GoodFellas and BadFellas

Wow -- talk about letting a political agenda run away with a good argument!

You have to love the current political climate. Noticing symmetrical trends in art and real life is no longer an "observation" or an "opinion," it is an "agenda." Note to neocons: We don't all think like you.

Very good essay, though, and it's finally crystalized what makes Goodfellas and Casino so powerful for me. That gradual shunning of God's oversight of the actions of men is what I saw when comparing Match Point to Crimes & Misdemeanors. I wonder if Woody Allen would make a good (serious) gangster movie?

Note to neocons: We don't all think like you.

We don't all think like liberals, leftists, or party-loyal Democrats, either. Still, despite those political differences we should be able to analyze and appreciate thoughtful, well-crafted cinema together, shouldn't we?

If Emerson's partisan slurs manage to turn conservative readers away from Scorsese's oeuvre, he will have done a great disservice not only to those readers but to the films.

JE: First, the excerpt here is only one small part of the essay. But where do you find a "partisan slur"? To see a parallel between the freeze-frame of a guy being tortured (accompanied by references to "good government") and more recent, infamous images of guys being tortured in the name of the US government -- that's a "partisan slur"? (I'm not a Democrat, BTW -- but where's the "partisan" part?) To understand the link Scorsese makes between the mob and capitalism and government -- that's a "partisan slur"? Those things are essential to what the movies are about, and if you're ignoring them, then you're not watching Scorsese's movies. P.S. "The Departed" has a funny scene in which Alec Baldwin gets so excited during an FBI/police surveillance operation that he starts hugging people and exclaiming: "I love the Patriot Act! I love the Patriot Act!"

We don't all think like liberals, leftists, or party-loyal Democrats, either. Still, despite those political differences we should be able to analyze and appreciate thoughtful, well-crafted cinema together, shouldn't we?

You've kind of proven my point. This either/or, binary mentality -- if you do not support A you must be B, no exceptions -- is poisonous to modern discourse. Knowing only that I protest the neocons' attitude in this matter, you have decided I am a liberal/lefty/Democrat -- as if these were the only two options on the menu. For all you know, I could be a Southern Democrat, or a member of the Green Party, or even a Republican who remembers what "conservative" used to mean.

We can indeed all analyze and appreciate film together. But art, good art, is impossible to seperate from the world that produces it. (This is especially true of Scorsese, given how much of his material is biographical in nature.) When Jim is comparing what he sees on the screen to what he sees in the newspaper, he is acting in a time-honored and completely valid field of criticism. To dismiss a reasoned essay from an intelligent person as being partisan, as if simply invoking the word was enough to render the whole thing moot, is disingenuous in the extreme.

Another "GoodFellas" moment in today's news, from a Marine's sworn statement about prisoner abuse at Gitmo. Again, the image of the postman comes to mind:

A 19-year-old sailor referred to only as Bo "told the other guards and me about him beating different detainees being held in the prison," the statement said.

"One such story Bo told involved him taking a detainee by the head and hitting the detainee's head into the cell door.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061006/ap_on_re_us/guantanamo_alleged_abuse_6

Great article. I think the essay hit The Departed right on the mark.

I think this might be Scorsese's most thoughtful exploration of faith yet. The images he references here rival the best of The Descent. We see a frozen portrait of the Virgin Mary a split second before it's smashed over a man's head. A driver gets shot and crashes his car. The car becomes engulfed in flames, so he shoots himself in the head to avoid being burned. Matt Damon wakes up and says "I was dreaming I was dead." His lover says the last thing one would expect to hear in a modern film: "Death's tough. Life's the easy part." That one line goes against every cliche I've ever seen. When most films (including the original Infernal Affairs) promise that God will deal catharsis (however shallow) in this world, Scorsese understands it doesn't work like that, and refuses to relieve the viewer from the troublesome burden of doubt.

**SPOILER**
My favorite image in the film comes toward the end, at the funeral of Leonardo Di Caprio, when the psychologist who was secretly seeing them both walks past Damon toward the camera without giving him so much as a glance. The shot is constructed to resemble a mirror image of the closing shot from The 3rd Man. The situation is exactly the same, except this time she's walking past the Harry to Leo's Holly, so he stands on the right instead of the left.

Knowing only that I protest the neocons' attitude in this matter, you have decided I am a liberal/lefty/Democrat -- as if these were the only two options on the menu.

Actually, I mentioned three other positions -- liberals, leftists, and partisan Democrats. These groups often form coalitions, but should not be conflated.

I suppose I could have added paleoconservative, paleoliberal and libertarian to the list of anti-neocon perspectives, but figured three would suffice for a brief comment.

Timothy: Definitely include true conservative (exemplified by Goldwater Republicans) on your list. Old school conservatives (not quite paleocons) -- who believe in small government, limited spending, federalism/states' rights, and individual freedoms -- are the among the most vocal critics of King George II and his brand of pro-torture, above-the-law neoconservatism these days.

Jim: You have to be careful about labels like "true conservative." I'm a Reagan-Goldwater Republican, which places me pretty firmly in the ranks of lower-case libertarians.

Still, the modern conservative movement has possessed a strong authoritarian component as well, and pace Andrew Sullivan, it's impossible to say that one tendency is more "truly" conservative than the other.

My basic point, which I haven't yet seen challenged, is that the political agenda in your Slate essay did a disservice both to your conservative readers and to Scorsese's films, by presenting those films as if they were partisan pleasures.

Timothy: I was indeed using "Goldwater conservative" in the sense Andrew Sullivan has been discussing it recently (and am looking forward to reading his new book, "The Soul of Conservatism"). I think there's a struggle for that conservative soul going on now -- which may be partisan., but is really more philosophical: What does it mean these days to call yourself a "conservative"?

But what I was writing about in "GoodFellas and BadFellas" has nothing to do with political parties or political philosophy. I began with "Mean Streets" and the conflicted Catholic guilt/morality in Harvey Keitel's character, and then traced that morality through "Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull," "Last Temptation," "GoodFellas" and "Casino," in anticipation of the release of "The Departed." My comparison of current events to the images and moral worlds of "GoodFellas" and "Casino" are because, in both those movies, the mob is seen as a metaphor for capitalism, and for government -- with the explicit references to government and the "President of the United States" in the narration in "GoodFellas." I don't see how, in 2006, anybody could watch the freeze-framed image of the postman's head being pushed into the doorway of the pizza oven, and not think of Abu Grahib -- especially when it's immediately followed by Henry Hill's statement that this experience made bullshit out of his school lessons about "good government."

So, my point (and the movies') is not a partisan one at all. It's showing what happens to people (in business, government, the mob, wherever) who put themselves above the law and above morality, who see themselves (in the words of that White House aide) as "history's actors" -- the only people who are important -- while everybody else is a "nobody," left powerless to watch what they do. "GoodFellas" and "Casino" see the mob (and by explicit extension, government and big business) in those terms -- as does "The Sopranos," which is always making comparisons to government and corporate ethics.

So, yes, Scorsese makes political movies -- rooted in personal observations. And as his films have become less explicitly religious (or Catholic) they have become more explicit critiques of American institutions of business and government.

P.S. In terms of personal politics, I took some online political philosophy quiz that positioned me as a libertarian socialist, believe it or not. I believe in smaller, less intrusive governmental interference in citizens' lives, and that government exists to preserve our liberties -- and that a key responsibility in that regard is to provide checks and balances on business, which only government can regulate to protect the greater public good. Corporations exist only to make money for their executives and shareholders; only government -- as an agent of the governed -- can say: "No, you do not have the right to cut corners or increase profits at the expense of public safety -- whether it's unchecked pollution or the selling of toxic or dangerous products." I'm a liberal on most social issues, but I don't think government programs are the cure for all social ills. The one other thing I think should be a government responsibility is national health care. As we've known for many years, "competition" for health care does not lead to better or less expensive care; it leads to cut corners and artificially inflated prices, in cooperation with private health insurers. Health care should be a right; it's insane to leave something that important up to companies whose primary interest is in turning a profit rather than providing a good service.

With respect to the "libertarian socialist" remark, I believe it. It's a fairly common stance among urban liberals.

For my part, I happen to like corporations. It's nice to have a plethora of goods and services readily available at low prices. I also happen to be one of those "shareholders" the anti-corporate activists keep griping about -- and if you own stocks or mutual funds, or do anything with your money besides stuff it in a mattress, chances are very good you're a shareholder in a corporation, too.

As for American health care, it would take me all day to address the problems with your argument, and I don't think either of us cares to stir up that hornet's nest right now.

The subject was Scorsese, and the funny thing about Scorsese's films is that as political metaphors or critiques they can be used to make just about any point you want. What may seem to you like an indictment of corporate capitalism, cronyist government or military abuse can seem to an NRO columnist like a perfectly truthful, insightful attack on welfare-statism, government-sanctioned urban blight, or the political machinations of Bill and Hillary Clinton. (The conservative press was hardly bereft of "Goodfellas" allusions during the Clinton administration.)

The same could be said of Shakespeare, of course -- and I suspect that in both cases, we're not looking at legitimate interpretation of art so much as an appropriation of it.

Seems like Mr. Hulsey has two categories of people in mind: Those who support GW Bush and those who don't. Either you're with us or you're against us. The former group is quickly shrinking, unfortunately, and one could say that even James Baker is slipping into the latter group. Why is it that saying "torture is wrong" or "abusing the weak and defenseless is wrong" become a sure-fire label for "librals, leftists, and partisan Democrats"? Would anyone who does not consider themselves a libral, leftist, or partisan Democrats take offense in being represented by Mr. Hulsey? And I can't help but wonder if Mr. Scorsese would gladly label himself as "not in the same camp as Mr. Hulsey"?

Quick note: But where do you find a "partisan slur"?

I didn't "find" them; they practically jumped out at me. The two most obvious examples were the invocation of Suskind and the "snapshot for Abu Ghraib." (The Enron example was more of an anti-corporate slur with partisan ramifications.)

Timothy: Scorsese's movies, from "Mean Streets" through "GoodFellas" and "Casino" use the mob as metaphors for the church, for government, and for corporations. That's what I'm saying -- and that's right there on the screen in the examples I've cited from the movies themselves. If you have some other reading of the movies, and those particular shots/sequences/lines I cited, I'd love to hear about it.

Jun: I wasn't aware that I was representing anyone. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of those who still support Bush wouldn't like me any more than you'd like them.

For me, the most interesting feature of this thread (so far) has been the way commenters have presumed that "liberals, leftists and partisan Democrats" were somehow dirty words. It's true that I tend to disagree with partisan Democrats and liberals, and that I almost always oppose leftists. But that's hardly a badge of shame, and I wonder why people who hold these affiliations would have such trouble with it. (Perhaps because it suggests that they hold one among many legitimate points of view?)

Jim: If you had claimed that Scorsese's mob served as a metaphor for the church, the government and corporations, I would not have objected. Scorsese's films have a strong anti-establishment streak, and as you've noted, it's "right there on the screen."

You may have intended to make this argument -- and frankly, I hope you did -- but it's not the argument you actually made. Instead, you compared scenes from Scorsese's more recent films to Enron, Abu Ghraib and the current Bush administration.

Once again, your choice of examples exposed a partisan agenda, which did a disservice not only to your readers (some forty percent of whom may well support Bush even now) but to Scorsese's films, which may be appropriated to political ends but which transcend mere ideology.

I don't believe I ever objected to the meat of your argument as such, merely the way in which you allowed your politics to run away with it.