Welcome to Hollywood. They dont care about historic accuracy at all. My new fav trend is seeing blacks/asians being thrown into every historic movie/show that comes out. Im also looking forward to the wokeness form the new Lord of The Rings series...cause you know we gotta have black elves and shit.

@OddRob said:

Welcome to Hollywood. They dont care about historic accuracy at all.

When the movie is historically-based, they should (which I know is an ideal from which reality too often falls short).

I'm also looking forward to the wokeness form the new Lord of The Rings series...

The Lord of the Rings is fantasy, it's not real - I don't care if they take liberties with fiction. I was talking about a topic of historical fact.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@OddRob said:

Welcome to Hollywood. They dont care about historic accuracy at all.

When the movie is historically-based, they should (which I know is an ideal from which reality too often falls short).

I'm also looking forward to the wokeness form the new Lord of The Rings series...

The Lord of the Rings is fantasy, it's not real - I don't care if they take liberties with fiction. I was talking about a topic of historical fact.

Well the series was based on Anglo-Saxon cultures, myths, and folklore, and thus the lack of ‘real-world diversity’ is a non-issue. Only issue I have is not sticking to the source material which really annoys me.

@OddRob said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@OddRob said:

Welcome to Hollywood. They dont care about historic accuracy at all.

When the movie is historically-based, they should (which I know is an ideal from which reality too often falls short).

I'm also looking forward to the wokeness form the new Lord of The Rings series...

The Lord of the Rings is fantasy, it's not real - I don't care if they take liberties with fiction. I was talking about a topic of historical fact.

Well the series was based on Anglo-Saxon cultures, myths, and folklore, and thus the lack of ‘real-world diversity’ is a non-issue. Only issue I have is not sticking to the source material which really annoys me.

I hear you, that's reasonable. I watch plenty of movies that tell stories centred on white people. That's just fine. I'm not looking to just shove diversity in where it doesn't make sense.

But, it is well documented that there was more diversity in Anglo-Saxon cultures and societies than his-story lets on. Again, what was done in GoNY (removing people from the stories) leads people to erroneously believe there wasn't. So, when a story ought to have more diversity but we are just accustomed to homogeny, that's not right, and why should it be? Why be afraid of truth/reality?

Besides, either way, do you think adding different people into works of fiction is an equivalent problem to dehumanizing people by erasing them from depictions of reality?

Humanizing Black people neither dehumanizes nor threatens white people. Removing Black people dehumanizes Black people, and observing such does not threaten white people. Observing racism against Black people is not racist against white people.

You know, I thought at first that your initial response to my post was trolling, but I'm glad I stuck through to engage this conversation with you. You made a good point, and I try to be objective and reasonable towards honest civil discourse across the spectrum of viewpoints.

I heard you, trust you heard me, and suggest we now leave it at that before things go off the rails and spoil it.

Cheers.

So, it turns out, the events of the movie are more a depiction of, or, perhaps a follow up to, the Dead Rabbits riot of 1857.

I can't quite recall this part of the movie, so it's possible that the original 1857 riot was depicted with Liam Neeson playing Vallon's father at the beginning, and then Vallon, a little more "grown up", arrived years later, closer to the Draft Riot time of 1863, to exact revenge.

That makes more sense...but it still does not excuse removing the primary driver for the 1863 riot from the movie's narrative.

You know, I agree with you. I didnt even take into account the 'erasing them from depictions of reality.' Thats pretty fucked up. Its like the producers just wanted to use that setting and events to set up their own version of things. Something Hollywood does all the time. And I understand why, its all about that money. I just wish they paid more attention/respect to the material they are working with.

I think you have problems enough in just saying you liked this before worrying about anything else, historical accuracy included!

Didn't this have some insane choreographed old time musical style "battle" near the beginning? I don't think any kind of accuracy was ever supposed to be on the cards here...

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

I think you have problems enough in just saying you liked this before worrying about anything else, historical accuracy included!

DDL was riveting in his characterization of Bill the Butcher, he brought a loathsome character to life.

I don't think any kind of accuracy was ever supposed to be on the cards here...

Scorsese is known for doing dramas "based on" true stories. Yes, he does sometimes get flack for how he departs from reality in some details, but he also goes full on in fleshing out other details of a period that makes the viewer feel like they're actually there, immersed in the time.

Anyone researching as specific a period/event as "a big riot in 1863 New York City", especially one who makes a living doing that kind of research, could not have missed what that riot was about. So, he had to deliberately set out to avoid mentioning it, like he's got a thing about Black people. Italians and Irish can be the centre of his stories, but Black people are not eligible material for him, apparently.

Scorsese is a New Yorker, of Italian descent, and of Catholic upbringing. I get that these three aspects greatly inform his world view, and that the Catholicism supports a connection between New York Italians and Irish.

He taps that worldview in depth in Goodfellas, The Irishman, and The Departed which explore these cultures and their interactions in depth.

Do what you know, right?

I also get that that worldview has a disconnect from Black New Yorkers.

Hence, in The Departed, the opening monologue does mention "niggers" once (and, that's a quote, it's not my word), and that about sums up the extent of Scorsese's interest in Black people (as main characters, anyway).

What's disappointing is, it's not like it's impossible for people to tell stories that centre on other cultures:

• Spielberg did a great job on both The Color Purple and Amistad;

• Eddie Murphy had John Landis on Coming to America and and Craig Brewer on both Coming 2 America and Dolemite is My Name;

• Spike Lee's from New York. We all know his bread and butter is Black stories. But his

• • 25th Hour starred Edward Norton;
• • Summer of Sam_ explored an Italian-American South Bronx; and, shucks
• • his first movie, She's Gotta Have It, was a female lead.

I could go on, but I won't. Just these alone demonstrate very clearly that, not only can it be done, but it can be done well. Credit to those and so many more directors who even try.

As such, my conclusion is that Scorsese sticks to what he knows, but isn't aspiring to become a true a master of the craft of storytelling that includes empathizing and humanizing others. [I edited this closing paragraph].

@DRDMovieMusings said

Scorsese is known for doing dramas "based on" true stories. Yes, he does sometimes get flack for how he departs from reality in some details, but he also goes full on in fleshing out other details of a period that makes the viewer feel like they're actually there, immersed in the time.

Anyone researching as specific a period/event as "a big riot in 1863 New York City", especially one who makes a living doing that kind of research, could not have missed what that riot was about. So, he had to deliberately set out to avoid mentioning it, like he's got a thing about Black people. Italians and Irish can be the centre of his stories, but Black people are not eligible material for him, apparently.

Scorsese is a New Yorker, of Italian descent, and of Catholic upbringing. I get that these three aspects greatly inform his world view, and that the Catholicism supports a connection between New York Italians and Irish.

He taps that worldview in depth in Goodfellas, The Irishman, and The Departed which explore these cultures and their interactions in depth.

Do what you know, right?

I also get that that worldview has a disconnect from Black New Yorkers.

Hence, in The Departed, the opening monologue does mention "niggers" once (and, that's a quote, it's not my word), and that about sums up the extent of Scorsese's interest in Black people (as main characters, anyway).

What's disappointing is, it's not like it's impossible for people to tell stories that centre on other cultures:

• Spielberg did a great job on both The Color Purple and Amistad;

• Eddie Murphy had John Landis on Coming to America and and Craig Brewer on both Coming 2 America and Dolemite is My Name;

• Spike Lee's from New York. We all know his bread and butter is Black stories. But his

• • 25th Hour starred Edward Norton;
• • Summer of Sam_ explored an Italian-American South Bronx; and, shucks
• • his first movie, She's Gotta Have It, was a female lead.

I could go on, but I won't. Just these alone demonstrate very clearly that, not only can it be done, but it can be done well. Credit to those and so many more directors who even try.

As such, my conclusion is that Scorsese sticks to what he knows, but isn't aspiring to become a true a master of the craft of storytelling that includes empathizing and humanizing others. [I edited this closing paragraph].

Scorsese was originally to direct Clockers but dropped out to direct Casino instead, which is why Spike Lee took over. So maybe he intended to explore and portray Black culture but just decided he wasn't confident enough to do it competently.

Though I haven't seen it, Scorsese did direct Kundun, which does look like a culture worlds away from what he's used to.

@JustinJackFlash said:

Scorsese was originally to direct Clockers but dropped out to direct Casino instead,

I prefer Casino over Goodfellas, although Goodfellas gets most of the accolades. I say that to say, Scorsese makes good movies. I'm glad he did Casino, so I suppose one can't fault him for taking it over anything else at the time.

As for Clockers, I haven't seen it - though it did not do well at the box office (lost money), it was reviewed well, so there was material there to work with, although a plot wherein two white cops investigate crime in the Black community may not have been the way to stretch out in a new direction.

which is why Spike Lee took over.

Interesting that I also mentioned Spike Lee in this entire conversation. They are more connected than I knew!

So maybe he intended to explore and portray Black culture but just decided he wasn't confident enough to do it competently.

Perhaps. Fair enough.

Though I haven't seen it, Scorsese did direct Kundun, which does look like a culture worlds away from what he's used to.

I haven't seen it - though it did not do well at the box office (lost money), it was reviewed well.

So, he can do it, if he wants to. Maybe I'm being overly judgmental in surmising that he just doesn't want to.

Maybe.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

As for Clockers, I haven't seen it - though it did not do well at the box office (lost money), it was reviewed well, so there was material there to work with, although a plot wherein two white cops investigate crime in the Black community may not have been the way to stretch out in a new direction.

I have seen it a long time ago. From what I remember it is more seen from the black characters than from the cops. But it was so long ago I can't say that with accuracy. And that may be due to Spike Lee, who changed the main character from Harvey Keitel's cop to Mekhi Phifer according to IMDB.

So, he can do it, if he wants to. Maybe I'm being overly judgmental in surmising that he just doesn't want to.

No, I think it's fair to say given his output. But you never know, it might not necessarily be his choice. Studios may be more eager to fund the type of films that Scorsese is celebrated for doing. I'd imagine it was probably very hard to convince anyone to fund Kundun.

And with his depiction of the riot you describe in Gangs of New York. We don't know that it was his choice to erase black people from it. I believe there was a lot of conflict with the studio during the production. And I found that the film came across as very disjointed. It seems like it can't decide if it want's to be a serious, auteuristic Scorsese picture or a glossy, Hollywood historical epic akin to Braveheart. So it could have been the producers choice. It may well have been Scorsese. We'll never know. But I do wonder if the director really does make as much decisions in a film's production as we think he does. Especially on a film like this. I've even wondered recently if a lot of the time well known directors are paid for the use of their name only. Like brand recognition. Hey, let's remake The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Slap David Fincher's name on it and get someone to make essentially the same film but give it some Fincheresque stylings. Just a thought.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

As for Clockers, I haven't seen it - though it did not do well at the box office (lost money), it was reviewed well, so there was material there to work with, although a plot wherein two white cops investigate crime in the Black community may not have been the way to stretch out in a new direction.

I have seen it a long time ago. From what I remember it is more seen from the black characters than from the cops. But it was so long ago I can't say that with accuracy. And that may be due to Spike Lee, who changed the main character from Harvey Keitel's cop to Mekhi Phifer according to IMDB.

Justin you're right. The novel "Clockers" centers around the white cop Rocco Klein who was played by Keitel in the feature. Somewhere along the way, though, the storyline shifted to center around the black drug dealer Strike, acted by Phifer, instead. Strike is in the book, he just isn't so prominently figured in it (From what I've seen. Good book that I need to finish).

@JustinJackFlash said:

@DRDMovieMusings said: So, he can do it, if he wants to. Maybe I'm being overly judgmental in surmising that he just doesn't want to.

No, I think it's fair to say given his output.

I appreciate that. I really do try.

And with his depiction of the riot you describe in Gangs of New York. We don't know that it was his choice to erase black people from it.

I certainly agree. I'm pinning it on him by conjecture, but it is true, I don't know for sure it rests on him.

I believe there was a lot of conflict with the studio during the production. And I found that the film came across as very disjointed. It seems like it can't decide if it want's to be a serious, auteuristic Scorsese picture or a glossy, Hollywood historical epic akin to Braveheart. So it could have been the producers choice. It may well have been Scorsese. We'll never know. But I do wonder if the director really does make as much decisions in a film's production as we think he does. Especially on a film like this. I've even wondered recently if a lot of the time well known directors are paid for the use of their name only. Like brand recognition. Hey, let's remake The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Slap David Fincher's name on it and get someone to make essentially the same film but give it some Fincheresque stylings. Just a thought.

And a good thought it is!

Slapping a director's name on something has been known to happen. That could be part of this, but so much of it bears the hallmarks of Scorsese work, I wouldn't be quick to apply that here.

Usually, the director carries all the weight as long as the direction is within budget. Producers certainly weigh in up front when deciding it's a movie they want to make. Script changes happen to get a green light.

And then, once green lit, if the direction starts to challenge the budget and what they think the profitability margin will be for the kind of film they are doing. The production of Beverly Hills Cop is a sterling example of this. Originally intended as a Sly vehicle, he wanted too many chases and explosions, producers fired him, landed Eddie Murphy, rewrote the script for a...different kind of lead, and got a director to direct to the new idea. So, yeah, there are times when producers swing a big stick.

Otherwise, what I've always heard from actors and producers, when it comes to on-set, it's the director who runs things. In fact, remember the brouhaha about how Stanley Kubrick changed the direction of his 1980 The Shining so far away from what Stephen King wanted, that King saw to it that a version he felt was closer to his vision of his story was made (as a 1997 TV series, anyway). Kubrick, as director, ran things on his set. He's a director. It's what they do.

I will also concede that we often here about "director's cuts" because production drew lines they had to meet to get the initial movie out in the first place. There again, producers hold some sway, sure. But, in these cases, there is material to be cut because the director shot the material while on set. I'd be blown away if a director's cut for GoNY would significantly shift the end product closer to what I think ought to have been.