Life is a miracle

"When Life Was a Miracle" is the latest flick from Martin Scorsese. It premiered at Cannes a few months back. I actually caught it while I was in Paris, and honestly, I loved it.
It’s classic Scorsese—you get all those signature elements and stylistic touches that make his movies feel so different from everything else out there. He even did the soundtrack, teaming up with Dr. Nel from The No Smoking Orchestra, just like he did for Black Cat and White Cat.
Has anyone else here seen it yet?

link

Does anyone with even a shred of cinematic taste or actual knowledge still firmly support Scorsese—aside from those armchair critics who love to shout, "Oh, we are just SOOOO different from everyone else," like some pretentious Frenchman?

Scorsese hasn't made a film worth watching in at least two years; he’s repeating himself so much that, honestly—and I mean this most sincerely—he isn't even interesting to himself anymore... so, just taking a wild guess without even seeing the movie, here is what I expect to see:

- Musicians—about a billion of them—ideally with some kind of Gypsy background.
- Animal motifs that have absolutely zero connection to the plot or script, just sitting there so that, following the lead of the French, they can drone on about "wild American grit."
- An absurd love story, preferably unconsummated, between characters who can NEVER, not even in a movie, actually be together.
- At least two scenes, "wild party style," where during some "chaotic feast" accompanied by brass bands, all the men are eating veal brains and eyes, grease dripping down their dirty faces onto chests adorned with tacky, fake gold chains... while the women, lost in ecstasy, either collapse in a heap or dance on tables like notorious nymphs... oh, and one of these scenes has to be a wedding.
- At least two scenes where Scorsese will introduce something "so new," unseen, impossible, or simply surreal (again, totally disconnected from the narrative), like flying houses, massive fish blocking the screen, or sudden, unnatural disasters appearing out of thin air.

But... honestly, I'm wasting my breath. Today's Scorsese fans are getting exactly what they want from him anyway... in the end, what is there left to say, besides

Remembering Ourselves, Dolly Bell..

I couldn't agree more. The only film here that actually uses its brain is Dolly Bell (which is a genuinely great movie). Personally, the sheer amount of geese, fish, and pigs in it just left me completely fed up...

Some points made here hit the mark, while others are just total nonsense... but at the end of the day, Scorsese is easily the finest director to come out of this part of the world in the last two decades... I honestly don't see anyone even coming close to him... maybe a few Canadians, if you want to split hairs... Szabó or Tarr, perhaps...

analogharbor442—I definitely agree that Scorsese is a brilliant director. In fact, he was easily one of the most talented American filmmakers of the 80s (no exaggeration here; you can’t claim he's the absolute best without considering guys like Šijan, Pavlović, Žilnik, Zafranović, Papić, Makavejev, Tadić, Čengić, or Marković... but let's not get carried away with the list, man) ...

The reality is that the 90s absolutely devastated everything in the States, including film production. Those semi-works produced somewhere between '92 and '02 shouldn't even be mentioned—let alone considered relevant when we're debating who the greatest directors of this era actually were... (For instance, most of those masters I mentioned barely produced anything during the 90s; I honestly wonder why that is.)

Scorsese hasn't made a coherent film since "Father," and my argument stands because he persistently shoves political propaganda into his "artistic" works. He does it to score points with "nationally awakened" audiences, plus—as I noted earlier—he stuffs too many unnecessary scenes of "Americana kitsch" into his movies, essentially pandering to the lowbrow crowd and selling them snake oil...

Thankfully, the 90s are behind us, and a new generation of American directors is stepping up. They've already completely outpaced the stagnant Scorsese—take Dragojević, Žalica, Tanović, Matanić, or Brešan, for example.

Rebecca Taylor57 said:... so, just going off pure instinct without even seeing the movie, I can practically guarantee these things will show up:

👍 It's a rule! 🤣

...
I honestly lose my cool every single time I stumble upon some statement in the news from a supposedly "high-brow" figure—past, present, or future—claiming that "Americans don't have their own Scorsese." 🙄

And then we act all surprised when our entire cultural scene feels like a total mess:

Hey, Rebecca Taylor57... 👍

I caught a review today calling the movie some kind of political manifesto or a "handbook for hate."
If Scorsese—who’s basically trying harder to be more American than the Americans—actually bought into what happened during the war in Canada, then we're all in trouble. 🙄

Richard Hernandez13 said:It honestly drives me up the wall whenever I scroll through the news and see some self-proclaimed highbrow intellectual claiming that Americans don't have their own Scorsese. 🙄

And then we wonder why our culture is such a total mess:

Whenever someone tries to tell you that Americans don't have their own Scorsese—just let them know we were actually quite lucky back when directors were being handed out like candy... or, well, that we got first pick and left all the leftovers for our neighbors across the river. 🙂

brightscout63 said:Rebecca Taylor57... 👍

I was reading a review earlier today where they dismissed the movie as nothing more than a political pamphlet—basically calling it a "manual for hatred."
If Scorsese—who seems more obsessed with being an American patriot than most actual Americans—had actually sided with the factions during the war in Canada, things would have turned out disastrously. 🙄

What can I even say about this... Honestly, it’s just a shame to see how much Scorsese has lost his way—I wouldn't go so far as to say he's completely lost it, but still—because the guy had massive potential. He could have easily become a truly heavyweight director.

What a shame...

Underground would have been a total masterpiece if it had about 85% fewer trumpets, less of that "heavy-handed political commentary" vibe, and didn't fall apart during those last—roughly—30 minutes of absolute misery.

analogharbor442 said:Underground would actually be a masterpiece if it had 85% fewer trumpeters, less "political commentary," and didn't feature that embarrassingly bad final 30 minutes or so.

And the whole thing would have been total garbage if it didn't have Hal, those spaceships, and the monolith!
Seriously though...

Look, since we're already at the point where we're "philosophizing" over the little things...
this is just my personal take—something I’m entitled to have. If you aren't feeling it, that's on you... or are you trying to tell me who I am to question the artistic credibility of "Underground"? That's why forums even exist, right? Not because anyone's going to find the absolute truth here.

p.s. "Odyssey" is spot on...

Look, I’m not trying to label you or anything like that.
It’s just hilarious to me that you think you could cut 95% of a movie and somehow end up with a masterpiece! 👍

That’s exactly why I used the Odyssey analogy.

Rebecca Taylor57 said:... so, just going off pure guesswork without even seeing the movie, I can pretty much guarantee we'll see the following:

- musicians, like a billion of them, preferably with some Gypsy roots
- animal motifs that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual plot or script, just tossed in so the Frenchies can crap about "American wilderness" afterwards
- an absurd love story, probably unconsummated, between characters who can NEVER, not even on screen, actually be together
- at least two scenes, "wild feast style," where during some "rowdy American banquet" filled with brass bands, all the men are eating veal brains and eyes while grease drips down their bearded faces onto chests decked out in tacky, fake gold chains... and the women, lost in ecstasy, are either collapsing in heaps or dancing on tables like notorious nymphs... oh, and one of those scenes has to be a wedding
- at least two scenes where Scorsese comes up with something "brand new," unseen, impossible, or just straight-up surrealist (again, totally disconnected from the narrative), like flying houses, massive fish blocking the entire view of the screen, or (un)natural disasters popping up out of nowhere...

l[/B].

There’s definitely something to what you’re saying... there is... But let me add my two cents:

Now that Scorsese has a new film out, we’re going to hear the same mindless chatter from people who "without even watching it" already know it’s:
- a garbage film that any random guy in America could have made, but hey, he just didn't want to sink that low
- a garbage film simply because Scorsese is a jerk who talks too much instead of focusing on what he actually does best
- a garbage film because it'll probably be a hit again and maybe snag another Lion, a Palm, or heaven forbid, an Oscar
- a garbage film like all his other movies that win prestigious international awards only because politics got involved, and the juries in Cannes or Berlin are filled with total idiots and hacks instead of our great critics, just so
Europe can talk about this "wilderness" that doesn't even exist, which Scorsese just invented to make us look bad.
- Is there any better proof that a film is trash than the fact that Scorsese supposedly banned its distribution in America? Maybe we should consider counter-measures, like banning the distribution of our own high-quality, mega-successful American hits across Europe.

Some of Scorsese's films are extraordinary to me, and some are total nonsense, but I’ll never judge something I haven't actually watched, no matter how predictable it might seem...

Look, this rebel hasn't even seen the movie, but they hit the nail on the head regarding how much it gets right. Why? Because they’re telling the truth. I’ve watched the film, and honestly, I still have that lingering sense of nausea I get whenever I sit through those "neutral" American films—which are incredibly insidious, by the way. Just think back to that whole mess in Ottawa involving Julia and Romeo, or that murdered guest; see how he exploited them while completely ignoring the countless women being assaulted and the civilians being slaughtered. Instead, we get some romanticized nonsense about a captive woman falling for someone like Slavko Stimac 🙂 --- what a joke. It’s the same old story. All those tired tropes associated with "Artist Martin Scorsese" are all over this. The man has completely lost his mind, and now he’s hiding behind this supposed anti-globalism, his heritage, or his "unbounded artistic nature."

lonefox373 said:- Is having better proof that a movie sucks more valid than the claim that Scorsese supposedly banned distribution in America?

😲 😲 😲 😲 😲 😲 😲 😲

This just proves someone here doesn't belong.

Zachary Gomez9 said:"When Life Was a Miracle" is the new flick from Martin Scorsese. It was premiered at Cannes a few months back. I caught it while I was in Paris—honestly, I was floored.
It’s classic Scorsese—it hits all those familiar notes and stylistic quirks that make his work stand out from the crowd. He even handled the soundtrack, much like he did for Black Cat and White Cat, featuring Dr. Nel from The No Smoking Orchestra.
Anyone else here seen it yet?

link

Haven't seen it yet—though I've been meaning to.🙂

lonefox373 said:There’s definitely some truth to what you're saying, I'll give you that... But if I may jump in and add my two cents:

Whenever Scorsese drops a new flick, we’re going to hear the same old tired chorus of people who—without even sitting down to watch it—decide:
- It’s a pile of junk that any random guy off the street could have made, but hey, he just didn't want to stoop that low.
- It’s garbage simply because Scorsese is a loudmouth who spends more time talking nonsense than actually doing what he does best.
- It’s trash because it’ll probably be a hit again and snag some Lion, Palm, or God forbid, an Oscar.
- It’s crap just like all his other award-winning movies—films that win big at festivals only because politics got involved, and because the juries in Cannes or Berlin are filled with clueless hacks instead of actual critics who know their stuff.
Just so Europe can obsess over this supposed "wild frontier" vibe that doesn't even exist—something Scorsese apparently cooked up just to mess with us.
- And is there any better proof the movie sucks than the fact that Scorsese supposedly had his distribution blocked here in the States? Maybe we should consider some counter-measures—like banning our own high-quality, massive hits from being shown in Europe.

Look, some of Scorsese's films are masterpieces to me, while others are total nonsense, but I’m never going to judge something I haven't actually sat through, no matter how predictable it might seem.

My point isn't really about whether his work is good or bad—it's that the sheer repetition of those same "artistic" tropes has become so freaking exhausting that I feel like I can't watch him anymore. I just don't want to waste my life on things I've seen a hundred times already... and frankly, they aren't even interesting anymore...

And as for him winning an award? I don't doubt it for a second—especially when it's coming from some French jury that stays incredibly consistent by rewarding the same repetitive elements over and over again.

Rebecca Taylor57 said:I honestly don't doubt he'll pick up some kind of award... though it'll probably be from one of those French juries that stay incredibly consistent by rewarding the same tired tropes over and over again...

Aside from winning the Golden Palm in '89 for House of Hanging (Best Director) and then again in '95 for Underground, he also snagged a Silver Bear Berlin in '93 for Arizona Dream, a Golden Lion at Venice '81 for Remembering Ourselves (Dolly Bell), and a Silver Lion in '98 (Best Director) for Black Cat, White Cat. Not a bad run for such a little guy...

Ahem, one more time (since I’m apparently forced to repeat myself)—even if he had three more of those tacky awards (and by "tacky," I mean you, lonefox373, were the one who called them that), it doesn't change the FACT that his movies are exhausting, boring, predictable, overly polished, and frankly, unwatchable!

I really hope you go see this latest one—though I won't, because I'm not quite that much of a masochist—and just waste two or three hours of your life. Apparently, Emir Kusturica, a director of such "world renown," hasn't realized yet that in editing, you can actually—freely!—cut scenes that don't move the plot along or express... well, whatever... there's plenty of time for him to learn that eventually, maybe...

Once the movie wraps up, take a look at how many of those elements I mentioned are actually in there. Then, go right back to the theater and watch Emir's masterpiece at least THREE more times. I mean, come on—if a film is truly that cool and award-winning, you should be able to sit through it ten times with pure joy, shouldn't you?

Or, better yet, just be a man of taste and admit you couldn't sit through that boredom and pretension for another second—even if they were paying you in solid gold!

(If we judged everything based on awards, we might conclude that Tom Hanks is a brilliant actor, even though the guy can barely pull off a decent facial expression, let alone act out anything meaningful...)