Scorsese Ready to Trash Sinatra in Upcoming Biopic
by John NolteNot sure which is more revolting, Scorsese’s determination to cast Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank Sinatra or his determination to do to The Voice what he and Leo did to Howard Hughes: reduce and distill a great man who accomplished great things down to his worst elements; focus on the flaws instead of the many, many accomplishments…
Like anyone who lives to see his 82nd birthday, Sinatra the man is defined by more than just wherever some storyteller decides to point his soda straw focus. Sinatra the man was also a “man,” a virile, strong, fiercely independent, two-fisted scrapper who fought for everything he achieved. Regardless of his gifts as an actor, there is no way the eternal boy-faced DiCaprio can fill those shoes convincingly — especially if Scorsese wins the day and tells the story of the sixties, which began with the singer’s 45th birthday.
Tina Sinatra, the late star’s daughter, is said to be unhappy with the “dark direction” of the film’s script and wants a more “sanitized” version of her father’s life story. …
“Marty wants it to be hard-hitting and showcase the violent, sexually charged, hard-drinking Frank, but Tina wants to show the softer side of her dad and let the focus be on the music,” a source told the New York Post.
“The Sixties were a very swinging time for Frank – he was having sex with a garden variety of bimbos and cementing his Rat Pack status. It’s a really key time to his mythology. Tina really wants to make sure that a sanitized Frank comes through, and that it’s not overly negative.”
First off, the story of the Rat Pack has already been told in a pretty terrific 1998 HBO film, but what an absurd claim that this “swinging time” is anything close to “key” to the mythology of an individual who won two Oscars, will reign forever as the Beethoven of 20th Century music, openly fought for Civil Rights as early as the 1940s (!) and quietly did more for charity than any entertainer before or since.
Frank Sinatra was a Great Man, a flawed man to be sure, but one no more defined by the 15% of his ring-a-ding period than Scorsese is by 20% of a post-”Casino” life spent directing one bloated, over-rated, disappointing chase for an Academy Award after another.
The article uses the word “sanitized” to describe what Tina Sinatra is after, but this is grossly unfair. A better word would be “context,” for their can be no truth, no “key” to the whole of a human being without context. The article also ignores the fact that the singer’s daughter was a producer on “Sinatra,” a 1992 television miniseries, which was not only produced while Frank was still alive but “sanitized” nothing in its unflinching look at her father’s life … far from it.
Finally, from a pure movie-lovers point of view, using bad marriages, various addictions, mental illness and periods of bad behavior — the worst of the individual — as a three-act structure biopic crutch has been played out to the point that these films are becoming numbingly predictable. Will someone please sit Scorsese down and screen him “Malcolm X,” “Lawrence of Arabia,” “The Song of Bernadette,” “Patton,” “A Man for All Seasons,” “Schindler’s List,” and all of The Mighty Paul Muni’s work in this genre…?
The psychology behind an industry that takes so much obvious glee in tearing down and deconstructing greatness is for another post, but there’s no denying that Tina Sinatra’s approach would benefit everyone. As an artist Scorsese needs to surprise again and as a legend Ol’ Blue Eyes deserves better than “The Aviator” treatment.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
201 Comments
I equate this sort of thing with what the obama administration is doing to Bush. Let's hope they all enjoy the same moment when it's their turn.
Frank did have his flaws, no one is without flaws, but as you state in your article he also did many great things. However, telling the good about someone is pretty boring movie watching to these people with dollar signs in their eyes.
I'm sorry, but in light of all the accolades I saw heaped upon Michael Jackson, I don't get the "Great Man" status you are bestowing on Ole' Blue Eyes.
A great singer…yep…he's got a bushel basket full of great songs. One of the the most popular entertainers of the last century…Yup…no doubt about it. Gave a lot ot charity…OK..if you say so, I'm fine with that.
Great Man? Na. You are overstating it.
Finally, from a pure movie-lovers point of view, using bad marriages, various addictions, mental illness and periods of bad behavior — the worst of the individual — as a three-act structure biopic crutch has been played out to the point that these films are becoming numbingly predictable.
This is the complaint Johnny Cash's kids (by his first wife) had about Walk the Line.
Holy schnikes, what is with Scorsese's obsession with Leo DiCaprio? Aviator, Gangs of New York, The Departed, Shutter Island, Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, and now Sinatra?
Whoa! I love love love Sinatra, but he was surely not the "Beethoven of 20th Century music!" Beethoven was a composer, Sinatra was a performer. If you're looking for a 20thC Beethoven, you might look at guys like Gershwin and Ellington. Anyway, I have confidence that Scorsese and DiCaprio can deliver a very good Sinatra biopic. The Aviator was fine, and no, it did _not_ focus exclusively on HH's flaws.
Hollywood demands that screenwriters write dark or full of the "bad stuff" scripts about people. They know that's what sells.
Who is going to watch a movie about Frank showing what a great guy he was?
Moviegoers want to see the boozing, the sex, how he was connected to the mob, and all the juicy things we didn't know about, etc.. No one wants to see Tina's snooze fest version of her father.
Sinatra wasn't a mere "peformer" he was an "interpreter" — something much, much more. You're getting to apple and orange-y. In 500 years, like Beethoven, any remaining civilization will still be listening to Sinatra, right along with Beethoven.
Mancrush. Next he'll be doing Othello using Leo.
No one's talking about "what a great guy he was." I, and supposedly Tina, are talking about CONTEXT.
You're arguing with a point no one made but you.
Was he always a great man? No. But he devoted the final quarter century of his life to charity, re-establishing a relationship with his children, and life with his wife of 22 years, Barbara Marx.
Great men are not flawless, great man change — Sinatra died a great man.
A film doesn't require exposing "the dark side" of someone's life to be interesting. As long as there's adversity and conflict, a story can be developed.
…Scorsese is by 20% of a post-”Casino”
Casino was actually the last film I could stomach by Marty. I watch a film by him and all I can think of is, "There's something wrong with this guy. He's not right upstairs" He is so much into the most degenerate aspects of what a person can violently do to another person, all lovingly lit and filmed, that I I'm taken out of the story and into analyzing the guy, something I usually don't get even from a gory horror film.
As for Sinatra being the Beethoven of the 20th Century, Ludwig was Ludwig, Franky was Franky. They were both one-of-a kind talents, that is for certain.
I love Francis Albert, but if I want the "sanitized" version, I'll listen to some of his records.
In the movie I want to see him drinking and gambling and chasing Jill St. John and hanging around with Sam Giancana — and maybe a flashback scene of Willie Moretti pulling a gat on Tommy Dorsey to "buy out" Old Blues Eyes' contact.
BTW, I thought Leo was fine as Hughes, but I am skeptical about him pulling off Sinatra.
When I saw the Aviator I couldn't help but make constant comparisons to baby-faced Leonardo to Howard Hughes – Leonardo wasn't fit to wear his fedora. I kept thinking "here's a 16 year old Howard Hughes playing himself in the future".
I remember what Frank said days before his death – thanking his fans for their loyalty. That's class. I think it is true that many screenwriters seem to be unhappy unless they can tear somebody down. Movies should be uplifting.
I'll say this about Frank – I have appreciated him more since his death. Went to an outdoor wedding years ago and at night with lanterns strung all across the lawn the DJ is playing Sinatra with the moon and the stars. What a memorable night. And this from a guy who normally doesn't like to attend weddings.
When I saw the Aviator I couldn't help but make constant comparisons of baby-faced Leonardo to Howard Hughes – Leonardo wasn't fit to wear his fedora. I kept thinking "here's a 16 year old Howard Hughes playing himself in the future".
I remember what Frank said days before his death – thanking his fans for their loyalty. That's class. I think it is true that many screenwriters seem to be unhappy unless they can tear somebody down. Movies should be uplifting.
I'll say this about Frank – I have appreciated him more since his death. Went to an outdoor wedding years ago and at night with lanterns strung all across the lawn the DJ is playing Sinatra with the moon and the stars. What a memorable night. And this from a guy who normally doesn't like to attend weddings.
Listen to Sinatra's interpretations of, say, "Mac The Knife" or "I've Got You Under My Skin," and then someone else's and it's quite obvious Sinatra's cadences and accentuation are incomparable. They are completely different songs.
Now I love, listen to, and study classical music, and while I wouldn't say Sinatra is up there with Beethoven, I must admit this: my CD library is almost all classical, except for some Jazz, Swing, and Sinatra.
Bennett, and to me that's a movie I've seen a hundred times before…
Sinatra was friends with Reagan, according to Hollywood you can't get much worse than that.
one can be excellent, even great and still not be a good human being…
And that is our take on the estimable Mr Sinatra. We have it on good authority that he was somewhat of a miscreant, certainly Dean Martin's associates point that out. A WWII vet we know flew him around on tour in the '44-45 era and found him a spoiled demanding snot…
so there's that…
Remember, this is a bio from a guy who felt he had to show "the dark side" of Jesus to make it interesting.
I'd be willing to wager that there will be an uplifting scene in the movie when Sinatra meets JFK.
I actually think that it will be great, but I don't get this fixation on casting DiCaprio for every film he has directed since 2004 or so.
"what he and Leo did to Howard Hughes: reduce and distill a great man who accomplished great things down to his worst elements; focus on the flaws instead of the many, many accomplishments…"
I'm not sure if that was the case. The bad stuff was there, of course. But I was surprised by how far they went towards making him an "Atlas Shrugged"-type hero, especially at the senate hearings. They also made his descent into madness in part a consequence of his genius. I figured they'd highlight the rakishness and the craziness, but you got a sense of his business acumen and his work ethic. Altogether not a negative portrayal.
"will reign forever as the Beethoven of 20th Century music"
Sinatra is primarily a performer. Beethoven was both performer and composer, and a true original.
SInatra was an instrument who interpreted what's come to be known as "Popular Music." There is everyone else and then there is Frank. I don't think the Beethoven comparison's a stretch in the least. A century of music is unimaginable without him. He might not have composed or arranged it, but again that thinking is too apple-to-orangey.
In 500 years people will only be incidentally listening to Cole Porter via Nelson Riddle, etc… They WILL be listening to Sinatra — and that is my apple-to-apple.
Because liberals in general love context. They wouldn't, say, edit out video to: make Sarah Palin look stupid, make David Letterman look better, obfuscate someone's race, make Cuba or Saddam-era-Iraq look like paradise, or make our soldiers look like sociopaths.
They wouldn't, say, edit data to mislead people about economic trends, how many people actually pay taxes, how many people don't have health insurance, or how high the deficit is.
They wouldn't avoid facts by conducting a shallow investigation of someone, perhaps like Chris Dodd.
They love context.
"Sinatra wasn't a mere 'peformer' he was an 'interpreter' — something much, much more"
Perhaps more, but not more enough to compare to original composition. Did Sinatra actually adapt the tunes, by which I mean rewrite the scores, or did he tell someone how he wanted it to sound? Or did he just reinterpret the music through his singing, letting someone else bother about the instruments? Could he even read music?
See Robert Deniro 1970s-1990s Scorsese movies
"Listen to Sinatra's interpretations of, say, 'Mac The Knife' or 'I've Got You Under My Skin,' and then someone else's and it's quite obvious Sinatra's cadences and accentuation are incomparable."
I've seen wildly different interpretations of the role of Hamlet by different actors, but by no means did any of their aesthetic contributions compare to Shakespeare's.
Frank Sinatra was the greatest male vocalist of the 20th Century….period! He was also an insightful musician who skillfully changed his approach to songs (as he aged) to match the timber of his voice. He surrounded himself with the best arrangers (Nelson Riddle, Billy May etc.) and the finest studio musicians. I was always so-so about Frank until someone gave me "Sinatra in Paris" which he recorded in a small club with a five-piece combo. It blew me away and I have been a fan ever since. As to a Scorsese biopic, well, we have to admit that Frank led a "colorful" life and there is a lot of good and bad to work with. I can't see DiCaprio as Sinatra – His face is too small and he has the weakest chin ever seen on a major movie star. Still, he's Scorsese's boy and he does what he's told.
no argument there. maybe a couple of italian homeboys…
They just throw mud at those who are better than them, instead of cleaning the mud off of themselves.
It's like the people who denigrate American heroes such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King Jr., among others — they forever crow about how there is no "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong", then get all high and mighty and morally absolute about America's wrongs and "hypocrisy." If they gave a damn about American hypocrisy, why do they embrace leaders who openly reject American principles of justice?
Sinatra is simply the latest victim of this trend. Not a conspiracy, but a cultural trend.
Pasted from an earlier comment: SInatra was an instrument who interpreted what's come to be known as "Popular Music." There is everyone else and then there is Frank. I don't think the Beethoven comparison's a stretch in the least. A century of music is unimaginable without him. He might not have composed or arranged it, but again that thinking is too apple-to-orangey.
In 500 years people will only be incidentally listening to Cole Porter via Nelson Riddle, etc… They WILL be listening to Sinatra — and that is my apple-to-apple
Problem with this is that it is the period of his life that coincides with when he fell in love with June. The story is about John and June and how they came to be together. Yes, there could have been other periods in his life to use (and I read one compliant that it didn't focus enough on his interest in music and another his great faith in God) but WALK THE LINE was essentially a love story about John and June and what led him to be the man he essentially became.
Problem is that Scorsese seems to want to make another mob movie about the Sixties. I would concentrate on the Fifties where he had it all, lost it and made his way back, concentrate on how he became the man he was. But who could be Ava?
I grew up in a Italian American Neighborhood. When they referred to St Francis they weren't talking about St.Francis of Assisi believe me. Having said that if you want to get to know Sinatra get to know him through his music and films and there's a myriad of books on him giving you all the good the bad and the ugly about the man. The Evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones…Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. I prefer to dwell on the positive of the man while not keeping a blind eye to his flaws. I don't think we need a hatchet job on Ole Blue Eyes. Scorsese should know better. Leo DiCaprio as Sinatra? That's as realistic as 8 Jewish-American Commandos cleaning the clock's of the Nazis. I don't know what they smoke out there but I wish they'd put it down once and awhile
"to me that's a movie I've seen a hundred times before…"
There's a reason clichés become clichés. They're true. Celebrities are messed up. No one tells them no. I understand that genres get boring, and that seeing the same plots in movie after movie gets old. That's why spoofs like "Airplane" are so effective.
However, there's a way to do a demon-struggling biopics without repeating the shortcomings of "Walk the Line" and "Ray," and without getting rid of the clichés. Do it the same way "2001: A Space Odysse" reinvigorated Sci-fi and "The Godfather" reinvigorated gangster films. Just when you think they're dead, genres have some life hiding within. Neither "2001" nor "Godfather" so much remade their genres–which too many critics mistakingly allege–as simply made a better movie than average genre fare. They chucked out some clichés, kept others. Attempted to provide more than expected, but nevertheless leaned on old standbys. If not like a crutch than like an elegant cane.
I grew up in a Italian American Neighborhood. When they referred to St Francis they weren't talking about St.Francis of Assisi believe me. Having said that if you want to get to know Sinatra get to know him through his music and films and there's a myriad of books on him giving you all the good the bad and the ugly about the man. The Evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones…Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. I prefer to dwell on the positive of the man while not keeping a blind eye to his flaws. I don't think we need a hatchet job on Ole Blue Eyes. Scorsese should know better. Leo DiCaprio as Sinatra? That's as realistic as 8 Jewish-American Commandos cleaning the clock's of the Nazis. I don't know what they smoke out there but I wish they'd put it down once and awhile.
Sinatra was a complex man and in many ways larger than life. Like all such men, he had his positive and negative qualities. Yet, I would much prefer that to these dime-a-dozen boy/girl pop wonders who now seem to dominate the music industry. Give me a man like Sinatra any day compared to these emasculated lumps of flesh.
Time to take your Assault Weapon out, point it at your Head, and pull the trigger!
You lost your sense of reality!
This is a story about a singer, and you make it a politcal issue?
I wish disease and death upon you and your family so the negativity in your families blood line cant get passsed down!
You are TRULY A PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR AN AMERICAN to turn a story about a movie into a political issue!
Sorry but no one will ever be able to play Sinatra as well as Phil Hartman did
"I got chunks of guys like you in my stool!"
And liberals claim that the Republicans are the party of "hate".
That's it! The final comment has been made. Well said, PT. Everyone else… thanks for playing.
"He might not have composed or arranged it, but again that thinking is too apple-to-orangey. "
You keep bringing the apple-orange thing up, but you're the one who brought it up. If anything, saying a comparison between composition and performance is apples and oranges makes our point, not yours. You can't compare what Sinatra did to what Beethoven did on an aesthetic level.
For the sake of argument, let's limit the discussion to apples and apples. Is Sinatra crooning "Fly Me to the Moon" in the same league as Beethoven performing his own "Hammerklavier" Sonata? Not on a technical level, obviously. But you seem to be most interested in the impact on popular culture. Beethoven was among the first composer to be able to support himself in part on public concerts as opposed to aristocratic patronage, which was a huge step forward. His influence on the Romantic age, which lasted for almost a whole century, through composers like Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Brahms, Berlioz, Mahler, Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak…It's easier to ask who he didn't influence.
(Continued)
Meanwhile, Sinatra's style went out with the dawn of rock and roll. If some hipsters still enjoyed jazz, it was less the crooner variety, more be-bop. There were hangers-on, like Michael Buble and Harry Connick, Jr., but rock rules pop culture. I would never deny that plenty of rockers idealized him. Nor would I deny his iindirect influence on the phenomenon of the Concept Album.
Sinatra's music will live on. But will it be anywhere as big as the first movement of the 5th symphony or the first movement of the "Moonlight" Sonata or the main theme of the fourth movement of the Ninth symphony? Absolutely not.
"You keep bringing the apple-orange thing up, but you're the one who brought it up"
I meant to say you're the one who brought the comparison up in the first place.
Yeah, that one was just weird…especially the Jew-fro that Harvey Keitel was sporting.
It's called a "movie", not a biography with footnotes. If Scorsese wants to focus on one era and one man in it, that's his creative right. He isn't beholden to show us 1940's Frank, or 1950's Frank, or whomever else Tina or Junior or Nancy wants.
The hell with all that.
Who's playing Ava Gardner?
Well said, Mr. Nolte. Very well said. And as for DiCaprio . . . *shudder*
Mom, take your lithium. You're embarrassing me.
Scorscese has made films tearing down Jesus and Howard Hughes, and now apparently Frank Sinatra.
Spielberg has long sought to develop a film tearing down Abe Lincoln, and he made a film questioning the morality of Israelis whom hunted down PLO terrorists whom murdered the entire Israeli Olympic team in Munich in 1972.
When will lefties ever develop a film tearing down Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot, or God forbid…Islamic Jihadists ?
Where's Marty's Mohammed equivalent to "The Last Temptation of Christ" ?
You make my point…
Harry Connick Jr. and Michael Buble are already pretty much forgotten. Sure SInatra's "style" might have gone out… So did Beethoven's…
But Sinatra lives … he stranscends his "style" … relevant enough that two of the biggest names in Hollywood are ready to spend tens of millions on his life story.
And don't forget that in the "age of rock and roll," Sinatra's music was everywhere… Movies, commercials…
Sinatra had a very good ear for material and arrangements, yes. But to compare an impeccable performer directly to a composer is somewhat apples and oranges.
As a matter of personal preference, I find the Ellington/Strayhorn collaborations to be far superior to Sinatra/Riddle. But Ellington led a sober life, so no one is going to be clamoring for a biopic about him (and for obvious reasons I suspect some on BH wouldn't care for a Billy Strayhorn movie)
You make my point…
Harry Connick Jr. and Michael Buble are already pretty much forgotten. Sinatra is not.
Sure Sinatra's "style" might have gone out… So did Beethoven's…
But like Beethoven Sinatra lives … he transcends his "style" … relevant enough that two of the biggest names in Hollywood are ready to spend tens of millions on his life story.
And don't forget that in the "age of rock and roll," Sinatra's music was everywhere… Movies, commercials…
It is somewhat ironic that a website dedicated to fighting political hagiography is clamoring for a Sinatra hagiography.
That sounds about right. We are now in a position where we can compare and contrast the work of vocalists from different generations and reallly, really see "what they brought to the table." Sinatra left such a rich catalogue covering so much of popular music performed at different points in his life that he will remain the yardstick by which singers will measure themselves for a long, long time. A song remains notes on a page until the performer gives them life. Sinatra not only gave them life but added pathos, romance, irony, ruefulness and the wisdom of continued experience.
Hey apples, I've got some oranges here for you to compare.
How exactly did Scorcese "tear down Jesus" with his film? For starters, he never stated he was filming the Gospels, but a novel's interpretation of the Gospels. Unlike Mr. Gibson, who claimed he was filming St. Matthew, but conveniently forgot to mention that he used a 19th Century Catholic Mystic to augment his script. If anything, Scorcese's main sins in Last Temptation were making it half an hour too long, and badly miscasting the lead actor.
If you would really examine Marty's other films, there is quite a lot of Catholic philosophy teeming through them. Departed and Goodfellas were classic morality plays, and After Hours is one of the more demented dissections of the consequences of lust that you'll ever see.
Y A W N. Frank Sinatra was a thug with a great voice. IMO.
I'd be curious to see Mr. Nolte's opinion if someone decided to make a Nina Simone biopic. Would he be defending her incredible talents as a composer and performer, or would he be put off by the more controversial aspects of her life. Would he fret that a hypothetical Nina Simone movie would "sanitize" her life?
I'd be curious to see the consistency of Mr. Nolte's opinions next musical biopic that comes down the pike.
It's somewhat ironic that someone with the obvious intelligence to type a full sentence can't understand the difference between a plea for context and a hagiograhy. Unless, of course, they choose not to.
He did kill that fig tree for no reason.
No need to be curious about my consistency …. read my glowing review of "Che" to answer that question…
But you don't even have to work that hard… How about my mentioning "Malcolm X" as an example of what a biopic should be right here on this post?
Or did you not get that far before deciding to throw stones?
I'd be curious to see Mr. Nolte's opinion if someone decided to make a Nina Simone biopic. Would he be defending her incredible talents as a composer and performer, or would he be put off by the more controversial aspects of her life. Would he fret that a hypothetical Nina Simone movie would "sanitize" her life?
Touchy, touchy, John. Ok, if you are going to be consistent in your criticism of biopics by invoking Che (which I could have cared less about) and Malcom X (a very potent film undone by Spike Lee's off screen PR for it), then wouldn't it go without saying that you would be opposed to a biopic of Sinatra that attempted to sanitize the less savory aspects of his life? In turn, can you be completely certain that the movie is going to potentially ignore his marvelous contributions to music during that period? Unless you've personally seen the shooting script, then are you truly 100% sure that Scorcese is "ready to trash Sinatra"? Or did you not get that far before throwing stones?
(by the way, I'm surprised how you didn't bring up "Ray" in your post. That movie, despite dwelling on some of the nastier stuff in Charles' life, still managed to wildly sanitize its conclusion)
Frank, Dean, and Sammy were coolness personified. Taking two decidedly uncool dudes like Leo and Marty and having them strip the Rat Pack of the spark that made them special is disturbing. This is the same problem that Oceans 11 had. You can remake a movie but you can't remake the spirit. Sure it looked slick but there was no soul underneath. I always got the feeling that Frank and the gang would be a blast to hang out with and get drunk while shooting the breeze. Something tells me these guys would just be a drag.
Wow, you really don't like being disagreed with, do you?
I'm not entirely sure you are making your case on "context", John. It appears that your quibble with the film appears to be its point of focus more than anything. Unless the film invents elements of Sinatra's life that are patently false, what's the problem again? My guess that the studio bankrolling the film suspects that the audience would rather see a warts and all biopic than just a conflict free recreation of Ol Blue Eyes doing the Songbook. To be fair, the failure of Kevin Spacey's biopic about Bobby Darin should be telling people that 1950's/1960's crooners don't necessarily equal great box office.
Respectfully, Departed was many things, but it's highly inaccurate to call it "bloated". It's relatively straightforward presentation was a nice tonic to the overkill of Gangs of New York
It always bugged the hell out of me that Walk the Line had a scene of June writing Ring of Fire several years LATER than when she actually wrote it in real life. The movie condensed its timeline quite a lot for the sake of the running time. Small quibble, but those sort of musical history mistakes drive me nuts.
If it makes you feel better, Leo was not cast in Scorcese's "The Silence". That I believe is Daniel-Day Lewis and Javier Bardem.
Shutter Island was moved to 2010 last week by the studio
You know why these guys would be a drag? Because they take themselves soooo seriously: a crime in the Rat Pack book. Frank's clan seemed to realize that they got where they were with some talent and a lot of luck. Therefore, they lived for the moment, had a good time doing it, knew it wouldn't last forever, so they never got bogged down in analyzing the meaning of life's trivialities. That seemed to be the perspective I got from the HBO film, The Rat Pack, which was terrific.
What's so special about Sinatra's "dark side?" We all have one. Sinatra could take the good with the bad. Scorcese needs to learn what balance means.
We will never know how many lives were saved and futures enriched through Franks never publicized care and generosity.
Get the DVD of "A personal journey through American movies with Martin Scorsese". It is really fascinating and inspiring to hear Scorsese talk about movies he loves. I watched it twice.
It also becomes clear that he is drawn to the darkness. Apparently every genre has only reached full maturity when all illusions are stripped away, madness reigns, men are corrupt, the dream is dead, redemption is out of reach. That´s how Marty rolls.
A century of music is unimaginable without him.
If there had never been a Sinatra music would not be much different. There were other singers. He was the best IMO, but there is always another best performer.
Beethoven, having changed the way music was made, is far more important.
I'm told if you were in a Vegas Casino after Frank's show chances are you'd see him at a blackjack table. There is a story of one guy he befriended at the table, down on his luck, and Frank just gave him a large amt of money to keep playing – if I gave a number I'd be lying but I am sure it was 4 figures..
sinatra was a rat…a great singing rat..but a rat nevertheless…his talent was enormous, but his lack f sensitivity to so many who were not as fortunate as he is upsetting…don't even mention the way he used Sammy Davis and toyed with his race…Sinatra was a tormentor and a musical giant…let's hope Scorcese can balance the two and make a great movie…
"To be fair, the failure of Kevin Spacey's biopic about Bobby Darin should be telling people that 1950's/1960's crooners don't necessarily equal great box office."
Comparing Bobby Darin to Sinatra is like comparing Fabian to Elvis
I thought you meant that the way Beethoven dominated the musical scene, became intimately associated with the era, brought certain forms of music to their peaks, and set precedents for his followers. . . so did Sinatra in his time and place and with his own style and material.
I thought you were making an analogy of the men's enduring influence, not a qualitative comparison of their talents or a tit-for-tat allegory of their lives.
One could, hypothetically, not like Sinatra (or Beethoven), or think one incomparably more brilliant, and still agree with that statement.
Anyway, I thought that's what you meant.
Kate Beckinsale again? I think she did well the first time she played Gardner, given that she had a small fraction of the screen time and dialogue that Cate Blanchett got to work with. But we all can watch footage of the real Ava Gardner and no, I cannot really think of any actress.
Sinatra stood by Sammy Davis, Jr. at a time when no one else did. I don't think he "used" him at all. Certainly he didn't see Sammy as the "token" Rat Packer, but if you think he did, then just look at it as an early form of affirmative action.
Italian that he was, I think Frank was an intensely loyal guy who demanded the same from everyone in his circle. If he thought for a moment that loyalty was compromised or breached, that person, unreasonably in many cases, ceased to exist in his mind. It did take a lot of grit to be a friend of Frank. But to so many, it was worth it.
I think you're being too hard on "The Aviator." If the movie really was bashing him for his flaws it would have gone a step further into his Vegas days where he really went off his rocker. He was a great businessman and a true innovator but to say that the movie didn't romanticize his image leads me to believe you weren't paying close enough attention. Plus, you can't tell a story about Howard Hughes and include his personal life without peering into the madness. And, oh boy, was there madness.
As for Sinatra, I am completely opposed to Dicaprio playing the role even though he has surprised me several times over. It's more of a technical matter more than anything considering how wildly different their voices are. Leo's voice is, like his fair, very boyish.. No matter what vocal technique he uses it's going to be that way. Plus the transition from his voice to dubbing to Sinatra's voice would be unintionally funny.
At any rate one scene I would love to see put to cinema is John Wayne punching out one of Sinatra's bodyguards. True or not that would be a scene for the ages.
I wont go see the movie on Sinatra if its played out the way moron Scorsese wants to do it. Im Italian and I love Old blue Eyes, not all his songs but alot of them. Sinatra had an eastcoast attitude and thats just how it was, he hung out with all types of people before it was COOL to do so, Ive read where he took care of boxer Joe Louis after he lost all his money – hey Scorsese if you want the people who loved frank to go see your movie, you better balance the move to include both good and bad………….wake the heck up!!!!!
Sinatra personally made the Will Mastin Trio his opening act in the 1940s, which Sammy credited as his big break. Sinatra and Dean Martin made some really rough jokes about Sammy in their schtick but there was a lot of dago and wop jokes too as it was a less PC time. Sinatra and Dean also refused to play at hotels that wouldn't book Sammy and never would allow anyone else to abuse him.
Sinatra was a control freak and often not a good person but as Mr. Nolte says, he needs to be in context.
So true John, It's all about context. Sure Sinatra was flawed… he had a huge amount of demons, as do all icons. Nevertheless, his presence and his voice, more his phrasiology was a true gift. But the bad stuff is sure more interesting. This is Scorsceses best change at greatness. Hope he doesn't blow it.
Note that I have no respect for his politics – I´ll never quite forgive Scorsese for some things he said in recent years when he was out of the US. But let´s stick to the truth. While the casting of DiCaprio was questionable, The Aviator did not "tear down" Howard Hughes. It ma ynot give us the full Hughes, but at least for 90% of the movie we identify with him and root for him.
Yes, Spielberg´s Munich was a disgrace, but what does that have to do with Scorsese?
As for your last question, Marty IS a Catholic, or at least he was raised as one and in his way he does take it seriously. Nothing requires him to make a movie about Mohammed. Whatever you think of his movie, at least he is not just a secular provocateur like so many modern "transgressive artists".
Note that I have no respect for his politics – I´ll never quite forgive Scorsese for some things he said in recent years when he was out of the US. But let´s stick to the truth. While the casting of DiCaprio was questionable, The Aviator did not "tear down" Howard Hughes. It ma ynot give us the full Hughes, but at least for 90% of the movie we identify with him and root for him.
Yes, Spielberg´s Munich was a disgrace, but what does that have to do with Scorsese?
As for your last question, Marty IS a Catholic, or at least he was raised as one and in his way he does take it seriously. Nothing requires him to make a movie about Mohammed. Whatever you think of his movie, he is definitely not just a secular provocateur like so many modern "transgressive artists".
Some of the most entertaining film biographies fit your version of "snooze fest." Yankee Doodle Dandy with James Cagney, The Jolson Story with Larry Parks, The Glenn Miller Story with James Stewart…none of these showed the entertainers' "dark sides," yet are still great films. Yes, the facts are fastly and loosely played with in a lot of cases, but what ever happened to being ENTERTAINED when you went to the movies?
Worse: Leo starring in a John Wayne biopic!
…shudder…
St. Francis meets St. John of Kennedy, Keeper of Camelot. Hmmm, there's a movie right there.
Used Sammy Davis? Just because Sammy was man enough to laugh at racial humor without playing the race card or whining about being a victim…
Maybe in the pansy "progressive" world, making fun of someone to their face is considered mean…in the real world, that's what guys do; in a way its a way to show acceptance. But progressive sissies can't get past their emotions so they'll never understand.
I read your post, John. You do realize that because most movies are only about two hours long, it is somewhat difficult to cram all aspects of a person's life into a movie biopic. Walk the Line and Ray stopped while both characters were in their late 30's/early 40's. Malcom X was killed so young, the filmmakers didn't have to make the choices about what details of a person's life they needed to condense or leave out for the sake of the running time (and that movie still pushed three and a half hours).
As for "full context", I am dubious of your claim that Frank became a "great man" because the ravages of age made it difficult for him to remain the "bad man" of the Rat Pack days. That nonewithstanding, there is very little in Frank's last decade or so that is so amazing or unique that people are going to plunk down ten bucks to watch it.
However, if a hypothetical full life of Frank is to be made, hopefully that shooting script will address how embarassingly bad his last records were.
The Aviator had its moments. And DiCaprio can be very good. But DiCaprio as Sinatra is not just lazy, it is deeply wrong. Like casting Joe Pesci as Gandhi.
True. BUT, in terms of the kind of eras or personalities that moviegoers are interested in seeing, I'm not entirely sure that the movie going public is clamoring for a Sinatra movie. Besides the reality that the man has been dead for over a decade, jazz crooning doesn't really appeal to moviegoers like rock, country, or R&B. As marvelous as the Edith Piaf movie was, it didn't have a whole lot of mainstream appeal.
Gordo, is there some sort of caveat to the First Amendment that says that we are to watch what we say when we are "out of the US"? Either free speech applies to everyone or it applies to no one.
Secular provocateur? Give me a freaking break…
Sinatra was active, very quietly, in charity. He was on good terms with ex-wife Mia Farrow. Who he respected, and vice-versa.
Most musical scholars agree, Sinatra was the pioneer in using the voice through amplified microphones away from the Big Band sound to a more intimate but emotionally powerful recording scheme. Elvis and the Beach Boys and the Beatles merely built on that foundation — but Sinatra was the first to realize that the singer could indeed by the lead instrument and be just as "loud" and emotionally powerful as a horn section.
THAT is his principal legacy. Not the Rat Pack. Not Vegas. Not his movies. Making the SINGER the lead. ALL of our popular music flows from it and it's why pre-Sinatra stuff sounds "old-fashioned" — because it is. Sinatra was the first.
Dicaprio as Sinatra. Brahahahhahaha. Geeez how Hollywood has fallen. A dweeby little girly man trying to play a real man. Well just another 10 bucks I can save by staying home. I suppose the next choice will be Tom Cruise to play Lee Marvin Brahahhahahahha….
So you've seen the shooting script, or have you formed your opinion of what Scorcese's movie is about based solely on John Nolte's opinion?
Rock no longer rules pop culture; today, it's rap & hip-hop.
The type of CD's that sell many copies that are considered "rock" are by U2, Pearl Jam and Nickelback, which are really pop, post-grunge and arena rock. Other than them, Miley Cyrus & Taylor Swift, you have rap & hip-hop ruling the roost.
Sad to say.
Best chance at greatness? Hmm…Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Departed, the Last Waltz, Cape Fear, etc. etc.. Yeah, what a disappointing career.
[...] Careful Martin… [...]
Dean Martin seemed more like a normal guy but I dont know for sure…I do know he loved the X Files which makes him aok !
And don´t forget "Robin Hood"
They would never make the Story of Louis Pasteur today because as far as I know the guy didn´t beat his wife. But do people really want to see that? Fact is, every successful biopic goes out of its way to make its central character likeable and his story as inspirational as possible – that is, more of a "snooze fest". They usually make gangsters nicer than they were, so why be especially hard on Sinatra?
What the hell does free speech have to do with it? Is there some caveat to the First Amendment that says people cannot be judged by what they say?
Nobody was forcing Scorsese to trash his country when he was at the Berlin Film Festival a while ago. Like so many Hollywood aristocrats, he could have said nothing but he preferred to curry favor with the European press (whose anti-Americanism is mostly fed by Americans – believe me, I live over there right now).
He did it in public and let´s say it diminished him in my eyes. What´s your problem with that?
Secular provocateur? Give me a freaking break…
See? That free speech thing only goes so far.
What the hell does free speech have to do with it? Is there some caveat to the First Amendment that says people cannot be judged by what they say?
Nobody was forcing Scorsese to trash his country when he was at the Berlin Film Festival a while ago. Like so many Hollywood aristocrats, he could have said nothing but he preferred to curry favor with the European press (whose anti-Americanism is mostly fed by Americans – believe me, I live over there right now).
He did it in public and let´s say it diminished him in my eyes. What´s your problem with that?
"Secular provocateur? Give me a freaking break…"
See? That free speech thing only goes so far.
Frank Sinatra was a great singer. The greatness was in a narrow range, but it was greatness nevertheless. Oscar Wilde was a great playwright. Woody Allen is a great filmmaker. People who achieve greatness in one field may well be total bastards in other aspects of their lives. But villainy does not cancel out their areas of greatness.
I loved the Aviator and thought it did great service to Hughes. His rebuff of the egalitarian Hepburns was one of the great conservative moments in film from the last decade.
I think most of the Sinatra complaints come from people too young to have really heard him or understood his influence. If you want to know anything about Sinatra go ask Don Rickles or any other person whose life was uplifted by this man. His talent was immense, as were his appetites, but that is not the whole man. As for the Mafia connection it was probably no more than paying respect to the guys he grew up around. Loyalty was a big item for Sinatra and he was loyal to a fault.
[...] rest is here: Scorsese Ready to Trash Sinatra in Upcoming Biopic This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
DICAPRIO!?!?!?!?! Gag me!
You're making my point. Neither Oscar Wilde nor Woody Allen are "Great Men".
Ron Jeremy is a great Porn Star. He's not a "Great Man".
O.J. Simpson was a great Running Back. Etc….
I stopped reading as soon as you said that "The Aviator" was a negative portrayal of Howard Hughes. Its a pretty inspiring, interesting movie, and you find Mr. Hughes a very likable character, especially in comparison to his corporate and political enemies.
Good call. I don't think some of these people were watching the same movie. "The Aviator" was a great study of the fine line between genius and madness. The audience was definitely encouraged to root for HRH, who was portrayed as an aviation pioneer, visionary film maker and brilliant industrialist, despite his neurosis (or psychosis).
DiCaprio as Hughes was good, not great — Depp would have been better. BTW, I'd cast Depp or Robert Downey, Jr. as Sinatra.
This is the same approach that liberals take to defining America: Emphasizing the flaws in an attempt to demonstrate an enlightened insight. Context doesn't matter when you're trying to look smarter than everyone else.
Mr. Scorcese has yet to let me peak at his final draft. However, judging from Mr. Scorcese's previous efforts, this will not be Yankee Doodle Dandy and he ain't no Michael Curtiz.
(Psssst….when I see the final work in progress, I'll drop you a line.)
Mr. Scorcese has yet to let me peak at his final draft. However, judging from Mr. Scorcese's previous efforts, this will not be Yankee Doodle Dandy and he ain't no Michael Curtiz.
(Psssst….when I see the final work in progress, I'll drop you a line.)
I'd have to agree with you. It did show his more undesirable traits, but the biggest thing I took away from that movie was that HH was not afraid to do whatever the hell he wanted, had the vision to get things done, and was willing to stand up to the government in a fight for free market capitalism…plus he told off the Hepburn family that reeked of progressive liberalism.
I'd like to see the scene where Frank meets Joe, Sr., bringing word from the Outfit that the fix is in re: the Cook County vote.
I agree with your assessment of The Aviator. Hughes is usually thought of as a mad billionaire, but the movie focused on his genius as well as his madness. It was pretty balanced. Hopefully, Scorcese will do the same with Frank.
and don't forget 'Shutter Island" the excellent Tim Lahane novel due for release this fall…
Great read- should be a terrific film.
I think has a history the movie was pretty close. But Leronardo playing HH? Come on.
I think has a history the movie was pretty close. But Leonardo playing HH? Come on.
I think as a history the movie was pretty close. But Leonardo playing HH? Come on.
"will reign forever as the Beethoven of 20th Century music,"
The single dumbest comment in Big Hollywood's short history. Perhaps you might want to separate your personal admiration for the man from your story. I'd love to hear the piece of music Frank created that will be studied by musical scholars for hundreds of years (let alone dozens of such pieces).
You know, maybe he might be a jackass in Real life, but is that really any reason to diss him as an Actor? Its like Tom Cruise. Loads of people refused to watch Valkyrie because it had him in it, but he was just fine. I'd say Dicaprios performance in the Aviator is very good,.
They just throw mud at those who are better than them, instead of cleaning the mud off of themselves.
It's like the people who denigrate American heroes such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King Jr., among others — they forever crow about how there is no "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong", then get all high and mighty and morally absolute about America's wrongs and "hypocrisy." If they gave a damn about American hypocrisy, why do they embrace leaders who openly reject American principles of justice?
Sinatra is simply the latest victim of this trend. Not a conspiracy, but a cultural trend. They're all out of heroes to cut down, so the singers are next.
Sinatra was a song "stylist" more than a pure singer. He tatooed his style on whatever piece of music he was singing and that is just fine…my point, let's not carried away by over glorifying his contribution to popular culture.
He was quite possibly the Michael Jackson of his time…of course with the (allegeded) boy touching problem
I understand your point, but mine is that Sinatra brought life, character, and feeling to preexisting songs. Shakespeare's characters are already the work of genius, and the challenge is to bring out the character, not to add.
To be clear, I'm not making the same case John is, but the situation you describe (the performer/interpreter bringing something unexpected to the original work) is not unprecedented. Pianist Vladimir Horowitz performed Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto and it so impressed Rachmaninoff that the composer never played it in public again.
Musical scholars are already studying Sinatra's concept albums which changed popular music in ways we're only just now beginning to understand — and those albums 'In the Wee small Hours…" and "September of My Years…" among them are loaded with songs sung many, many times by many other artists…
The songs aren't what's being studied, it's the singer's intepretation and the storyteller telling them… It's Sinatra.
Also… pasted from an earlier comment: SInatra was an instrument who interpreted what's come to be known as "Popular Music." There is everyone else and then there is Frank. I don't think the Beethoven comparison's a stretch in the least. A century of music is unimaginable without him. He might not have composed or arranged it, but again that thinking is too apple-to-orangey.
In 500 years people will only be incidentally listening to Cole Porter via Nelson Riddle, etc… They WILL be listening to Sinatra — and that is my apple-to-apple
As long as we're exploring "dark sides," I would like someday for some enterprising young (or old) filmmaker to turn his/her eviscerating lens upon the subject of Martin Scorsese and "examine" the man's apparently ceaseless, unquenchable, quasi-sexual obsession with hyperbolically, almost pornographically, graphic, grisly, gory violence and death.
I wasn't clear. Indeed, Martin has done a lot of great stuff. But, Sinatra could be his masterpiece. It has all of the components, and if done right could be his greatest – that's what I meant.
Scorese plus Sinatra is sure to equal and "old standby" if this is the tack Scorsese's determined to take.
I just happen to think that's an awfully low and un-ambitious bar to go for with such a gifted, unique and complicated man as your subject.
You're stuck in a rut of comparing composers … Why? My point isn't that Sinatra composed these songs but that his effect on popular music is as definitive, original and profound… Such so, that like Beethoven, in 500 years people will still be listening to Sinatra… And if they are listening to Cole Porter by way of Nelson Riddle it will be because of Sinatra.
TO THE DOUBTERS:
Musical scholars are already studying Sinatra's concept albums which changed popular music in ways we're only just now beginning to understand — and those albums 'In the Wee Small Hours…" and "September of My Years…" among them are loaded with songs sung many, many times by many other artists…
It's not the songs being studied, or the composers or the arrangers… It's the singer, the intepreter, the storyteller … it's Sinatra.
Also… pasted from an earlier comment: Sinatra was an instrument who interpreted what's come to be known as "Popular Music." There is everyone else and then there is Frank. I don't think the Beethoven comparison's a stretch in the least. A century of music is unimaginable without him. He might not have composed or arranged it, but again that thinking is too apple-to-orangey.
In 500 years people will only be incidentally listening to Cole Porter via Nelson Riddle, etc… They WILL be listening to Sinatra — and that is my apple-to-apple.
As far as my "Great Man" stand: Was he always a great man? No. But he devoted the final quarter century of his life to charity, re-establishing a relationship with his children, and life with his wife of 22 years, Barbara Marx.
Great men are not flawless, great man change — Sinatra died a great man.
So, you would have been happier if an American who had a problem with America or the current President simply kept it to themselves? Fascinating.
This review summed up my feelings entirely: http://www2.boxofficemojo.com/reviews/?id=1623&am...
You have to see the Matrix in these films.
This review summed up my feelings entirely: http://www2.boxofficemojo.com/reviews/?id=1623&am... ____You have to see the Matrix in these films.
No need to be curious about my consistency …. read my glowing review of "Che" to answer that question…
OH, WAIT ! you don't even have to work that hard… How about my mentioning "Malcolm X" as an example of what a biopic should be right here on this post?
Or did you not get that far before deciding to throw stones?
"The Aviator" was not a comprehensive Hughes biopic. It focused on the aviation aspect of Hughes' life, and the role aviation played in it. Hence, the name "The Aviator". I am no great fan of DiCaprio's, but he nailed it. Watch the real senate films of Hughes and then DiCaprio's version and then talk.
As far as the film, what was NOT good about that movie? I'll tell you what it WASN'T, it wasn't Saw V or some Rob Zombie garbage or some "feel good" movie where everyone dies horribly at the end, but hey, it was SO- well-acted-and-shot-so-what-is-wrong-with-you-not-loving-it type movie. Was the scene of Hughes crazily directing a flying sequence not exciting enough? The totally realistic flying sequences and the XF-11 crash not "good enough"? Even the Hepburn piece was interesting.
I am not "dissing" him as an actor but simply his physical portrayal as HH. Other surrealistic examples: Sylvester Stalone as Othelo, Barbara Streisand as Pat Nixon, Tom Cruise as Count von Stauffenberg (wait, wasn't that done?)
I have no problem with someone considering Frank the pinnacle as a vocalist. I recognize that he pushed the envelope in the 50's and early 60's. I just don't understand on what basis you are calling him a "Great" man. That is a term that I would not bestow on very many men.
Michael Jackson was considered the best R&B singer of his age. Those kids obviously loved him. (how ever abnormal their circumstances). He was clearly an extremely charitable person.(We are the world, AIDS, Africa, etc.) Would you call him a great man?
Pope John Paul II was a great man. Winston Churchill was a great man. Gandhi was a great man. Frank Sinatra was a singer.
[...] John Notle on The Upcoming Sinatra Biopic [...]
Newton — you don't have to ask me … once again you need only read my post (since you obviously haven't, let me suggest you do and save yourself all this typing) and you'll see that I'm calling for a full context of the man's life.
There's a difference between a "full context" and "sanitiziing," the difference would be a thing called "truth." Like "Malcolm X," (one of my favorite biopics) which followed a man through all the phases of his moral evolution, that's what I'd like to see with Sinatra — Scorsese wants to lie with his focus on one phase.
I don't mind people challenging what I write in a post, it would just save us all time if the challenger read the post first. All the answers to your questions were answered before you asked them.
My problem is, liked the reviewer said, Scorsses focuses on the descent, doesn't reflect on how Hughes' achievements matter and yes, the movie is bad — frightully, terribly horribly dull with a boy playing a man. Campy and laughably so, especially when today's stars play the greats of the past. It looks like a high school variety with kids playing dress up.
I didn't write a review of this, I wasn't reviewing at the time, but this one said everything I felt and probably better. The last paragraph is especially unsightful.
Like you said, Scorsese focuses on evverything the he believes brought Hughes to the what he ultimately became, a recluse, etc.. Sure it's accurate. So why not be that kind of accurate with Sinatra?
If Scorsese did that for Sinatra it would lead to the last years of Frank life where he grew up, did hundreds of charitable events a year and was faithful to one woman.
It is also wrong to believe that people pay money to watch someone behave like an idiot for three hours. Precedent is against it. For example, "The Doors" was an interesting movie, but it wasn´t a hit. Commercial hits like "Ray" and "Walk the Line" actually toned down the negatives, and spent a lot of time on the redemption of their heroes. Yes, Ray Charles could be an almighty bastard and Johnny Cash never quite got over drugs, but we don´t want to see all of that. And they didn´t show it.
Yeesh. "Last Temptation" really will always remain the ultimate proof that the people who complain the loudest tend to make up their mind before actually seeing something. It's the only explanation for the innability of so many to "get" this movie (or book, for that matter) even decades later.
And it's not even as though someone could've just MISSED the point… it's not a subtle film. In fact, the finale of "Last Temptation" is one of the all-time "THIS is the point, THIS is what's been going on" big declarative reveals in modern film.
great voice..other than that? Organized crime tool… I have heard the jingle ..hard to fathom….. <a href=”http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4473816.html” target=”_blank”>http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4473816.html
I hope you meant to say "WITHOUT the alleged boy problem…"
All youse gotta know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oknLw3hgm7E&NR...
"You make my point…
Harry Connick Jr. and Michael Buble are already pretty much forgotten. Sinatra is not"
The fact that Sinatra clones are easily forgotten is stronger evidence against your claim for him dominating popular music of the 20th century than against the claim that Sinatra is forgettable, which neither I nor anyone else made.
"Sure Sinatra's "style" might have gone out… So did Beethoven's…"
Yeah, after about 100 years. He alone is not responsible for the Romantic Age, but he is considered the single most influential composer from around 1815, when his popularity was solidified, to about 1910, when modernism took over. (We could retroactively date it to 1803, when the Eroica symphony was performed, but let's not go too far.) And that's not hyperbole. His only possible competitor is Wagner, who of course was himself obsessed with Beethoven.
"Rock no longer rules pop culture; today, it's rap & hip-hop."
Hip-hop is a variation on rock, or they both derive from the same place. I don't know. But basically, they're the same. First of all, obviously, it's built on "sampling" (that is, stealing) rock music. Also, back-beat rythm. Songs 2 to 5 minutes on average. Agressive, sexual, or agressively sexual themes/lyrics. Danceable. Meant for a good time. For the young.
"Musical scholars are already studying Sinatra's concept albums which changed popular music in ways we're only just now beginning to understand"
More hyperbole. The notion behind Concept Albums are as old as the hills. Balladeers told narratives through a series of songs. Canatas, which are vocal songs with instrumental accompaniment in several movements, are like little operas. They feature development in recitative and repeating arias. But I tend to think they have much the same effect as Concept Albums, at least the ones that are supposed to tell a story. The Who's "Tommy" has been called a cantata.
"Song Cycles" in classical music, which are essentailly the same thing, have a long history. Beethoven started doing them in 1816. Schubert became the first grand master in the 1820s. Schumann, Mahler, Wolf, Berlioz, etc. all made famous ones.
Folk singers like Woodie Guthrie tied songs together regularly.
"I thought you were making an analogy of the men's enduring influence, not a qualitative comparison of their talents or a tit-for-tat allegory of their lives."
First of all, any quantitative analysis of Beethoven's influence belittle Sinatra. Dozens of famous composer idolators, 100 years of Romantic dominance, 200 years of obsessive listening and analysis.
The problem I have is bringing in a titan like Beethoven, with all his qualitative baggage, is grossly prejudicial. It's like comparing John Wayne with Shakespeare. Both were famous and created drama, but not in the same way. Or comparing Chuck Jones to Michelangelo. Both were visual artists and both influenced popular culture, but not in the same way.
(Continued)
All that aside, do you really think Brian Wilson or Paul McCartney sat around wondering what to do next,, and then, yes, of course, follow Sinatra! They weren't thinking back to '55. They were obsessed with what was going on then. They were chasing eachother. And most of all, once they quit touring and had a chance to put a little forethought into their work, they sought a way to exploit their knowledge of recording technology to make songs with more meaning. All that, and it was less a matter of saying, "Hey, let's make an album about travel!" than "Hey, let's make all the songs good, not just the singles."
If you look at the result, the concepts were always tennuous. Whereas with Sinatra, the connection was much firmer. And however subtle, I could manage it with an i-Pod playlist, whereas the Beatles actually had to write the songs, rather than collage them.
These Sinatra 'discussions' never turn out well in print.
Most people dont know much about Sinatra….and they know the least about his music.
The movies, the women, the gambling, the mob, that silly Rat Pack that people love to worship are all inconsequential when compared to his music.
Per my reference to Spielberg, my point is that left wing filmmakers who are so "courageous" when it comes to tackling provocative subject matters such as regarding Jesus, Frank Sinatra, Howard Hughes, Abe Lincoln (in production), America, Israel, et al, display ZERO courage in tackling provocative subjects when it comes to Mohammed, Islam, jihadists, et al, or for tackling any subject matter which is generally a left wing sacred cow.
They're just not animated about making projects which celebrate the fight against terrorism, or about defending America, or about defending the Judeo-Christian values which are the foundation of Western Civilization.
Scorsese, like Hitchcock lives his life vicariously through the people he creates on film. Scorsese, in reality is cowardly, sickly, frightened, insecure mama's boy who ended up in the hospital with no platelets in his blood when he attempted to live out his own Hollywood fantasies. A turtle of a human being who fears everything but a dark room filled with reels of old movies. He makes his characters killers, ultra-violent, hard drinking womanizers because that's what he always wanted to be. In reality this guy is "Rupert Pupkin" from one of his own films "The King of Comedy". Of course he wants to make Sinatra the Mob smoozing, violent, sexually charged big drinker. That's what Scorsese gets off on. Ultimately Scorsese's films are never about anybody but he himself. Watching his films are the equilavent of paying him to masturbate in our faces.
This review summed up my feelings entirely: <a href=”http://www2.boxofficemojo.com/reviews/?id=1623&am…” target=”_blank”>http://www2.boxofficemojo.com/reviews/?id=1623&am…
See The Matrix…
So your problem with it is that it portrays a man who in real life was suffering from mental disorder, as, wait for it, suffering from a mental disorder?
I love how you really don't go after it because the movie is badly made (You wouldn't have any case) you go after it because the Movie portrays him as he was. Is your sense of Idealism so strong that you cant take any critical look at your Heroes? Would you like us all to Give Ronald Reagan the Barack Obama treatment and act like he was perfect? Hughes died weighing 90 pounds, with long Shaggy Hair, and hypodermic needles shoved in his arm for Gods sake! He really was Mad, and his life really did go Downhill in more ways than one.
But that does not stop me or others from appreciating the Movie, and Appreciating the Man as a result. Despite his struggle, he did so many great things, some of which are still with us today.
And since when do Critics rely on other Critics for Backup?
My problem is, liked the reviewer said, Scorsese focuses on the descent, doesn't reflect on how Hughes' achievements matter and yes, the movie is bad — frightully, terribly horribly dull with a boy playing a man. Campy and laughably so, especially when today's stars play the greats of the past. It looks like a high school variety show with kids playing dress up.
I didn't write a review of this, I wasn't reviewing at the time, but this one said everything I felt and probably better. The last paragraph is especially unsightful.
Like you said, Scorsese PORTRAYS HUGHES AS HE WAS — what Hughes ultimately became, a recluse, etc.. Sure it's accurate. So why not be that kind of accurate with Sinatra?
If Scorsese did that for Sinatra — showed us where Sinatra ended up and just didn't focus on ten short years — it would lead to the last years of Frank life where he grew up, did hundreds of charitable events a year and was faithful to one woman. But this isn't about anything other than deconstructing and focusing on the worst. Leaving us remembering the worst. Of course, if leading to where a man ultimately ended up fulfills the goal of deconstructing his greatness. then it is about where a man's life ends up. Funny how that works. Funny how Scorsese didn't do for Hughes what he wants to do for Sinatra — focus on ten short years. Hey, maybe even the most productive years of Hughes' life … but no, can't have that.
Hey, let's make a movie about one section of Scorsese's life, the post-CASINO part and completely ignore when he made great films. No mention of GOODFELLAS or RAGING BULL. Yeah, let's do to him what he plans to do to Sinatra. You're okay with that right because Scorsese "really did go Downhill in more ways than one."
And where did I say I wanted Sinatra portrayed as "perfect?" Or can't take criticism of "my heroes?" Why the straw man? I clearly asked for context. Context is about the truth, the whole of the man, warts and all.
I'm just asking for a little "all."
I praised THE RAT PACK and the "Sinatra" miniseries and those more warts than all, believe me.
How silly to argue a point you made up all on your own.
The Beethoven of 20th century music? I love Sinatra but that's a little over the top. The man wasn't known for what he played or wrote. On the other hand, he could swing and sing and Beethoven wasn't really known for his snappy clothes, was he? He could probably take the German mano a mano, as well.
I disagree; Frank had preferences in his life; which we (having the benefit of hindsight) choose to consider as flaws. In his time, these were not considered flaws, but simply the way things were.
He was also famously linked with JFK.
you mean "without" the alleged boy touching problem, right?
Not to mention the scene that was part of a clip here at Big Hollywood that lambasted socialism as a dream by people who don't have to worry about where the money is coming from. My biggest complaint about The Aviator was Leo DeCaprio who did an OK job considering who he is as an actor. I don't know if there was a theme to the movie, but it had its good qualities.
So, in your world, there is only America and…"foreigners", huh?
It's funny that you mention King of Comedy in your rant. Tell me, which character in King of Comedy was an "ultra-violent, hard drinking womanizer"? I'm loathe to think of any such character in Age of Innocence or Kundun either.
Of course, in Scorcese films, characters who engage in a life of debauchery usually get their comeuppance in the end. Did you not notice just HOW Goodfellas ended? Hell, the Departed was pretty damn Catholic in just how each character ended up devoid of redemption because they consciously chose to do evil things. Even After Hours had this moralistic streak running underneath it.
Just for Gigges, Shel, who are some of YOUR favorite filmmakers?
Again, the problem most biopics have is that it is next to impossible to truly summarize a person's entire life in a 150 minute running time without making some editorial decisions. If one was to do a truly comprehensive theatrical telling of Sinatra's 78 years, the movie would be five hours long.
I don't want to burst your bubble, John, but the last decade of Sinatra's life isn't particularly that interesting. His records were shoddy, his public appearances were infrequent, and his demeanor had become so sour that he occasionally bordered on self-parody (Phil Hartman's impersonation resonated so well with people specifically because of that). To be perfectly honest, you really haven't made much of a case that Frank's final years were either unique or particularly profound.
Try to be objective about the kind of movie you're suggesting be made here. Two hours of someone doing charitable events (frankly that's not a particularly unique accomplishment in the entertainment industry) and being faithful to one's spouse. Great. So why are we watching the movie? What's the dramatic conflict here? Who would be the antagonist? What ultimately would be the takeaway the audience would get? I'm not asking for a slavish Syd Field screenplay, but the kind of movie you appear to be arguing for sounds like it would veer towards vanilla filmmaking.
People go to movies to be entertained. 1960s Rat Pack Frank is simply more entertaining than 1990's semi-retired Frank.
Ok. Thanks for the clarification. I kind of think that if Marty manages to do justice to "The Silence", that might be his true masterpiece.
Well, pool your resources and get cracking on making some of those films, Sparky.
I have enjoyed many of Sinatra's songs and films (his obnoxious character in from "Here to Eternity" was so convincing I was relieved when he finally got killed at the end), but today I perceive our country to be at the precipice of such profound peril that I find judging this guy one way or the other trivial. But I do have a WW II story about Sinatra, in context, from an eyewitness (my mother), some may find interesting.
My mama (as we say here in the south) was an Army nurse who went across the channel to Normandy shorty after D-Day. I spent this past weekend with her and enjoyed several long hours of conversation. Like many her age, her short term memory is shot but she can relate with stunning clarity events from her youth and the time she spent raising her family (to gauge her accuracy I will sometimes test with names of people or dates, and with that old stuff she's right on the money). Sunday afternoon I focused our discussion on her war experiences. I asked questions that traced her activities from being stationed in southern England to where she landed on Normandy, the landing craft, the field hospital they set up in Normandy, etc. All of which she related in fascinating detail (the chapel they used for a field hospital in Normandy had beautiful bas-relief angels set into the plaster walls). She told me of the exciting night when they were to see their first movie after weeks of difficult and stressful work caring for our wounded GI's. It was a Sinatra movie.
She said the tent where the film was shown was filled with Army nurses and GI's. She and her girlfriends waited in great anticipation. But being able to watch the film and hear the dialog turned out to be impossible due to the deafening malicious razzing and screaming of the GI's every time Sinatra's face appeared on the screen.
Again, you're arguing a straw man. Where did I say the film should focus on the last ten years of his life. I'm calling for context.
Was "Malcolm X" vanilla filmmaking? The first third covered his life as a thief = interesting — the middle third covered his life with Elijah Mohammed = VERY interesting — the last third dealt with his moral awakening — not so interesing on its own, but within the CONTEXT of the rest, very uplifting and far from VANILLA filmmaking. In fact, magnificent filmmaking because great biopics focus on the character, evolution and complications of their subject as big events merely play behind them.
And there's already been a Rat Pack movie… How many Rat Pack movies before you object? 3,4,10?
The Malcom X story is structurally different than your hypothetical Sinatra biopic because Malcolm lived a fraction of time that Frank did. There was less need to edit the man's life, because he frankly didn't live that long. Spike Lee was able to put forth a very dynamic film, without having to defend his points of emphasis (something that the makers of Ray and Walk the Line had to address more than a few times during the films' theatrical runs.)
Again, and I wish you try to be a bit more objective and a lot less defensive, to film Frank's entire life of 78 years would result in a five hour plus movie. I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the last act of Frank's life was particularly inspiring or even uniquely uplifting. To demand that this hypothetical movie end on such an anti-climax would be the textbook definition of "vanilla filmmaking".
By the way, if you have scanned some of my other comments, I have expressed doubts that today's movie-going audience is really that interested in a 1950's crooner, thus casting doubt on the commercial viability of the project, no matter what the focus of the movie turns out to be.
Unless Scorcese's film has details of the Rat Pack days that are patently untrue, I fail to see what your ultimate problem is. It's not an issue of "context", John, it's an issue of "running time".
I suggest you read a book called "Past Imperfect", which details the numerous problems historical films and biopics have in getting their facts right while still trying to tell the story in a cinematic fashion. After that, you might want to look up John Sayles' book on the historical challenges of filming Matewan. It might actually teach you that these films are harder to pull off, and your quixotic obsession with including Frank's rather uninteresting final decade in someone else's film might subside.
Well, frankly, I don't give a damn about a biopic about a man who was a singer. A Great Man? In what respect? Like Jesus, Churchill? WTH is this, a White Mans Michael Jackson? Giving huge amounts of Doe to Charity does not make anyone a great man. So I'll leave that to you. Getting so worked up over a singer is just kinda funny.
Also don't really care for Scorsese above the level of his work. I just liked the Aviator, and think it deserves a bit of Credit where Credit is due. After all, I had no idea who HH was, or what he did before that movie. Maybe if I had known about him extensively before hand my reaction would have been different.
So, I guess, Context is indeed about the truth, and the truth is Hughes Died alone and Horribly, some might say, drugged up and reclusive. The Movie doesn't even depict that. All I'm saying For someone who claims to want the Truth, warts and all, you have a remarkable distaste for the "Big Picture"
"How silly to argue a point you made up all on your own."
Um, since when do people not make up their own points?
Left winger Spielberg said that his several hours spent with the totalitarian Fidel Castro was the most important experience of his life.
Left winger George Clooney sanctimoniously asserted that Hollywood was being courageous by making a film about…McCarthyism !…50 years after Joe McCarthy died.
Oh, yes, such courage, George !
By definition, in order to qualify as "courage," there must be risk of dire consequences by taking said action. And what consequences did he "risk" by making "Good Night, and Good Luck" ?
Please.
Now, Mr. Clooney, take that "courage" and go make a film about the Muslim riots which occurred in response to the Danish Mohammed cartoons, or make a film about the jihadist murder of Theo Van Gogh.
Or rip a page from the headlines, and greenlight the development of a film about the release of the Lockerbie Bomber, and illuminate the willingness of Scotland & Gordon Brown to appease Libya with the Bomber's release in exchange for…fat oil contracts ?
I bet the lefties won't be animated in "investigating" those oil contracts.
I can only assume that you're kidding now when you say that a 5 hour film is the only way to tell the life story of a man who died at a ripe old age considering the scope and breadth of films — some very successful ones — that easily and successfully cover many decades of a particular subject's life.
As far as your inability to see how the last years of Frank's life which saw him reconciling with the mistakes of his past could be inspiriting, I'll chalk that up to a lack of imagination.
I'm asking for the Big Picture, that's kinda what context is.
It's Scorsese who's afraid of the Big Picture, focussing on 15% of Sinatra's life.
If you're a big picture guy, we agree.
And you can make up all of the points you want for yourself, just don't attribute them to me.
I'm asking for the Big Picture, that's kinda what context is.
It's Scorsese who's afraid of the Big Picture, focussing on 15% of Sinatra's life.
You are trying to sound clever, but you are saying nothing. Just switching the subject every time I reply. It´s a bit too obvious. So here is my last reply:
The Berlin Film Festival is in Germany. Have you ever been to Germany? I have. In fact, I´m there right now. The technical term is "foreigners".
Scorsese´s right to free speech doesn´t exempt him from criticism. He can say what he wants, but he can also make an ass out of himself by doing so. And I can call him an ass, whether you like it or not.
By your logic, you would have to stand by and grin while I call you a moron. Thus proving my point.
Now grow up.
You make a good overall point, but you really need to know what you're talking about before indulging your bitterness with assumptions about Scorsese's recent work.
He's never been chasing the Oscars. His whole career has been taking on studio projects so he can eventually make films he's really passionate about like "The Last Temptation of Christ," "The Age of Innocence" and (hopefully) "Silence."
As for Howard Hughes, what about the "Aviator" was trashing him? We saw him as a human being, flawed and crippled by a disease, but nothing short of a great man. It was tragic, but it wasn't a negative portrayal.
I don't care how Frank's portrayed as long as the public is intelligent enough to understand that a biopic cannot possibly explain or bring one to understand someone's entire life, nor should it try. Scorsese loves Sinatra and Last I heard, Scorsese wanted to show several aspects of Frank's life and personality through a series of vignettes and that the film will "feel like an album" with each part like a song.
I talk about the five hour running time because any biopic has to do selective editing in order to make the 120-150 minute running time that studios prefer. So, what elements of Frank's life will you excise from the film to make that happen?
Again, you haven't provided a scintilla of evidence that Frank Sinatra's final years represented anything inspirational. Did his charity work hold a candle to Paul Newman (who by the way stayed married to his wife substantially longer than Frank stayed married to his third or fourth one)? Did Frank have some sort of legendary public epiphany where he told reporters or biographers "hey, maybe sleeping with mobster's girlfriends wasn't the brightest thing to do". I hardly see any evidence of real contrition on Frank's part for the scumbag things he did in his prime. It's nice on some level that he dialed it back as he declined, but that hardly makes him a redeemed saint.
Really, make your case, use actual facts, use actual citations. Repeating the "he died a great man" mantra over and over is not acceptable.
I'll be honest with you, John, I find nothing in Sinatra's last decade even remotely "inspiring" that would justify devoting a multimillion dollar studio biography discussing. Frankly, if you made such a film with that emphasis (not context), no one would go see it. Frankly, ANY Sinatra biography is going to underwhelm because today's audience just doesn't care.
Well, Man for all Seasons only focused on 5-10% of Thomas More's life.
Kept it to themselves in front of FOREIGNERS. YES. STRANGERS WHO DON´T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT AMERICA. You can read that, can you?
To be fair, Marty did chase the Oscars pretty hard during that whole Gangs of New York/Aviator Miramax dalliance.
Ironic when he stopped trying so hard to win an Oscar and just be a filmmaker he finally won one.
Kept it to themselves in front of FOREIGNERS, yes. STRANGERS WHO DON´T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT AMERICA. You can read that, can you?
Martin was exactly that- a normal guy from Steubenville Ohio who grew up loving the smooth stylings of the Mills Brothers, enjoyed golf, loved his family and was devastated by the death of Dino Jr in his F-4 during his Air National Guard training… he died a sad and lonely figure. We feel he brought more to the table, ultimately, than Mr Sinatra…
Good job Newton. You're right, I was lying…
And you're also right about covering SInatra's final years. I've seen the light and redemption and reconciliation is soooo uninspiring and dull. Unilike, say, a remake of The Rat Pack!
But since I was lying anyway… Really doesn't matter.
My sincerest apologies to the "Chairman of the Boards", Mr. Sinatra! I meant "WITHOUT", I bow to the gentleman from Hoboken and will play "My Way" full blast in my car as penence! Got in a hurry!
As above, I apologize to Mr. Sinatra. He was a very famous "ladies man" and good for him! My mistake!
So wait, what is the problem here? Scorsese's Hughes Biopic took the best and the worst of his life yet you don't like it, but if they make a Movie about Sinatra where its limited to only certain parts it pisses you off?
I'm seeing a Contradiction here, though once again, its just kinda silly that you get so worked up over a Singer.
Well at one point wasn't he thinking of casting a black actor as Sinatra…I thought for a while he was thinking of P. Diddy or whatever name he goes by now or some other singer. That would have been tragic. They don't make them like Frank Sinatra anymore…one of the all time greatest voices ever in my opinion….probably top three.
The contradiction is Scorsese's… Historical scope is fine when it allows him to destroy Hughes and focus on his descent — paint him as reckless and bundle of madness, but historical scope won't be allowed for Sinatra because that same scope would show a redeemed man.
My consistency is that I believe both men (everyone, regardless of politics) deserve and deserved better. Both men's stories could be inspirational without focusiing on the worst of them. Again, context. If historical scope is necessary for context (as it would be with Sinatra, like it was with Malcolm X), so be it. In Thomas More's case it wasn't because who he was fully as a human being could be clear in its context with a story told using a very short period of time.
The only thing sillier than someone being so worked up over a singer is someone so worked up over someone so worked up over a singer … and that would be you.
Besides, it's really fainess or the lack of it, I'm worked up over, and I really don't want to see a remake of an HBO movie made just 10 years ago.
Alist, I agree with you completely. He was a gifted singer, but a great man? No. There is a tendency to exalt artistic or athletic accomplishments over all else and turn a blind eye to the person's character offstage. Just because you make pretty music does not mean you should be glorified more than a lesser-known man who is faithful to his wife and stays with his children and quietly does the right thing. Performers are just on the stage for a season and they are not more important or worthy of honor than a nurse who cares for the desperately ill or a fireman who risks his life for people he has never met. They are more worthy of the label of "greatness" than Woody Allen or Frank Sinatra, et al.
Why not? You people did the same thing to Michael Jackson, and there wasn't even any proof that claimed he molested children. At least you have some proof that Frank Sinatra had ties to the Italian Mafia.
The contradiction is Scorsese's… Historical scope is fine when it allows him to destroy Hughes and focus on his descent — paint him as reckless and bundle of madness, but historical scope won't be allowed for Sinatra because that same scope would show a redeemed man. Only in his desire to portray and focus and have us remember the worst in his subjects is Scorsese consistent.
My consistency is that I believe both men (everyone, in fact, regardless of politics) deserve and deserved better. Both men's stories could be inspirational without only focusing on — but not ignoring — the worst of them. Again, context. If historical scope is necessary for context (as it would be with Sinatra, like it was with Malcolm X), so be it. In Thomas More's case it wasn't because who he was fully as a human being could be clear in its context with a story told using a very short period of time.
The only thing sillier than someone being so worked up over a singer is someone so worked up over someone so worked up over a singer … and that would be you.
Besides, it's really fainess or the lack of it, I'm worked up over, and I really don't want to see a remake of an HBO movie made just 10 years ago.
I remember an interview in some magazine after his son died ..a photo of Dean at a table…he looked sad.. but it made you like him more knowing he was human, not a superstar.
"The only thing sillier than someone being so worked up over a singer is someone so worked up over someone so worked up over a singer … and that would be you."
Or someone who is worked up over someone else being worked up over himself being worked up over a singer and that would be you…
Or to take it further being worked over someone else being worked up over the other guy being worked up over the other guy being worked up over the singer, and that would be you…Wait, no…Me…Wait wait wait, George Bush! Yeah its all George Bushes fault!
A Screw it, Like I said, don't give a damn. I wont wish anyone ILL Will over frank Sinatra, though at least you admit its silly.
that was an Italian restaurant in LA- he went there every night, alone. Had a plate of pasta and a glass of wine and went home- alone. Sad, yes…
I am, in fact, sitting at my desk at home, near a large bust of Beethoven, analyzing the first movement of the Missa Solemnis (which is, incidentally, pretty straightforward relative to the rest of the mass.) I say this not to brag, but rather to demonstrate that my esteem for the man and love of his music could not be greater.
I agree that John's analogy was unbalanced, and I myself would not have even considered using Beethoven as the vehicle for comparison.
Your points are well-taken and I essentially agree. Chuck Jones to Michaelangelo is a very good similarity. I agree with John, though, that there is room for analogy, but we must be wary and specific in the nature of our comparisons, lest we do injustice to those towering artists whose work has already endured for centuries and longer. In this case, regarding the comparison in question, there is a most profound gulf in scale.
That said, you are right to insist that the analogy itself inherently predisposes some sense of scale (in this case unfairly) and your forceful reaction is justified.
Leonardo is the best actor os his generation…….YES……HE CAN MAKE EVERYTHING HE WANTS. THERE'S NO BETTER CHOICE THAN LEONARDO.
Leo and Marty were great in the aviator..as well as in The Departed.
You are all envious because Leo is young….
People usually have prejudice against young people.
PATETIC ARTICLE.
Great singer? – yes. I own every LP and CD released thus far.
Great man? No. In fact he was a pig. Kitty Kelly did not make that stuff up. That's why SInatra went ballistic.
As for the quote " he was having sex with a garden variety of bimbos….."
I can't possibly say anything about that.
PS – as for being "the Beethoven of the 20th century".
Uh – Beethoven was a composer and not a performer. Sinatra was strictly a performer, not a composer.
A lyricist? Perhaps. ("…you stick around, Jack, it may show….")
I don't know. IIIIIIIIIII doooooonnnn'''''t knoooooooowwwwwww
Sorry, I didn't notice I had a reply..
Did you not understand my post? I said in reality Scorsese is more like the character in King of Comedy. His fantasies of course are of being the womanizing hard drinking ultra violent badass but in reality he's more like Rupert Pupkin. Rupert Pupkin? The weirdo who spends time in his mother's basement talking to life-size card-board cut-outs of his idols? get it? What's so difficult for you to understand, Newton?
Elia Kazan
John Ford
Luis Bunuel
Alan Rudolph
Sidney Lumet
Sam Peckinpah (a guy who lived it)
Hal Ashby
Wim Wenders
The Coen Brothers.
I love the writing of Sam Shepard, Budd Schulberg, Tennessee Williams and Horton Foote
Love the cinematography of Greg Toland, Conrad Hall, Haskel Wexler and my new favorite, Roger Deakins
you want me to go on …
Of course Mr. Sinatra had his flaws and a volatile personality, but I think what is interesting is the odd study in contrast that was in his life. He could be very nice, yet he could also be a jerk. Frank Jr. probably said it best, in essence, his dad had every strength and weakness a human being could have. I think seeing both sides of the coin in regard to his personality would be the most interesting and also fair portrayal of Sinatra. Since I think the darker side of Frank, rumors and all, has been explored extensively, I will take a minute to list a few of the more generous things he has done that maybe general public has not been exposed to as often since it is not considered "sensational", it seems only bad news sells. The book "Sessions by Sinatra" by Granata, has so much good material in it that would make a great movie. Things like the fact that Frank would remember some obscure band member's name years down the road and then joke that it was great he remembered Frank after all these years. He also had quite a penchant for classical music and was well versed in even very little known foreign composers. He went out of his way to find qualified black musicians back when integration was only in it's infancy. Frank was also so focused on his work that he would sometimes churn out 4 albums a year. Another notable story, one time he invited all the musicians over to his house and waited on them hand and foot; until his Hollywood chums eventually went home because he was too busy tending to the band members. He once was also over at a bandmember's home and they were experiencing trouble getting their kids to fall asleep, so he sung them to sleep. When Frank founded Reprise Records, he let musicians focus on their own artistic leanings and not the bottom line of what would sell records. I could go on and on, sure Sinatra had his roughness but he could be a nice guy when he tried, again, it would be nice to see a few of the lesser known humanitarian things he did for people also get on the big screen.
[...] of English (Ching at the University of Memphis, Wagner-Lawlor at Penn State)-yields new … Scorsese Ready to Trash Sinatra in Upcoming BiopicSpielberg has long sought to develop a film tearing down Abe Lincoln, and he made a film questioning [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.