Talk:Martin Scorsese

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Martin Scorsese article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
Sicily Portal
This article is supported by the Sicily WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Sicily on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

See comments for details.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Priority on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Thank You

I updated the Oscar information, but someone added more detail to my update.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bear199 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Boston link

The Boston link could do with updating to point to the appropriate Boston article, but I'm not sure which it is. --John 23:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC

[edit] Film Foundation

I liked the article but I am surprised at the lack of attention given to Scorsese's work on Film Restoration. He's like the most well known and influential in the Film Restoration awareness that happened in the 80's and he's helped save many classics for future generations. If someone can find complete details on this it would be nice.

[edit] Auteur Signature?

Given the fact that Martin Scorsese often works with the same production team is it possible to detect an individual auteur signiture within his work?

[edit] Further to the Auteur Question

The article as it now stands mentions movie project titles, year made, leading actors in each film, box office success or lack thereof, and awards bestowed on cast members of the film. The article suffers from a lack of discussion as to the director's changing style (Mean Streets and Taxi Driver are quite different from New York, New York, and all of these are quite different from Gangs of New York. Scorsese has frequently worked with the same people as lead actors or as production team, yet the films differ.

One question to ponder is in what way has his style changed? Another might be (by contrast), what ingredients or aspects of approach have remained similar or ever-present?

[edit] Scorsese Repeated

The word Scorsese is used too often and can be replaced with he

eg- "The critical success of Taxi Driver encouraged Scorsese to move ahead with his first big-budget project: New York, New York. This musical tribute to Scorsese's home town was a box-office failure (it was released at the same time as Star Wars), and the disappointing reception drove Scorsese into depression. By this stage Scorsese had also developed a serious heroin addiction. However, Scorsese did find the creative drive


Just replacing some scorseses with 'he' would probly fix it or more continuing sentencesJesus On Wheels 03:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Dewikifing filmographies

Why did you leave the red links in Martin Scorsese#Selected filmography (as director)? You think because there are a few of them? Thank you, Adnghiem501 05:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As I commented on your talk page: "I noticed that you dewikified the Martin Scorsese filmography, as well as several others. Unless this is a policy I'm not aware of, it is best no to dewikify links like this, especially in the case of filmographies. It incites people to create the articles by demonstrating the lack of a page on the topic. Also, once the page is created, the links don't have to be re-added." --Comics 06:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I already read yours. Adnghiem501 06:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
So what's your point? Comics 06:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Many red links in a filmography section of some articles remain unfinished. Some are not shown red; others can often be seen in blue, showing they have been complete. I'll leave the red links to the section whatever you need. Adnghiem501 07:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First paragraph

I changed the bland and misleading "Scorsese often deals with difficult subject matter such as inner city turmoil, violence and sex" to "Scorsese’s work often addresses Italian-American identity, Catholic themes such as guilt and redemption, and the violence and hyper-masculinity associated with sociopathic personalities." I think/hope that's more accurate and interesting.


no, that sucks 24.68.207.114 00:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it much better, even though it was a change made long ago. It is more accurate. Many films put sex and violence into a light manner which isn't difficult. Same for "inner city turmoil". It may be that those who do most, dream most. (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should Martin Scorsese fit in the the Category:Former Catholics?

Because I read that he claims that he no longers pratices the Roman Catholic Religion so he should be included in Category:Former Catholics? Even though he is included already in Category:Roman Catholics. Put your own opions here if you want to or not to put Martin Scorsese onto the Category:Former Catholics. Thanks.

No - not until you get citeable proof, more than just "I read somewhere". SteveCrook 08:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This is addressed to Steve Crook why is Scorsese listed under Category:American Agnostics, is there public announcements or something? Or can that be ammended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artihcus022 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I didn't add the category -- SteveCrook 21:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well then how do you get rid of that category link in Scorsese's page? As recently as the cover story featuring Scorsese a few months back with Ian Christie, Scorsese talked about being a Catholic albeit a lapsed one. ---Artihcus022. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artihcus022 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filling out the Scorsese Page

I felt the biog of Scorsese was without much depth and failed to put his work in any kind of overall context (of course a common wiki problem). There was little considertaion given to his evolving style, technique and thematic concerns. I've set about filling out the page with more details on specific films and providing further insight in to the director's work and his methods (basic details such as Raging Bull is a biopic about a boxer weren't even evident!).

I've currently extensively re-written his career up to Raging Bull. I try to add info rather than delete info, but I felt on occassion there were fair amounts of repetition and some untruths (eg his parents have not made appearences in 'most' of his films).

I hope to later work on the remainder of his career. I think it's currently unfair that his early 80's work is dismissed in one sentence (a lot of critics and Scorsese students would concur that the King of Comedy deserves more than a slight mention in passing in a summise of his total career)

Any thoughts on my changes would be much appreciated.

GK 21st feb 2006

[edit] Director trademarks?

Section seems to be original research. How about some sources? savidan(talk) (e@) 13:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Filling out the Scorsese Page

Nice rewriting of the Biography. I agree that King of Comedy does require more than a mere mention and should be considered one of, if not his best peice of work.

[edit] query for msyeres edit

Hi, the addition to my original sentence changes it meaning and renders it untrue and arguably devoid of meaning

However many would argue the film contained little of the style associated with the director and was relatively anonymous in its point of view.

I meant anonymous in stylistic terms. I would argue that The Aviator, indeed any film, doesn't have a "point of view". If this could possibly be reverted to original edit unless someone could clean up the sentence.

Can anything "weld auteur sensibilities" and be relatively anonymous? SteveCrook 14:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In reply to this Steve, it was an "attempt" to 'weld auteur sensibilities with..Golden era Hollywood...etc'. Only partly succesful. None the less The Aviator remains aruably (and some would argue very strongly) one of the directors most stylistically anonymous movies.

Fair point, but doesn't that imply knowledge of what he was thinking of? I agree it's one of his most anonymous movies stylistically. But can that be then linked to auteur sensibilities? Surely it's one or the other. SteveCrook 01:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please sign all comments with four tildes SteveCrook 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. A film can retain elements of auteurism and still be relatively anonymous compared to the rest of a director's canon. You agree that The Aviator is stylistically his most anonymous. I hope you also agree that the film uses elements of expressionism in its final scenes depicting Hughes mental decline - which recall 50’s cinema, most notably key works of Nicholas Ray. Even if this is challenged, Scorsese’s well documented cinephilia in itself should be enough to contextualise the film’s Hollywood setting as a deliberate comment on film-making/cinema itself. These alone are clear examples of directorial/artistic signature (there are many others). However, compared to the passionate commitment of Mean Streets and The Last Temptation of Christ, The Aviator’s stylings seem somewhat flat and emotionally un-engaged.

In the end, the comments on The Aviator were not intended as critique (this isn’t after all a critical arena- indeed far from it). They were trying to thematically/stylistically place the film in the context of Scorsese’s entire career, drawing on the general critical consensus the film has garnered since its release. I think it was well balanced to suggest that the film had personal trademarks yet overall remained stylistically anonymous in comparison to the director’s entire oeuvre. Your comments are very much appreciated and if you feel The Aviator section can be improved, please feel free to make some suggestions. Strummer72 10:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed "legendary" film director

Sorry, removed this word. Absolutely meaningless in this context.

Hi Invincible Ninja. Yo removed the word "endemic" as in "violence endemic in American society". It was there for a reason. Scorsese doesn't just offer a casual analysis of violence as a natural outcropping of modern living- Gangs of New York, Goodfellas and Casino (and others) identfy violence as intrinsic to the working of American culture specifically, a very life blood and marrow to US civilisation. Unless you can argue its removal I shall be adding it again.

Also you've added links to words which don't warrant it. Guilt? Is it even relevant in this context? Following that logic there's a handful of nouns through out the artcile you can add links to. Keep links relevant to subject in hand please. Strummer72 11:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] age of innocence changes

sorry whoever made changes to Age of Innocence, but your reversion made a nonsense of the paragraph. The point was on the surface the film was a departure for the director, but underlying was thematic/stylistic consistency with the director's previous work. Your changes removed the second part of the equation and made the paragraph redundant. Please try and keep changes consistent with the context of this section of the article- ie thematic/stylistic development of the director. A cast list is irrelevant unless well integrated in to paragraph, as was the assertion that many think it's his best film. "Many" also think Afterhours, King of Comedy or The Aviator is. "Many" other don't.

[edit] The Blues

Scorsese's work on The Blues isn't mentioned anywhere. It should be. http://www.pbs.org/theblues/ Badagnani 02:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added in a brief section on "The blues". Hope this is satisfactory. Perhaps some one can add a piece on "No Direction Home" too, the dylan doc. It may even be wise to do a whole seperate section on his extensive documentary work- and move all the doc info there; Several other docs such as Made in Milan also don't get a mention, but adding them all to the main body would disrupt the consistency of the whole section. Any views? 62.190.4.10 09:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] biggest racist in film, martin scorsese

every movie he directs/writes depicts some sort of negative image of african-americans totally irrelevant to the leitmotiv of his films. Unsigned comment by 66.2.70.8

Do you have any examples or proof of this? SteveCrook 18:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying he's the "biggest racist in film" is plain nonsense. You could argue Griffiths if you want, but Scorsese? There's perhaps a valid argument about the subjectivity of Taxi Driver (and to a lesser degree Mean Streets and Raging Bull) leading to negative comments about afro-americans, but how you can square that with the director's well documented passion for black music and his sponsoring of Spike Lee (Scorsese produced Clockers) and Michael Jackson? 62.190.4.10 STRUMMER 72 09:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The racism in Taxi Driver is intentional and essential. The entire film is told from the point of view of Travis Bickle, who is a racist, and who sees black people as fundamentally threatening. Its important to note that Sport, the pimp played by Harvey Keitel, was originally written as a black character but both Scorsese and Paul Schrader changed him to a white man because they feared that it would be socially irresponsible to do otherwise given the racism depicted in the rest of the film. There is an argument to be made that the film's climax would have been stronger if Sport had been black, since it would have explictly tied Travis' racism to his homicidal psychosis.--ben-ze'ev 09:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the point I made- that Taxi Driver's subjectivity could be troubling as Travis Bickle clearly does have an heavily implied fear/paranoia of black people. But does that make the director a racist? No I don't think so. You cannot easily equate a protagonist's pov with a director's. Travis Bickle is also a clearly disturbed misogynist and a psychopath- but would you level those criticisms at the author's of the film? strummer 72 62.190.4.10 09:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well judging by his appearance in the back of the taxi and what he said he wanted to do ... No, he was just playing a character SteveCrook 16:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

He directed Clockers...so? What evidence does that provide to support his racial stance? Directors/Producers always try to appear versatile. In the movie Casino, Joe Pesci states 'these diamonds have a lot of n------ in them'. As to the scope of the film, where does that loutish remark fit in? Look beyond the script. In the movie Goodfellas, Henry states 'you know who gets caught, n----- stick-up men'. Again, where's the relevance? It's blatant racism to those on the receiving end.

Yes, let's look beyond the script at the movie. Hill spends a lot of time in the movie complaining about the fact that he's half-Irish and, thus, can't become a made man (he's discriminated against). He has to lie about his religion to his girlfriend/wife's family, because they judge people based on religion (he's discriminated against). Yet, Henry himself, like many Italians in the '50's, is a total racist about black people, between the stick-up men and his description of why Sam Jackson is killed. Sounds like a textbook case of irony to me. Nobody is arguing that Henry is not a racist, but that hardly proves that Scorsese is a racist, especially when Scorsese uses that racism to accurately depict class. ThatGuamGuy 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)sean

Ben, interesting point (not being sarcastic).


Yes interesting points and yes the language used by characters in Scorsese's italian/mob set films (and Taxi Driver) is occassionaly racist (not just againts blacks but jews, arabs, chinese too). But isn't he just honestly depicting their lives and their language? You want him to clean it up? Would that be honest or dishonest? Yes it's problematic and this is articulated by Charlie (Keitel's charcter in Mean Streets) who's troubled by his feelings for a black girl and what his friends will think of it. 62.190.4.10 10:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it was clearly stated that he PRODUCED "Clockers." He did not direct it, unsigned poster. This is a really stupid suggestion that Scorsese is a racist. You tell me, how could a director make films about the Mafia without presenting characters that are racist towards African-Americans? Scorsese wants to maintain a legitimate level of realism with his gangster films, so this is sort of a must. When trying to judge a director for his/her social policies, you must not look at what his characters say, you must look at the way the director seems to feel about it. These characters that say these racist things are presented as sociopathic ticking time bombs that end up dead, in jail or in the Witness Protection Program. Travis Bickle does not end up this way, however he is presented as quite mad, and there is a chilling shot at the end of the film that indicates he will strike again (prompted both by the presence of Sybill Shepherd's character and the sound effect heard as he looks alarmingly into his rear view mirror). It's not like Scorsese is promoting their lifestyles or their character. As for "Taxi Driver," how could someone make a film about 1970s New York City crime without including an African American criminal character? I'm not making judgements about why African-Americans were a vital part of 1970s NYC crime (I would blame this on socio-economics), but the facts are the facts, and gangsters aren't interested in liberalism. They see what they see and they don't see too much beyond that. Additionally, Paul Schrader did NOT feel that they should change the race of Keitel's character. That was Marty's idea alone.MikeFlynn52 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


"...African-Americans were a vital part of 1970s NYC crime..." What kind of racist slander is that? Does the writer believe that crime in NYC wouldn't have existed without African-Americans?

Well, Mike Flynn is actually not wrong. Organized crime in NYC in the 70s was Heroin, Heroin, Heroin. Who do ya think was the main market for heroin? My opinion on the matter of racism is that Martin Scorsese films often have characters who we can all agree have flaws... racism has been part of some of the characters. Racism exists in real life as we all know and so shouldn't movies sometimes contain racist characters? I can't even believe I am adding my two cents because this discussion is completely ridiculous. There is no issue here. Scorsese is not a proven racist. Alexbonaro 12:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe Scorsese to be racist but he does seem to be rather hung up on it. Almost all his films have the main characters as being racist even when it seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the main subject matter of the film; "The Departed" is a good example. I don't agree that he uses mainly negative stereotypes of African-Americans but I do agree that his white characters all seem to share in their racism. Someone pointed out that given the circumstances of these characters' lives they would be expected to be racist. That's all very well and fair but does that mean we need to get a specific depiction in every movie even when it is completely gratuitous? They would be sexist too, do we get a five minute scene where they rant about sexual equality? I have no problem with racism in film but Scorsese's just seems plain gratuitous and makes it seem like he has some sort of obssession. And the statement "...African-Americans were a vital part of 1970s NYC crime..." is considered offensive not because it is true or untrue, but because it is a loaded statement. People who make statements like these do tend to have racist goals; would you hear someone say "White-Americans are a vital part of paedophilic attacks in the USA"? It would be considered a ridiculous statement, even though it is an area of crime in which white people are over-represented. Also, the statement wasn't that "a lot of African-Americans" played a role in 1970's crime; it's just African-Americans, the whole lot of them. I don't think this was said on purpose but it shows what's going on in the mind of the person saying it.--Zoso Jade 08:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he is a racist-- he is showing the racism in the hard-core blue collar White ethnic subjects of many of his films. Showing racism is not supporting racism-- if anything he is helping by revealing the ugly truth and refusing to hide it or whitewash it. His films say-- if you want to be authentic in your depection of this or that rough white neigborhood-- you have to show the racism or it would not be an accurate depiction. I've never seen him condone racism himself-- which would be a different matter. 128.138.173.224 04:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cape fear misogyny

I removed the additon of "what some critics mistakenly perceived to be" from the following in the Cape Fear section:

"[the film was] lambasted in many quarters for its scenes depicting what some critics mistakenly perceived to be misogynystic violence".

The reason? Simple. The fact that Cape Fear depicted scenes of misogynistic violence isn't open to question. Max Cady was a misogynistic psychopath. The film depicted his violent acts. The original sentence wasn't inferring the film was misogynistic. It is the same as saying that Mississippi Burning depicted scenes of racist violence. No bias is being inicated by that comment, it is simply descriptive. Hence can I ask people to stop changing this section without at least first grasping it's meaning. 62.190.4.10 10:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The phrase "Cause Celebre" used in Taxi Driver section

For some reason Quadzilla99 you insist on removing the phrase "cause-celebre" from the Taxi Driver section as you deem it "Microscopically obscure and pompous". I take great issue with this. This phrase/word is in common usage and is not in the slightest bit specialised. I've replaced it only to have it removed again. Even worse, your revision is written in really bad english. I've changed your sentence in to more acceptable english but would like to replace the "cause celebre". I will refrain from doing this until perhaps some other contributors could add their thoughts on this. STRUMMER 72


This is an encyclopedia which is generally for common people to read and use to illuminate themselves on various subjects. It should therefore have common language. I seriously doubt that as many people know the term in question as you claim. No one can doubt that "it had controversy surrounding it" or some variation of that is less obscure than cause celebre (which is French I believe). You could put cause celebre in and then put the definition of it in parenthese perhaps, but to have to leave the article 3 or 4 times (auteur, ouevre, and others were also in the article) to look up words is not something most people find desirable. In an article about micro biology or computer architecture arcane words are unavoidable but not here. I'm not anti-illectual I just don't feel this is the right place for some of the terminology that was used in the article. --Quadzilla99 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you link Cause célèbre correctly then I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. Isn't there another version of the Wiki for people that don't like long or difficult words?

Yes Quadzilla99, it is a French phrase. But so are many other words and phrases that have been adopted into the English language. Have you never used words or phrases like agent provocateur, à la carte, apéritif, art déco, au pair, avant-garde? And that's just a few of the words beginning with 'a'. There are also many words like chic, déjà vu, eau de cologne, fiancée, risqué or even RSVP.

As somone once said "I don't really approve of all these French words and phrases being adopted into the English language, but it does give the language a certain je ne sais quoi" -- SteveCrook 04:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Ok, now that you've said that "auteur" is an obscure word when talking about one of the most acclaimed directors in the world, I really feel you've lost your perspective on this (argumentum ad hominem). I'm not in favour of intellectualisation for the sake of it, but this is an encycopedia! We cannot write aiming at the lowest common denominator. Ps I did add a link to 'cause-celebre' for any readers that might find it 'difficult'. STRUMMER7262.190.4.10 09:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here I've edited this discussion section and added a foreign phrase that you are obviously not familiar with. See how uncomfortable it is to read through something and have to leave to learn a phrase you are not familiar with just to continue in the article.Quadzilla99 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


I didn't shoot any messengers, and I was already familiar with the phrase. But I still think that phrases like cause celebre or even auteur are quite acceptable in articles. Although I have different problems with auteur, regarding it as a silly theory for such a collaborative medium as film-making. -- SteveCrook 01:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Obscure Latin words(and no, I wasn't familiar with that phrase) cannot be equated with a familiar term such as "cause-celebre". Quadzilla, we'll have to agree to disagree. Obvioulsy you didn't know the phrase hence you think it's obscure. I think it's well know. There's no common ground. Steve Crook agrees with me but two people isn't a consensus. I'm willing to leave out "cause celebre" unless we obtain a wider consensus. Hopefully we can all see that in the big scheme of things having a long winded argument about one phrase/word is rather trivial! STRUMMER7262.190.4.10 09:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading the above exchange(s), I continue confirmed in my assesssment of Wikipedia as merely a pseudo-intellectual blog. Someone actually removed the phrase "cause celebre" because s/he felt it was "too difficult." What more can one say? And there is not one contribution above that does not contain at least one serious grammatical error, the kind we were taught in sixth grade (argumentum ad hominem). 66.108.4.183 08:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


The Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines ask you to:

  • Sign your posts
  • Don't misrepresent other people
    • Don't edit others' comments
  • Answer a post underneath it

-- SteveCrook 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Shouldn't that be "the kind THAT we were taught in sixth grade?" Oh, and also the conjunction "and" used at the beginning of your sentence is somewhat suspect. Does it really serve its purpose as a transitional function from the last sentence? I think that's questionable. Having said that, I'm glad that someone else agrees with me that "cause-celebre" is hardly an arcane term. And before you interject Quadzilla....argumentum ad hominem. STRUMMER7262.190.4.10 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by saying before you interject argumentum ad hominem. Maybe you don't understand the term. "Shooting the messenger" is a vulgarization or simplification of it. Basically it means insulting or questioning the qualifications of the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument on a logical basis. I never insulted anyone or resorted to that kind of discussion. Here is an example of a logical argument that doesn't resort to logical fallacies:

The basic issues in my opinion are : 1) are the two terms different significantly? (does one add a different meaning that can't be obtained by the other?), 2) should an encyclopedias use the most common language possible?, and 3) if so which is more common?

1) controversial means: Of, producing, or marked by controversy: a controversial movie; a controversial stand on human rights[1]. Cause Celebre means: An issue arousing widespread controversy or heated public debate [2] The difference between the two is very minor and almost negligible as I see it.

2) This I am just taking as obvious. Unless we want to start inserting verisimilitude for aunthenticity and ascertainment for finding because they sound better.

3) A MSN english language internet search returned 7,705,906 results for controversial and 469,359 rsults for Cause Celebre. Meaning controversial is roughly 16.4 times more in common usage on English language internet pages. If all three of those statements are true then logically it is a fact that Cause Celebre is not a proper descriptive term for an English language encyclopedia for the reasons just stated.

Now a logical response would either dispute the three statements I have just made or one or all of their validities as criteria or dispute that they presuppose my conclusion. An illogical reponse would point out grammatical errors, question my intelligence (or if we were in person make fun of my haircut or shoes), or point out that I took the time to write this reponse and must have no life (I was bored and am easily susceptible to petty arguments). Quadzilla99 02:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Quadzilla. The reason it sounds to you as if I'm shooting the messenger is that my argument is based on the fact that it is YOU that finds the term cause celebre difficult. I dispute the term is difficult. Hence logically my argument will focuss on your disability to comprehend a common word/phrase. On a broader level, I whole heartedly disagree that we should use the most "common"language. I think we should use the most concise, descriptive, relavent. Cuase Celebre fits the bills. Finally I'd like to point out I never pulled apart your grammar. That was some other contributor. If you look above you'll find that you're conducting this argument with 3 different people. I myself was critical of the grammar pedantry (I've inserted my name above so you recognize my enteries) Strummer72 62.190.4.10 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I made my basic points in the previous post which I still consider valid. I have read and understood the simple French phrase "cause celebre" it's difference from controversial is extremely, extremely minute from all the dictionary definitions I have read (and sourced). How exactly is a cause celebre different than a controversial event?

Now I made my point but I also want to say one thing in addition that is irrelevant to the issue. Maybe I can teach something to someone and make something positive out of this from my perspective. "Shooting the messenger" is not an interpretation of {[argumentum ad hominem]] I adhere to. That's a simple vulgarization of it for people who don't understand it at all. It means addressing the person's credentials or lack thereof instead of the logic of their argument. It is a logical fallacy. You stated that "logically your argument would focus on me"(paraphrasing) which is as utterly illogical a statement as I have read in a while. Basically logic completely and utterly denounces credentials and evaluations of the person making the proposition. It is one of the basic tenets of logic which I happen to consider myself an expert of. An argument is good or bad on it's own merits regardless of who says it. Read the Wiki entry on argumentum ad hominem again, Hitler could make a statement about the Jews and from a logician's standpoint it doesn't matter who says it. It is right or wrong on it's own merits his credentials do not factors in (see deductive logic for a primer).Quadzilla99


It's happened! You've committed Godwin's Law! Brilliant! Ok Quadzilla, on that note, I'm bowing out of this discussion. It's gone too far beyond the boundry of relavence. I go back to my original point: if there is a wider consensus, I will at some point add cause celebre back in to the article. If I can be arsed. You've made your point about cause celebre and revealed your expertese in logic etc and it's been noted. If anyone else wants to contribute, feel free.

I used it to make an extreme example about argumentum ad hominem. Most logic professors make an extreme example to illustrate the fallacy. They may not use Hitler they might say a person's calculus equation is not incorrect because he is mentally retarded but because it has the wrong number as the answer. Godwin's Law is not recognized logic by any logician in existence anyway and he is just riding on the coattails of Leo Strauss who made a needless addendum to reductio ad absurdum when he made the pop culture phrase about Hitler anyway. Even so you used that incorrectly also. The Wikipedia page states about that "It is particulary concerned with logical fallacies such as reductio ad Hitlerum, wherein an idea is unduly dismissed or rejected on ground of it being associated with persons generally considered "evil"." Which means you're stating that I compared you and your argument to Hitler. Where did I do that? Also please answer How exactly is a cause celebre different than a controversial event? Quadzilla99 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's all about nuance. Controversy is a dry term meaning 'causing dispute' etc. Cause Celebre means more than just being controversial. It implies being known for being controversial/ celebrated for being controversial. It's about something existing in the public consciousness as a controversial event/subject. Surely you can see the difference? Taxi Driver may have been controversial. But it became more than that: it became a byword for cinematic controversy. These ideas, or at least some of them, are encapsulated in the phrase cause-celebre. The bottom line is that it is not, and I repeat not, an arcane term. Strummer7262.190.4.10 11:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately stating something emphatically does not make it true. A 5 person poll is not proof in my opinion that the French phrase is well known in America. Also regardless of what you think it implies your definition is not found in any dictionary to my knowledge. Basically I really feel that the word is not in common usage and most people do not know it. Let's just agree that we have both made our points clearly and understandably. People can also read both of our points and comment on it further if they like.Quadzilla99 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Surely you proved that it was in common usage when you found 1/2 million articles that mention it. How many does it take to count as "common usage" in your opinion? It may not be as commonly used as controversial but I think 1/2 million citations proves common usage and that it should be regarded as a well known phrase. -- SteveCrook 08:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the last waltz

anyone else feel that The Last Waltz wasn't a minor documentary like mentioned in the article? i mean, is there anything minor about Bob Dylan, The Band, Neil Young, Van Morrison, Muddy Waters, Eric Clapton...and, well, lots more. im not trying to be a fanboy or anything, but holy fuck are all those big names - too big to call that thing minor. thoughts anyone? JoeSmack Talk 22:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it's a minor documentary. But where does anything suggest that it is? -- SteveCrook 23:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's under the 1970's subsection: New York, New York and Minor Documentaries. JoeSmack Talk 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
That does say the highly regarded The Last Waltz (1978), documenting the final concert by The Band so I don't think that sub-heading applies to that one. If anything, I'd change the sub-heading. That section doesn't really have much to say about "minor documentaries" -- SteveCrook 04:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed the word 'minor'. Thats that. I think i might add something more for the Last Waltz too. JoeSmack Talk 04:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice too see Last Waltz expanded. I've further ammended the sub- heading to reflect content. Not sure about the "air of desperation" aspect though. Seems a terribly subjective thing to say. I'm very familiar with the movie but don't particularly agree. Plus it equates this with his alleged drug use which is a little presumptious.62.190.4.10 10:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Awesome job. And perhaps if we can find an interview or some such it'll seem less so, cause i've seen the drug info in a few other places. JoeSmack Talk 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Note on pronunciation of Scorsese?

Perhaps the initial paragraph of the article should provide IPA transcriptions of his last name? "Scorsese" is most commonly pronounced so that it rhymes with "crazy", but the man himself pronounces it to rhyme with "Jessie" (he introduced himself with this pronunciation when he co-hosted Roger Ebert's show, as you can hear here [3]). I think both pronunciations should be noted.

Try to find a few other examples where he uses that pronounciation himself. I know that some of those that work with him regularly pronounce it so that it's more of a 's' sound at the end. It is possible for people to pronounce their own name strangely in just one instance. -- SteveCrook 17:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The American Heritage Dictionary lists only the "Jessie" pronunciation, and this definitely seems to be the pronunciation that he uses in the recording. Most people use the "crazy" pronunciation, but I think that in cases like this, the pronunciation used by the person themself has to be considered the correct one. --Lazar Taxon 06:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Now someone has added the Italian pronunciation. Does that belong here, considering that he is not from Italy? --Lazar Taxon 18:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A better picture of Scorsese

it's legal too.

[edit] Little Italy?

In the Goodfellas section it says something like - returning to Little Italy (referring to both Raging Bull and Goodfellas being set in Little Italy). Well, are both or either film set in Little Italy, Manhattan. Jake LaMotta was the Bronx Bull but that doesn't neccesarily mean the film was set in the Bronx (people move). Was Goodfellas set in Manhattan? Both feature the Copacabana right? Is that in Manhattan? Alexbonaro 01:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I probably can't help much, having not seen Raging Bull, but I know for a fact that the Copacabana is currently located in Manhattan. Wether it was based there during either Raging Bull or Goodfellas is beyond me. It may be that those who do most, dream most. (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] all that Oscar info for The Aviator?

Do we really need all that tedious Oscar info for The Aviator? Is it really imporatnt to know that Alan Alda won an Academy Award for it? This page is supposed to be about the career of Scorsese. I think it makes irrelevant dull reading. Anyone agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.190.4.10 (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Why is "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" completely glossed-over?

It's certainly Scorsese's first big success and there are far more obscure films (like many shorts that have never been released on home video in any form) that are mentioned.

It features an Academy Award-winning performance by Ellen Burstyn, had two additional Oscar nominations and spawned a popular television series that ran for 9 seasons. It's an essential part of Scorsese's history and it's omission is pretty baffling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GuruAskew (talk • contribs) 06:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC).


There was a small section on Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore which was removed several months back. I hadn't noticed, I was just prompted to investigate after your query. I've put it back, feel free to expand it. I have no idea who removed it. Aren't there any people keeping a proper eye on this page? It's a sad fact but this article peaked in quality about 6 months ago and since then people have been taking valid, vital information out without so much as a remark. 62.190.4.10 15:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rolling Stones Concert Film

I was reading the Scorsese article for the first time today;really appreciated all the information. Since there are future film projects listed, has anyone thought about making mention of the upcoming Rolling Stones concert film or documentary project that Scorsese is working on? I've read a little bit about it, but would like to know more. Thanks... 66.75.13.97 18:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Randy

Since all material in Wikipedia is supposed to be supported by citations to reliable sources, coverage of future events is limited to plans for future events that have been reported by reliable sources. If you know of or can find reliable sources, you can add the information to the article yourself. Remember that everything in Wikipedia has been added by people like you and me. Information is added to articles when someone is interested enough to do so. -- Donald Albury 13:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
See article: Shine a Light (film) - Ozzykhan 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well, here it comes

Since he won, this should be fun. Tmrobertson 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of stuff to change. It seems like most of the article is about him never winning. He's made way too many great films to have never previously won a directing Oscar Maxwagner7 05:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He Finally Won!

I guess we have to remove the section that talks about him being one of the few who have been nominated numerous times but never won... Congrats Marty. You deserved it. :: ehmjay 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No King of Comedy?

I'm surprised there isn't any biographical history on The King of Comedy. It was considered one of his most provocative and controversial works for many years. Certainly it's a more interesting piece than After Hours. Any thoughts? Infamous30 06:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yikes

All of the references are simple URLs, with no information about their writers, organizations, or access dates. I'll start fixing them, and weeding out references which aren't in line with Wikipedia:Reliable sources, if there are any. --Wasted Sapience 15:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro tweek

I tweeked the intro abit. Cheers, --Tom 14:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Priest hood

How come there's no mention of him wanting to become a priest, but got out when another priest said that the nam was a holy war (Rolling stone 40 years).--Kingforaday1620 21:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Tag

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see anything that warrants a NPOV tag in the The Departed section. I'd remove it, but maybe someone has an argument for it being there? Coffin 00:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to Delete "Future Projects"

In my opinion, the Future Projects section needs to be deleted. Many of them are unreliable speculation, without cited sources. And the ones that do cite sources are still pretty tentative. They might never come to fruition. So, why include them in an encyclopedia? Scorsese is a busy guy, with all sorts of projects in the works. The films are only notable -- and worthy of inclusion here -- if they get released.

Can anyone make a case for keeping this section? --Jeremy Butler 11:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no defense of Future Projects and noting 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball' (WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL), I have deleted that section as part of a general clean-up. Also, I think this article has way too much detail on individual films. They should be forked into a separate article, in my opinion. --Jeremy Butler 11:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I feel that instead of functioning as an actual biography (talking about Scorsese), it focuses on his filmography (talking about his movies). It may be that those who do most, dream most. (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Director's Trademarks

How is director's trademarks part of a trivia section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJMylentz (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That is usually where I see them listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.205.78 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casino - POV issues?

I feel that it would be better off to just note that many critics enjoyed the film, instead of saying "the fact remains that Casino is a technical accomplishment, running up to three hours in length". I hardly feel it's up to Wikipedia to decide which films are accomplishments. I'd do it right now, but would like to get the approval of at least one user. It may be that those who do most, dream most. (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody needs to bother anymore. I got rid of it, as well as a reference to De Niro being legendary, which seemed a bit fanboyish. MwNNrules (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt

This movie is listed under Scorsese's filmography for 2009, but he only has one picture coming out in 2009, Shutter Island. In fact, there hasn't been any news about the Roosevelt biopic for over a year. At the moment, there's only rumors about what Marty's going to do after Shutter Island, so since nobody knows what's up next, I think that Roosevelt (and Silence) should be removed from his filmography until there's some solid news about it.TheLastAmigo (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled George Harrison documentary?

Last time I checked, I thought he was planning to make one and release it in 2009.

Did it get canceled for the Bob Marley one? :(