The Aviator

"The way of the future, the way of the future, the way of the future--way of the future the way of the future, the way of the future...."

I highly suggest that anyone who wants to see "The Aviator" take some time to learn a little bit about Howard Hughes. Howard Hughes was the second richest man of his time. He inherited a fortune from his father's Tool Company and also inserted himself into Hollywood, directing two films and producing several. The 1980's Scarface is dedicated to him for his way of depicting realism in violence as he produced the original, which was directed by the talented Howard Hawks. Hughes' main passion however was aviation. He poured millions into building planes and had dreams no one else had dared. However most remember Hughes, as the mysterious enigma in the form of an old man sitting naked on a chair padded with paper towel watching movies in a dark room all day without cleaning himself or cutting nails. Scorsese decided not to show you this period of his life. He doesn't even show you anything after 1947. However he does show the madness, which is the reason you must know about him before seeing the movie.

You have to know why for a brief second Scorsese focused on Hughes twitching, or stepping a certain way or whatever. Howard Hughes had OCD, which was then undiagnosed, which let it to tear him. When I heard about Dicaprio playing Hughes, I was worried. Why him? Was he typecast? Dicaprio took a good turn with Scorsese's previous film "Gangs of New York," but Howard Hughes? Well after seeing this I can say that he has definitely come some way from his teen movie days (Titanic). He got the habits down to a T, which he wanted considering he wanted this role since he read a biography on Hughes. The only problem I had was seeing a Hughes in his early 40's with Dicaprio's very young sounding voice, but that aside I loved his performance. Cate Blanchett was also a jem as Katherine Hepburn, who was probably the closest Hughes ever came to love. I found Blanchett annoying at first, but I saw that she completely transformed her mannerisms just as well as Dicaprio.

The supporting cast is also strong as usual with Scorsese. Kate Beckinsale is wonderful as the beautiful Ava Gardner, the tease of men back then. John C. Reilly (Magnolia) and Alec Baldwin (Glengarry Glen Ross) are nearly as great in their supporting roles, moreso Reilly who is one of my favorite character actors of today. There are also some short screentime delights, such as Gwen Stefani as Jean Harlow, Willem Dafoe as a reporter, and Jude Law as Errol Flynn. Alan Alda is also memorable as Sen. Brewster. I have seen better supporting casts in several other Scorsese movies, but I have to love this one, which is strong like most of his movies.

After an opening scene involving Hughes' mother, the film begins with the production of "Hell's Angels," which was the first multi-million dollar epic ever. We see just how much realism Hughes wanted. He needed clouds to be at a certain place, fast planes, good shots. It's almost as if he cared about the flying scenes more then the plot itself. He pours even more money to make it a sound film while seeing "The Jazz Singer" which was also featured in a scene in "Goodfellas" and later on even color. We see he is uncomfortable in front of cameras at the premiere of the film. Throughout the course of the film we get a sense Hughes isn't normal, with odd moments, but it soon gets more severe as the film goes on, like in the quote above this review. As I said, we don't see the 70 year old man in total reclusion, however we get a sense of it earlier on in a similar state. We also note moments like when Hughes retires to a rest room to take out his personal bar of soap in a case to wash his hands, and then notice the dirty doorknob of the bathroom. We aren't shown the three marriages of his life, maybe because they would take us off the plot where Hughes' true love didn't exist, as it might have in Hepburn.

Scorsese does an amazing job of recreating a 20's-40's world. The premiere looks no different then it would have in the 30's. Black and white is also used in recordings of Dicaprio as Hughes in scenes that could've been in the "News on the March" scene in "Citizen Kane." The soundtrack also picks the sounds of the time as always such as Shake That Thing, Moonlight, and the best use of music in my opinion, "Nightmare" by Artie Shaw and his musicians. The more and more I watch his films, I see that Scorsese does an excellent job of reproducing time periods. Did Scorsese use CGI to do all the work for him in "Gangs of New York"? No, he went to Cinecitta, the old Fellini grounds and made a 1800's New York. Raging Bull and Goodfellas are also good mentions on how well he recreated older times.

So overall "The Aviator" is another jewel on Scorsese's crown, well worth seeing and the best film of 2004 from what I saw, although I have yet to see Finding Neverland, Close, Ray, and others. I advise for people to read up on Hughes before seeing this. I knew about him before, but I am now reading "Howard Hughes: His Life and Madness" for more information.This film shows the madness of Hughes very well, although it could've gone further into his life. But then again, maybe it was better off leaving it at his last great triumph. Maybe what Scorsese wants us to remember is what Howard Hughes accomplished, not what he was reduced to.
*****/*****
#19 Favorites

DV, I don't think I realized you did reviews until here recently...the only one I knew of was Mick. Anyway, I read through yours, and the movie sounds great! I'm familiar with OCD, so that caught my attention, and overall, it sounds like an interesting one to check out. This'll probably inspire me to read more reviews, both yours and Mick's, as they give good insight.

Thanks, I don't usually have time for reviews, except the ones I will be doing for the MFA Top 100, but every now and then I write one out of the blue.

Uh thanks

Nice review, DV.

I saw it on Christmas Day, and thought it was pretty good, although a bit heavy on the special effects for a Scorsese film.

You didn't give enough credit to Alan Alda, though. He was absolutely terrific in his role.

And I agree with you about DiCaprio. He didn't really bring off the "older" Howard Hughes too convincingly.

True, I thought Alda was great in the court scenes. The direction itself was great with cutting to the Hercules test flying.

I REALLY want to see this movie & can't get anyone to go with me. I better see it this weekend or I will go solo

No.....They have pills for that.

From what I've heard and seen, Scorsese's best period picture is, detail-wise, The Age of Innocence (1993).

I have low hopes for this film. I think it looks fabulous and as lavish as anything else Scorsese has done, but I have my doubts regarding narrative drive and character depth. And the CGI looks obvious--a disappointment considering the director.

But time will tell as always, and I still can't wait to see it.

Mick

I know Capo, I hated that Scorsese had to give into CGI for this film, but I'm assuming he wouldn't if he didn't have to.

In a recent interview I half-heartedly read, Scorsese said he looked forward to making "smaller" films again. He's always said that his films would never get more and more ambitious until his concepts actually ruin the films (Bertolucci and Coppola come to mind as examples of this actually happening). Let's hope not.

Mick

From the cast, to the budget, to the CGI, and to the fact that Scorsese didn't include Hughes's fascinating but controversial end-of-days, this really looks like he sold out. But his next project, a remake of Infernal Affairs, which DiCaprio and Matt Damon, doesn't look much more promising.

I hope I'm wrong. I really do. And the reviews all say I am. But the trailers don't bring my hopes up too high. Though, as I said, the reviews do.

Thug

I would have loved for Scorsese to show the 50's-70's in this film. I mean, it isn't as big a mystery as people think at times, in the book "Howard Hughes: His Life and Madness" it gives very detailed descriptions of the older Hughes in his dark rooms injecting himself with Codeine, watching movies all day, and barely eating.

Hughes died in an airplane going from Mexico to Texas, around the time they were at the Rio Grande. I would've loved an ending like that, and from what I hear that is the exact way Hughes wanted to die.

If he remakes Infernal Affairs, a clear indication that anybody has sold out, I will be very disappointed, and it will only show what Scorsese has become (not to mention Hollywood, but we already know what such a wretched mess that is these days!).

If he remakes Infernal Affairs, I'm tempted to get a big tattoo of his face on my back, with the big bold letters: "SELLOUT" underneath. That would look great. Let's hope I don't have to get the tattoo though...

...it would hurt too much.

Mick

I feel the exact same way. I don't really know what to expect from this film but I keep hearing it's good, so I want to see it even more now. I was going to go see it solely on the fact that Marty did it but I'm more excited to see it now that it's getting such good reviews. I just hope that I don't expect too much and be disappointed.

I didn't know that, but between the title and the subject matter, that would have been an amazing ending, IMO.

Thug

A line or caption with that ending from the book would be good too, "Howard Hughes had finally come home to Texas."

I don't understand why everone has a problem with CGI. It is a technical improvemnet in how to make films. Think of it as another component that a filmaker could add to his or her palate.

First they added sound in the 20's
then color in the 30's
Cinemascope, Dolby, THX, Digital Film, ect...ect
It is part of the progression of technical improvements

There all available to make a film more enjoyable, but you still need a good story, a good script, good actors, and someone to tell the story.

Just like anything in film It can be used correctly or incorrectly

CGI gives a filmaker the ability to do things on film that could never be done. It is more cost effective and gives the ability to the Director/Producer to spend money and be more detail oriented in other aspects of the film

Take Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002): the CGI in this film looks so obvious and fake it might as well be a cartoon. And it overwhelms character development. Every single character in the film plays second fiddle to the explosions, lasers, lightsabres, robots and the embarrassingly annoying Jar Jar Binks.

When I watch a film I want something which looks authentic, which was actually there when filming took place. Between Jabba the Hutt in Return of the Jedi and the superimposed CGI recreation in the 1997 rendition of Star Wars Episode I: A New Hope, I know which one I'd pick; and it wouldn't be the hollow, unnecessarily added CGI one of the latter.

Moving away from obvious targets such as George Lucas, Gangs of New York achieved a whole other world without the use of CGI. It was completely authentic. The Aviator, on the other hand, you can tell that a computer was used. This questions the authenticity of actors' reactions to an environment you know wasn't there when they made the film. This in turn places doubt in the characters' motivations, reactions, purpose in the film.

I can fully understand the requirement of CGI (and it's excellent, too) for the battle scenes of Return of the King (2003) et al., but it can easily get over-the-top so other important aspects of the film are neglected, such as acting, narrative, and the purpose of true cinematography itself.

Of course, the best film of the year, (and one of the few masterpieces of the decade), The Incredibles, is a CGI animated flick, using its technology to full, and dazzling, effect. But that's instead of drawing a full movie with a pen and paper.

On a side-note, I think one of the best uses of CGI to enhance a film positively can be seen in Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down (2001).

Mick

That's exactly my objection.

That may be the direction in which "film" is moving. Cartoons so realistic that we won't know the difference.

I could'nt agree with you more about Attack of the Clones, but thats too easy. I wish Lucas would have taken the same approach as Peter Jackson when making his new Trilogy. I can't help but think if Lucas filmed all three prequels like PJ did with LOTR, one aright after the other and released them in three consecutive years, he would have a better Trilogy. It is like Lucas has too much time on his hands and it is hurting the films but I digress.

The Incriedibles again you are right on and I agree a great entertaining family film without potty humor, burps or fart jokes.

Return of the King deserved every award it received and was a nice balance of CGI and drama
The Appendices on the Extended DVD really show how everyone involved loved this Triology

I think Ridley Scott also used CGI nicely in Gladiator. Imagine what he would have done with CGI in Bladrunner or Alien, I don't think he would have gone over the top like George Lucas, Do You ?

CGI has become an excuse to be lazy. Look at many new fantasy movies where 90% or more has CGI. And what baffles me is why? CGI makes many things look faker then other special effects.

There's a difference.

Intelligent Use
1) In "Collateral" CGI was used for the window view of the MTA train. Not because he needed to fake a view, he could've filmed it, but he wanted custom backgrounds, not so bright for one character so we could focus on his facial expressions. And to display emotion better.

2) Gangs of New York, Scorsese could've faked a 1800's New York easily. Instead he went to Rome's Cinecitta and created the buildings. That's directorial talent.

Bad Use
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Many of the comic book movies. Tarantino could've made a comic book movie the same way he made the stunts work in Kill Bill.

And with Kill Bill, it makes you wonder why Tarantino didn't just make the whole film anime.

Regarding CGI in Alien: part of the brilliance and aesthetic beauty of the film was the meticulous, overly detailed art direction: H.R. Giger's design for the alien is beautiful and genuinely terrifying. And not one computer effect. Neither that film, nor BladeRunner, need(ed) CGI.

DonV, with Sky Captain, I think the primary intention was to show what and how brilliant CGI can be. The whole point of it was the use of CGI. Without it, the film wouldn't have existed. It needed CGI, whereas most other films don't.

Mick

Mick

The point I was implying is that I think Scott would probibly use CGI in a subtle way if it was available for those two film's. Not changing the look or feel to the film, but changing the way you achieved the look and feel.

Unlike George Lucas who builds a film around a bunch of effects that he has in mind

I wouldn't have minded, but I hope the rumors are true that he's planning on an anime that's supposed to be a prequel to the movies.

But then, with such visually fantastic films to start off with, is CGI even necessary in the first place? No, I don't think so.

Mick

But then, with such visually fantastic films to start off with, is CGI even necessary in the first place? No, I don't think so.

Mick [/b][/quote]But if you get the same result or effect why should it matter how you get that result

Well I just saw it and thought it was much better than I thought it'd be. I personally went to see it just b/c it was a Martin Scorsese picture, but Leo did a great job in it. He was good in Gangs of New York, took a step up in Catch Me If You Can, and took another step up in The Aviator. Very good movie for those who wish to see it. Man that Katharine Hepburn was a little annoying

I just saw this today and thought it was very good as well. I agree with your Irishman that Leo has improved tremendously over his last three films and believe people will start to take him as a serious actor and not just the young kid in Titanic.

****SPOILER****
Vercetti, you did get a feel of the older Howard Hughes when they show him right before the hearings near the end of the movie. He is essentially sitting in a room alone by himself naked watching movies just like you described before. I know it didn't show him at an old age, but you get the main idea that that was how he turned out.
****End of SPOILER****

I won't say it was the best film of the year because I thought Hotel Rwanda was better. I think it will and should be nominated tho and Leo should be nominated, as well as Alda and Blanchett in supporting roles.

Yeah, but from what I've read, that NEVER happened. He didn't become a hermit until TEN years after that scene. I hate when true stories like that are altered. It should've shown those later years and a possible ending on the airplane where he died, or at least show us those years.

Yeah, I agree, that would have been a great ending. It would have also showed more of the life of Howard Hughes as well, which would have made it better. That was one of the problems with Ali, was that it stopped after he beat Foreman, even tho I was really hoping to see how his career ended and how he reacted when he found out he had Parkinson's disease. Anyways, back to The Aviator, my guess is Scorcese just had him acting like that during that period in his life to show how he ended up when he did get older. It does make it confusing tho because now it becomes unclear to the viewer when he really started to lose it. Either way, it is still a great movie worth seeing.

Don Vercetti: To quote the legendary scripter David Mamet on "historical movies":

"Just because its true doesn't necessarily make the movie better."

Fact is, we moviefans should try to seperate the artistic/quality merits of a film on its own and the inaccuracies or whatever.

As for CGI...from the many posts on this thread, I see most people's impression on CGI as nearly right but just short of a cigar. For a platable metaphor, imagine you are stuck in a room in your room. You try to turn the doorknob but the door won't open. You get pissy and curse at that blasted doorknob for locking you in, yet you never bother to question if it was something else with the door that is wrong itself besides the doorknob, like the floor or rusted door hinges or the fact that someone locked you in.

For the 99% of you that don't understand where we are going, lets consider this.

CGI is as fake as prosthetics or rubber latex monsters/aliens(like Jabba the Hutt) or models or motion control or stop-motion animation or whatever the f*cking special effects that has been used for the last few decades for the movies. However, where these SFX go wrong is not the special effects themselves but how they place "visually" in a movie and if it fits.

Really, CGI is a tool that can be wielded wisely(LOTR, James Cameron movies, etc.) or be used for lousy results(you get the idea).

As for some of you b*tching about the CGI in AVIATOR.......what would you suggest that ole Marty do instead? His movie was already way over $100 million in expenses as it was...I mean I guess it could have been accomplished with model-work or something but still, Scorsese hasn't gone overboard like say Bay or whatever. In fact, remember the ending of GANGS OF NEW YORK? Scorsese used CGI.......he just didn't cake walk everything in the movie with it like Lucas has done lately. Of course we keep forgetting that GONY upwards of $175 million(more or less) while AVIATOR didn't cost as much but that is another matter...

As for the CGI in STAR WARS........it never bothered me(really, the dark side of the force with EPISODE I & II was the script and other things I don't have time & space to talk about, people).

Instead what bothered me was the infamous "Gredo Shoots First" crap. In terms of the script, it doesn't work as well as the original theatrical version(where instead of Harrison Ford blasting the green alien bounty hunter through the table after saying "Yes I bet you have!", it becomes that Mr. Indiana Jones does it in "self-defense" after Gredo blasts first). I mean imagined Coppola went back to THE GODFATHER and changed the famed diner sequence from Al Pacino quickly taking his smuggled gun out and blasting the cop and mobster to being that the corrupt cop fired first THEN getting capped. Stupid, huh? Besides, it goes against the nature of criminals that Ford and that man-in-green-suit character was, you know?

Now what really f*cked it up royally was that done with CGI, it looks stupid. Even the "improved" version on the newly-released DVD doesn't fix this(with Ford "dodging" the blaster fire) doesn't improve it much.

Medically speaking, what was wrong with him? I know he was kind of a "germ-a-phob" but something mentally was wrong with him as well.

He had OCD, which didn't "exist "at the time and all the years of being unable to be medicated, plus his germ phobia, eventually took a toll on his mind. For anyone who wants the best understanding of his life, I suggest this, which Barnes and Nobel can order for you. There were broken needles in his arms from all the codeine injections he gave himself.

ronnierocketAGO, I have no problem with changes, even Goodfellas changes many minor things, but I just don't like major changes to a true story, such as the complete time change of his reclusion. Maybe it's more of the fact I am heavily interested in this story so much that I want as much accuracy as possible.

I saw it yesterday. My thoughts, as originally posted on the MFA .

The Aviator
2004, Martin Scorsese, US

There’s something electric about watching a Scorsese film for the first time, especially on the big screen. But when it comes down to it, this was always going to be worth seeing because of the director credit only, and although it lives up to its expectations with surprisingly high satisfaction, it was never going to propel itself to the heights of the director’s previous oeuvre.

For Scorsese’s work, it seems, is getting bigger not better. With Gangs of New York (2002), his high ambitions almost ruined the project; a visually inspired piece which was helped by a roistering and overpowering performance from Daniel Day-Lewis, but the director tried to cover too many aspects at once: romance, history, war, and never quite succeeded as he did in combining elements in Mean Streets (1973).

With The Aviator Scorsese has set his ambitions further, and it indeed shows in the final product. His style has scarcely changed since Who’s That Knocking At My Door (1968), if at all; but while his first feature was experimental and fresh, so The Aviator is not so experimental anymore—albeit still fresh, and still some way ahead of the field. With high ambitions for a biopic about a man who was equally set in his ways and almost destroyed by them, here Scorsese tells the tale of Howard Hughes (Leonardo DiCaprio), film producer, director, and ultimately a hygiene freak who happened to, as the promotional posters claim, “Build the future” (while others only dreamt it). The film focuses on his production of flying extravaganza Hell’s Angels (1933), and his playboy ways with the women—Jean Harlow, Katherine Hepburn and Ava Gardner no less. Not to mention his company war with Pan American Airlines, and his increasingly paranoid obsession with cleanliness and self-quarantined sanitation.

It’s too much for three hours, and three hours is too much for the material which is skimmed over. This should have either focused on one part of Hughes’ life and be kept at a digestible running time, or be blown totally beyond proportion (and Scorsese’s bank account) to give efficient respect and time to the areas it tries so hard to cover. Instead, we’re stuck somewhere inbetween, like we were in Gangs of New York, with the director trying to cram too much of John Logan’s script in at once. He did it so well with La Motta in Raging Bull (1980), and Henry Hill in GoodFellas, and even Sam Rothstein in Casino (1995), but doesn’t quite pull it off here with the same consistency. Perhaps Hughes was simply too fascinating for a three hour film, but with the other three examples, the characters’ lifestyles (the Mafia, not Hollywood) enabled for a fast-flowing, hyper-kinetic, kaleidoscopic onslaught of verbose narration and visual indulgence; he struggles to acquire the same effect for Hughes.

Nonetheless, this maintains a certain fascination from start to finish, mainly thanks to Robert Richardson’s striking cinematography and successful visual recreation of the time at hand (the film gradually moves from early two tone Technicolor to the grandiose aesthetics of the forties with subtle awareness); and of course this is surely DiCaprio’s coming-of-age as an actor. Sourly underrated (and overshadowed?) in Gangs of New York, here the man who was once the dream pinup for adolescent female drooling carries the film admiringly, capturing a real sense of the growing paranoia and stubbornly determined obsessions—not to mention genuine if flawed genius—of Hughes himself. Cate Blanchett meanwhile is a revelation as Hughes’ equally eccentric counterpart Hepburn, from the accent to the mannerisms to the way her acting style finely compliments that of DiCaprio.

But let’s face it. If any other director had made this, it wouldn’t have generated half the buzz as it has and probably will do in the coming awards-laden months. It seems ironic that Scorsese’s first direct look at the movies is one of his lesser works, and if the rumours of his Infernal Affairs remake are true, surely he’s running out of creative steam? This is a fascinating film which grasps the attention for as long as it lasts, but only because, with every scene, the viewer is subconsciously reminding themselves of the director’s credit. As it is, one can only hope this master filmmaker returns to his roots soon with smaller features, a la The King of Comedy (1983) or After Hours (1985).

Mick