I understand somewhat. But the whole Internet thing of casually dismissing a great auteur's entire body of work as "overrated" or with a single sentence of "I didn't like those" (kind of like an, "eh") is always so silly.
Well, saying they are 'overated' doesn't mean they are necesarily dismissing all of their work, they might just mean they don't subscribe to the notion that they've made more great movies than sub-par.
But, aye, they should really say something about why they think so.
An example is I am not a diehard lover of Kubrick films. There are a number of Kubrick movies I like, a few I don't and a few I love. But I can understand why he is held in the reverence he is and I respect the filmmaker. Just because I thought Eyes Wide Shut was awful does not mean I think he is overrated nor do I think by loving A Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove that he is untouchable.
In any case, back to Scorsese. He doesn't make many films with strong narrative structures, but that's what makes him unique. He prefers to float in the world and soak in the characters. That gives his films remarkable staying power and memorability. He imprints tons of energy into his film with stylized camera work that gives his movies a glossy feel, even when he is dealing with dark subject matter. It feels too different to be shallow.
But, if you don't have any love for any of the filmakers work, then it is perfectly reasonable to have the opinion that they are overrated.
Having all the technical moves in the world does not mean much if you feel the movies do not have heart or soul.
As for the glorified violence thing. I won't write much about it, but I reject it for Scorsese. The only time I think he has made a movie that arguably glorifies violence is Taxi Driver. However, that would miss the main point of that movie if that's what you took away from it. However, movies like Goodfellas don't glorify violence. He shows you why the world of crime is so seductive and enticing and then what it really is--brutality, evil and death. His style pulls you in and then he mercilessly rips the rug out. Some think that is glorification, but I disagree. Scarface is a movie that glorifies violence (though it is still a very good film), but I don't think much of Marty's work does.
The fact is, these movies do glorify the life through much of the narrative due to the filmaking style. A lot of criminals who sit around watching those movies and get off on them, revel in evil, brutality and death. Any doubts they have about their lives not being 'cool' or 'epic' are pushed aside by the fact they can watch themselves onscreen doing unspeakable acts accompanied by the Rolling Stones on the s/track.
A lot of them have a self destructive 'live fast and die young' attitude, and these movies are designed to take you on the thrill ride of their lives for much of the narrative, the commupance for the protagonist at the end is merely, for them, part and parcel of the life, the price you pay for the life less ordinary.
There is a glory there in the 'candle that burns brighter, burns twice as fast...', and if you are attaching cool tunes to these acts, aye, I can see why folk have a point to their arguments about Scorsese films being guilty of that to an extent.
Now, from the pov of the movie being part thrill ride, aye, that glorifies the life, but, I feel that is important for the art to illustrate to outsiders the fact of why these people subscribe to this life.
Whereas, some folk feel this is going too far, even if they don't subscibe to the Hayes code, they may feel that attaching cool tunes like the Stones to these despicable acts is going too far, and glorifies the life for these criminals, so that the ones involved in the life feel vindicated that they are living an interesting life, while others who feel they have nothing much in their lives in the first place anyway, may feel attracted to a life that at least could hold some thrills for them.
DACrowe said:
Anyway, not all of his movies have a plethora of violence in them. Here are some great movies he's made that aren't rated R:
-The Aviator
-The King of Comedy
-The Age of Innocence
and I'm hoping Hugo Cabret (a family film) will join that list despite how mediocre the trailer was.
Yeah, well, I was only talking in regards to those films you cited, that the poster said he didn't like, the gangster films that I would say were classic films, and great art. Apart from the Aviator, as I can't comment on that.
As I said above, you took it that he was dismissive of Scorsese's entire works, but from what I read, he just thought he was over-rated and didn't like those particular films you cited.
Maybe he would like other non-gangster or ones that did not feature such extreme characters, like After Hours, if indeed that was his point of contention, but speaking generally, it is for some people.
and if he feels that his most cited works are not up to much, then he is being reasonable in thinking he's overrated, even if he thinks some of his films are fine. Technical ability alone does not make you a great artist, especially if you feel that the artist is using shock tactics to deflect attention away from the fact the art has no substantial worth.
It’s all about seeing other people’s pov’s, no matter how much you disagree with them, instead of dismissing them as ‘alien and incomprehensible’..
