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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.