Is there anybody who doesn't want Martin Scorsese to win an Oscar? Even if you don't think "The Departed" approaches his best work? For me, his best films are "Taxi Driver," "GoodFellas," "King of Comedy" and "New York, New York" (and I'm very fond of most of his others, including "After Hours," "The Last Waltz," "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "The Color of Money") -- and I've written at some length about all of them over the years explaining why I think so. If I had to get hierarchical, I'd probably rank "The Departed" somewhere below "Color of Money" and above "Boxcar Bertha" -- mainly because it strikes me as one of his most mechanical, least personal films. I just didn't get the feeling his heart was in it all that much.
But, so what? Unquestionably, Scorsese deserves recognition from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences -- and, as is often the case in Oscar history, he may get it for something that does not represent his finest work. Or even the best of the year. And that's OK. The Oscar doesn't really have anything to do with artistic merit, but Scorsese's a real moviemaker (he thinks in images), a longtime pro, and a movie lover to his core. The Academy should recognize him for everything he's done for movies, not just for "The Departed." (This would be one of those "career Oscars" -- like when Henry Fonda won for "On Golden Pond" -- or Al Pacino for "Scent of a Woman.")
Which brings me to the latest issue of cinema scope (a publication with a web site that's more attractively designed than the print version), in which Managing Editor Andrew Tracy makes an argument about "The Departed" and Scorsese that might be called, oh, I don't know, contrarian, perhaps? Here's the gist:
Do we really need Martin Scorsese? Heresy though it may appear, the question interrogates not so much the man’s work as its reception—and in light of his recent output, the latter is far more interesting than the former. As Scorsese’s ambitions continue to wane in the belatedly careerist, Oscar-seeking course upon which he has set himself, there is a manifest refusal to let him go the way of other filmmakers whose efforts no longer match their ability. Good filmmakers naturally inspire proprietary feelings, but Scorsese has become less a going concern than a public trust, his secular sainthood guaranteed even further by his laudable contributions to film preservation and restoration. At stake here, it seems, is not simply the fate of one director but of the cinema entire—or at least of American cinema, which in this particular discourse amounts to the same thing.
... Hyperbolic overpraise can be a valuable weapon, but if the original Cahiers crew sometimes bent the truth of an individual film in the service of a higher truth, the mostly uncritical canonization of "The Departed" wholly detaches criticism from onscreen evidence. Strident as they were, Truffaut and co.’s polemics had an essentially dialectical spirit behind them. In today’s far more multifaceted, decentralized media landscape, the possessive discourse swirling about Scorsese is little more than a many-throated monologue, and one from which the filmmaker himself has been largely excluded. [...]I don't agree with all of Tracy's examples (especially "Munich"), but I don't think he's just being flippantly contrarian here, either. I've made similar comments about the critical response to "The Departed" (which I felt was rather condescending to Scorsese: "Good boy! Make your mob movies!"). I'm an auteurist at heart: I believe the work of certain artists (whether they're directors, writers, actors, cinematographers, musicians...) is profitably viewed in light of their previous accomplishments. But when do we start seeing only the artist at the expense of the art? That seems to me what Tracy is getting at.In this reading, dynamism, propulsion, and stylistic assertiveness are the very pillars of cinema—never mind the cinema’s equal ability for quietude, stillness, and self-effacing meditation. Never mind either Scorsese’s own frequent ill-fit with the "Mean Streets"-"Goodfellas"-"Casino" axis that has come to constitute this exclusive reading of his work; how does the cool and distanced symmetry of "The King of Comedy" (1983) fit into this model? Or "New York, New York" (1977)? How about "The Age of Innocence" (1993)? "Kundun" (1997)? The filmmaker himself, that is, the choices he makes within each specific film, is moot; it is Cinema itself that speaks through him, and each new film is simply another instance of that essence.
Overdetermined and underwhelming, "The Departed" has that rootless and aimless quality that positively begs for assertive critical performance to compensate for its lack. Like any number of recent “auteur” efforts, from the "Kill Bills" (2003-4) to "Munich" (2005) to even "Miami Vice," "The Departed" is just another disposable masterpiece, serving only to stoke some rhetoric before its fundamental indistinction consigns it to the memory hole.
* * * *
"The question is how close to a personal film can I make in the Hollywood system today - and this ["The Departed"] is as close as I can get. I don't know if there's room for me and the kind of picture I'd like to make anymore....
"I may have to do them independently because I like to take risks, and how can you do that when a picture costs $200 million? There's a lot of money involved and you have a responsibility to the studio."
-- Martin Scorsese, 2006
OK: Discuss! Remember: It's "Contrarian Week" all week here at Scanners!
I agree with you entirely, Jim, including your statement about Munich. More to the point, Tracy makes some interesting points. What separates him from other contrarians is that he actually attempts to back himself up and isn't levelling him for the sake that he's so popular. Sometimes it's good to be contrary, especially when observing trends in mainstream criticism. So many critics seem to unanimously deem certain movies as so brilliant or certain directors are only capable of this. We bring so much to films with our expectations, and how we see them often is framed by those expectations. Sadly, Spielberg's popularity has led to so many critics being incapable of seeing his recent challenging films (Munich, War of the Worlds, AI) as actual films and not through the "feel-good Spielberg" lens.
The same thing has happened to Scorsese. So many critics and viewers pay lip serve to Scorsese's non-mobster movies, and I think it's depressing that so many have labelled this movie as his return to form. It downright angers me sometimes. He never lost his "form,"
There is a difference between questioning the dominant way of thinking and forming an argument on similar grounds than just being contrary because something is popular. But when you think about all of this, it's hard not to be contrary for the sake of contrary when so much critical thinking seems to be so simple and one sided. We need to break free from these generalizations that are made about films and directors because they invite contrarianism (is that even a word?), and sometimes it's not totally out of place for the sole reason that so many critics seem to buy into these simple summations.
Not to be contrary or anything...
If you watch the film as a movie without attaching Scorsese's presence to it, you might enjoy it more. Pedestrians don't worry about how filmakers decided to edit any movie they wanna go see. They wanna be entertained. The trick is to entertain the masses with what boils down to pure art. Scorsese has done this since MEAN STREETS. The story line of that film was a minature of the political feeling of that time, as THE DEPARTED is to the present one.
(Spoiler Alert)
And if you wanna get all film school about it...The film starts from the perspective of the Matt Damon character as a child and ends with his death. Fantasies have had a major role in Scorseses films since TAXI DRIVER. A case could be made that THE DEPARTED is a tragic fantasy of the young Colin Sullivan as he thinks about if there actually is a differance between if he becomes a cop or a criminal.
Besides all that, it's the fastest moving two and a half hour flick I've ever seen and the first time in years that a thriller actually had me caring about characters...and I was so engrossed I didn't even know I cared about them untill they suddenly died.
This was posted under the influence of Natural Ice.
This idea of losing and then returning to form is often ridiculous. It is insulting that the critics see "The Departed" as bringing Scorsese back to what his work really is, when he has poured just as much or more energy into developing projects like "The Last Temptation of Christ".
I don't know how I feel about Tracy's comments right now. But I'll say this, Jim, I'm right along with you. Some of my favorite films Scorsese has made are those that have nothing to do with mobsters, like "After Hours", "The King of Comedy", and "Bringing out the Dead."
By the way, you pay no mention of "Raging Bull". What are your feelings about it?
I feel sorry for Scorsese and those who watch his films. You can't just naively watch them. The whole experience is wrapped up in his Oscar backstory and mob movies and DeNiro,etc.
I do appreciate Tracy raising his contrarian argument in a reasoned, intelligent, and thoughtful fashion. I still can't quite shake the feeling that he, like many other critics who take issue with the canonization (I hadn't realized it'd gotten to that level) of The Departed, just doesn't take those canonizers seriously. Yes, it's true that many fans of The Departed praised, as he puts it, the film's "dynamism, propulsion, and stylistic assertiveness." I'm not sure how this translates to saying those fans (myself included) do not value Scorsese's "softer" qualities. Appreciating Quality A doesn't mean we forget (or are ignorant of) Quality B. Praising one does not mean we ignore the other. I thought The Departed was the best movie of the year, for instance, while also thinking The Last Waltz ranks in Marty's Top 3, easily. Did I just totally blow your mind or what?
Tracy's argument seems like it can be boiled down to "if you canonized The Departed, your knowledge of Scorsese's work is myopic and uninformed." To say the praise "wholly detaches criticism from onscreen evidence" seems a fancy way of saying "we saw two different movies," and assumes Tracy is not only right, but objectively right, in his own particular take on the film's merits.
In short, I don't think Tracy can bring himself to acknowledge that those who thought The Departed was one of Scorsese's best in years genuinely feel that way, in full faith, with clear-eyed vision. It's that we're being patronizing, or that we're eager to join a choir of yes-men, or that our appreciation for Scorsese's body of work is incomplete.
I was one of many who called The Departed a return to form. I did this not because I think Scorsese should be ghettoized in the crime genre, but because.. let's be kind.. that level of passion and interest has been missing from his films for a little too long (with the possible exception of Bringing Out the Dead, an underappreciated classic.) Critical reception of everything he's put out since Casino backs this up. Now, I happened to like The Aviator, Gangs of New York, and BotD, but it's been years and years since a Scorsese picture has held me by the throat like The Departed did.
And maybe that's worth praising.
Film criticism is a real farce. I always thought of criticism as something offered to the artist as a perspective they couldn't get otherwise, in order to expand the artist and the art form in general. But film critics don't really do that. Their criticisms are specifically geared toward the movie-going public.
We look at a Rotten Tomato reading as if it was an objective fact about a movie. If a film critic says a movie is good, and uses enough fancy language, then the reader is tricked into thinking the essay is no longer an opinion but an authoritative ruling.
Film criticism has developed this ambiguous power that it doesn't deserve. From the buzz I picked up on "The Departed" before it even came out, it seemed that many people had already decided it would be Scorsese's best movie in years. Obviously, the reviews won't help Scorsese's work, even if he does happen to read them.
Even Ebert said it's the film critic's job to inform the public's taste. I think Ebert and others (like Jim Emerson) do serve a purpose, however. I think they can legitimately analyze a movie more deeply than I could, which at the least helps people like me to appreciate some movies even more - not to tell me what to think. (They can point me to specific references, or bring up specific contexts, that I would otherwise not know about.) This is the only real way that I can see in which film criticism is useful: helping people appreciate good movies more thoroughly.
But there isn't much needed to become a published film critic other than the ability to watch a movie and write. Therefore, a large pool of opinions of varying 'quality' is created, and instead of being taken individually, these opinions are collected and used like mercury for a movie-thermometer. Since this pool is given so much power, the inferior critics start getting influenced by irrelevant factors - they start wondering which way the herd will go because they don't want to get singled out or look foolish, subconsciously of course. (I admit that I get caught up in the herd mentality as well.) And on the flip side you get equally inferior critics who go against the grain for equally irrelevant purposes.
Can we please stop with the his-heart-wasn't-in-it criticism of The Departed It's such an opaque criticism. You really mean that your heart wasn't in it.
I don't object to Tracy saying The Departed is not top-rank Scorsese and is being overpraised. But it's still a good movie, even if it's not Mean Streets or Raging Bull. (And just how many masterpieces does one man have to make?) What I object to is the sneering tone in Tracy's first paragraph you cite: the references to waning ambitions, a careerist, Oscar course, and the loss of ability, presumably meaning that Scorsese should be directing Showtime movies or something. What balderdash! How incredibly insulting to Scorsese, as both a man and an artist. This kind of arrogance is the worst kind of upmanship writing/criticism and gives credence to some of the valid points that Jim Vicault makes in the above post. I'm with you, JE, give Scorsese his Oscar already. It's time.
Many critics and viewers pay lip serve to Scorsese's nonmobster movies? Not so. Look at his two films before The Departed: The Aviator and Gangs of New York. Both are nonmobster films; both were among the best-reviewed films of their years; both got best-picture love from the Academy; and both were popular at the box office.
People act like Scorsese made The Departed only because he wanted a good-doggy pat on the head. But we're not talking about somone who struggles to find funding for projects he wants to make: he got a $100-million budget for The Aviator, and the same for Gangs of New York. Do we doubt that he made The Departed because he wanted to?
Criticisms like Tracy's seem to be directed more at the audience than at the film. I picture Tracy going to see The Departed at a cineplex, spotting teenagers in the audience who wouldn't be caught dead renting The Age of Innocence, and saying to himself: "Scorsese made it for them."
Paul: My heart was in it both times I saw it, but I felt the movie ran out of steam. I went back and re-watched "GoodFellas" (which I can't take my eyes off of, once I catch a glimpse), "Casino," "Mean Streets" and "Last Temptation" for an essay I did called "GoodFellas and BadFellas," about Scorsese's heartfelt portrayal of ethics, sin and Catholic guilt -- and I just didn't think "The Departed" had the same passionate grip (or "thematic resonance," to sound all critic-y). What can I say? Some movies click with some people, and others don't. As a moviegoer, and eventually as a critic, I've always tried to figure out (and explain) my personal experience with a movie, and that's about all I can do -- since I would never assume I could predict how other people would respond.
Scorsese himself was quoted this year saying that "The Departed" was as close to a personal film as he could get made in today's Hollywood. Which is why I hope he takes the "After Hours" approach and goes indie again. I think it will be more satisfying for him -- and those of us who value his work. He doesn't have to make big, expensive pictures; plenty of marquee-name actors would work with him for scale, I'll bet. [NOTE: I've added the quote from Scorsese to the original post above.]
tlrhb: I was waiting for somebody to take issue with that point! I don't think Scorsese has run out of ambition, either. But he takes his movies seriously, and takes it hard when they're rejected. De Niro and others have said the popular failure of "New York, New York" (combined with too many drugs) nearly killed him. De Niro kept pitching "Raging Bull" to him when Scorsese was hospitalized, to keep him going and get him "back in the ring," as it were. Around the time of "The Player," Altman said he'd learned that he and Hollywood were not in the same business: They weren't interested in making his kinds of pictures, and he wasn't interested in making theirs. Scorsese may be too much of a child of Hollywood to ever feel that way -- but with his reputation, he's not constricted to making big Hollywood movies.
Travis: Both times I watched "The Departed" I wondered what I'd have thought if: 1) I hadn't so recently seen "Infernal Affairs," the movie upon which it was based; and 2) I didn't know it was Scorsese. It's an interesting thought experiment, but for better or worse I don't think we can ever un-know what we know. That may hurt or help any viewer's perception of somebody's work. Some people say "The Departed" would have been received as just another cop movie if Scorsese's name hadn't been attached to it. Others say they think it would have been better received if people had just looked at it for what it is -- a cop movie -- rather than A Martin Scorsese Picture.
As for "Raging Bull": I know I'm in a tiny minority, but I've never responded all that strongly to it. I remember leaving after the press screening feeling deflated, and I've felt that same disappointment every time I've revisited it over the last 26 years, even as its reputation has soared. I'd like to write about it again someday. Meanwhile, I think "Boogie Nights" is a more exhilarating approach to similar territory (and the same ending: "That's entertainment!").
Thanks for the post, Jim. More response than I've ever had to anything I've written before! Though I suppose that's inevitable, considering the baggage we all bring to a new Scorsese film.
I don't really want to elaborate too much on anything I said about "The Departed", as I think I covered most of the territory I wanted to in my original review, and I thank you for commenting on it in the measured spriit that (I hope!) it was written in. I will say this about Scorsese, however: completely outside of his own intentions, he's become something of a stopping point for serious and engaged film discussion. From what I've gleaned from several of the more intelligent and informed film blogs - this one included, natch - Scorsese, Spielberg, Kubrick, Altman et al seem to be the final destinations for many contributors; as if those directors have set the gold standard which all other filmmakers the world over need to match.
Without taking anything away from the above-mentioned (or at least those films of theirs that are first-rate) or attributing ignorance or myopia to those contributors who ceaselessly support them, I'd suggest that this kind of (unofficial) canon has more to do with the relative availability of works than with any (at least tentatively) comprehensive aesthetic criteria. Almost without fail, most of the best films I see every year are viewed at the Toronto Film Festival - and if that does testify to some kind of "elite" access, I think we should be more angered at the fact that these films go largely unseen throughout the rest of the continent.
Again, I am not saying that Scorsese and his confreres are "worse" filmmakers than the largely unknown denizens of the festival circuit - merely that the effusive praise so often directed their way speaks to me more about a hunger among the serious filmgoing public that is not being satisfied than a balanced and reasoned (without sacrificing passion!) response to the actual film in front of our eyes. Of course we want filmmakers we like to make good films, and of course we tend to bend the individual case in our favoured direction - who doesn't? But when does this impulse become merely defensiveness and partisanship? Taking whatever attachments (or non-attachments) we have to Scorsese out of the equation as far as possible, does "The Departed" really speak to anything that is vital in film culture in 2006? And if, as some of my compatriots at Reverse Shot have opted, one takes it as simply an absurdist, baroquely extended joke, I'd counter that I got more juice out of "Crank" in two viewings than "The Departed" in one.
Look: lucidly criticizing a good (or great) director's latest film doesn't erase his legacy. In fact, it might provide a greater sense of perspective on that legacy. We don't need to cling to certain filmmakers as if they were life preservers - if they make bad films, they make bad films. Film in toto doesn't sink with individual filmmakers. Scorsese wants to make money off his films and win an Oscar (who doesn't?) - and he also wants to preserve and restore films, make fine documentaries about Dylan, and actively participate in film culture. I applaud and heartily cheer the latter part. The former will disappear with the rest of cinema's dross, and only the man's finest moments will be left for posterity. And more power to him.
I agree with you, Andrew. This discussion raises some very crucial points about what we bring to films with our expectations, and how our knowledge of a film or its director influences how we see that particular film. Is it better to approach a film like "The Departed" as a Scorsese enthusiast or just another movie? I know that ideally, it's best not to know anything about a movie, but that doesn't work. We are inevitably exposed to advertising and reviews about a film's quality, its director and any other information about it, all of which contributes to how we judge a film's quality. Also, the prominence of the auteur theory really emphasizes viewing a film with respect to its maker. In so doing, are we taiting our perspective of a movie? If we didn't take notice of director's and certain thematic and stylistic points, we wouldn't have an auteur theory. Would that less the artistic impact of certain films, or does the auteur theory itself inject a bit of art into engaging cinema? It's really a tough issue to tackle in light of this discussion.
Wow, there are some really interesting points being made in this post and comment section. I agree with you Jim (as I did when you’ve mentioned it before) that I believe a lot of the praise being heaped on “The Departed” is very patronizing to Martin Scorsese. Everyone is calling it a “return to form” as though he had gone years without a great movie and not like his last three movies (“The Aviator” “Gangs of New York” and “Bringing out the Dead”), didn’t bring him two Oscar nominations (in addition to another 4 acting nominations for his actors) and didn’t have anything worth a damn in them. Personally I think “Bringing out the Dead” and “The Aviator” are two of his best movies, and “Gangs” had a lot to admire in it, and yet none of them was referred to as a “return to form”. I personally have a great admiration for Scorsese’s movies; they have affected me more than anyone else’s with the exception of maybe Kurosawa. Also, I loved “The Departed”; I think it is another four star movie to add to a catalog of four star movies that maybe only Kurosawa, Hitchcock, and Spielberg’s catalogs can compare. However, I think that Scorsese might win an Oscar this year (which honestly should be at least his fifth, he should have won for “Taxi Driver” which he wasn’t nominated for, “Raging Bull” “Goodfellas” and “The Aviator”), the same way and for the same reasons, as you mentioned, that Al Pacino won for “Scent of a Woman” (which honestly should have been at least his fifth also after “Godfather 1 & 2” “Dog Day Afternoon” and “Scarface” which he was not nominated for). I guess either way in my book Scorsese will win for a movie he deserves to win for, but I think for all the wrong reasons. I also want to briefly talk about whether “The Departed” would be getting as much attention if Scorsese didn’t direct it. I think that the movie would be hailed by people who saw it for being as great as it is. But I don’t think that it would be getting the awards recognition it is without Scorsese’s name. You can come up with example’s in all genre’s of movies about this point. “Psycho” would have had little of its success without Hitchcock’s name on the marquee. The “Kill Bill” movies would not have gotten nearly the attention they did without Tarantino’s name on it. And if the endlessly brilliant “Dark City” had been directed by Steven Spielberg, George Lucas or some other established science-fiction director, or had an established star (like the overrated “The Matrix” had with Keanu Reeves) it would have been up for awards the some way that “The Departed” is now.
Again, I am not saying that Scorsese and his confreres are "worse" filmmakers than the largely unknown denizens of the festival circuit - merely that the effusive praise so often directed their way speaks to me more about a hunger among the serious filmgoing public that is not being satisfied than a balanced and reasoned (without sacrificing passion!) response to the actual film in front of our eyes.
Okay, I see where you're coming from now. I live in Dallas, which (while not a top-tier release city like NY/LA/Chicago) does pretty well for itself on picking up what many would call obscure or "indie." I see a lot of movies of a lot of different stripes, but ultimately I'm operating on the layperson's time and financial budget. I try to see at least one movie a week, two or three if I'm able, and still about half of what I want to see slips by me or never makes it to my city. Even that far ahead of the "average" filmgoer, I'm still much further behind the curve than I'd like to be.
So I'd agree that there is a definite lack of healthy variety for the average filmgoer. Let's call it cinema malnutrition. You get 30 screens of Click and one of Man Push Cart, if you're lucky. The multiplex can be a stifling place, but without compelling evidence to the contrary, I can't say I've ever known or heard of it to be any different in decades past.
But we're not really talking about the movie-going public, are we? We're talking about the critics, and how rabidly they (apparently) praised The Departed. And how this is a sign of a starving cultural aesthetic more than the film's objective merits.
But I wonder about the validity of that argument. Most critics worth talking about have had access to the same festivals and screenings as you. I'd hazard a guess and say most have had considerable overlap with your 2006 experience, missing some things you caught and catching some things you missed. They've been to the Toronto Film Festival. And they still came away thinking The Departed was all that and a bag of Lays.
Now, I'm not saying there isn't an element of dogpiling going on. Herd mentality is unavoidable, especially in a profession defined by weighing value and analyzing hidden trends. (I'm speaking abstractly. I'm not a "critics are consumer guides" zombie.) And I'd agree that just because you buy a ticket to the show doesn't mean you'll understand what's going on. But I don't think that you by yourself had the golden key to Cinema, 2006. If you chalk up 40% of the praise to me-tooism, that's still 60% who've got their head on straight and believe what they believe based on the same evidence you've got. You seem like a very smart and together guy, so I don't attribute your point of view to elitism over fellow critics. But I think it's a flawed premise to assume everyone settled for hamburgers when they could have filet mignon.
Not to say I disagree with you, exactly. I did sense an air of desperation around critical darlings this year, even around movies I thought deserved the praise. (One word: Borat.) I attribute this to most of 2006 sucking. That's a technical term.
Maybe The Departed is king of the pygmies, then. (I think it would be a strong movie in any year, but that's just me.) Insofar as Best in Show lists go, that's all it needs to be.
Ken,
When in any year did the majority of films not suck? I've always found that there are only a few films within each season that truly capture the spirit of good quality film making and even fewer that give that once in a life time experience that we all hope for.
I wonder right now what critics hope for when they step into a movie, or if they should be hoping for anything at all. Should a critic be like a food tester and clean their palette before each bite of the cinematic platter? That would be ideal I think. Jim, you wonder if you had entered "The Departed" without the knowledge of the original or the fact that it was directed by Scorcese that you would have thought differently. Did your low expectations for "Flags of our Fathers" change that experience? I can't imagine it did. Films are meant to be first and foremost an emotional journey, striking chords, and if those chords aren't plucked - by whomever is directing - it's not going to be a good movie going experience. If they don't draw you out of your over-analytical stupor, they aren't doing their job. Would I have appreciated "Eyes Wide Shut" more if I hadn't known it was directed by Kubrick, no. I felt nothing the whole film. I watched it with a growing sense of anticipation to leave the theatre and apathy for the situation and the characters. And I saw the film a second time just to make sure.
Why would a person want to over think a film when they step in for the first time? I realize that with critics, notes must sometimes be made, but movies aren't that complicated. 2 hours of information hardly compares to 700 pages of Dostoevsky, and don't they hand out press packets, etc. What I'm getting at is I'm not sure I understand why an overtly critical eye is so necessary the first time you watch a film (unless the film sucks - then it becomes no more than a scientific dissection.) The one thing I've always loved about Ebert is his opinions seem to come first from his emotional experience, then he adds the baggage of thought later, i.e. is it better or worse than other films of its ilk?
What does a critic expect or want when they go into a movie? To find the big story? Are they journalists at heart? Or a member of the movie going public? I guess it depends on whether or not they intend to write for the public or critics. Mr. Tracy, in my opinion, seems to be writing for the critics of the world (and I dump film scholars and aficionados into this as well; you don't need a pen and paper nor a national outlet to be a critic of wine, books, or movies.)
Will this movie be remembered as a classic Scorcese film? One of his greatest? I imagine not. But only critics are concerned with such trifles. The public, I think, will enjoy it or won't, and I think that simple observation sometimes goes missing in the critics corner.
Marty's best films are Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Italian-American, Raging Bull, King of Comdey, After Hours, Goodfellas, A Personal Journey Through American Movies, My Voyage To Italy. The Departed is better than Color of Money and New York, New York. His worst films are Bringing out the Dead, Gangs of NY and Boxcar Bertha.