Add a Review

  • When the British Film Institute asked Martin Scorcese to create the American part of its Century of the Cinema series, he grabbed the opportunity with both hands. A Personal Journey through American Movies is a fascinating, wide-ranging and, as the title says, a highly personal look at Hollywood cinema.

    Scorcese's story is primarily about Hollywood's directors – actors, producers, screenwriters and other collaborators barely get a mention. He states right from the beginning that for him the primary conflict within the film industry is that between the director's vision and the distributor's profit motive, between art and commercial viability. He even opens with a clip from Vincente Minnelli's The Bad and the Beautiful, one of the earliest films to openly explore this contradiction. This dictates the structure for the documentary. Scorcese looks at how genres have darkened and clichés have become challenged, how mavericks have challenged the production code, and how certain filmmakers fell from grace when they dared to be different. However, Scorcese never falls into the auteurist trap of dismissing directors who consistently pleased the studio bosses (he lavishes praise on Cecil B. De Mille), or those who had less of a recognisable style but were master craftsmen of the cinema nonetheless.

    Scorcese doesn't necessarily focus on his absolute favourite directors either (Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock, two of Scorcese's biggest influences, are only mentioned in passing). Instead, he looks at the individuals and the films that serve to tell his story. For example, he shows us a succession of John Ford films to show how the western evolved. He looks at the work of Vincente Minnelli (probably the most often referenced director of the documentary) to show how a supposedly wholesome genre like the musical could also have darker undercurrents. I can imagine that, had this assignment not been limited to America, Scorcese would have also loved to talk about, for example his Italian influences or his British hero Michael Powell. As it is, he stretches the definition of American movies to include both the Hollywood films of immigrant directors such as FW Murnau, Billy Wilder and Douglas Sirk, as well as the work of US-born filmmakers that was produced elsewhere – such as that of Stanley Kubrick.

    Rather than simply tell the story of Hollywood chronologically, Scorcese compares films from various eras in order to tackle various subjects. In his section on the language and tools of cinema, he begins with DW Griffith, looks at the coming of sound, colour and widescreen and inevitably ends up going over computer generated effects which, although Scorcese is not keen on them, he is even-handed enough to include clips of George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola defending them. However, he doesn't simply finish the chapter here as if this is the end of it. Instead, he then rewinds back to the 1940s, to show how a low-budget horror like The Cat People can achieve effective results from the simplest and cheapest of elements.

    A Personal Journey through American Movies has to be one of the best film documentaries made. There were a number of outstanding directors and pictures which I would never have discovered without, and even the most seasoned of film buffs would be likely to find something new in its broad scope. Scorcese has also restored the balance to forgotten or undervalued pictures. I was pleased to see that, when he talks about Kubrick in his "Iconoclasts" chapter, he looks at Lolita and Barry Lindon, for me his two most underrated films. Scorcese's respect for the medium is on display in the way he allows clips to play out fully, rather than just giving us tiny bits, and he interrupts them with talking heads (a combination of archive and new interviews) only when necessary. There is a bit of bias towards the 40s and 50s, but that is hardly surprising since it is the era in which Scorcese grew up and discovered cinema. And after all, I don't think this documentary could have been achieved had it not been a personal journey.

    One word of warning though, in its in depth look at certain pictures, this documentary does contain a fair few spoilers.
  • WendyOh!20 June 2001
    Thank the Lord for Martin Scorsese, and his love of the movies.

    This is the perfect introduction into the mind of the most talented American artist working in cinema today, and I couldn't recommend it more. I was enthralled through the whole thing and you will be too. Just relax and let him take you on a ride through his world, you'll love it.
  • As a "rebuttle" of sorts to the AFI's top 100 films, the British Film Institute worked out a documentary with Martin Scorsese.

    Now. I am a huge film fan and pride myself on having seen many, many films. But, I am nowheres in comparrison with my idol. In this fantastic (though long) documentary, Scorsese walks the viewer through several stages of the American History on film. This is divided in to several sections including the Western, the Gangster film and the Noir. Full of bouncy enthusiasm, Martin Scorsese is a great tour guide as well as a fantastic professor.
  • There's a mystical air you get when Martin Scorsese's talking about movies, his passion, especially if it's a shared passion with the viewer. The second his mouth opens you start to slowly realize, he knows what he's talking about.

    What a tremendous opportunity to listen to such a brilliant director discuss his inspirations. It was especially magical to watch over and over this three part documentary set for that reason. It's a wonderful gift to be able to find out what your inspiration is inspired by. I especially enjoyed listening to Scorsese directly credit films that effected the way he made some of his films. HIGHLY recommended to any movie buff with the balls to learn something new from a fantastic teacher.
  • Huge, exhaustive and passionate summary of American cinema as seen through the eyes of Martin Scorcese. Needless to say, there is never a dull moment in all of its 4 hour running time. Many genres, periods and directors are all examined, discussed more from the perspective of cinephile rather than contemporary director. For anyone even remotely interested in American films, or cinema in general. A masterpiece, and the best of the BFI's Century of Cinema series.
  • I was in danger of getting a neck cramp watching this movie, from all the nodding I was doing. Nodding in agreement with Scorsese's observations and especially his choice of films. It might have been called "A Personal Journey Through My DVD Collection" as he touched on many of my personal favorites, too many to start listing. His selection avoids many of the obvious milestones and leans towards the more obscure (although in the DVD era, most of them are widely available and now highly-regarded), especially when it comes to my beloved film noir. His passion is clear, his knowledge is thorough, and his comments are insightful. The documentary flows nicely, although occasionally he dwells on a certain clip or movie for too long. I can't say I learned a lot from this movie, but I did pick up a couple of new titles to check out, and it should be a fantastic intro for blossoming film buffs.
  • Prolific and highly influential filmmaker Martin Scorsese examines a selection of his favorite American films grouped according to three different types of directors: the director as an illusionist: D.W. Griffith or F. W. Murnau, who created new editing techniques among other changes that made the appearance of sound and color later step forward; the director as a smuggler: filmmakers such as Douglas Sirk, Samuel Fuller, and mostly Vincente Minnelli, directors who used to disguise rebellious messages in their films; and the director as iconoclast: those filmmakers attacking civil observations and social hang-ups like Orson Welles, Erich von Stroheim, Charles Chaplin, Nicholas Ray, Stanley Kubrick, and Arthur Penn.

    He shows us how the old studio system in Hollywood was, though oppressive, the way in which film directors found themselves progressing the medium because of how they were bound by political and financial limitations. During his clips from the movies he shows us, we not only discover films we've never seen before that pique our interest but we also are made to see what he sees. He evaluate his stylistic sensibilities along with the directors of the sequences themselves.

    The idea of a film canon has been reputed as snobbish, hence some movie fans and critics favor to just make "lists." However, canon merely denotes "the best" and supporters of film canon argue that it is a valuable activity to identify and experience a select compilation of the "best" films, a lot like a greatest hits tape, if just as a beginning direction for film students. All in all, one's experience has shown that all writing about film, including reviews, function to construct a film canon. Some film canons can definitely be elitist, but others can be "populist." As an example, the Internet Movie Database's Top 250 Movies list includes many films included on several "elitist" film canons but also features recent Hollywood blockbusters at which many film "elitists" scoff, like The Dark Knight, which presently mingles in the top ten amidst the first two Godfather films, Schindler's List and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and the fluctuation of similar productions further down such as Iron Man, Sin City, Die Hard, The Terminator and Kill Bill: Vol. 2. Writer Scorsese's Taxi Driver Paul Schrader has straightforwardly referred to his canon as "elitist" and contends that this is positive.

    Scorsese is never particularly vocal at all about his social and political ideologies, but when we see this intense and admittedly obsessive history lesson on the birth and growth of American cinema in both ideological realms, we see that there is really no particular virtue in either elitism or populism. Elitism concentrates all attention, recognition and thus power on those deemed outstanding. That discrimination could easily lead to self-indulgence much in the vein of the condescending work of Jean-Luc Godard or the overrationalization of the production practices of a filmmaker like Michael Haneke. Yet populism invokes a belief of representative freedom as being only the assertion of the people's will. As has been previously asserted about the all-encompassing misconceptions the people have about cinema, populism could be the end of the potential power and impact of cinema. One can only continue seeing films, because it is a vital social and metaphysical practice. And that's what Martin Scorsese spends nearly four hours here trying to tell us, something which can't be told without being seen first-hand.
  • Quinoa19845 July 2000
    This documentary was interesting, but it was also long (so long it lasts a total of 225 minutes), like Ben-Hur long. But if your into that, this is for you. But only if you have a passion for movies, like I do. Being that Martin Scorsese is my favorite director (live and maybe even ever), this is quite fascinating, especially if you know the style of Scorsese's works. Because then you can understand where he got his inspiration for many of his films. Not the best documentary film ever made, but it is a leap for Scorsese, which is always good to watch. A
  • onepotato22 August 2008
    Warning: Spoilers
    Thre isn't a single Scorsese movie I'd place on a list of my favorite movies. But this is the best thing I've run through my DVD player in about five years. Scorsese's patient elucidation of favorite film moments, and how Hollywood works is incredibly gracious, calm and intelligent.

    It's 3 DVD-sides worth of material. It would have to be a British production, since everything about American corporate culture would have trampled the quiet, methodical, no frills, put-the-focus-on-the-content approach that is taken here. And an American production would have demanded he say he liked only movies that were popular favorites. I wish everyone took a page from his love of movies. You should love the movies you do for personal, idiosyncratic and specific reasons. Not just more "Me-too" votes for The Godfather, etc.. People have no clue what ideas are being explored in their favorite movies. If they did, movies would be more interesting than they are. Scorsese DOES know what ideas are being explored, and that makes him a compelling, involved speaker on the topic. I really appreciate his articulate, generous interviews over the last decade.

    On a negative note, Scorsese is best when he's excited to show you some obscure movie, rather than when he's didactically teaching you something well-established about film history. And I do wish he pluck those three hairs out of the bridge of his nose. It's very distracting.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Martin Scorsese takes us on a journey through the history of American movies, roughly from the early silents to the late 1960s, though there are a few more recent pictures discussed as well. He does this with wisdom and insight, in a calm, soothing voice. Along the way, you get to relive some famous scenes from well-known movies, as well as discover films you had probably never even heard of. Of course any viewer might complain that their favorite movies are missing, but hey, that's why it says "personal" journey on the title, Scorsese makes it clear that he wants to focus on the films that influenced him and shaped him the most. One negative about this documentary: too many spoilers!! Otherwise, recommended to film buffs - when they have 3+ hours to spare. *** out of 4.
  • dcousquer31 August 2001
    10/10
    great
    I would never have thought I would almost cry viewing one minute excerpted from a 1920 black and white movie without sound. Thanks to Martin Scorsese I did (the movie was from F. Borzage). You will start to understand (if it's not already the case), what makes a good movie.
  • tedg11 June 2002
    Warning: Spoilers
    Spoilers herein.

    Popular culture plays a central role in inventing a life, the first tenet of which is choosing which sources to ingest. Scorsese is worthy of exposure: he is earnest and skilled.

    But the second law of conscious self-invention is a matter of which ideas and notions you cleave to. For me, Scorsese doesn't make the cut and none of his films are on my `worth watching' list, including this one.

    That's because Martin has a perspective on film that misses the real magic, the value. His review of important directors here clearly shows this. It is as valuable in revealing the cleft between him and others more creative as its intended purpose in `revealing film.'

    Scorsese believes film is a child of the theater and that the purpose of both is to allow us to explore the humanity of each other. His commitment to film mirrors his earlier commitment to the ministry. All his films can be clearly seen in this light -- and so can his `personal history' of film. Even the form of this documentary turns out to be an exploration of a single, interesting being. And the evolution from early films is traced in singularly one-dimensional path of human exploration to the latest evolution shown: the extreme Cassavetes. Cassavetes makes pure emotional `encounter' pieces.

    All well. But there are richer notion of film, and art. And life. These have less to do with the character of what we see than HOW we see it and HOW we react, probe. Who we are is more the issue, especially when encountering self as a process of the art.

    Contrast Scorsese to his peers dePalma and Coppolla. All of Scorsese's projects are anchored in the character. The camera is slave to the character. All action, indeed the whole environment revolves around the person, even emanates from them. His world of `Goodfellas' is a world of people surrounded by space that we passively watch and sometimes follow.

    Coppolla on the other hand lives in the visual assembly. His mind is situated not in the center of the character's heart, but in the filmmaker's hands. That's why we get cinematic effects of action in one place paralleled or superimposed on action in another, amplifying both. The drama is moved by the situation (mostly the visual situation) and the characters are just objects in the tide. It is very intelligent, this manner of composition. It is a little too mannered in fact for my taste, but it is intrinsically a cinematic art (both words emphasized), far from where Scorsese comes from.

    Or consider dePalma. He is something between and more clever. His projects are even more selfaware, and anchored by the camera -- the Eye. His eye places the audience not in a theater seat, but makes us God. We swoop into and around the action, abstractly separated from it. The camera has motivation and expresses curiosity, determination equal to that of a character. Coppolla creates montages after Eisenstein; dePalma, great eye poems after the manner of Tarkovsky.

    Take your pick. I prefer the narrative intelligence of dePalma, but both he and Coppolla know something about the magic of cinema that eludes mister Scorsese. Taking his work to be important art, the stuff one uses to form a mind, is a lazy decision.
  • ....so intense and intimate is this rundown on the films that shaped

    the greatest filmmaker this country has ever produced. Centered

    around the idea of "The Director's Dilemma"--how to reconcile art

    and commerce--Scorsese treats this century-long war as one

    largely fought through subversion (by the auteur heroes whose B

    movies he champions), then triumphing through the birth pangs of

    the Personal Movie...represented here by Cassavetes, Kubrick,

    and (though he modestly declines to say it) himself. PERSONAL

    JOURNEY rivets not just because of its exquisitely chosen scenes

    (nobody on this planet has better taste in or a more encyclopedic

    knoeldge of movies), nor because of its idiosyncrasy (Scorsese

    finds every imaginable scene of hideous violence in the section on

    musicals), but because of its acute, delirious subjectivity. This is

    the closest to spot-on Scorsese autobiography we will probably

    ever get.
  • It comes on three tapes, but I could not help watching the whole thing through. Cinematic genius Scorsese shamelessly shares his love of the movies with the viewer. One of the best things about it is that it's just you, him, and a black backdrop, sort of like what Charlie Rose must have seen when he interviewed him. Yes, you will 'know' Scorsese after this. The documentary is so personal that you will feel as though the films spoken of had been recommended by a friend.
  • A personal & comprehensive look at American film history through the eyes of one of the most revered filmmakers of our era, this almost 4 hour long, 3-part documentary presents Martin Scorsese describing his own initial fascination & growing obsession with films and takes a look at both the acclaimed classics & forgotten gems that helped shape Scorsese as a person & a director while also enlightening us with the works of a few select luminaries whose bold creativity paved the foundation on which American cinema stands today. A must-see for film aficionados.
  • A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies (1995)

    **** (out of 4)

    If you're a film buff then there's no question that you'll want to watch this documentary, which clocks in just under four hours and features filmmaker Martin Scorsese talking about his journey through the American movies that helped shape him as a filmmaker.

    It's important to note that this really isn't a documentary on the history of American cinema but instead a look to Scorsese who discusses what films and genres were important to him. With that said, Scorsese is one of the most knowledgeable people that you'll ever hear from so we really get some great discussions here that cover a very wide range of movies.

    You get discussions on D.W. Griffith, Elia Kazan, Stanley Kubrick, Vincent Minelli and countless other filmmakers. You get discussions on horror movies, film noir, comedies, musicals as well as silent and sound films. Pretty much every genre and format is discussed here and it really gives one a great bit of information on Scorsese and you can see where some of these movies would eventually leak into his own films.

    Not only do we have Scorsese talking throughout the running time but there are also interviews with Gregory Peck, Billy Wilder, Clint Eastwood, Francis Ford Coppola, Brian De Palma, George Lucas, Arthur Penn, Andre De Toth and various others. What this film does so well is give new viewers a wide range of films for them to discover. After all, all film buffs have to start somewhere so watching a film like this will give them a great list of titles to check out and it also shows how cinema changed over the years and how the mood of cinema changed as well.

    This truly is a terrific picture and it certainly never feels like it's four hours. I've watched this a few times. Sometimes I watch it broken down into its three parts but I've also watched the complete thing from start to finish. It's certainly a marvelous achievement.