new Scorsese film "The Departed"

sorry if someone has already brought that up but I was reading threads about "The Departed" on imdb.com and I thought I'd better ask our respected film buffs here what are your thoughts on this flick. I think it can be a great Scorsese classic, since is his comeback to the gangster-genre, but I wonder why does Marty refuses to cast De Niro, Keitel and some of his old-school buddies. I'm sure he wants to rewash his work, and I aprecciate that, but he could cast one of these guys once again.

Am I too quick to presume Leonardo gets the lead role?

I think Scorsese is working on a new breed of actors for this film. He was with De Niro and Keitel from the start of their careers, and I think now he's working with a younger generation of actors. Nothing wrong with that. Personally, I feel he's gotten the most he (or anyone for that matter) can get out of De Niro.

Yes, DiCaprio has the lead role. But Scorsese really made a great actor out of him (never thought I would be saying that) with "The Aviator", and now they are a great collaboration. Plus, Mark Whalberg will be in this latest film, and he is underrated. Matt Damon is here too, and I have a lot of respect for him and feel he can become a great actor.
But the great casting is Jack Nicholson. To me, a Nicholson + Scorsese collaboration is gold, and can't go wrong.

A lot of peole don't expect much from it because it is a remake, but so what? Scorsese already gave us a great remake called "Cape Fear". And remember that pretty good sequel to a classic film he did called "The Color of Money"? I don't think anyone can accuse Scorsese for being a sell out. No matter how commercial his films get, his vision will always be there. I think people need to ligthen up and keep their faith in him.

Well this film is about Irish gangs. I think De Niro, Pesci, and Keitel might stick out a little bit. Besides, Leo seems to be coming into his own, plus they both can look the part better I think. And who can ever get enough of Nicholson!?

Actually, De Niro is three-quarters Irish.

Sure but like I said, I don't think he looks the part as well as Matt, Mark, or Leo do. I mean, De Niro could have had Nicholson's part, but you'd have to ask Marty why he didn't cast Bobby?

Why is he remaking it? With Cape Fear (1991), he remade a poor film (1961) which had obvious chances of improvement--Scorsese could, three decades after the original, pack up the tension and sexual terror more, thanks to moving standards in society and film.

But why remake Wujian Dao/Infernal Affairs (2002)? Scorsese, being the knowledgable guy he is in film, should know better than to remake an already well-made film. Society has changed little since 2002, so I see no social update on the cards.

I have faith in his direction, and always will; an artist never loses his ability to paint. But he often loses his ability to step back from his work and judge it with honesty. I suspect Scorsese is blinding himself with every film he makes: big money, big visions, big box office figures. Big stakes. Big mistakes.

Mick

Here is an article I read a little while ago, that helped restore my faith in Marty.

Scorsese Plans Smaller Films
7 October 2004 (WENN)
Acclaimed movie director Martin Scorsese is ditching big-budget epic productions in favor of making cheaper, more personal films. The Gangs Of New York legend has just finished shooting Howard Hughes biopic The Aviator and he's starting to crave the freedom that a smaller budget allows. The 61-year-old says, "I'm looking forward to making pictures that have a little smaller budget and taking different stories and going that way. As Harvey Weinstein said to me this morning, 'If you want to do a film that is kind of dark or violent for $20 million or something, fine. Shoot it in 30 days.' But if you are going to do something for $100 million or $110 million, it alters your subject matter and how you present the subject matter. And you know, as I get older too, I don't know if there is any room for me, in a way, with what is happening."

Capo, I heavily respect you, but I have to disagree on one thing.

INFERNAL AFFAIRS was a good movie, well a pretty good one. But that doesn't mean that its excused from a remake. Sure some remakes of "great" movies seem pointless (like Michael Bay's recent intention to remake THE BIRDS for example) but its only fair to judge AFTER the remake has come and went.

Really, I agree that Scorsese's CAPE FEAR remake is superior to the original, and which we were able to judge this AFTER it came out.

Do I think THE DEPARTED will be a winner? Hell yeah. Yet I dug INFERNAL AFFAIRS.

Fact is, this remake is the American "take" on the same story and helmed by a legendary respected master of American cinema.

However, if THE DEPARTED sucks the big one, then I'll agree with you that Scorsese is losing it, but for now and until I'll see this movie, I'll disagree.

Well, it's like me painting Hopper's Nighthawks and not changing it.

Marty will proabably change it, but I've lost respect for him as an artist. And that's including the Cape Fear remake, which, although superior, needn't have been made.

Mick

Capo, I think you are being way to drastic. Just because an artist wants to remake something that is good shouldn't make you loose respect. He is mearly going to build upon something that was well-made and try to make it even greater.

In fact, I'm slighly madned by your statement. I still have great respect for this man especially after he's kept up all these years producing excellent films as of late like "The Aviator". This is the man who created a film that inspired you to shave your head and make a mohawk!

He's inspired me to make films, he's inspired me to read books and teach myself on film, he's inspired me to buy a military jacket and shave my head.

But his films are simply getting bigger and not beter. Omar's quote gives us hope that he wil return to the good old days of raw filming on the mean streets of New York. But as it is, I only go to see his films because of the director's credit. The Aviator is patchy, Mike, very patchy. Robert Richardson's photography and Dante Ferretti's (as always) glorious production design keep it alive. But utlimately, the length and failed ambition of trying to fit too much into too little (and vice versa!) remains a grounded epic waiting to take off. A pity the director used all his fuel on taxis.

Thanks for reading,
Mick

Capo, one must remeber raw filmmaking insn't nessecarilly beter film making. "The Aviator" is a contriversial topic, however it is evident that I think you are wrong. I was rivited throughout the entire film.

I agree with you, his films are not getting beter because there is simply no way Marty can top his crowining achivement "Raging Bull" but however, I feel he still creates truly marevelous, entertaining films and he's still bringing his A Game.

To make me point Capo, you do have a point. I just happen to disagree with you.

Speaking of which, anyone read this over at IMDB.COM?

"Jack Nicholson helped re-write the script for his new movie with legendary director Martin Scorsese, because he felt the sex scenes needed spicing up. Nicholson stars alongside Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio in thriller The Departed, a remake of Hong Kong movie Infernal Affairs, due for release next year. According to reports, the actor wanted to make his character - an Irish-American gangster - a little more like himself, and more of an animal in the bedroom. A source tells the New York Daily News, "Jack didn't feel there was enough Jack in his character. Jack actually did some of the writing himself." The insider adds of the sex scenes, "Jack suggested using a (prosthetic appendage). He also wanted to dust the a** of one of the actresses with cocaine. Marty said, 'Go for it!'" A Warner Bros spokesman adds, "It's not at all uncommon for dialogue to be fine-tuned during production. Everyone is extremely pleased with the way this shoot is proceeding." "

Hilarious...does Jack's character also have ringside season tickets to the L.A. Lakers?

Na, probably the Celtics or Red Cocks

I am actually excited about this... It sounds like a real departure from his other work in the gangster genre (If Goodfellas is the daytime, then I see The Departed as the nighttime). The cast isn't all that shabby either. I'd love to see Jack Nicholson pull off the role of a mob boss; imagine Hoffa only on a larger scale.

I'm excited to see Jack in this role too. I wonder if Matt, Leo, Mark & Jack will all have Irish accents or not? Probably not (well Matt & Mark might but probably not Jack or Leo)

Here\'s pictures from the set of The Departed

"Although the media has described the movie as another big-production Hollywood remake of a hit Hong Kong film, Scorsese corrected the reporters by saying: 'It's not a remake. 'It's inspired by Infernal Affairs. Inspired by because of the nature of the informers, but the world William Monahan created is so different from the Hong Kong Film."

I love it when artists try to sidestep their flaws.

What exactly are his flaws during this production?

Whatever, Scorsese's THE DEPARTED is still one of my most anticipated movies of 2006, along with Michael Mann's MIAMI VICE movie.

Omar, I can't quite shred myself of the notion that Scorsese's remaking a film on the basis of its sudden success over here. It's a common trend that many are turning to, most of all in the Horror recyclings of Ringu, Dark Water, The Grudge etc.

But I don't want to crush his intentions just yet, which I may have already done in my elitist's cynicism. Let's see what Scorsese can conjure up these days; his vision's still there, as he keeps proving with these big budget epics and biopics. But his creative spark is sadly waning in recent years.

Mick

On the whole “why remake it” point; I can kind of see a reason. It is a Chinese movie, had a limited release and being in Chinese had a limited audience. It is a great film and by remaking it he is getting it to a larger audience. As much as a few of us would disagree there is a large percentage of at least the American audience that “doesn’t go to the movies to read” and so have not seen it.

Have you seen this Irish? I can’t remember but I think that I made you watch it.

Plus there is all this press about it being a remake. With Marty’s, Jack’s, and Leo’s name all attached you know it will put people in seats. Maybe just maybe someone will see this movie and fall in love with it, and then knowing that it is a remake will seek out the original and overcome the stigma of watching a foreign language film. That is on some level what happened to me, Point of No Return made me seek out Nikita and hearing that all westerns were remakes of The Seven Samurai made me seek that one out now I’ve seen about 5 Kurosawa movies and plan on seeing more, so I don’t see this as a remake specifically being a bad thing. Of course if it sucks, then all statements are withdrawn.

But it's the nature of a remake in the first place that gets to me. If we need to see an English language version to see if we might want to catch the original, what is that saying about our outlook on life?

I read a film. By reading a film, I read myself and the lives of those around me and how we lead them. That's what I see by reading a film. If it's subtitled, I read it. If it's English, I read it.

The narrow-mindedness of today's movie-going culture is shameful.

Perhaps I'm wrong here. Perhaps seeing the English remake is like renting a movie before buying it. But attaching these big names to productions in order to get more people to see it is the anti-thesis to art; because it is all about economics and the revenue to be made.

Mick

Yeah we watched it together and I did like it. Not enough to buy it on DVD but I did enjoy it and I'm very much looking forward to Marty's Departed. It was better than So Close which I was disappointed with (I was hoping/expecting better given the cast)

Capo, like I've said before, you can't write of Marty for remaking a film. He has that right should he want to do that if he really feels that he can improve upon the original. Then agian, he's not trying to improve upon the original, is he? He's takeing a concept and replacing the parts and making a brand-new working film which will explore new topics and ideas that couldn't be discused in the original.

He's done it before with Cape Fear, although I did really enjoy the original film, and I'm sure he'll doe alright here. After all, I still think he's at the top of his game.

Of course, in the end it's all relative to opinons as is everything else in life.

Not to mention, Capo my boy, that one bad film does not undo a master filmmaker's career.

I mean lets say that THE DEPARTED is dreck, and who knows, it is possible.

Scorsese would still be a recognized master for his long career of really good and great movies: TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, GOODFELLAS, CASINO, MEAN STREETS, KING OF COMEDY, LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, CAPE FEAR, and so much more.

Most folks at BB.Net know that I haven't exactly cared for most of Steven Spielberg's recent output, but hes still gets my respect for when, to quote Vince Vaughn in a certain movie I reviewed quite recently, he was "money"...back when he made JAWS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, the INDIANA JONES trilogy, EMPIRE OF THE SUN, etc....and especially maybe and arguably the best movie of the 1990s, SCHINDLER'S LIST.

Oh hell, even Scorsese is falling for that f***ing trend of remaking recently made Japanese films! He really must be desperate to win an Oscar, because most of the films winnning the main Oscars are too mediocre anyway.

Sorry to pinpoint your ignorance, but INFERNAL AFFAIRS was a Hong Kong movie, or in other words....CHINESE.

You know, those group of people in that big mainland that is on the other side of the Sea of Japan from Japan?

I'm pretty sure just saying "Movie A was actually Chinese not Japanese" would have been more appropriate.

Why the need for the personal attack?

jesus this conversation is getting pretty heated....relax people. try not to judge a movie thats still in production. and when you go to watch it...try and watch it for the point of escaping everyday life...not to judege it on every small point. honestly, your taking the fact that its a remake to seriously. gawd! who care!

and thats my rant.

Ya mr.soprano is right, and I apologize for the personal insult.

Speaking of which, wanna read a fun fluff story I found today about the movie?

"Leonardo DiCaprio got an unexpected greeting while shooting his upcoming movie The Departed recently, when an excited group of strippers hunted him down. The Titanic star, currently dating Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bundchen, is in Boston, Massachusetts, working on the movie alongside Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg and Matt Damon, and was stunned when a group of scantily-clad strippers came looking for him. Damon says, "We had one night where we were shooting all night next to a strip club. And there's just this point where we're driving to the set and like 20 girls in G-strings with dollar bills coming out were like, 'Where's Leonardo?' I'm like, 'Yes, my friend, this is my home. Welcome." "

Chill out people is only a movie. Scorcesse is going to make one sweet film. He has seldom failed us.

Yes, it's only a movie. Let's all go the pictures to escape from our lives, because our lives are not worth living in reality, but only in the exciting darkness of a cinema. Says the same person who probably watches a pirate DVD on a home TV screen.

It's a matter of artistic principle. Movies aren't just for escaping our lives. If they were, I wouldn't be found anywhere near them.

But perhaps a rant on artistic principle is wasted here.

Mick

No I think it's fine to appreciate the artistic aspects of a movie. However, when some (not you Capo) look down their noses when some just do want to escape and don't appreciate or look for the artisitc aspects, that's where some (at least me) have a problem with it. You have your opinion but you don't attack people and accept their position, which I thank you for

movies arent made for escapism? oh im sorry, i guess evertime a director says that he aims to entertain someone, to get them to escape the rigors of everyday life...he must be on some sort of crack. and artistic principle? this must obviousy be comeing from an artist who is on a high level then marty, or copolla...etc. if i was to always worry about other people worrying about movies iw ouldnt have seen man great movies. seven years ago...who would have thought spike jonz could be artistic...im sure not you...and if i was to follow people like you id have missed out on a great movie called being john malkovich. my friend...lighten up. stop pretending that you understand more about movies then the rest of us...because im sure your artistice vision isnt any better then ours...and isnt even one thenth of martys. probably not any better then a micheal bay. thank you very much.

Hey you will never find a pirate movie in my house if a movie is good enough for me to own then I will buy it so that the people who made it can get a piece, so that they can afford to make more like it.

You can talk down to me all you want, film is art, film is art -man everything is art if you want to appreciate it. Sex can be an art. How about this; do you like comic books Capo? What are your feelings on something like Preacher vs. something like Rising Stars or X-Men?
To a bomber the bomb is art, but some people just make them to blow shit up-which is right? (Note by bomb - I'm not talking about The Island)

Don't get me wrong, I am a film is art person but I just look at it differently than you do apparently. Art is something that can be enjoyed on many levels; you are outright dismissing one of the levels. When I look at a movie I see the lighting scheme and camera angle, I also see story structure and performance, I also see the gloss and style. I'm not saying that I have a better understanding of film than you (I don't) I'm just saying I'm looking at even the most superficial of aspects. Movies are entertainment too, it just seems like you are missing the simple joy of the cinema to me. (not that you don’t enjoy films but that you seem overly analytical)

Of course film can be for entertainment. My favorites list is based on what I ENJOY opposed to what I think is great. I didn't enjoy Le Grande Illusion on an entertainment scale, but it was an excellent film.

I'm not gonna say a movie is good if it is just a simple, unoriginal movie. Man on Fire, a movie that entertains me a lot. I rate it one star, why? Because it's an unoriginal, poorly made film filled with cliches and a butchered ending. That's on a rating scale. If I rated films on my entertainment, most films would be high on ratings.

Soprano, I couldn't understand half of your post, the second half was weak.

Uh, no. I haven't seen that film, but I saw another Kaufman written film called Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind, which is the best of 2004. You obviously know nothing about us to say you wouldn't be recommended that film. You're taking an opinion on remakes and creating things new things.

It's not pretend, it's called DISCUSSING OUR OPINIONS. Sorry, no really, sorry. I'll shut up. I'll never discuss my views on film again because I'm obviously wrong and you are right. It's wrong for people to be disappointed that Scorsese is remaking a film, because we know nothing. I mean, I'll never mention film as an art ever again, because I must be pretending! Try again.

I don't think there's a decent comment to this humorous quote.

To perhaps elaborate further without rambling, I'm going to quote somebody who says it better than me.

"Perhaps they are; but we might remind ourselves that criticism is as inevitable as breathing, and that we should be none the worse for articulating what passes in our minds when we read a book and feel an emotion about it, for criticizing our own minds in their work of criticism."
- T. S. Eliot, Traditional and the Individual Talent

Hollywood Hagan, an old member on this board and a student of film, once warned me in a PM not to study film as an academic discipline, as such analytical theory takes the enjoyment out of the films.

Bollocks. I adore film, I adore art, and take pleasure in the many debates that crop up on here about the nature of art itself. I must admit though, with all due respect, that some people's arguments are quite primitive, when they lower themselves into denouncing my artistic vision to be lower than that of Michael Bay. Or even Martin Scorsese. Scorsese's made more films than me. More people have seen his films. He's been more successful than me. He's probably happier than me, as an artist. It doesn't mean he's a better artist.

And yes, it is about artistic principle. I was asking myself the other day whether I'm a hypocrite on this, because ever since I read John Fowles' The Magus, I've wanted to (if and when I get financial backing) adapt it to film. There's already a film of it, though, made in 1968, starring Michael Caine and Anthony Quinn, which, I've heard, does not do the novel justice. At two hours, I can understand why (if you've read the book, you will too). Anyway, in wanting to adapt this novel, I want to create something deeply personal to me, to evolve my own artistic vision and see, even, my own artistic limits.

My goal in life is to become content with my flaws, to even become content with the flaws of humanity and those around me. I can only do that by exploring my own mind through art. Science won't do it, religion won't do it. Even art might not, but it's art I love, and to which I give myself decidedly. Films in particular, since they (can) combines the narrative of prose, the allegories and symbolism of poetry and the visual awe of paintings, is what I want to make.

Suspect, I'm not a fan of comic books. That is to say, I don't read them. But I appreciate their cultural significance and place in popular culture.

I shall leave you all with two quotes, form which you can gather what you like.

"If you a real artist, your whole being goes into your art. Anything less than that, then you are not an artist."
- John Fowles' The Collector

"...criticism is as inevitable as breathing."
- T. S. Eliot

Thanks for reading,
Thanks for a fascinating debate,
Mick

And, for the record, I love Being John Malkovich (1999). It's a highly inventive fantasy delivered with extreme charm, though it inevitably loses itself in its own out-of-this-world plot near the climax.

Mick