Review of New York, New York (1977) by Matt P — 09 Jun 2011

Since when was it established that the magic of Hollywood couldn't be tapped into again? Who says there can't be musicals made today which homage classics such as "Singin in the Rain" or "Meet Me in St. Louis?" First of all let me just start out by blatantly saying that Martin Scorsese's "New York, New York" is one of the most misunderstood films I have ever seen. People deemed it "long, and pointless." So maybe there is a point Scorsese was getting at here. Through all of the critiques and bad reception it received wouldn't that give people the inclination that maybe Hollywood movies (and Hollywood itself for that matter) is dying? "New York, New York" showcases in a very jazzy and entertaining way that shows that the genre of a "musical" should never be limited to just modern issues or about anger in the streets (much like the musicals we see of today). Scorsese had a vision for this movie, he wanted to go back to the old roots of filmmaking where cheap painted on sets and whimsical moments were all part of typing the film together beautifully to make movie magic.

In this picture, he follows the story of two up and coming stars. One, Francine Evans (a singer looking to get famous) played by Liza Minnelli, and the other a more stark and outrageous individual. Jimmy Doyle (Robert De Niro) is a passionate saxophonist, who honestly as we can learn throughout the picture, doesn't know exactly WHAT he wants, all he knows is that he loves to play is tenor sax and can't escape the sight of Francine Evans. Where the movie picks up is just startling. It begins on V-J Day, during a party in New York. The way Scorsese captured the life of the party and over-sentimentality looked just beautiful, almost like a portrait framing that exact moment in time. And this just doesn't go for this particular scene, it's the whole movie. The lighting looks as though it would've back in the 40s, the music is to of the line swinging, the singing by Minnelli is loud and bold, and I can honestly say I've never seen a film be able to pull of this film's same "nostalgia." Scorsese stated in the Introduction that he didn't know what it was, but whatever it was is something rare, something golden. And that's just what this film is. With great-to-look-at 1:66 aspect ratio this film couldn't be mere 40's like. And it's a damn shame people don't appreciate what Scorsese was trying to go for here.

Sure, the story may have been a little spontaneous at times. The scenes and dialogue, a bit repetitive. It's eminent being on account of half the film wasn't scripted and most of it was improvised. And towards the end it tended to drag a little, but if you look past the story, and just breathe in the atmosphere the picture sets off it truly is a great experience. There aren't many directors out there that can make a film look exactly as those 40s musicals did. There's one particular scene in the film I thought epitomizes that notion; Minnelli and De Niro are standing in the snow. Apparently it's supposed to be snowing and cold. Well, instead of a long background of black trees, we see an obviously fake cardboard painted on flat which is meant to "give off" the look of it being snowy. Now apart from laughing slightly inside at this, I was more smiling at the ingenuity Scorsese was doing. The fun he was poking at. We all know he could've picked to film the scene on location, but it's all about the "look" of the film, the texture, and how you're supposed to receive it.

I wish people could've understood this movie more fully. It may not seem as in depth as Scorsese's other pictures, but the mere look of the picture is layered deep. It contains wonderful musical numbers, great performances, and fun to look at retrospect of old Hollywood films (which NOW have gone away, the only new example I can think of that was successful was "Chicago.â? Itâ(TM)s not a musical that insists of informing audiences through audacious dance numbers and spectacles how "crazy" or "evil" the world is (much like what "Cabaret" did), it's just for fun. There are several funny and silly moments that only you could get if you appreciate and understand that work the director meant to be read in it. One of the most underrated films of one of America's greatest directors.