The Scorcese De Niro partnership

Taxi Driver (1976)

The greatest depiction of a psychotic breakdown in the history of cinema? Possibly.

There's real poetry in this film. Travis Bickle, a Vietnam vet, is disgusted with the world... Although not formally educated, he writes little aphorisms in his diary like "some day a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets."

What at first seems like nothing more than misanthropy spirals into fully-fledged pyschopathic behaviour. Travis, a 20th century Raskolnikov, makes it a choice to murder the pimps who have escorted and terrorised an innocent 12-year-old girl.

Ironically, what is a psychotic act of murder, is considered heroic and Bikle is unanimously glorified by the media. Bickle rails against the establishment, confronts it, insults it and is offered to be a part of it.

"I'm God's lonenly man."

"Nevertheless it is clear that such persons as the writer of these notes not only may, but positively must, exist in our society, when we consider the circumstances in the midst of which our society is formed." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes from the Underground

Raging Bull (1980)

The best boxing film ever made (and there are many boxing films)? Possibly.

Because De Niro plays so many dislikable and unpleasant characters, you almost feel he really is like that... And they don't get any more unpleasant than Jack La Motta...

A wife beater, a bully, an outspoken tit...

Another film that acts as testament to De Niro's versatility. Ever the method actor, he actually took to underweight boxing matches...

And put on something like 20 pounds to play La Motta as a washed-out old man.

What I love the most about this film are the boxing matches. Enthralling, beautifully shot and visceral... (Hmm, I seem to be big on adjectives today!)

The King of Comedy (1983)

My stomach churned when I saw this. I kept thinking "Fucking hell this is awful," yet, conversely, thought "it's brilliant!!!"

Think The Office makes you cringe? Well, this is ten times more cringe-worthy than The Office... Rupert Pupkin loves himself far more than David Brent does and is far more disillusioned...

Filled with notions of grandeur, Rupert Pupkin thinks he is uproariously funny. He stalks Jerry Lewis and relentlessly pesters him for a place in the spot-light.

And, like Taxi Driver, there is an ironic ending... Pupkin hijacks Jerry Lewis show, makes lame jokes and... is worshipped as the latest mainstream entertainer.

The film is also prescient of the whole 'celebrity' phenomenon... Pupkin literally has no life and is obsessed with fame... Just for the pure sake of it: fame...

Difficult viewing and perhaps an even more unpleasant character than Jack la Motta...

How DARE you criticise Jean-Luc?

If there's one director who epitomises jump-on-a-bandwagon pitchfork cinephiles, it is Jean-Luc Godard. Please don't think this blog post is an attack on him personally - I happen to even like a few of his films - it is an attack on the stoicism and stubbornness of those people who choose to defend him.

One of the things that made me reconsider the worth of his films was seeing Breathless again. I was hit by the vacuity of it - like most of his films, it isn't saying much of anything. His supporters argue that he doesn't want you to get caught up in the narrative, he wants you to appreciate his technique... Well, the jump-cut wasn't even a self-conscious invention - it was accidental. The film was too long, so they cut it down, resulting with what you see on screen. This doesn't seem like innovative to me, it reeks of laziness.

And for someone whose films are purported to be very dense and complex, when a critic attacks one of his films, any intelligent argument that may arise devolves into childish name-calling. How DARE you criticise Jean-Luc? Isn't he supposed to be a polemicist, anyway? Doesn't that mean there's meant to be debate?

I have seen reviews and essays that are critical of Godard which are far more insightful and well-argued that those who defend him. While I have seen very interesting essays which explore the meaning behind his films, just a quick look through IMBD or Amazon and you'll find reviews that roughly say "Yeah! Jean-Luc is great! He is such an artist! So deep!"

His later work in particular is very dense indeed. I am at a loss as to what is the exact meaning/messages behind these films, but the thing is that I am yet to see an article which boldly describes what the film is saying. This article for instance is an adamant defence of Godard's later work - http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/137070-godards-invisible-cinema-the-neglected-genius-of-late-period-godard - but nowhere can I find in this piece am I convinced as to how Godard is 'redefining' the 'grammar' of film.

This just leads me to the conclusion that most people intellectualise things that aren't even there. Besides, in 'cult' and 'trendy' circles, most people need a guru to latch onto; for hardcore cinephiles, Godard is just that.