Mean Streets

[J.R. Hudson]

Mean Streets; Scorsese's 1973 film that launched his career, and De Niro's, and Keitel's

I enjoyed somewhat, but was underwhelmed and not that stoked. Maybe for it's time, it was gritty ? I don't know.

It is the rare Scorsese film that just doesn't do it for me. Kind of boring at times and slow.

The performances are a treat of course, but it's obvious Scorsese is still honing his craft at this stage.

The Hudson Star O' Meter ?

2 of 5

Your thoughts ?

[Batutta]

It's the kind of movie you watch for the ambience and the dialogue. My friends and I often quote DeNiro's dialogue.

"That Weintraub girl? Very nice, very nice, I wanna bang her like crazy."

One thing for sure, the crystal clarity of DVD audio isn't kind to the soundtrack. You can hear camera noise all over this thing, and the ADR is pretty bad.

[Billy Pilgrim]

I love Mean Streets. Not only is it one of my favorite Scorsese films, it's one of my top ten favorites. I think it's severely underrated, and is probably too overshadowed by Scorsese's more seminal work.

[DeSica]

I wasn't great, but it wasn't bad, either. It is somewhat "of it's time," but still fresh enough for back then.

New York in the 70's has often been cited as a character itself, and the gritty look and feel can be seen in films like The Supercops, The 7-Ups, and The French Connection, and of course, Mean Streets.

It's a neighbourhood story about neighbourhood guys doing neighbourhood things. Some of us grew up around guys like that, or have known them, and see the meaning in the monotony. For some reason Trees Lounge, reminds me of the same sort of mood or tone.

I'd say a solid 6.5 out of 10.

[Isaac_Brody]

It's definitely Scorsese honing his craft. If you want to see raw Scorsese, check out Who's that knocking on my door. That is Scorsese experimenting and making all sorts of rough mistakes. It's got its charm because you seem him start to develop his strong religious themes as well as his use of slow motion and of course even back then he had a great ear for music. I don't think anyone uses music as well as Scorsese does. Check out the helicopter paranoia scene in Goodfellas. It's one of my favorite sequences he's done. It's frenetic and brilliant.

[J.R. Hudson]

Thanks Isaac

Ill be looking to watch that (also running to grab GF's disc)

[CallaghanFilms]

I agree with Hudson...

not that it's a bad film by any means, but it gets WAAAAAAYY to much attention/praise from John Q Filmmaker (ahem-cough-2001-ahem cough-A-Clockwork-Orange)

[Luis Caffesse]

I'll second Issac's recommendation of 'Whos that Knocking at my door"
now that is really Scorsese at the start...very rough, but there are still moments in it where you can see that he's got what it takes.

And I guess thats the same reason Mean Streets has always been a movie I've liked..even though I honestly don't think it's all that 'great' as a film on its own. But looking back - after seeing where his career went, you can watch something like Mean Streets and see the glimmer of what we now know became a great artist.

Yes, it has its rough points - and yes the pacing is a bit off and it drags...but all in all, I would have been thrilled if I'd made that as one of my first major works. And that's the thing - it may not be a great film for 'Scorsese'...but back then, he was just Marty.

I guess, if we're not grading on a curve - yes, I'd probably score it low.
But knowing where he wound up - and being able to see that potential in Mean Streets just trying to find its way through the language of film, and trying to figure out how to get across the stories he wanted to tell... I think that makes it one hell of an enjoyable viewing experience.


Or maybe I've just had too much to drink today.
:thumbsup:

[DeSica]

Ever notice how many Scorsese 'fans' there are running around, raving about his work, especially his earlier stuff, yet never mentioning Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, The King Of Comedy...or even After Hours?

Makes me wonder if they have even seen them.

And I do agree with the idea of some films being over rated (someone mentioned 2001 and A Clockwork Orange, both of which I did not enjoy nearly as much as Paths Of Glory or Full Metal Jacket). Cape Fear didn't impress me very much.

It was too stylized, Nick Nolte was wrong for the part, and while DeNiro's physical transformation was on par with the ones he underwent in Raging Bull and The Untouchables, his performance was not. I know everyone goes on about his subtle seduction scene with Juliette Lewis and how erotically charged it was, but on the whole, it wasn't exactly a great film.

Mean Streets was made inexpensively. For a film like that, it did provide some real bang for the buck. You have to take into account the time and atmosphere in NYC back then. Things were gritty. Movies were different. Many were small and character driven. This is before Jaws (which was supposed to be a cheap B-movie) broke huge, and helped create the concept of the 'summer blockbuster.'

Jim Jarmusch described it as a time that is lost forever, when artists and filmmakers could work a regular day gig and afford to pursue their craft on the side. He himself admits that if he had to start out in today's New York, with the rents and the other costs of living, he probably wouldn't be able to make his films and do what he does, and he isn't exactly a big budget guy.

Go figure if Marty had to start out now. Would we even have Mean Streets...nevermind Raging Bull, Goodfellas, or whatever?

It's not one of my favourite movies, and he may not be my favourite director, but I'm glad he made it.

[J.R. Hudson]

I agree with you DeSica

I have not seen all of Scorsese's work but have seen the above mentioned films; Alice is a huge childhood memory for me and I found The King of Comedy completely enjoyable

Cape Fear ? Wow. De Niro's performance alone is worth that ticket. Great film.

I feel the same about Kubrick. I'm a much bigger fan of FMJ and THE SHINING over the usual mentioned classics of 2001 and Orange

[Luis Caffesse]

Ever notice how many Scorsese 'fans' there are running around, raving about his work, especially his earlier stuff, yet never mentioning Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, The King Of Comedy...or even After Hours?

Makes me wonder if they have even seen them.

All great films, in my opinion.
Then again - I don't really understand what you're getting at.

Is it simply that people (supposedly) claim to be fans of his work but don't mention all his films?
A bit of a leap to assume people haven't seen those films based solely on whether or not they come up in conversation, isn't it?
As much of a leap as it is to assume that they have seen them, I suppose.

[J.R. Hudson]

Hitchcock probably sits around NUMBER 6 on my all time DIRECTOR list but I can't say I've seen all 66 films he's done ! : /

The only Director I can say I have seen the entire body beyond filmmakers like Malick or Taratino who do like a film every 50 years?

Spielberg

[Luis Caffesse]

Hitchcock probably sits around NUMBER 6 on my all time DIRECTOR list but I can't say I've seen all 66 films he's done ! : /


Exactly.
And even if you had - clearly there are some that exemplify his 'style' more than others, so they are the ones most talked about.



The only Director I can say I have seen the entire body beyond filmmakers like Malick or Taratino who do like a film every 50 years?

Spielberg

Yet I never see you mention '1941' or 'Hook'
:)


I honestly can't think of a director whose entire body of work I've seen.
There are even a coupld of Kubrick films I haven't made it to yet - and he doesn't have that many.

Oh - I guess the Coen Brothers would be it for me.
But they're easy with only 12 projects out there (give or take).

[Blaine]

I tend to lump Mean Streets and Taxi Driver together.

[Billy Pilgrim]

Ever notice how many Scorsese 'fans' there are running around, raving about his work, especially his earlier stuff, yet never mentioning Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, The King Of Comedy...or even After Hours?

Makes me wonder if they have even seen them.

I have. I love the King of Comedy, especially. The last act is just classic, when Rupert Pupkin hijacks the late night talk show. I'm surprised that no one ever talks about that film, although I'm also glad, because I've always thought about it as my little Scorsese secret. After Hours is just weird, but my taste. One probably wouldn't even know it's Scorsese just watching it. It's so different than most of his films.

[DeSica]

All great films, in my opinion.
Then again - I don't really understand what you're getting at.

Is it simply that people (supposedly) claim to be fans of his work but don't mention all his films?
A bit of a leap to assume people haven't seen those films based solely on whether or not they come up in conversation, isn't it?
As much of a leap as it is to assume that they have seen them, I suppose.

I don't mean to say a person has to see every film that a certain director makes if they like or admire him. What I am talking about is the people who are rabid about a director, and cite his work all over the place, but really are not familiar with much of his stuff.

Scorsese seems to be one of those guys with a huge following who claim to love his work, but a large portion of that following haven't seen as much as half of what he has done. I remember many chats from film school like that. Always the frenetic, wild, violent stuff, but when you bring up smaller, quirky stuff, then you get blank stares.

If I really like any artist, I try and go back and explore much of what they have done. I may not like it all, but I get something out of it. You can learn alot, and you see the arc of the creative process, as well as the career, and whatever highs and lows they went through.

And if someone is a huge Hitchcock fan, why wouldn't they try to see all of his films, or as many as possible? I would.

[J.R. Hudson]

Interesting notes

I am a huge fan of De Palma and find most people are not. But then I wonder if they've seen anything beyond Snake Eyes or his shitty Space film ?

-

Still, these guys have a body of work that started in the 60's. Not everyone has been exposed to it or has had the means to view all of their films.

Scorsese has done enough mastery since Goodfellas to base an opinion on him even if one has not seen Taxi Driver, Raging Bull or Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore !

[Luis Caffesse]

DeSica - fair enough.
Upon first reading your comments, it sounded a bit like film snobbery...but I realize that was my knee jerk reaction to what you were saying. But I now see what you were getting at - it's like people who see "The Wall" on acid in College and decide that Pink Floyd is the greatest band of all time....while never listening to any other album.

:)

[DeSica]

DeSica - fair enough.
Upon first reading your comments, it sounded a bit like film snobbery...but I realize that was my knee jerk reaction to what you were saying. But I now see what you were getting at - it's like people who see "The Wall" on acid in College and decide that Pink Floyd is the greatest band of all time....while never listening to any other album.

:)

Yeah. Well put.

I was going to say it is a sentiment that is hard to put into words, but you know it when you come across the situation. Good example.

[DeSica]

...I am a huge fan of De Palma...
No....you? Shocking!
-


Still, these guys have a body of work that started in the 60's. Not everyone has been exposed to it or has had the means to view all of their filmsSure, but you can seek out this knowledge if you choose to.

I remember talking to a producer during class, and he told us a story. When he was working on one of Bruce McDonald's films, they wanted to see a long tracking shot from a film called Alligator Shoes. It was a small Canadian film that had impressed many critics in the seventies and made stars out of the brothers who acted in it and directed it. They even got invited to Cannes. (They managed to implode right after that, due to egos and the usual stuff. )

I had seen the film a few times, and I knew the shot well, because I was impressed by it the first time I saw it. He and Bruce actually had to get a print of the film and screen it to see the shot again, and examine it repeatedly. They wanted to accomplish a similar shot, and were trying to figure out the mechanics involved.

He contrasted that with today, when you grab a DVD and you can study a film as much as you like, with a relative ease that would have been unheard of just a few of decades back. Roger Ebert has even noted that some really well produced DVDs, with all the extras (notes, director commentary, etc.), are like taking a film course at home.

We have such easy access to materials that the very people we admire would have given a right arm to have back when they were starting out. Scorsese had to leave his house and go to the theatre to see his films, and his choices were limited to what was available.

Today, Netflix will send your films to your door, and you have ample time to watch and study them all you like.


Scorsese has done enough mastery since Goodfellas to base an opinion on him even if one has not seen Taxi Driver, Raging Bull or Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore !Perhaps...but it was getting a little lean there when he made Bringing Out The Dead and Gangs Of New York. I don't consider either especially good, but I do own a copy of the former. I get involed in heated debates about this all the time with a certain actor friend of mine.

I think Michael Mann did him a huge favour when he suggested that Scorsese direct The Aviator, while he stepped back into a producer role. I feel it helped bring him back to form.

[Isaac_Brody]

Here's really early Scorsese. One of his films from NYU. I saw this one a few months ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th4hFu4fzno

[DeSica]

Wow. Nice post.

I've been wanting to see that for some time now. I wonder if it really was symbolic of America's involvement in Vietnam.

It's encouraging...some of my film school stuff holds up pretty well against this.

[Luis Caffesse]

It's encouraging...some of my film school stuff holds up pretty well against this.

Yeah, of course we've had the benefit of having Scorsese to look at.
That's what always makes those "Top 100 Directors of All Time" lists" such an impossible endevour...

Speilberg, Scorsese, Lucas, et al.... they all had the benefit of Welles, Kurosawa, Hitchcock, etc.

Anyhow - total tangent, my mind is just wandering today.
But I know what you mean DeSica - it is nice to see peoples beginings...and to see that while the work might still be engaging, it wasn't always groundbreaking.

[Isaac_Brody]

That's the great part about Who's that knocking. The film was shot over several years, and that dream sequence where Keitel sleeps with that woman and hallucinates was shot a couple years later to help sell the film. It's so rough, but the progression of his talent is clear.

If you want to really feel humbled check out Polanski's student film Two Men and a Wardrobe. It's MOS, but his control of storytelling and the subtext of the film are very strong.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051566/

And he also plays a thug in it as well, a scene that mirrors that scene in Chinatown when he cuts Nicholsen a new nose.

[CallaghanFilms]

First off, I've been drinkin....alot

Secondly, I just finished watching Gangs of New York for what I am realizing is only the second time (I'll be damned...who woulda thunk it.)

The first time I saw it, I left the theatre scratching my head. Because I didn't know just what to make of the damnable thing. Enough time went by, and I assumed that I grossly disliked it...or, at best, I was greatly under-impressed.

Needless to say, after a second viewing, I still am left confused...confused both on how I feel about this period piece AND confused on many of the plot points themselves. I can say 2 things with certainty tho...

#1 Marty Scorsese is neither infallible nor bullet-proof...and is not above making a bad film

#2 Daniel Day Lewis' performance was un-poo pooing-believable. It was sooo perfect, in fact, that it was way too good for this film...it was much, much better than the sum of Gangs' parts

[DeSica]

First off, I've been drinkin....alot...
#1 Marty Scorsese is neither infallible nor bullet-proof...and is not above making a bad film

#2 Daniel Day Lewis' performance was un-poo pooing-believable. It was sooo perfect, in fact, that it was way too good for this film...it was much, much better than the sum of Gangs' parts

I'm stone cold sober, and I agree, so take that for what it is worth.

Most critics agreed that Daniel Day Lewis was remarkable in the film, and that he seemd to be in a whole other movie on his own.

What do you expect when you cast Cameron Diaz in that kind of role?