My family became slightly acquainted with Roger Ebert back when he would come to the University of Colorado every spring for the weeklong Conference on World Affairs. Each year he picked a movie to spend a week poring over together with an audience. Any of us who saw something we thought was interesting, we'd simply shout "Roger!" and he'd pause the film to hear our observations. His enthusiasm for film and genuine interest in sharing it with relative strangers was insanely infectious and endearing. I still remember how warmly he considered my dad's random observation that "Dark City" and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" share a peculiar number of visual, narrative and even thematic similarities. And I'll never forget when the whole auditorium broke into applause (including his) when I spotted a shot with a mirror reflection in "Casablanca" that had been overlooked in our collective hunt for that recurring image. We lost Roger a short time before we lost my mom, and my Dad is deep in the thrall of Alzheimer's and can no longer appreciate film as he once did. I miss all three of them but cherish the film enthusiasm we all cultivated together. Thanks for this video. (I'm a little surprised you didn't touch on Scorsese's struggles with addiction and how Ebert and Siskel used their platform to help him overcome without calling attention to it)
I always admired Roger Ebert more as the lover of movies rather than as their critic, and his verbal and penned championing of Marty's masterworks and little-known gems is a testament to this.
Roger Ebert's story was so sad. Before seeing his documentary, I had no idea of his affliction later on in life, but the never-fading enthusiasm in his eyes, was just so moving and awe-inspiring. I hope he is reviewing us from above and giving us two thumbs way up.
Ebert proclaiming Scorsese an upcoming classic director in that first review undoubtedly lit a fire under Marty's ass, made him dedicate himself to his dream. It's like a time traveler shaping the future by influencing the past, I love that! Wonderful video essay.
Given how well treaded Scorsese is on UA-cam, I’m almost shocked someone haven’t made a video like this yet. Fantastic vid, one of my fastest clicks on UA-cam in awhile
I would love to know what Ebert would have thought about Silence. It’s my favorite Scorsese film and was such a passion project for him. Such a shame he never got to see it 😞
Silence is my favorite Scorsese as well. It asks really hard questions and definitely feels like Scorsese is asking his own questions about what faith means in a way that he hints at in his other works.
Great video. Last year I saw Bringing Out the Dead for the first time in years, & while I liked it before, I really fell in love with it seeing it again last year (I was also going through some really personal tragedies, & I found comfort in watching Scorsese's films obsessively). Bringing Out the Dead certainly needs to be seen again, as I think it is very underrated.
Ebert was the man. I remember watching "Monsieur Hulot's Holiday" and not really getting it, and then learning that Roger Ebert absolutely loved the film and put it in his "Great Movies". Reading his review of the film gave me such a fresh perspective that I never considered before, and it (along with watching Tati's other films) helped my appreciation of the film grow, and now I'd consider it one of my favorite comedies. Ebert is the only critic I'm aware of with that kind of power. Great video btw, you're one of my favorite film related UA-cam channels and I get excited whenever you upload, no matter what the video is about.
After Roger’s passing nine years ago (I can’t believe it’s almost 10) that I’ll never see the same content online, but thank goodness for content creators who share the same passion he had. 😊
That's crazy that this is the topic of your new video! I've been on a huge Roger Ebert kick, trying to watch all the movies in his Great Movies series. Update: I got Scorsese by Ebert for Christmas. Can't wait to dive into it.
@@EyebrowCinema To clarify, I mean I'm watching the ones I've never seen, and maybe revisiting some ones I've only seen once and don't remember well lol
Of course, I plan to. I don't think Ebert always got it right, but his writing is so strong and his insights are so valuable that I don't mind if I disagree with him.
I think "New York, New York" is a masterpiece, but one that takes a couple of viewings to realize it. I've looked at it over the years and what I felt were flaws for a long time - they really aren't. Scorsese is telling the exact story he wants to tell. At first, I faulted the film for exactly what makes it so brilliant. To put realistic, brutal fights, language and the arc of a marriage falling apart into the impressionistic world of the Hollywood musical where things were usually sunny and joyful is the idea - to bring a naturalism to that artificial world - that CONTRAST is such a troubling sit. They just don't *want* to be put together. But I honestly think that's the point. And it's the point that I missed for a long time: the film's first half, in many ways, is VERY like the typical old Hollywood musical in its tone and lightness, humor, buoyancy, etc. - with only hints of darkness to come. The second half of the film is a descent into a naturalistic dissolution of a marriage, with all its contradictions, fury and pain. There's an idea at work in the movie that I may be laying over it, myself, but even if I am, it's changed the way I see it - that Scorsese is talking about America and its relation to cinema - and the very arc of popular art, itself, by that point. The film literally takes you from the 40's to the 70's in every way; all while maintaining the impressionism and aesthetics of Hollywood at its most presentational, maintaining that awareness that you're watching a MOVIE. The shot of DeNiro walking alone at night in the city and while going up the subway steps, pausing for a cigarette while a couple below, lit as if they're dancing on the floors of Heaven, twirl around like Astaire and Rogers. The camera just lingers over his shoulder as we watch these two dancing - WITHOUT any music to accompany them but the soft traffic and sounds of the city at night. He finishes his cigarette and simply continues up the steps. THAT MOMENT, to me, is exactly what I'm talking about and why I think this idea of what the movie is really talking about isn't just applying something over it. In terms of what I was talking about, re: America and its relation to cinema - which, in a way, is America and its relationship with ILLUSION - you have DeNiro, standing on subway steps with the ordinary sounds of the city and trains going by above, smoking a cigarette - and not even seeing his face at all - a scene that could be in "Mean Streets" - and almost as if in another world, below, the dancing couple. Now one could say this moment is about the character - and that's probably right, as well - but seeing that again, I realized that what always bothered me about "New York, New York" and the bad feeling it always left me with (while also admiring a lot of it) was exactly Scorsese's point - that our relationship with these caricatures of ourselves who we watch on screens and these behaviors we've watched through the years, idealized and molded in the writing, entirely artificial - have influenced us all so much that the illusions of cinema and the realities of human behavior have become intermingled in a way that's both good and bad. Good in the sense that we may aspire to (or reflect) the most idealized versions of ourselves and our behavior that fill our cinema with; bad in the sense that we sometimes forget that life is not the movies. I think he's talking about that problematic relationship in the context of love and marriage in the film - but also America, itself, as it's a very American film, through and through, with a great love for the iconography and feel of New York City (and an idealized version of New York City), post-war life, jazz, etc., etc. I should probably stop writing, here, but that's basically what turned me around on the film and why I think it's one of his best now - and it's also why I think it bombed at the box office at the time: it's a strong, fascinating, troubling, very ambitious piece of work. But the key word here is "fascinating" - and that's something that Scorsese has been, consistently, no matter what genre he touches (and a lot of people forget that of his 27 films - only FIVE of them - 5 out of 27 - were "gangster" movies. 80% of his movies are different genres, entirely. He's made comedies, cop movies, horror movies, thrillers, bio-pics, period costume dramas, satires, romance, etc. It's so frustrating when people refer to him as if he just makes "gangster" movies when the man is the most eclectic director of the last 50+ years. And what's astonishing to me is that even with that eclecticism, he's remained consistent and always at the top of his game. You may not LIKE a particular Scorsese film for whatever reason - but there's no denying that it's been directed like a motherf#cker.
I’ve never come to truly love Scorsese films, whether it’s the graphic violence, sex, or drug use. I do think Casino and Goodfellas are really great, but I’ve never connected perfectly to them. However, I do admire his love for film and appreciate his cinematic skill. Wonderful video by the way!
Maybe you’ll connect to some of his earlier films like Taxi Driver or Raging Bull. Even the ones without the criminal elements like The Aviator are great films.
Thank you! I'd also back Jack Swift's suggestion with The Aviator. It's probably the closest Scorsese has come to making a standard biopic, but the filmmaking is really exceptional.
@@EyebrowCinema thanks for the recommendations, although I have already seen both Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. I haven’t seen the Aviator so I’ll give that a go. Also: it’s not that I can’t watch a movie with graphic content ( some of my favorite movies are Apocalypse Now, Silence of the Lambs, The Thing), but I think I just don’t vibe with the flippant way the characters use said graphic content. I think it’s also why I don’t love Tarantino as much as most.
The words of Ebert, the images of Scorsese, and the music of Ennio Morricone are probably what most committed me to a lifetime of movie watching. However, Scorsese's "My Voyage to Italy" was a breakthrough for me in terms of watching movies in languages other than English, which I don't believe was brushed on here. I'd love to see some content about this topic if you're considering a video that relates to the wonderful content you've produced here!
Uhh yeah just sittin here very impressed by the thought provoking very articulate way that this peice and the rest of this site has been put together, no hyperbole. Nicely done, keep em comin.
Yes!!! I had no idea that Ebert was such a fan of Bringing Out The Dead but I am in complete agreement. It was the first film he released after I became aware of his work and I got it on VHS first day of release (living in the Irish countryside meant I can no chance of seeing it in the big screen) and was blown away. It's never been given the credit it deserves I think. The camera work and editing are amazing. Acting top notch. The story/location/themes are perfect for Scorsese. It has a spiky/scuzzy almost punk like energy which (with possible exception of Wolf of Wall Street) Scorsese hasn't matched since.
Speaking as one their relationship is one that every artist dreams for. Someone who can see the work and get the creator's meaning behind it with such clarity while still being able to express their own point of view when viewing. Someone who can see us so well where the criticism is wanted just as much as the compliment because its coming from a place of wanting the artist and the art to grow. Mutual respect on both ends mixed with the pure love for the medium itself makes for a beautiful relationship.
I just wanted to thank you for talking about The Age of Innocence. I haven't heard of the movie so I gave it a watch and it was amazing. The yearning to do one thing and the rules of the society you live in pushing you to do another is something that resonates with me a lot, and the movie itself was just beautiful to look at.
Thanks for this video, though I think you got the timing of Ebert's death wrong. He and Scorsese were born the same year in facf. It would have been interesting to hear your thoughts on Ebert's reviews of King of Comedy. I missed Roger most of all when the Scorsese-Marvel debacle happened a few years ago. I would have loved to hear Ebert's intelligent, humane defense of Marty's art against Marvel's empty toys
Crazy! A few weeks ago I asked a question for your 50,000 subscribers Q&A (it didn’t get answered because I was late to comment) about the central theme of Scorsese’s filmography and about your method for analyzing directors’ filmographies as a whole. I have begun making video essays myself, and would love to know more about your process and how long it took to make this video. I’m undertaking a similar video soon, the production of which would benefit greatly from any advice!
Not sure exactly how long this took in terms of minutes of labour. I started writing the script around the middle of November but had already taken a lot of notes and been researching the topic before hand. The main piece of advice I would give is to treat the writing portion seriously. That is the foundation and there's only so much good editing and charismatic voiceover can do for a weak script. With that said, you should also write knowing you will be transforming the work into a video. Write for your voice, and knowing that voice will be set to visuals.
0:44 I also liked to read Ebert’s reviews *after* watching a film because of his essayist style. And because I didn’t want to have the film spoiled for me.
Dan, one of these days let’s just start a Bringing Out the Dead reprisal movement. Paramount and Disney need to know this movie is deserving of a Blu-Ray/4K release. But in all seriousness, great video as alwahs
Scorsese is not a "Gangster" filmmaker. His spiritual existentialism is more in line with the likes of Kierkegard, Camus as well as a rich wealth of christian/spiritual contemplative thought.
God, I love this so much! Being an ultimate Scorsese fan myself ,I really appreciate the enjoyable and also insightful videos on Scorsese made by creative and professional UA-camr like you,hope you can do more ! Among the many books I’ve read that explore Scorsese’s whole filmography,I highly recommend a book called Scorsese on Scorsese ,written by Michael Henry Wilson ,published by CAHIERS DU CINEMA.By the way ,I wanna ask if the origin of your channel’s name have something to do with Scorsese’s iconic eyebrows 😂.
I still haven’t finished the book but I’ve read plenty of Ebert reviews to know his love of Marty. Any word on that video essay about video essays? Or video essay on film analysis and how to do it?
Now I can't wait what analytical insight you can gather gather around Sonic Underground and franchise fans response to it, given that knuckles got better characterization there than in X!
As a writer it's always been the script more than the cinematography that I tend to place a higher value in while watching film. Oddly I was unaware that the movie was directed by Scorsese at the time I watched it. While I love film it was novels that I was truly obsessed ove r to the degree where I could list of writers catalog or tell from a page or two of the style who it was I was reading, with film this simply didn't interest me as much until later on in life To me this as an interesting layer on top of the fact that I quite enjoying Bringing out the Dead, bc of the sheer VERVE evident in scene after scene. I also recall wondering why it did not seem to get much if any critical acclaim, but chalked it up to the fact that the films I enjoyed like magnolia never seem to get the same acclaim that I thought of as their due.
The color of money gets to much hate in my opinion. Maybe it's because going in I had such low expectations, as everyone who talks about this movie does it with such dismay, but I found it really enjoyable. Sure the plot is standard but it's really well made, well executed and Scorsese's voice still feels in tact.
I especially liked the Willie Dixon song, Don't Tell Me Nothing. Willie Dixon died 6 years after the movie came out. I did find Cruise's character annoying, and kind of stupid. I liked the movie though.
I always love how Ebert, a Catholic himself, really got the sense of guilt than runs through all of Scorsese’s films. Have you seen the clip of him and Siskel making fun of Protestants? 😂😂
Ebert and Scorsese both specify in the intros to "Scorsese by Ebert" that while they are friends, they are not intimate friends. So, sadly, I have to answer your question with a "no".
You neglected to mention one thing, and it's sadly the most important thing. What did Roger Ebert think of Martin Scorceses Gornachov 1973?! The people demand to know! XD (Are Gornachov jokes still funny? Were they ever that funny to begyn with? I can't tell at this point please halp .w.')
@@EyebrowCinema Truth be told I did kinda think back to Ebert when Scorcese got in on the Goncharov jokes himself. It left me wondering if he'd find it amusing, and whether or not he'd have a good laugh with Martin over it.
Yeaaaah Let's get this video to a lot of views in the first hour so that it gets love from youtube Algorithm bless this video which i liked even before watching it because it's that good Seriously, sometimes i end up pissed off because i can't like it again after watching it, fix that youtube Lots of words lots of engagement, yadda yadda
They were both born in 1942 and Catholic. The first review Scorsese for was from Ebert. Wouldn’t it have been great if that Scorsese movie was the first film Ebert wrote a review for? It’s too bad that Siskel didn’t have the same relationship with Spielberg? Both were born in ‘46 and were Jews.
With the movie Goodfellas it does continue I hope you know that where the movie called Blue heaven and this was by a mobster saying this is what happened to Henry Hill after the events are Goodfellas listen to Henry Hill on the Howard Stern show then you get the real truth that have the stuff he said about this movie of Goodfellas that is excellent was 70 to 80% fake That's the saddest thing I heard because I love this film and I just said to myself you know what I watch it as a movie not a biography when you see Henry Hill on Howard Stern drunk full of drugs and he basically says there at movie was fake he did it for the money they only part that's real is the part with Henry hills bar and they murdered a maid guy the part with Tommy Joe pesci's character after that he was never really in the mafia listen to Howard Stern when Henry Hill is on and you'll know the truth and listen to other guys about Henry Hill but I won't take anything away from the movie maker director is one of the best directors in the industry You're doing a great job keep up the great work I'm just a guy from the third world country watching your video being entertained keep up the great work
I know that this is not really cinema, but I'd like to know your thoughts on Arcane, the series based on League of Legends. It's so popular and praised and I found it absolute garbage. All surface, no substance. Yet just today it again won some major award. I am a man of patience, but I could barely sit through 3 episodes of Arcane. Am I crazy or is the show astronomically overrated?
I'm slightly confused that, in a thirty minute video, there was no mention of "The King Of Comedy". Has this film been erased from his CV? It's far superior to "Last Temptation", "The Irishman" and the ridiculously overpraised "Mean Streets".
I love The King of Comedy. Footage from it is included and it is alluded to indirectly at points. I had considered including it in more detail in the section dealing with Ebert's negative Scorsese reviews (as he was always cold on the film despite admiring elements of it) but ultimately thought that point was covered fully with the likes of Cape Fear, The Color of Money, Kundun, and New York, New York. It's lack of prominence in this video is not meant as a dig on its quality.
@@EyebrowCinema Ok, cheers for clearing that up. As for Ebert, while I admired his devotion to cinema, let's not forget this was a bloke who gave "Godfather 3" a higher rating than its predecessor; and anyone who picks the grotesque, mean-spirited and over-acted "Fargo" as their film of the year (1996) earns a special place on my cinematic shit list. (McDormand wins an Oscar for saying "Yah!" 200 times? Shoot me now.).
Dan, this is very meta. You talk about Ebert always always giving Scorsese a positive review. Your review of Ebert is the same. It seems like Ebert got it right about all of Scorsese’s movies. I find Ebert’s criticism of the color of money very weak. The film is interesting for the elements of Frankenstein and pygmalion in the Eddie character. There could a been a straight showdown with Vince at first meeting before Eddie corrupted him. The ending is what Eddie deserved. On the other hand cape fear is a movie that did not need to get remade. Especially with the crazy super human denero character. Can you break with Ebert on that?
My family became slightly acquainted with Roger Ebert back when he would come to the University of Colorado every spring for the weeklong Conference on World Affairs. Each year he picked a movie to spend a week poring over together with an audience. Any of us who saw something we thought was interesting, we'd simply shout "Roger!" and he'd pause the film to hear our observations. His enthusiasm for film and genuine interest in sharing it with relative strangers was insanely infectious and endearing.
I still remember how warmly he considered my dad's random observation that "Dark City" and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" share a peculiar number of visual, narrative and even thematic similarities. And I'll never forget when the whole auditorium broke into applause (including his) when I spotted a shot with a mirror reflection in "Casablanca" that had been overlooked in our collective hunt for that recurring image.
We lost Roger a short time before we lost my mom, and my Dad is deep in the thrall of Alzheimer's and can no longer appreciate film as he once did. I miss all three of them but cherish the film enthusiasm we all cultivated together.
Thanks for this video.
(I'm a little surprised you didn't touch on Scorsese's struggles with addiction and how Ebert and Siskel used their platform to help him overcome without calling attention to it)
Love this story. Would have loved to attend one of his Ebert Interruptus screenings.
I always admired Roger Ebert more as the lover of movies rather than as their critic, and his verbal and penned championing of Marty's masterworks and little-known gems is a testament to this.
Roger Ebert's story was so sad. Before seeing his documentary, I had no idea of his affliction later on in life, but the never-fading enthusiasm in his eyes, was just so moving and awe-inspiring. I hope he is reviewing us from above and giving us two thumbs way up.
Ebert proclaiming Scorsese an upcoming classic director in that first review undoubtedly lit a fire under Marty's ass, made him dedicate himself to his dream. It's like a time traveler shaping the future by influencing the past, I love that! Wonderful video essay.
Given how well treaded Scorsese is on UA-cam, I’m almost shocked someone haven’t made a video like this yet. Fantastic vid, one of my fastest clicks on UA-cam in awhile
I was pretty stoked to land on the topic before someone else seized it, not gonna lie. Glad to know there is indeed an audience for it.
I would love to know what Ebert would have thought about Silence. It’s my favorite Scorsese film and was such a passion project for him. Such a shame he never got to see it 😞
Silence is my favorite Scorsese as well. It asks really hard questions and definitely feels like Scorsese is asking his own questions about what faith means in a way that he hints at in his other works.
Roger Ebert didn't just champion Scorsese, he championed New Hollywood in general! And he still praises good movies until his death in 2013.
Great video. Last year I saw Bringing Out the Dead for the first time in years, & while I liked it before, I really fell in love with it seeing it again last year (I was also going through some really personal tragedies, & I found comfort in watching Scorsese's films obsessively). Bringing Out the Dead certainly needs to be seen again, as I think it is very underrated.
Ebert was the man. I remember watching "Monsieur Hulot's Holiday" and not really getting it, and then learning that Roger Ebert absolutely loved the film and put it in his "Great Movies". Reading his review of the film gave me such a fresh perspective that I never considered before, and it (along with watching Tati's other films) helped my appreciation of the film grow, and now I'd consider it one of my favorite comedies. Ebert is the only critic I'm aware of with that kind of power.
Great video btw, you're one of my favorite film related UA-cam channels and I get excited whenever you upload, no matter what the video is about.
After Roger’s passing nine years ago (I can’t believe it’s almost 10) that I’ll never see the same content online, but thank goodness for content creators who share the same passion he had. 😊
That's crazy that this is the topic of your new video! I've been on a huge Roger Ebert kick, trying to watch all the movies in his Great Movies series.
Update: I got Scorsese by Ebert for Christmas. Can't wait to dive into it.
That's ambitious! It's quite the list to work through.
@@EyebrowCinema To clarify, I mean I'm watching the ones I've never seen, and maybe revisiting some ones I've only seen once and don't remember well lol
Be sure to watch taste of cherry too, despite Ebert's misgivings
Of course, I plan to. I don't think Ebert always got it right, but his writing is so strong and his insights are so valuable that I don't mind if I disagree with him.
I think "New York, New York" is a masterpiece, but one that takes a couple of viewings to realize it. I've looked at it over the years and what I felt were flaws for a long time - they really aren't. Scorsese is telling the exact story he wants to tell. At first, I faulted the film for exactly what makes it so brilliant. To put realistic, brutal fights, language and the arc of a marriage falling apart into the impressionistic world of the Hollywood musical where things were usually sunny and joyful is the idea - to bring a naturalism to that artificial world - that CONTRAST is such a troubling sit. They just don't *want* to be put together. But I honestly think that's the point. And it's the point that I missed for a long time: the film's first half, in many ways, is VERY like the typical old Hollywood musical in its tone and lightness, humor, buoyancy, etc. - with only hints of darkness to come. The second half of the film is a descent into a naturalistic dissolution of a marriage, with all its contradictions, fury and pain. There's an idea at work in the movie that I may be laying over it, myself, but even if I am, it's changed the way I see it - that Scorsese is talking about America and its relation to cinema - and the very arc of popular art, itself, by that point. The film literally takes you from the 40's to the 70's in every way; all while maintaining the impressionism and aesthetics of Hollywood at its most presentational, maintaining that awareness that you're watching a MOVIE. The shot of DeNiro walking alone at night in the city and while going up the subway steps, pausing for a cigarette while a couple below, lit as if they're dancing on the floors of Heaven, twirl around like Astaire and Rogers. The camera just lingers over his shoulder as we watch these two dancing - WITHOUT any music to accompany them but the soft traffic and sounds of the city at night. He finishes his cigarette and simply continues up the steps. THAT MOMENT, to me, is exactly what I'm talking about and why I think this idea of what the movie is really talking about isn't just applying something over it. In terms of what I was talking about, re: America and its relation to cinema - which, in a way, is America and its relationship with ILLUSION - you have DeNiro, standing on subway steps with the ordinary sounds of the city and trains going by above, smoking a cigarette - and not even seeing his face at all - a scene that could be in "Mean Streets" - and almost as if in another world, below, the dancing couple. Now one could say this moment is about the character - and that's probably right, as well - but seeing that again, I realized that what always bothered me about "New York, New York" and the bad feeling it always left me with (while also admiring a lot of it) was exactly Scorsese's point - that our relationship with these caricatures of ourselves who we watch on screens and these behaviors we've watched through the years, idealized and molded in the writing, entirely artificial - have influenced us all so much that the illusions of cinema and the realities of human behavior have become intermingled in a way that's both good and bad. Good in the sense that we may aspire to (or reflect) the most idealized versions of ourselves and our behavior that fill our cinema with; bad in the sense that we sometimes forget that life is not the movies. I think he's talking about that problematic relationship in the context of love and marriage in the film - but also America, itself, as it's a very American film, through and through, with a great love for the iconography and feel of New York City (and an idealized version of New York City), post-war life, jazz, etc., etc. I should probably stop writing, here, but that's basically what turned me around on the film and why I think it's one of his best now - and it's also why I think it bombed at the box office at the time: it's a strong, fascinating, troubling, very ambitious piece of work. But the key word here is "fascinating" - and that's something that Scorsese has been, consistently, no matter what genre he touches (and a lot of people forget that of his 27 films - only FIVE of them - 5 out of 27 - were "gangster" movies. 80% of his movies are different genres, entirely. He's made comedies, cop movies, horror movies, thrillers, bio-pics, period costume dramas, satires, romance, etc. It's so frustrating when people refer to him as if he just makes "gangster" movies when the man is the most eclectic director of the last 50+ years. And what's astonishing to me is that even with that eclecticism, he's remained consistent and always at the top of his game. You may not LIKE a particular Scorsese film for whatever reason - but there's no denying that it's been directed like a motherf#cker.
As always, an excellent job. This has to be one of my personal favorites of yours.
Thank you Grant!
I’ve never come to truly love Scorsese films, whether it’s the graphic violence, sex, or drug use. I do think Casino and Goodfellas are really great, but I’ve never connected perfectly to them. However, I do admire his love for film and appreciate his cinematic skill.
Wonderful video by the way!
Maybe you’ll connect to some of his earlier films like Taxi Driver or Raging Bull. Even the ones without the criminal elements like The Aviator are great films.
Thank you! I'd also back Jack Swift's suggestion with The Aviator. It's probably the closest Scorsese has come to making a standard biopic, but the filmmaking is really exceptional.
@@EyebrowCinema thanks for the recommendations, although I have already seen both Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. I haven’t seen the Aviator so I’ll give that a go.
Also: it’s not that I can’t watch a movie with graphic content ( some of my favorite movies are Apocalypse Now, Silence of the Lambs, The Thing), but I think I just don’t vibe with the flippant way the characters use said graphic content. I think it’s also why I don’t love Tarantino as much as most.
I highly recommend The Age Of Innocence.
The words of Ebert, the images of Scorsese, and the music of Ennio Morricone are probably what most committed me to a lifetime of movie watching. However, Scorsese's "My Voyage to Italy" was a breakthrough for me in terms of watching movies in languages other than English, which I don't believe was brushed on here. I'd love to see some content about this topic if you're considering a video that relates to the wonderful content you've produced here!
Your videos are amazing. I love your perspective.
Amazing video. So insightful, it's abundantly clear that you are just as passionate as the artists you talk about!
Thank you so much. This is very kind of you to say.
The work you put into, & joy you derive from your channel is evident & incredibly enjoyable to watch.
Thanks Bethany! Relieving to hear other people get joy from these too :)
Uhh yeah just sittin here very impressed by the thought provoking very articulate way that this peice and the rest of this site has been put together, no hyperbole. Nicely done, keep em comin.
Your channel just keeps getting better. I adore both of these men.
Holy shit, this is the kind of video I love from this channel
Yes!!! I had no idea that Ebert was such a fan of Bringing Out The Dead but I am in complete agreement.
It was the first film he released after I became aware of his work and I got it on VHS first day of release (living in the Irish countryside meant I can no chance of seeing it in the big screen) and was blown away. It's never been given the credit it deserves I think.
The camera work and editing are amazing. Acting top notch. The story/location/themes are perfect for Scorsese.
It has a spiky/scuzzy almost punk like energy which (with possible exception of Wolf of Wall Street) Scorsese hasn't matched since.
Speaking of Punk, I absolutely love that Scorsese shakes up his usual classic rock soundtracks with some The Clash tracks. They fit in so perfectly.
I think Wolf matches in punk rock and even exceeds, but in a very different way.
Speaking as one their relationship is one that every artist dreams for. Someone who can see the work and get the creator's meaning behind it with such clarity while still being able to express their own point of view when viewing. Someone who can see us so well where the criticism is wanted just as much as the compliment because its coming from a place of wanting the artist and the art to grow. Mutual respect on both ends mixed with the pure love for the medium itself makes for a beautiful relationship.
I just wanted to thank you for talking about The Age of Innocence. I haven't heard of the movie so I gave it a watch and it was amazing. The yearning to do one thing and the rules of the society you live in pushing you to do another is something that resonates with me a lot, and the movie itself was just beautiful to look at.
We appreciate your insights on this matter. May God bless you.
Thank you, Sophia!
Thanks for this video, though I think you got the timing of Ebert's death wrong. He and Scorsese were born the same year in facf. It would have been interesting to hear your thoughts on Ebert's reviews of King of Comedy. I missed Roger most of all when the Scorsese-Marvel debacle happened a few years ago. I would have loved to hear Ebert's intelligent, humane defense of Marty's art against Marvel's empty toys
quality video mate. loved it.
Cheers, thanks Vito.
Ebert is watching Scorsese’s films in that big Cinema in the Sky
Crazy! A few weeks ago I asked a question for your 50,000 subscribers Q&A (it didn’t get answered because I was late to comment) about the central theme of Scorsese’s filmography and about your method for analyzing directors’ filmographies as a whole. I have begun making video essays myself, and would love to know more about your process and how long it took to make this video. I’m undertaking a similar video soon, the production of which would benefit greatly from any advice!
Not sure exactly how long this took in terms of minutes of labour. I started writing the script around the middle of November but had already taken a lot of notes and been researching the topic before hand. The main piece of advice I would give is to treat the writing portion seriously. That is the foundation and there's only so much good editing and charismatic voiceover can do for a weak script. With that said, you should also write knowing you will be transforming the work into a video. Write for your voice, and knowing that voice will be set to visuals.
I wish eoger had been around for the Irishman. With him being a scholar of Scorsese, I would love to know how he felt about his thesis.
Reading Roger Ebert review after watching a movie is an unwritten rule for me whether I agree or disagree with the review
The Color of Money is amazing honestly
This is really cool, nice work
0:44 I also liked to read Ebert’s reviews *after* watching a film because of his essayist style. And because I didn’t want to have the film spoiled for me.
terrific video, opened up another tab and ordered a copy of scorsese by ebert before it even ended lol
I hate to live in a world without an ebert irishman review
I really enjoy how nearly all UA-cam film essayists post-Ralphthemoviemaker pronounce Scorsese as "Score-sezzy"
Wonderful essay.
Cheers, Herr.
The Recommending Ones & Zeros apologizes for the devastating and overwhelming distress that must have happened while waiting on our blessing.
Thank you my great Archpriest.
Dan, one of these days let’s just start a Bringing Out the Dead reprisal movement. Paramount and Disney need to know this movie is deserving of a Blu-Ray/4K release.
But in all seriousness, great video as alwahs
This is a cause I can get behind.
Scorsese is not a "Gangster" filmmaker. His spiritual existentialism is more in line with the likes of Kierkegard, Camus as well as a rich wealth of christian/spiritual contemplative thought.
fantastic Chanel!
Great video!! My favorite director.
Btw what’s that song playing at around 12:05??
God, I love this so much! Being an ultimate Scorsese fan myself ,I really appreciate the enjoyable and also insightful videos on Scorsese made by
creative and professional UA-camr like you,hope you can do more ! Among the many books I’ve read that explore Scorsese’s whole filmography,I highly recommend a book called Scorsese on Scorsese ,written by Michael Henry Wilson ,published by CAHIERS DU CINEMA.By the way ,I wanna ask if the origin of your channel’s name have something to do with Scorsese’s iconic eyebrows 😂.
I still haven’t finished the book but I’ve read plenty of Ebert reviews to know his love of Marty. Any word on that video essay about video essays? Or video essay on film analysis and how to do it?
I talk about the vodka in watermelon part of Irishman all the time, genuinely forgot he was married twice
Eyebrow Cinema: "Shut-OAT..."
Me: "Oh Canada, aye?"
Marty! Kundun! I liked it!
... but it left me unfulfilled
Now I can't wait what analytical insight you can gather gather around Sonic Underground and franchise fans response to it, given that knuckles got better characterization there than in X!
I just put the book in my Amazon cart …
As a writer it's always been the script more than the cinematography that I tend to place a higher value in while watching film. Oddly I was unaware that the movie was directed by Scorsese at the time I watched it. While I love film it was novels that I was truly obsessed ove r to the degree where I could list of writers catalog or tell from a page or two of the style who it was I was reading, with film this simply didn't interest me as much until later on in life
To me this as an interesting layer on top of the fact that I quite enjoying Bringing out the Dead, bc of the sheer VERVE evident in scene after scene.
I also recall wondering why it did not seem to get much if any critical acclaim, but chalked it up to the fact that the films I enjoyed like magnolia never seem to get the same acclaim that I thought of as their due.
I can’t wait for your inevitable Jean-Luc Godard video, especially since so many people were eager to see it after they voted for it on your q&a
Will hopefully make that at some point in the new year.
The color of money gets to much hate in my opinion. Maybe it's because going in I had such low expectations, as everyone who talks about this movie does it with such dismay, but I found it really enjoyable. Sure the plot is standard but it's really well made, well executed and Scorsese's voice still feels in tact.
I especially liked the Willie Dixon song, Don't Tell Me Nothing. Willie Dixon died 6 years after the movie came out.
I did find Cruise's character annoying, and kind of stupid. I liked the movie though.
"Archetype" is typically pronounced "aar · kuh · tipe".
Dude.. Great. Fuckin. Video.
I always love how Ebert, a Catholic himself, really got the sense of guilt than runs through all of Scorsese’s films. Have you seen the clip of him and Siskel making fun of Protestants? 😂😂
Can't believe Goncharov was not mentioned :( But still an awesome review as always
Do you think they explored each other’s bodies?
Ebert and Scorsese both specify in the intros to "Scorsese by Ebert" that while they are friends, they are not intimate friends. So, sadly, I have to answer your question with a "no".
This is one of your better videos, its sad that is not getting much love
You neglected to mention one thing, and it's sadly the most important thing. What did Roger Ebert think of Martin Scorceses Gornachov 1973?! The people demand to know! XD
(Are Gornachov jokes still funny? Were they ever that funny to begyn with? I can't tell at this point please halp .w.')
If Goncharov jokes get this video more views than I think they are hilarious and good.
@@EyebrowCinema Truth be told I did kinda think back to Ebert when Scorcese got in on the Goncharov jokes himself. It left me wondering if he'd find it amusing, and whether or not he'd have a good laugh with Martin over it.
Yeaaaah
Let's get this video to a lot of views in the first hour so that it gets love from youtube
Algorithm bless this video which i liked even before watching it because it's that good
Seriously, sometimes i end up pissed off because i can't like it again after watching it, fix that youtube
Lots of words lots of engagement, yadda yadda
They were both born in 1942 and Catholic.
The first review Scorsese for was from Ebert.
Wouldn’t it have been great if that Scorsese movie was the first film Ebert wrote a review for?
It’s too bad that Siskel didn’t have the same relationship with Spielberg? Both were born in ‘46 and were Jews.
With the movie Goodfellas it does continue I hope you know that where the movie called Blue heaven and this was by a mobster saying this is what happened to Henry Hill after the events are Goodfellas listen to Henry Hill on the Howard Stern show then you get the real truth that have the stuff he said about this movie of Goodfellas that is excellent was 70 to 80% fake That's the saddest thing I heard because I love this film and I just said to myself you know what I watch it as a movie not a biography when you see Henry Hill on Howard Stern drunk full of drugs and he basically says there at movie was fake he did it for the money they only part that's real is the part with Henry hills bar and they murdered a maid guy the part with Tommy Joe pesci's character after that he was never really in the mafia listen to Howard Stern when Henry Hill is on and you'll know the truth and listen to other guys about Henry Hill but I won't take anything away from the movie maker director is one of the best directors in the industry You're doing a great job keep up the great work I'm just a guy from the third world country watching your video being entertained keep up the great work
I know that this is not really cinema, but I'd like to know your thoughts on Arcane, the series based on League of Legends. It's so popular and praised and I found it absolute garbage. All surface, no substance. Yet just today it again won some major award. I am a man of patience, but I could barely sit through 3 episodes of Arcane. Am I crazy or is the show astronomically overrated?
I'm slightly confused that, in a thirty minute video, there was no mention of "The King Of Comedy". Has this film been erased from his CV? It's far superior to "Last Temptation", "The Irishman" and the ridiculously overpraised "Mean Streets".
I love The King of Comedy. Footage from it is included and it is alluded to indirectly at points. I had considered including it in more detail in the section dealing with Ebert's negative Scorsese reviews (as he was always cold on the film despite admiring elements of it) but ultimately thought that point was covered fully with the likes of Cape Fear, The Color of Money, Kundun, and New York, New York. It's lack of prominence in this video is not meant as a dig on its quality.
@@EyebrowCinema Ok, cheers for clearing that up. As for Ebert, while I admired his devotion to cinema, let's not forget this was a bloke who gave "Godfather 3" a higher rating than its predecessor; and anyone who picks the grotesque, mean-spirited and over-acted "Fargo" as their film of the year (1996) earns a special place on my cinematic shit list. (McDormand wins an Oscar for saying "Yah!" 200 times? Shoot me now.).
The Gangs of New York was omitted too.
Dan, this is very meta. You talk about Ebert always always giving Scorsese a positive review. Your review of Ebert is the same. It seems like Ebert got it right about all of Scorsese’s movies. I find Ebert’s criticism of the color of money very weak. The film is interesting for the elements of Frankenstein and pygmalion in the Eddie character. There could a been a straight showdown with Vince at first meeting before Eddie corrupted him. The ending is what Eddie deserved. On the other hand cape fear is a movie that did not need to get remade. Especially with the crazy super human denero character. Can you break with Ebert on that?
Cape Fear was done for money i think
@@plaidchuck exactly my point. Both ebert and dan are wrong for saying cape fear is better than the color of money
Ebert was a doofus.