Robert DeNiro on movies at large in the world

May this line live forever.

thanks for posting this. I would have otherwise missed this interesting quip on what it's like to try and output creativity on a routine basis. Something I know firsthand can be extremely daunting.

Hear Hear!

Denigrating your own movies seems to me almost akin to disowning your own children. I don't like it when actors try to appear superior, by dissociating themselves from films they know the public haven't responded well to.

I think it speaks volumes the fact that Pacino won a Golden Globe for acting in a film, and De Niro got a consolation prize for his career, or rather the career he once had. De Niro was great once, but lately he´s only thinking about his kid´s private schools.

I was glad that DeNiro brought attention to his good underseen performances in STANLEY AND IRIS and JACKNIFE.

So according to DeNiro, something isn't art until a certain time passes? Sorry, I disagree. Time certainly helps when judging a film, but it doesn't make a film art or not.

This is the only bit of the Globes I've seen.

I liked the boo's to the waiter bit. Liberal actors are so touchy.

I didn't expect this from De Niro but it turned out to be the night's most thoughtful speech.

What a great little simple line: The audience will decide for themselves whether or not they were entertained... time will sort out what's really held up as art... all the critics need to focus on between it all is whether or not the film is "good." I like that choice of word, too: Good. That could just mean, thumbs up or thumbs down? But it also means: Is it moral *enough*? Not in any preachy way, just whether or not it seems to contribute to the end of the world... or helps stall that for at least one more day.

The critics, because this is their job and they tend to be decent at it, are able to weed out the things that seem unhealthy. Then audiences will decide if they need it anyway... and time sorts out all the rest.

Of course, I also think the writing of critics does much to illuminate films to others (and for the great ones it's an artform in itself)... but, hey, can't ask for everything in one speech.

Ps. On the degeneration of De Niro: He has more major "hits" than any other actor I can recall from his generation and onwards... I don't think he's the greatest actor but for many years he had excellent taste in roles and films. As he got older, he seemed to search for interesting, relatable "fatherly" roles and has taken what he can get but Hollywood doesn't seem to know how to write those anymore...

I didn't take that as denigrating his own film, but poking fun at the very negative reaction critics had to it.

I think he's right. Firstly, let me just say that I believe in the general theory of art, that is I consider all cinema, all literature, all theatre to be art. Saw IV IMO is just as much art as Citizen Kane.

However, that said, when determining whether something is good, time IMO is often the best indicator. The best films, the best novels, the best plays survive. Citizen Kane has survived 70 years after it was released. Will any of the Twilight films survive even five years?

George Orwell, after Tolstoy attacked Shakespeare, wrote that "One's first feeling is that in describing Shakespeare as a bad writer he is saying something demonstrably untrue. But this is not the case. In reality there is no kind of evidence or argument by which one can show that Shakespeare, or any other writer, is 'good' ... Ultimately there is no test of literary merit except survival, which is itself an index to majority opinion."

I think the same can be said for cinema. There are certain films which are held by common consensus to be 'good', for example Citizen Kane. There is nobody on this site who would argue that Gigli was superior to CK. However, ultimately one can't prove or truly argue that is the case. Just like with Shakespeare, if someone wrote an essay in which they argued that Gigli was superior to Kane, we would all disagree probably, but we can't prove that the writer was wrong and there isn't any argument that we can use, which doesn't depend on people unamiously regarding it as a good argument (if that makes sense.)

Now, you might accuse me of being populist, of going with the majority. However I would argue that in actual fact, populism is removed, for no matter how popular a work is, if it can not survive, then its popularity is meaningless. If Hitchcock wasn't truly brilliant, he wouldn't have survived for 70+ years. There are exceptions as there are some works which only survive because of the wonderful efforts of a few champions, but these champions wouldn't have a grateful public (no matter how small) if they weren't able to survive.

I just want to conclude by saying that in many, or most, cases, it's pretty obvious which works will survive, and ultimately the way we evaluate art probably doesn't change too dramatically throughout time (which is why we still revere certain Greek plays).

DeNiro's line reminded me of something Fran Lebowitz said in Public Speaking. Totally paraphrasing but she was commenting on how ridiculous it is that we, the audience, expect masterpieces each time an actor/writer/musician puts out a product. She was convinced that F. Scott Fitzgerald would have been a terrible author had he lived longer. I agree with her point that it may actually be unreasonable to expect any kind of greatness from people who put something out there for consumption. DeNiro's current career may not compare to his earliest works but he certainly seems to be enjoying himself. Really, just imagine how stressful and exhausting it would be if you had to pull out a "Raging Bull"-level performance every time you walked in front of a camera?

I think that it is wonderful that Mr. DeNiro recognized Stanley and Iris at the Golden Globes. It is one of the most underrated movies of the past 25 years.

What was that look that Jolie gave Pitt? Seemed to me like a woman seriously wondering who the man she's with is.