MovieChat Forums > Mean Streets (1973) Discussion > Honest question: Was this as good as Sco...

Honest question: Was this as good as Scorcese's more famous work?


Goodfellows ... Taxi Driver ... Raging Bull ... INCREDIBLE movies ...
WHy is this movie regarded to be in the same level?
It seemed repetitive, without plot/direction and almost like a practice before all his other work ...
Can someone please explain what the adoration with this movie is/was ?

reply

This is my favourite Scorsese movie. It is, to some degree, a practice before those other movies that you mention (although not as much as Who's That Knocking at my Door) but for me it is a tremendously exciting practice filled with raw, edgy energy, terrific, naturalistic performances and a glum, buzzing atmosphere that makes you feel the neighbourhood, feel the characters, their scratchy desperation, their weird lives hanging out, playing cards, hustling, starting and avoiding fights, the casual violence and the fact that they are trapped in this twilight world of smoke and neon bar lights.

It's also one fo the first ever movies to use non-diegetic pop music on the soundtrack and I remember the first time I watched it, aged about seventeen, De Niro walking into the bar with a girl on each arm to the opening bars of Jumping Jack Flash, was just about the coolest thing I had ever seen in a movie and my excitement about the possibilities of cinema had perhaps never been higher than at that moment.

It's not everyone's cup of tea, that has become clear to me (although I still can't really understand it) but in part I think this is because people want cinema to be Hollywood, an idealised version of life, clear narrative thrusts, structure, beginnings leading to middles and endings, story arcs, character arcs, morals, a meaning. The 1970s is my favourite decade of American film-making precisely because these things were considered unimportant, secondary to showing something real, something shocking, the sort of thing that wouldn't be approved of by crowd-pleasing studio execs or get churned out by a committee meeting. Instead it gave you something visceral, gutteral, uncomfortable, worthwhile, a rejection of Hollywood norms and an injection of back-alley realities.

Read some film critics' thoughts on Mean Streets here if you like:

http://altscreen.com/12/13/2011/tuesday-editors-pick-mean-streets-1973 /





Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made

reply

Was this as good as Scorcese's most famous work?
It is to me.

Scorsese's direction is top-notch (maybe not as "slick" as it is in his later work, but still great), the performances are some of the best and most unforgettable in any Scorsese film, the selection of songs are arguably the best Scorsese compiled for a film, and it's just a riveting and wholly entertaining film overall... well, at least to me anyway. I love it.

While we're on the subject, I notice that most people who find Mean Streets to be a letdown, first saw Scorsese's later and more praised films. So I guess it's safe to say they expected something bigger. I saw Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Casino, etc, all before MS... and yet, I ended up loving Mean Streets as much (if not more) than all those films. There's many reasons for someone not liking a particular film, of course, but I think very few can truly appreciate a film like this if they've seen all the aforementioned films first. Now personally, I have a hard time figuring out why mediocre stuff like Gangs of New York, The Aviator and Hugo are being held as masterpieces by more than a few....


Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry!

reply

I agree with all of you; MEAN STREETS has atmosphere, energy and style to burn. You can tell Scorsese has been waiting his entire life to make this film, and it shows in the editing, the long dolly takes, the steadicam shots, and the soundtrack choices. There IS a rough, jazzy energy that fills the film and to a certain extent you do feel like you are just THERE watching these people's lives.

However...

I do NOT think it is up there with GOODFELLAS/TAXI DRIVER/RAGING BULL and as far as superior films overall would rank DEPARTED/AFTER HOURS/THE KING OF COMEDY as well as CASINO over it. The acting is alright, but the usually inferior Keitel is miscast as the lead, and Charlie is simply not very interesting. Michael and Tony are also not very compelling characters and the film only comes alive when De Niro's magnetic Johnny Boy shows up.

As a FILM that uses the elements of the craft it is a success, but as a STORY about compelling CHARACTERS it falls short.

reply

Without plot - perhaps. Without direction - certainly not.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Personally, my favorite Scorsese movies are the small ones without plot. I love Mean Streets and After Hours... and Goodfellas and Taxi Driver but everyone loves those two.

reply

Mean Streets never feels like it's building towards anything, but with Taxi Driver for example Travis Bickle is a compelling character and the whole movie feels like it's building towards something. The movie reveals plot in the sense that it's a character searching for meaning or purpose throughout the film and though it defies easy explanation there's a lot of depth, but I felt none of that depth with Mean Streets when I saw it a few years back. It just kind of plods along from beginning to end, until it stops.

reply