Finally, finally, finally I saw HUGO. I’ve been rather expectant of this since October 2010. Those of you have read my blogs earlier, probably know what I’m on about. If not, here a few links: Million Dollar Weekend, Scorsese In Osdorp, Seeing Is Believing and Seeing Is Believing Visited – Hugo and George.

Before I saw HUGO my initial excitement had turned to slight trepidation as I heard so many different reactions to the film, not all good ones. So I went well prepared, decided on the first screening on the Sunday morning. Available choice of seating in a half-full cinema, mostly children. Conditions pretty much perfect to see a children’s movie. Of course there was the usual barrage of the two things I hate the most nowadays, commercials and trailers, a topic on which I will have a rant in a later entry. This time one of the trailers had a beneficial effect on me watching HUGO. In the first place I recognized the trailer from TITANIC 3D on time, so I could cover my ears for a bit avoiding the most shrieking pieces of voice-over nonsense and Celine Dion. In the second place I was reminded very vividly why I really don’t like most 3D-movies. They are a step back in time. Titanic 3D looks like it is made twenty years before the original Titanic. It detracts what it should enhance. The dynamics are gone, movement has gone through the window and any sense of depth has faded quicker than an old black and white photograph in full sunlight.

And for those reasons HUGO was a treat and not only for the children attending. It’s a real Scorsese-film. Yes, it’s an attempt for a blockbusting commercial success, but it’s a personal film as well. Personal in style and technique and personal in the retelling of Brian Selznick’s story. The Invention Of Hugo Cabret

HUGO starts with a pre-credit sequence that is an “Ouverture in 3D” of 12 minutes both showing off Scorsese’s 3D-abilities and framing the story by more or less following the book page for page, drawing by drawing. Yes, the grand old man mastered 3D alright and is proud of it. It’s a bit ostentatious, a bit flashy, but it’s also evidence of a still youthful spirit. Then from the credits the pace is slowed somewhat, because timing is everything. The wonderful score by Howard Shore is the main clock that is ticking in the background. So nice to watch a movie again where the score is not used as an instrument to warn the dumbest numb nut in the audience that something is going to happen. Image and music is in perfect sync. The 3D hasn’t stopped Scorsese to shoot his trademark free-flowing traveling shots or his quick editing. But that’s not all, HUGO has tremendous depth because of 3D and not only horizontally. Scorsese shoots in 3D from all angles, especially from up to down, so that the audience really gets inside the clockwork. The luscious sets by Dante Ferretti are a treat in their own right (please can I have one of these beautiful posters?!), but it was the 3D that made me fall in love with a flower stall.

The story of HUGO is very personal. For him the secret always has been in the clockwork. His thirst to master all things technical and inspirational for making movies is never quenched. The added temptation of teaching (children this time, not adults, or both) about film history was unresistable. His first commandment is to cherish the past, his second is to embrace the now. Have a sense of history, but stay with the times. And that he has done. HUGO is further proof of the fact that Scorsese is willing and able to take anything on necessary to make films. Looking more closely to HUGO there’s more personal stuff going on. It’s possible that I am overanalyzing and that I want to see things that aren’t possibly there, but surely HUGO is the most grossing Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger-tribute that ever has been made.

I did call the opening sequence an “Ouverture in 3D” for a reason, like I mentioned the perfect combination of image and score. The ability of Powell and Pressburger to make more than a movie, but to make a work of art out of moving images, music, dance and stories, is indeed something to reach for. I must ask Scorsese some time how often, while making HUGO, he thought of Powell and Pressburger’s TALES OF HOFFMANN. Scorsese has often declared his love for this movie based on Offenbach’s operetta. It’s one of his sources of inspiration when he was  young.  As it happens TALES of HOFFMANN has a segment about the evil doll maker COPPELIUS who tries to control his creation OLYMPIA.

Hmmm dolls and a clock, coincedence? Maybe, still Asa Butterworth as HUGO with his pasty face and skinny legs is a bit of a Pinocchio figure in the movie, but not in Selznick’s book. There’s more stuff that’s dished out comparable to Powell and Pressburger. Ben Kingsley’s speech at the end in HUGO cannot only double for an acceptance speech at Oscar-night, but he’s also Boris Lermontov (Anton Walbrook) in THE RED SHOES when announcing that Miss Victoria Page won’t dance that night. Not only clocks are important, keys and keyholes are as well. Looking through the clockface as the new scoptophilia, lessons in voyeurism for automatons. The comic exchanges in HUGO also reminisce of Powell and Pressburger. The use of 3D and language when Sacha Baron Cohen’s head moves slowly forwards whilst mumbling about physiognomy, visage and face has a definite P and P feel. By the way, how do you call such a shot, an outward zoom-in? In the realm of comic effect HUGO sports two dachshunds where A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH has two cocker spaniels.

Finally, Scorsese has done a Powell. By this I mean a scene which is not congruent with the rest of the movie and will leave some people loving it and others loathing it. The scene where Isabelle is about to get trampled by ongoing train passengers is Scorsese’s giant whisky bottle from THE SMALL BACK ROOM. The scene also reminds of the visual joke in the opening sequence of I KNOW WHERE I’M GOING, but only because that’s also a visual trick in a train station. The scene in HUGO does not fit in the rich French look of the early 1930′s of the rest of the movie. It’s a kind of a montage you see in a Russian or German film of the 1920′s. It’s a wink to other movie days gone by, like the festival of the silent movies that Isabelle and Hugo sneak in. (By the way I need one of those beautiful posters).  I was talking about coincidence, anyone seen the scene from SMALL BACK ROOM? Do it now and be surprised:

Kind of expressionistic, what? And what interesting ticking objects.

Is HUGO all olive and glory then? Is this Scorsese’s ultimate production? No it’s not. There are a few lesser points. There’s the odd moment that the 3D does not come off. The scene with Hugo and Isabelle on the bridge with the panoramic view unfortunately has the old-fashioned onedimensional 3D look of old postcards or Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland. Although absolute eye candy, the Méliès scenes towards the end  are a bit too long for my taste. As the movie has to carry a rather simple plot of a children’s story, it loses dramatic tension towards the end. Furthermore I think Ray Winstone’s casting was not a moment of genius, but then again that of Christopher Lee was. No-one will ever speak the words “HUGO CABRET” so deliciously as him. And for me, being a bit of an old bore, HUGO does provide me with the pleasure that at no time in the movie the most dreaded of all lines is uttered. Even though the story of HUGO is, it is never stated that this was a “true story”. Thanks Martin Coppelius, eh .. Scorsese.

That’s the joy of a festival, the sheer international diversity. In Rotterdam the focus on young directors and cinema in non-developing countries brings an always interesting programme of hits and misses. Yesterday I saw three very different films. One of them I had picked beforehand. I really wanted to know what you get when the man who made this and this collaborated with the woman who made this. I’m not getting in review mode here, but I will say this.

KOTOKO is a deafening and utterly beautiful attack on the senses that you have to experience. Brutal and confusing but beautiful. From the first intense minutes of an incessantly crying baby. Through the intense delicate attempts of the mother to make contact with her boy, the impossibility of cooking a meal with a wok whilst holding a child and the extreme beatings and torture the mother and her lover (played by director Shin’ya Tsukamoto himself) endure.  Up until the serene and almost mute ending in the psychiatric institution.

Beautifully acted as well. Japanese singer Cocco is fantastic in her feature debut. She’s not only highly convincing and authentic in her role as mentally sick young mother, but she brings her qualities as a singer with her. There’s quite a lot of singing including a great scene where she sings for her lover, but it’s never a “piece”. Rather it enhances her performance, it accentuates her soft sides as a loving woman. This quality of using the performing qualities of  a singer who as an actress plays a mental patient  you will just not see in….let’s say any movie nominated this year for the Academy Awards.

Director Shin’ya Tsukamoto praised his lead highly afterwards in the Q&A session with Tom Mes, editor of Midnight Eye (get your email conscription now!) and author of a book on Tsukamoto. No wonder as KOTOKO has been a project where Tsukamoto and Cocco were highly committed to. They know each other for quite some time with Tsukamoto directing several of her video clips. Last year she trusted him enough to make a film with him. And that’s what happened. They made a film together, she was not just turning up for work. Cocco also co-produced and also dressed the (from time to time fantastic) sets with stuff from her own. Out of health concerns (due to this very exacting role and care for her “day job”) she only acted on a 9 to 5 basis, but was involved with all aspects of the production at all hours.

For Tsukamoto it was also a return to form. For the first time in seven years he was able to give the film his undivided attention. Tsukamoto’s trademark is that he does everything. He directs, acts, edits, is the cameraman and he produces. It’s this ability and control that makes him such an idiosyncratic filmmaker. The last seven years he chose to focus on the directorial aspects of filmmaking and let others help with the others, as he took care of his sick mother. I don’t hold these productions in lesser esteem of course, VITAL for instance was quite something, but I’m happy Tsukamoto is back on all cylinders. He demonstrated this replying to a possible silly question of yours truly “Why at the start of the movie he was sitting down at the top of the stairs of the Luxor theatre in stead of taking one of the reserved chairs?” His answer was that such was the best spot to listen to the sound of the screening. Furthermore that spot was close to the soundmixer. After listening for a few minutes he asked the man to put up the sound a notch before taking up his reserved seating. Complete Control. Nice Q&A that was. Unfortunately the extended talk caused me to miss L’APOLLONIDE by Bertrand Bonello.

My other two screenings were not planned, but I always like to moderate my intake of Japanese and Korean movies with something Spanish or Russian. Not a lot of Spanish and Russian productions to choose from this year, so I took my chances with CORNELIA FRENTE AL ESPEJO (Cornelia At Her Mirror) and SNUFF – VITIMAS DO PRAZER (Snuff – Victims Of Pleasure) .

Cornelia is the feature debut of Argentinian director Daniel Rosenfeld. It’s an adaptation of a book of Silvina Ocampo. I’m afraid this was too much for me. Outside it was snowing in Rotterdam with a subzero temperature, inside the Cinerama it was very hot. Not readily acclimatized, I suffered badly under the slow pace and the Latin literary mythology. In other words, I almost fell asleep three or four times, so left early. Even a a possible Q&A with Rosenfeld and the beautiful Eugenia Capizzano who Cornelia could not tempt me to stay.

SNUFF is a curiosity that was shown in the mini programme THE MOUTH OF GARBAGE – SUBCULTURE AND SEX IN SAO PAULO 1967-1987, in a word Brazilian exploitation. It’s directed by Claudio Francisco Cunha in 1977. Of course I went because of the title. As it turned out this particular entry was even more a curiosity than some others in the programme as the only available print is a reconstitution of some older prints who were stored in very hot and humid conditions as surprisingly (IRONY!) nobody seems to care in Brazil about these films. Nevertheless this picture was amazingly a big success in its time, selling over 4 million tickets! The magnetic sound tapes have been lost as well, so the sound came from “subsidiary” materials. I’m glad I’ve seen it, as the chance I’m able to see it another time seem remote. Not easy to describe this one. I was tempted by the remark in the festival notes it was WILLIAM CASTLE-like. I’m afraid that’s very euphemistic if appropriate at all. I guess it was a mix of a Tiroler sex movie, quickly shot in a flat Brazilian area but with even less sex, some light humour at the expense of American cultural imperialism and a handful of racial stereotypes. Kept me awake though, colourful, a brisk directorial pace and the strange luminous green patterns made by mould and fungus on the print made it even more lively. Mix that with a funky red Ford Mustang hatchback and a leading actor, HUGO BIDET as Michael, with one of those faces you think you have seen many times but haven’t and you have as good as an ending to this year’s festival as you can get.

SNUFF - VITIMAS DO PRAZER VHS-cover

Talking as a collector of movie posters, some of the posters looked quite tasty. Don’t mind finding me a few of those. As with most exploitation titles the artwork is more outrageous than the actual films.

Georges Méliès

As I’ve written earlier in Seeing is Believing, I went to the discussion session on Magic In Cinema at the Rotterdam Film Festival. As it happened I should have taken that literally. Focal point of the discussion was the magic being used in HUGO and the authenticity of the film against the background of the importance of Méliès in cinema history. Contributors to the discussion were art historian Theodore van Houten (father of actresses Jelka and Carice), filmcollector Serge Bromberg of Lobster Films,  filmhistorian and lecturer Hilde D’haeyere from the Royal Academy for Fine Arts in Gent and magician Will Houstoun. I’m not going to condense a one hour discussion in a single post, but I will try to summarize a few interesting themes. Serge Bromberg, who is at the festival to present a very interesting programme, Bromberg’s journey through the world of 3D, is an expert on Méliès. Recently he completed the restoration of the colour version of Méliès’ LE VOYAGE DANS LA LUNE which reportedly cost over a million dollars making it the most expensive restoration project up to now. Here’s another Méliès in colour to give an idea of the feel. Bromberg provided the framework of the discussion. The importance of that early period of silent film was underscored by D’haeyere, author of the delightful Dislexicon by the importance of silent film as an outlet for comedy. Comedy, she told me earlier, you would not find in photography in that and the preceding era. She showed a few examples of the enormous technical contraptions that were built and designed just to create a comic effect. The inspiration of comedy was to be found in the theatre (especially the magic theatre like the Robert Houdin Theatre that Méliès used) and, as van Houten added, the inspriration for the imagery of Méliès and some of his contemporaries came from the science fiction illustrations for Jules Verne books and by Albert Robida.

La Guerre Infernale, Episode 2, January 1908 by Albert Robida

As a fervent supporter of Méliès, Serge Bromberg pointed out that the historical authenticity of HUGO is not a 100%. HUGO’s statement that Méliès was bankrupted by World War I was a historical error as Méliès’ financial downfall already had set in 1912. Minor points he made I’m sure, Serge added that it was Scorsese’s privilege tot tell the story as he chose. I can’t possibly comment on that as I UNBELIEVABLY STILL HAVEN”T SEEN HUGO YET!!! AAAARRGH!!

Will Houstoun was on hand to prove that authenticity in the field of magic was taken very seriously during the production. Will was a magic consultant for the film. He’s a magician as well as a student of art history hoping to earn his PhD on the Victorian magician Angelo Lewis aka Professor Hoffmann. He assured the tricks used in HUGO are tricks that are typical for the era in which it was set and were described by Professor Hoffman in books like MODERN MAGIC of 1876.

MODERN MAGIC by Professor Hoffman

Will taught Ben Kingsley and Asa Butterworth the card tricks they perform in the movie. Star trick of HUGO is the “Rising Card”.

Interestingly they did not learn the entire trick, but only the last part as that’s the part that is shown and as Ben and Asa only had four months to master the nimbleness of fingers required. Will told the funny story that Asa Butterworth was quicker in learning than Ben Kingsley. This was a bit of a nuisance as in the film Ben is suppose to teach Asa. To keep “it fresh” as I believe the term is, Will Houstoun sabotaged Asa’s deck of cards by applying a bit of grease and dirt, so that he found it to his chagrin more difficult than anticipated. Will told me earlier something interesting about the actual shooting of the trick scenes. The tricks were not scripted beforehand, but developed on the set. The script described a certain effect to be had, Scorsese would tell the day before the scene was shot what he wanted exactly and the magic crew had to prepare different tricks to achieve that effect. Ultimately the decision which one to use was made on the set.

All in all it was a very good day, especially as I was excessively spoiled as well. Not only was I able to meet a few lovely people, I also was asked to join them at dinner after the session and learnt some wonderful things about how to burn nitrate film, how to bend your finger and not break it and about the excellent spicy squid. So thanks very much Hilde, Will, Serge, Theodore and the others, thanks Rick and thanks to the festival organization, especially Mieke, thanks!

If all goes well I’ll be in Rotterdam tonight for the International Film Festival. My friend Rick is “moderating” a discussion about magic in film and it looked like a good plan to go together and discuss several aspects of this theme. I’d like to go into more detail, but as I am stupid I’m just not able to find this part of the programme on the IFFR-site. All I know is that three persons will debate this topic and that one of them has worked on HUGO. I will get back on the debate when it has finished tonight.

In a broader sense there is no doubt that HUGO and also THE ARTIST have rekindled the interest for cinemagic, the magic lantern, that cutesy time in cinema history when funny (French) men with beards played tricks on the eye. And let us all hope it will continue for a long time, because that’s what cinema is. Cinema is magic and watching movies is a magical experience.  In a sense it’s a disgrace that it has to come to movies like HUGO and THE ARTIST with their “There in your face, this is what cinema used to be” approach to re-establish the notion that cinema is indeed the highest form of suspension of belief and therefore fun. You see it, you believe it, but you know it’s not real. And as in magic, the most enjoyable tricks are the ones you can’t believe how they are done.

I might as well come forward and say that I hate reality in any cultural form. I can hugely enjoy a two-headed snake in an adventure movie, but a real two-headed snake in a museum is a freak of nature and not enjoyable (though I must confess that it is interesting). When I see the caption “based on a true story” or even worse “this is a true story” my enjoyment levels are cut by 3.  WHY?!  I cry out. PLEASE, A LITTLE MORE EFFORT!!!  And then the agony to watch the whole movie anyway, because the statement might be a joke or red herring…

The best cinematic experiences like seeing BLACK NARCISSUS  by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger have to do with the fact that I knew it was not real. That I knew that this story of a group of nuns in the inhospitable Himalayas was filmed in England. How cool is that!

It’s this artificial aspect of cinema that I enjoy the most, it contains the premise that you can make life look better than it really is. Ah well, I’m sure I will drone more on this topic later on. For now, I have to make myself ready. Until later!

Last part of the article for the Filmjaarboek 2010-2011

Pim de la Parra and Wim Verstappen in front of a billboard for Obsessions at the Cineac Damrak theatre, Amsterdam

Crappy English

Marijke Boonstra’s first film for Pim en Wim, Obsessions aka Bezeten – het gat in de muur from 1969, is the second link between Scorsese and Amsterdam. Obsessions was the first feature of de la Parra as a director and was quite ambitious as a project. After a few commercial failures $corpio Films needed a success. obsessions was meant to be English spoken and de la Parra asked Scorsese as co-writer. Main task was to be the deletion and correction of what Pim de la Parra calls “my crappy English” en to aid in the streamlining of the narrative. Scorsese’s fee was to be $500. In the end Scorsese has not worked a lot on the script. Back in New York he separated from his first wife, as Scorsese explained to de la Parra meeting again in Cannes in 1974. The cheque, sent by Wim Verstappen, had only reached Scorsese’s ex-wife who had kept it without saying anything. In regards to Scorsese’s contribution, he did write in a letter as first reaction on the script “as a whole, I think the script is very good – well-knitted together – tight fast-paced, and, no matter how well I know the story, still rather exciting”.

Obsessions, which is the first Dutch-German co-production after World War II, is to be restored by the EYE Film Institute and will probably be re-released in 2012. This is in itself an exciting occasion, because the film has, next to Scorsese’s small but rare contribution, another special feature. It is the only Dutch movie with a score by legendary composer Bernard Herrmann, who wrote the scores for Citizen Kane, Vertigo, Psycho, the Birds, Fahrenheit 451 and… Taxi Driver. Dutch filmmakers simply could not pay for a contribution by Herrmann, but he, de la Parra and Verstappen got befriended after Francois Truffaut introduced them. Herrmann did them a kind turn. He had a large collection of music made for American television series that were not used. For Obsessions he put a few of those together and an original score by Herrmann was born.

Bernard Herrmann

In 1975 Scorsese dropped by again in Osdorp. Shooting for Taxi Driver was finished and he was in need of a composer. Pim de la Parra advised him to call Herrmann in London. He might be talked in working for a lower fee than usual if he could work with a full orchestra. Scorsese picked up on that. De la Parra called straight from Osdorp, spoke a few introducing words and three days later Scorsese en Herrmann met up in London. And that’s how the making of Taxi Driver also should be contributed to a couple of guys from Amsterdam.

Page 4 of original article in Dutch

Robert De Niro as Rupert Pupkin in The King Of Comedy

Page 3 original article in Dutch

THE CROSSROADS

Scorsese has become the ultimate smuggler, after a brief early period of icon clashing. In that period he made mean streets, taxi driver and raging bull, founded in the New York of his younger years with the rules of the Italian community, the church and the local underworld. He followed up on his earlier successes with a few commercial failures, like new york, new york.  Eventually he chose for the more mainstream cinema of Hollywood and adapting to another set of conventions. He has paid a price for choosing Hollywood. Not every film will be a personal one. Still, he hasn’t sold his entire soul and although it took a lot of patience and effort, he has succeeded in making ambitious projects he wanted to make: the King of Comedy, Goodfellas, the Last Temptation of Christ, the Age of Innocence, Gangs of New york and the Aviator.

Lesser personal projects, like Cape fear, the Departed, Shutter Island, After Hours and to a lesser extent the Color of Money, still are virtuoso exercises in genre filmmaking that sharpen his visual craft abilities and stimulate his smuggler’s spirit. All in all not too bad for someone whose entry of his first feature Who’s That Knocking At My Door (then with the title Bring on the Dancing Girls) at the 1965 New York Film Festival was returned with the comment: “I believe you are living aesthetically beyond your means”.

In his learning period at New York University Scorsese was adamant to apply all his ideals of free story telling in the making of this film. He had made the first version without an elaborate script. It was to be a non-synchronous tale based on impressions about a young man (Harvey Keitel) and his relations with his friends against the backdrop of Little Italy. After seeing movies like salvatore giuliano (1962) by Francesco Rosi, Scorsese was determined to film in 35 mm black and white: “The black and white was delicious, you could just bathe in it, it was so beautiful”. Unfortunately the Mitchell-camera proved to be so big that the actors barely had any room to move in the interiors locations. This won’t happen again with the even bigger 3D-cameras of Hugo Cabret.

Harvey Keitel and Zina Bethune in Who's That Knocking At My Door

SCORSESE IN AMSTERDAM

“I loved the camerawork of the guys, Harvey was great, the girls were terrific. It really was …. quite something!”

(Scorsese about the scene shot in Amsterdam)

In 1967 Scorsese tried again with his first feature. He shot a second part and edited it with the first movie to a more logic narrative to become I Call First. I Call First did not get a distribution deal either. On invitation of his school friend Richard Coll, Scorsese traveled to Europe to do a few odd jobs and make a little money. Coll lived in Amsterdam as cameraman for a company that made commercials. One of the owners of this company was Max Fischer. Scorsese had found a sponsor in Jacques Ledoux, curator of the Cinematheque Royale in Brussel. His anti-Vietnam short the Big Shave had won a price on Ledoux’s EXPRMTL 4 festival in Knokke. There he met Pim de la Parra whose short Heart Beat Fresco with Cox Habbema was screened.

In 1963 de la Parra had, together with Gied Jaspars, Wim Verstappen and Nikolai van der Heyde, founded the movie magazine Skoop. Skoop aimed its arrows against the establishment of the Dutch film critique. De la Parra also founded production company $corpio Films with Verstappen. Traffic in international movie art was heavy in those days. Lots of international filmmakers visited Amsterdam for different reasons. Due to the international success of de Minder Gelukkige Terugkeer van Joszef Katus naar het Land van Rembrandt in 1966 from $corpio Films, filmmakers in Amsterdam enjoyed some status in international avant-garde circles. One could also enjoy the other liberties in Amsterdam in those days of morality exceeding arts and scandal. In any case, de la Parra’s house in Osdorp became a much-favored meeting place, not in the least, according to de la Parra, because wife Liesje Oei Tjoe Hwa was such an excellent cook. Scorsese was also a regular guest here. He was quite often in Amsterdam, because he could stay for free at Coll’s house. From Amsterdam he could travel easily to other European hotspots like London, Paris and Munich.

In the meantime, Joseph Brenner, an independent distributor in New York, was willing to take a gamble on i call first. Brenner, with a catalogue of titles like cuban rebel girls, karate – the hand of death, after mein kampf en freudus sexualis, saw some possibility in a crossover film. There were conditions though, the biggest one being the insertion of a nudity scene. Brenner also wanted another title. This became who’s that knocking at my door referring to the accompanying song of The Genies in the movie. Harvey Keitel came over from New York to Max Fischer’s studio for the dream scene with naked ladies. Fischer filmed the scène in 35mm, the camera whirling around the actors to the sounds of The end of The Doors. He had also arranged for the actresses. Eventually Anne Collette, French actress, got  third billing beneath principal actors Keitel en Zina Bethune. Presumably Collette got this status, because she played opposite Jean-Paul Belmondo in Jean-Luc Godard’s Charlotte et Son Jules. Collette had remained in The Netherlands after playing in Een Ochtend van Zes Wekenby Nikolai van der Heyde.

Saskia Holleman in the "Disarming PSP" poster

Next to Collette, Tsuai Yu-Lan en Saskia Holleman also featured on the opening credits. Holleman made headlines in The Netherlands later on by posing fully naked on a poster PSP Ontwapenend ( “PSP Disarming”, The PSP was a pacifist left-wing political part) from1971 van George Noordanus.

Not credited is Marijke Boonstra. Through her role in this scène she came to the attention of Pim de la Parra and Wim Verstappen and she acted in three of their films, in 1969 in Obsessions, in 1971 in best-seller Blue Movie and in 1972 in VD.

Marijke Boonstra and Hugo Metsers in Blue Movie

Here part 2 of my article for the Filmjaarboek 2010-2011.

Martin Scorsese at the Curzon Theatre, London, November 2010, for the 50th Anniversary of Peeping Tom

MUSE

“One could have an aspiration of making a film about impressions or feeling, emotions. But they have to be translated through a very primitive piece of equipment and they have to be as ephemeral as your dreams. Yet, it has to go through hard lenses and hard concrete and hard cables and projectors and lights. But it’s gotta be like dreamlike, it’s gotta be wispy, it’s gotta be something that you think you see one minute and that’s gone the next. It’s a hard thing to do and there’s no way to do it, but to do it …. and to fail and to keep failing.” (Scorsese on who’s that knocking at my door)

In 1995 Scorsese gave his vision on 100 years of American movie history with the documentary A century of cinema: A personal journey with Martin Scorsese. Here he describes what it means to be a filmmaker. In Scorsese on Scorsese he talks more in detail about his work. It all starts with visual craftsmanship, the filmmaker as illusionist. As Pim de la Parra describes it so aptly “cinematographical expression is his muse”. To get to the core of this expression Scorsese prefers to disassemble the magic lantern in small parts and then re-assemble it again. Visual craftsmanship is not only a must. It’s the ultimate form of pleasure. He’s jealous for the men in the era of the American studio system that could learn their trade by making three or four movies a year and end up making 80 to 90.

Surely this is one of the reasons why he’s making Hugo Cabret now in 3D. As he said in an interview in March 2010:

I’m very excited by 3D…But if the camera move is going to be a 3D effect, it has to be for dramatic purposes – not just throwing spears at the audience. And that, maybe I can’t do that. Maybe my daughter’s generation – she’s 10 now – can think that way“.”

To get the hang of  the 3D-technique is indeed quite a challenge, Thelma Schoonmaker – Scorsese’s editor and right hand-, told me last year. The enormous camera’s with mirrors in stead of lenses, have their own way of working, to say nothing of the challenges of editing in 3D.

FOUNDATION

Of course Scorsese is not just a technician. It’s his way of telling stories that makes him original and unique as a filmmaker. His stories are not straightforward and he has the knack to utilize the possibilities of film for the best way of telling them. Although he is called the king of the tracking shot, he can’t be typified by a specific use of the camera. Story is everything and the cinematographic muse is not satisfied easily. This has led to an oeuvre that has sidetracked many a fan of taxi driver or goodfellas. As re-inventor of the American gangster movie he’s most associated with movies as Mean Streets and Goodfellas, but above all Scorsese is a versatile filmmaker.

Robert DeNiro, Harvey Keitel, David Proval and George Memmoli in Mean Streets

His versatility and his need to tell stories in different ways also make him unpredictable to Hollywood. Hollywood does not like surprises. The industry basically wants simple stories with a beginning, middle and end. When a filmmaker wants to leave the beaten path, he or she can either become an iconoclast or a smuggler. Iconoclasts, artists like D.W. Griffith, Josef von Sternberg, Orson Welles and Stanley Kubrick, don’t care about conventions and institutions when they tell their stories. They are not prepared to make concessions to their personal vision. The deliberate clash of personal vision and conventions gives a great bang. Eventually that big bang leads to a few sublime stories, but also to short careers. Smugglers have a different way. They operate clandestinely. They make use of the existing conventions to tell their stories in a different way. Scorsese is a big fan of the B-movie genre filmmakers, especially those making westerns and noir, who managed to voice their personal vision with limited means.

Not only is Scorsese well aware of existing conventions, he feeds of them. The all-encompassing theme in his work is how to deal with existing conventions, the price the individual pays for adapting or non-adapting to its environment. Such an individual might be damaged taxi driver or a Jewish casino boss (Casino), a well-respected citizen (Age of Innocence) or even Jesus Christ.

On the set of The Age Of Innocence

It is a form of self-questioning. He wonders how different his life would be if he were a slightly different type of person. He was an outsider during childhood due to health problems. His world was small, but it was one he could observe closely in safety. Watching movies gave him another, sheer infinite, worldview, it dissolved frontiers and boundaries. This world was a very exciting, but also unsafe one. It is not surprising that two of his favorite movies, otto e mezzo by Federico Fellini and peeping tom by Michael Powell, deal with the power of the medium of film over the filmmaker. The arc between small and intimate and huge and overwhelming is contained in his work and it has a very personal and self-conscious tone.

Scorsese works as much as possible with the same people. De Niro and DiCaprio of course, and Paul Schrader, writer of Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, the Last Temptation of Christ and Bringing Out The Dead. He alternates with cameramen Michael Ballhaus and Robert Richardson. Women play a very important part. Barbara de FIna is his producer for decades now, despite the failing of their marriage in 1991. His working relationship with his editor, Thelma Schoonmaker, dates from 1965 and his mother Catherine was always around playing small and effective character parts in his films as well as doing the cooking for cast and crew. These relationships have brought him the safe familiar and nurturing base he needs.

Page 2 original article in Dutch

I wrote this article for the Dutch Filmjaarboek 2010-2011 which is published a short time ago. I’ve translated it in English. As it is quite long I will post in chapters, so I can add pics and stuff later on. For you guys who do read Dutch here is one critique from Movie2Movie.nl.

Here it goes, I hope you enjoy it.

Martin Scorsese

Smuggler In Osdorp

A lesser known episode from Martin Scorsese’s career, who’s SHUTTER ISLAND was shown in 2010, happened in the sixties in Amsterdam.

By Wim Jansen

“You see that window with the light? The one closest to the edge of the building? You know who lives there? Of course you don’t know who lives there, but I’m saying ‘Do you know who lives there?’ A Nigger lives there, and that isn’t my apartment. My wife is in there and… I’m gonna kill her. [laughs]. I’m gonna kill her with a .44 Magnum.”

Scorsese as passenger in Robert De Niro’s cab in Taxi Driver.

The times that Martin Scorsese was an edgy movie brat in T-shirt and sporting a beard are gone. He’s a well-groomed, sharp-suited, due to his health maybe a bit fragile, film don. He’s a universally acknowledged master of movies and protector of movie heritage, working on many restoration programs and tireless in his efforts to enthuse people for the medium.

He continues making prestigious and high-risk productions.

Scorsese will celebrate his 69th birthday this year and is in the midst of the postproduction of his new movie hugo cabret, somehow surprisingly the adaptation in 3D of a children’s novel.

Orson Welles said in 1982 that he really should have quit after his first few movies. With the making of each picture he lost a little bit of himself. Furthermore it took the biggest part of his life to find money to get his movies made: “It’s no way to spend a life.”  Little by little, bit-by-bit, he sold his soul just so he could make another movie. Many of Scorsese’s contemporaries – the men who stormed the screens with their highly personal type of movies, influenced by the social and film-technical liberties of the sixties, nouvelle vague and New American Cinema – haven’t lasted. Either they were not able to use their creative powers or they lost them. Hollywood is no place for personal growth.

Contrary to most of his peers, Scorsese has becoming a stronger filmmaker. It does not look like he lost little bits of himself. Despite several commercial and artistic disappointments, he kept the devil at bay and is still able to quench his thirst for making movies.

In the sixties his need for making movies also brought him to the Netherlands. With a healthy dose of chauvinism and poetic license one can state that without Amsterdam he never would have been the person he is now. In Amsterdam he shot the sequence necessary to finish his first feature film who’s that knocking at my door and he made contacts that were of importance for the production of taxi driver.

Part 2 of the article

Part 3 of the article

Part 4 of the article

Page 1 original article in Dutch