap knock-off that I despised, manages to out-Taxi Driver Taxi Driver, as at least I bought Arthur Fleck’s descent into madness.

Next we have Goodfellas. The peak of Scorsese’s “house style”, Goodfellas also does it the best. But it still falls short of what it could’ve been. Like Taxi Driver, you’re not supposed to “like” Henry Hill, but I don’t even care enough to despise him. I actually find him grating, and not in a good way. I also find the voiceover narration to be hit-or-miss, and many of scenes drag on for too long. Even the ending, while clever, feels anticlimactic.

Moving on to the film that won Scorsese the Oscar, The Departed left next-to-no impact on me outside of its excessive use of bigoted language. The film’s a cat-and-mouse game with supposed ambiguity, but I find that it meanders and is really simplistic. By the time the story picks up with that phone scene, I was checked out. At least the last shot is great, though by then I was waiting for the film to put itself out of its misery.

Then we get to The Wolf of Wall Street. The second film of Scorsese’s that I saw in theatres, I can’t really say much other than that it was okay. Not bad, not great, but okay. It had excellent acting, voiceover and jokes, and its closing scene is brilliant, but it’s way too long and feels tiring. That makes sense for a film about excess, but it doesn’t really capitalize on its point: am I supposed to like, hate, or be indifferent to these morons? American Hustle somehow pulled off that balance while also having a focused narrative.

Which leads me to The Irishman. For something so heavily-touted as being “masterful”, I wasn’t impressed. I could nitpick it forever: its de-aging technology doesn’t really work. It’s way too long. Anna Paquin is criminally-underused. Its death count rarely matters, with most of its characters dying off-screen. It only comes together in the last 30 minutes, leaving 3 hours with an uncertain build up. And its big “twist”, who the protagonist is relaying his story to, is never revealed. It might be a miracle that this film made it to Netflix, but for something so high-profile it doesn’t resonate with me.

I think this can said of Scorsese as a whole: he doesn’t grab me. Talented director though he is, he never grabs me enough to love his schtick. Perhaps that’s why Hugo stood out: it deviates so heavily from the director’s style that it feels unique. Maybe I’m in the minority, but I’d sooner re-watch that than the aforementioned films.

Maybe I’m being overly-harsh. Maybe I’m “not getting” why he’s a master of cinema. But chalking it up to ignorance, especially given my complaints, is dishonest. Like I said, Martin Scorsese doesn’t make bad movies. Even at his most-forgettable, I still appreciate his attempts at innovating film. He also seems like a lovely guy, which isn’t something I can say for many other directors. But I guess he’s not for me, and that’s okay.