|
Esquire - September 2002
INTRODUCTION TO THE ESQUIRE FILM ISSUE by Martin Scorsese
WHEN I STARTED OUT, there were a number of high-profile young directors-Friedkin and Bogdananovich,
Coppola-but they were another generation, they were older than us. In a way they had already made
it. The generation I was a part of, we thought that this was the final evolution of Hollywood; you
would have cinema for entertainment and you would also have cinema for serious thought. That could
be anything-from The Godfather to Taxi Driver, to Michael Cimino's films, or those by Terry Malick.
But what was actually happening was that the blockbuster was beginning. Spielberg and Lucas-who
incidentally are good friends of mine; I just saw George a few weeks ago at his ranch-rewrote
cinema in the Seventies. In 1975 came Jaws and in 1977 Star Wars. That was the one two punch. That
was the end of it.
By 1981, I was shooting King of Comedy, but by the time I released it I had to move back to New
York because the film was a complete flop in America. What was interesting is that, like a slap
in the face or a bucket of cold water poured over our heads, we were really shocked into the
realisation that there was something that we should have known all the while; a major studio does
entertainment films. That doesn't mean a serious film can't be entertaining, it doesn't mean an
entertaining film can't be serious; but if an entertainment film's going to make more money,
they're in the business to make more money.
You must remember that the phenomenon of the biggest-grossing film of all time changing every few
days is only recent. For many years, up until The Godfather, every year Variety magazine would post
the top-grossing films of all time and number one would be Gone With The Wind. That was it, until
The Godfather got there, and then that stayed until Jaws, the that changed and it's been changing
ever since. And so what happened is that basically it all became about how to make money-how best
to make money in America.
By money I don't mean a few million. I think when I made Casino it made some money-it was beyond
breaking even- but they said, "We're not interested in that." You see, it's alright if you make
the money back, but with the trouble of making the picture and distributing the film and all that
sort of thing, well for the amount of money Casino brought back...It did make a profit, but not
what was considered a profit. They're not only concerned with profits, they're concerned with mega
profits.And it's not only true of America but of the world too, so it's a very dangerous situation,
I think.
IN MY LIFE, I've tried to combine both entertainment and seriousness. There have been films that
I've wanted to make that you can call "personal"; at least they deal with themes and ideas that I
was obsessed with and found myself working through. But there's a part of me that's thinks maybe I
should have tried to be just an entertainment director like many of the entertainment directors I
liked in the golden age of Hollywood. But coming out of the neighbourhood I came out of in New
York, and being exposed to neorealist films ata very young age, the extraordinary work from Europe
in the late Fifties and Sixties, there's no way I could have been: I'm more self concious.
So what happened is that I've been fighting and the Nineties has been very interesting. I got six
pictures made, some very unique-I mean for the Hollywood market-Age of Innocence and particulary
Kundun; very unusual for Hollywood. Also,Bringing Out The Dead-very unusual.
So what happens now is that, in the case of Gangs of New York-a project which started in the
Seventies-over the years I've been changing it, it's been evolving. We were never able to get the
money to do it because of the nature of the look of the film. You know, you could do an Edwardian
film, the buildings are still there, even the interior decoration to some extent, and the costumes
are do-able, it's easy to get those. But with Gangs of New York, a film set in the 1840's to
1860's in Manhattan, nothing has survived, absolutely nothing, so we had to build everything and
we always ran into trouble.
Gangs of New York was also a very tough story. People said, "Oh, it's too violent, too violent.
"Well, in the event we're already rated R; we've got our rating, they didn't say cut anything. And
anyway my attitude has sort of changed too, to a certain extent. Because the war that these people
are having in Gangs of New York could be brutal and primitive, but that violence is just an
everyday fact, so that it becomes part of a scene, it doesn't become something more significant.
So I found that by the time I was able to do Gangs, which was a surprise (and a lot to do with
Mike Ovitz, the man who put together Last Temptation of Christ and Kundun), I found that I was
trying to create an impression of this world of 1840's to 1860's New York: the Civil War, the
natives against the immigrants. And I had a story line that would have people come, wanting to see
the film at the box office.
What I'm trying to do, even with this, is to balance out entertainment and seriousness and to see
what happens. And it is the biggest budget that I've ever had. But I don't know what the budget
is; that's up to Harvey Weinstein, the producer, to work out. You may have read a figure-$85
million; it's more than that but it's under $100 million.
The diary of a Chambermaid by Brunel just came out on DVD, and they have an interview with Brunel.
One of the questions was about one of the Mexican films he made before Viridiana and he said
"Well, you know, they gave me the money. I had an obligation for them to try and make back some of
the money at the box office".
SO I WAS WONDERING if you could get a film made that deals honestly with this extraordinary
experiment called America. Honestly in terms of theme, in terms of action, and in terms of
conflict (and some history because of course a lot of the facts have to be combined). Honestly
with all that and honestly with an emotional story in the foreground. That's been the balance all
along, that's been the struggle from Mean Streets to Gangs of New York.
So that's where I'm at.
Thanks to Leela & Shaolin ! ***
|