Part of the box office failure of this movie was that the audience had moved on. Movies like Saturday Night Live, Jaws and Star Trek were popular. The big New York musical movie was past it's prime.
It was actually released the same week as
Star Wars
. And of course that inspiring, exciting and entertaining thrill ride made the public disinclined to see a mature, funny, beautiful adult musical about the inability of permanent relationships between creative people. But it has it's following and it's audience.
The musical by the way was already on the downward spiral around the time the film was made.
New York, New York
is a tribute to those MGM Musicals made by Vincente Minnelli(Liza's dad, she looks just like him) and also Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly(an important reference point is
On the Town
and
It's Always Fair Weather
)
I didn't realize this is the movie that gave us the song New York, New York. I had always assumed that song was from the 40s. Well done Scorsese and crew.
Well the people behind that song were Kander and Ebb. Who were highly influenced by Robert DeNiro's own ideas for that song. So those three are behind what's essentially the anthem of New York City.
I must confess that I don't like the song very much. But LIza Minnelli's performance of that song dramatically makes it work.
"a va by me, madamea va by me!"

The Red Shoes

Part of the box office failure of this movie was that the audience had moved on. Movies like Saturday Night Live, Jaws and Star Trek were popular. The big New York musical movie was past it's prime.
I didn't realize this is the movie that gave us the song New York, New York. I had always assumed that song was from the 40s. Well done Scorsese and crew.
No two persons ever watch the same movie.

"It's not yet released in Mumbai but I saw it in London."
Are you still in London? We should meet up. I'll let you touch me.
"I liked it but I'm not sure yet it's among their best. Still one of the few good movies this year."
I liked it too, though a bit overhyped. I thought it was too pessimistic and the car crash at the end, went a bit too overboard in stressing the nature of chance. I still prefer "The Big Lebowski" and "Fargo". Lebowski takes noir in a new direction. Instead of a typical noir hero, battling chance, fate and cosmic conspiracies, the Dude is content to simply abide. A passive observer, letting it all wash over him. "No Country" seems almost outdated, in that it just accepts defeatism. Like the "eh, what's the point?" at the end of 'The Killing'.
"As for Rosenbaum, he never did or never wanted to understand Scorsese's and Coppola's generation hence his use of rhetoric to justify his lack of understanding and his contempt for their great creativity."
Yeah, he is very unjustly harsh on Taxi Driver. It's a brilliant review though. He called it "morally and idealogically problematic" or something like that. He didn't like Raging Bull either. His main problem with Taxi Driver was that Travis was too likeble, too appealing and not replusive enough. He doesnt want the audience to identify with Travis at all. But it's this identification and these moments of sympathy which make the film even more tragic.
I somewhat agree with him on Apocalypse Now, though. I thought Coppola failed to acomplish what he sets out to do. The film works more as a mad Herzog film than any statement.
"In any case what does this have to do with New York, New York?"
Nothing. I just saw you talking about Redux. And who wants to talk about New York, New York, anyway? That film is torture.
"Coppola's Apocalypse Now Redux has interesting bits in it but on the whole is aesthetically inferior to the original cut which Coppola made. That was a thoughtprovoking disturbing work for an audience, this is a fairly black-and-white anti-war film. Still as Rosenbaum said the colours are beautiful in the new version."
I think the original is far better too, but you can see what Coppola was going for. He edited out all the politics because he completely failed to convey them. The darkness of civilization, the evils of Colonization, the freedom of barbarianism, all the themes of Hearts of Darkness aren't conveyed, and by the time we reach the final act, it all falls apart. He has nothing to say. That's what I agree with Rosenbaum on, the failure of the last act.
The film does work however, as a Herzog film. A journey into madness, echoed by the cast and film-maker, and because of this it's special. But I still view it as a failure.
"Rape is no laughing matter. Unless you're raping a clown."

You can find out for yourself on the IMDb Page's Release Dates section. It's not yet released in Mumbai but I saw it in London. I liked it but I'm not sure yet it's among their best. Still one of the few good movies this year.
As for Rosenbaum, he never did or never wanted to understand Scorsese's and Coppola's generation hence his use of rhetoric to justify his lack of understanding and his contempt for their great creativity.
In any case what does this have to do with
New York, New York
? Coppola's
Apocalypse Now Redux
has interesting bits in it but on the whole is aesthetically inferior to the original cut which Coppola made. That was a thoughtprovoking disturbing work for an audience, this is a fairly black-and-white anti-war film. Still as Rosenbaum said the colours are beautiful in the new version.
"Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs."

Nathanael West

artihcus have you read Rosenbaum's Apocalypse Now review?
http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/archives/2001/0108/010817.html
Also, has 'No Country For Old Men' been released in India yet?
"Rape is no laughing matter. Unless you're raping a clown."

I don't think you quite understand. The Four Hour Version was most likely a rough cut. What happens during editing is that they construct the footage into a master version complete with sound and music and then chisel that down into the final version. Scorsese's director's cut was 163 minutes which upon failure and on advice by the distributors he cut down to 136 minutes removing among other things, the "Happy Endings" number which was what made the film's budget so high. Scorsese himself agreed to editing it down. It wasn't done behind his back or anything.
Then in the 80's the film was restored to the original one with all scenes put back in. That's the version in circulation. The film exists to Scorsese's satisfaction so why get a four hour cut then? When it'll be longer and more of a strain to sit through.
The plot of "New York, New York" doesn't always make sense, and some scenes leave the viewer to fill in the blanks in the absence of exposition. I'm guessing that the original four hour cut made more sense than the current version.
But the plot makes perfect sense. The only bit of confusion is the early scene where Francine helps get Jimmy a job playing Jazz at that club. I thought that both of them was hired when the manager said something of fixing up a boy-girl act. That's it. The rest makes perfect sense. In fact, the film doesn't have a plot, it's just character that drives the film forward and in a very inventive way as well. More likely the four-hour version has longer scenes of the conversations, extended bits of some scenes and other bits and pieces tightened and better paced for economy. Some scenes might have been dropped but then they can't have been very important or essential if Scorsese thought the film was okay without it.
I feel that "Apocalypse Now Redux" was much, much superior to "Apocalypse Now,"
WellI disagree with that. But then I hope you agree that the first version was on it's own a disturbing, enriching and a thought provoking work of art.
"Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs."

Nathanael West

This message has been deleted.

It appears to be an exercise is obnoxious behavior by a young actor full of piss and the coked-out director who enabled him.
They were definitely not doing coke during the actual film making process. I.E. on the set, editing, acting and whatnot. I am sorry but your comments are too full of malice to be taken seriously.
New York, New York
is slightly flawed but it's still a great movie and a beautiful film too. It attains a maturity that few directors can hope to attain to anywhere, anytime and especially so early in their careers and lives.
Liza didn't deserve to have this film derail her career; she's one of the film's few assets.
She was spectacular, I agree. But the film didn't derail her career. And she herself loves this film to bits and admires it greatly. Actually even DeNiro was spectacular. A performance that has so many deep layers. I've heard people whine that DeNiro is playing the same guy in
Taxi Driver
and
Mean Streets
. I only ask them to get their eyes checked or replaced or removed since they don't know how to use it.
The characters are so appalling and - more importantlly - dull, that the film is unendurable. An incompetent mess best forgotten.
The characters are so full of life and humanity that I seriously question your position as a human being. That's what's so off-putting about it. It's set in a wonderfully artificial America but the people in it are real and speak and act as out-of-control and unpredictably as real people do.
"Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs."

Nathanael West

I totally agree. I watched this over christmas because everyone says it is an underrated classic. I was so depressed by it. Liza looks gorgeous and sounds wonderful, but the film overall is dreadful and completely pointless. It could have been quite good but there are only a handful of good moments - mostly when Liza sings solo! I loved her version of The Man I Love.
I also feel sorry for liza. After Cabaret not a decent film cae along for her - unless she turned down some good ones. She looks as if she is trying very hard in this film, but nothing works apart from a couple of her songs.

this film is surely an interesting experiment, but - like Speilberg's 1941 and Coppala's One From the Heart, the director is way out of his depth. This is the dullest, saddest, more irritating film made by a great director. The tone is completely off. It appears to be an exercise is obnoxious behavior by a young actor full of piss and the coked-out director who enabled him. (True. You can look it up.) DeNiro goes way over the top and not in a good way. Liza didn't deserve to have this film derail her career; she's one of the film's few assets.
The characters are so appalling and - more importantlly - dull, that the film is unendurable. An incompetent mess best forgotten.

To each his own, I guess. I sat through it last night. Halfway through I was depressed and bored beyond belief. Great performances but I realized I didn't care what happened to any of these people. I really can't describe how tedious I found it despite the performances (maybe they were too good) BUT when Liza sang the title song I knew why I stuck with it. WOW!