  |
 |
|
 |
Screening Roomby Ari
It’s really disheartening to me when I hear and read people dismiss some of Martin Scorsese’s non-crime films. Some viewers have this terrible habit of labeling a filmmaker with a specific genre and then refusing to see or accept their other films. It happens to Scorsese a lot. Yes, Mean Streets announced him. Taxi Driver confirmed his greatness. Goodfellas and Casino are two of the best crime films you’ll find. The Departed is very entertaining. But these are only a few examples of what makes Scorsese such an iconic American artist. His best film, Raging Bull, deals with issues of brutality and self-destructiveness, but it’s not about gangsters and crime. Even Taxi Driver is more of a neo-noir character study compared to something like Mean Streets or The Departed. And on a side note: I like The Departed, but I feel like it’s something Scorsese could direct blindfolded and standing on his head. It’s a light entertainment compared to his other crime films - not half as thematically complex or engrossing. It’s very straightforward, very familiar. It’s still one hell of an entertainment (like Cape Fear, which I enjoy) but it’s one of his lesser films. I don’t understand people who compare it to Goodfellas. It’s nowhere near that accomplished. Where’s that level of production detail, character depth, emotional authenticity and sheer cinematic bravura in The Departed? Again, I enjoy the film very much (especially the work done by DiCaprio and Wahlberg), but I still don’t see how they compare. Plus, out of the DiCaprio trilogy, I find it to be the least interesting and ambitious of the three. Of Scorsese’s non-crime/violence/contemporary dramas, three particular films stand out: The Last Temptation of Christ, Kundun and The Age of Innocence. Last Temptation is generally regarded as a masterpiece (which it is), but Kundun and Age of Innocence are often thought of as those noble attempts that are good but not great. Well, bullshit on that. I’ve already written about my admiration for Kundun and I stand by the claim that it’s one of his best films. And now after revisiting The Age of Innocence, I’m now placing it near the same category. I’d go as far as to say that The Age of Innocence is arguably his most emotional and moving film behind Raging Bull. This film’s ending is beautiful and heartbreaking, masterfully constructed and exquisitely acted by Daniel Day-Lewis. It’s one of those classic cinematic moments that brings the emotion of the story to a true climax - a moment so beautifully captured and romantically tragic that you can’t help but be affected by it. The fact that The Age of Innocence is a romantic film might be the reason people dismiss it. Scorsese? Romantic? What? The combination of Martin Scorsese and Edith Wharton does indeed sound strange at first, but once you get into his adaptation it all makes sense.
The Age of Innocence is thematically similar to Gangs of New York in many ways. It’s about the end of an era, the clash of contemporary attitude and old-world customs (And they take place in the same city around the same time, so the films can be seen as companion pieces in a sense). In Gangs of New York it revolves around lower end tribal warfare, in Age of Innocence it’s upscale, high-society conventions. Newland Archer (Day-Lewis) is engaged to the beautiful and young May Welland (Winona Ryder). Everything in their lives is determined by the conventions of their society. How they dress, how they act, how they work, how they marry and so on. To defy these customs is to create a nightmare of gossip that will bring an unsavory reputation and eventual ruin. You have to obey the social code or else it’s the end of you. Unfortunately Archer is introduced to Countess Ellen Olenska (Michelle Pfeiffer) and falls for her spirited, individual attitude. She’s most unconventional, and it impresses him greatly. As he helps her through difficult situations with her husband, the two form a bond. This bond leads to danger, of course, and once the two profess their love, things become extremely complicated for everyone involved. Scorsese presents this story with an unusual but masterful elegance. His attention to detail is as impeccable as ever, but his patience and delicacy with each frame and sequence is a departure from the visceral edge used in his other films. When he moves the camera, he does so at specific times. While the approach is different than something like Goodfellas, the craft is just as meticulous. It’s no surprise that Day-Lewis is brilliant as Archer (maybe the greatest actor working today?), but the real phenomenon here is Pfeiffer as Countess Olenska. The emotion she tries to restrain is tragic to watch, and as she gets closer and more passionate with Archer, the more heartbreaking it is. It’s incredible work, the finest of her career. The Age of Innocence is an essential piece of Scorsese’s filmography, not to be dismissed, ignored, or forgotten. This is expert filmmaking, as assured and successful as the films that cemented his legacy. And for the record, here’s how I breakdown his career up to this point (excluding docs and shorts). Masterpiece: |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
