Hollywood's New Yorker: The Making of Martin Scorsese

Conclusion: The Next Scorsese (?): The Future of Artistic Reputations in American Cinema

201 Conclusion The Next Scorsese (?): The Future of Artistic Reputations in American Cinema In March 2000, Esquire magazine ran the feature “The Next ­ Scorsese” inviting film critics to pick the greatest filmmaker of the new genera‑ tion of American auteurs. The rise of American independent film‑ makers, who had emerged in the industry over the preceding decade, peaking in late 1999 and early 2000 with several critically acclaimed films that were compared to the Hollywood Renaissance of the 1970s, was the inspiration for this article. The tagline for the piece ran parallel with half of Scorsese’s face and read, “The most talented new generation of film directors since the auteurs of the ’70s is upon us. They won’t all last. They won’t all leave a great body of work. And they won’t all continue making ambitious movies. Which one of them will become . . . The Next Scorsese.”1 The criteria for generational greatness, of which Scorsese exemplifies, are longevity, productivity, and integrity. Within the popular entertainment industry, Scorsese had come to represent the industry’s best possible vision of itself and the artistic quality it is capable of delivering. Rather than polling film critics, Esquire asked several indi‑ viduals writing for popular outlets to give and briefly justify their choices (they did, however, allow readers to voice their opinion in an online poll). New York Times film critic Elvis Mitchell chose the Wachowski brothers; Esquire critic Tom Carson selected Alexander Payne; Variety’s Todd McCarthy chose Paul Thomas Anderson; Los Angeles Times critic Kenneth Turan selected David O. Russell; New York Observer critic and auteur founder Andrew Sarris chose Kevin Smith; and, finally, Scorsese himself (Scorsese’s byline humorously reads “Martin Scorsese is, well, Martin Scorsese”) selected Wes Anderson. Nearly all of the critics concentrate on the question from a purely aesthetic position, trying to determine which current director will keep 202 Hollywood’s New Yorker producing high‑quality artistic films into the future. This is not a sur‑ prise. Contextual concerns are often ignored in writings on Scorsese. Intriguingly, the only exception to this is Andrew Sarris, the long‑time auteurist. In defending his choice of Kevin Smith, Sarris writes, “Smith’s flair for merchandising and recycling the fruits of his labor is one of the reasons I am betting on him to break out of the low‑budget ghetto and into the movie mainstream.”2 Perhaps unwittingly, Sarris is acknowledg‑ ing here that being considered the “next Scorsese” means mainstream acceptance and exposure, not simply artistic quality and integrity. But the other critics choose to ignore industrial factors and view “Scorsese” as solely an artistic entity. These choices and their critical defenses provide a microcosm of the now popularly held discourse on Scorsese and his aesthetic distinc‑ tion. Tom Carson, in his discussion of Alexander Payne, argues that “he’s already gone as far as he can go with the poignancy of drabness; it may be time for him to give Omaha a rest.”3 This can be seen as a reference to Scorsese’s own previous need to move away from his particular milieu. Todd McCarthy makes explicit reference to “Scorsese’s visual style” and its influence on Paul Thomas Anderson, and one can see similar con‑ nections with his argument that Anderson “has demonstrated a natural filmmaking flair, a bent for risk taking, and a predilection for taking actors where they might otherwise never get to go.”4 Kenneth Turan’s comments on his selection of David O. Russell are nearly identical: “Rus‑ sell wants to be both playing by the rules and bending them further than anyone thought to before. His films are audacious and entertaining, Hollywood with a twist, able to deliver traditional satisfactions while precariously far out on a limb. No matter what challenges Russell sets for himself, he seems to have no difficulty carrying them off.”5 This insider‑outsider dynamic that Turan praises in Russell is exactly what has allowed Scorsese to earn his own reputation. Scorsese’s critical appraisal of his own choice, Wes Anderson, follows this same discourse. He com‑ pares Anderson to both renowned Hollywood director Leo McCarey and French auteur Jean Renoir, echoing his and others strategy of placing Scorsese in the pantheon alongside his influences and idols. He notes that Anderson “has a fine sense of how music works against an image,” much like the reputation Scorsese has gained from his use of popular music in modern cinema. Scorsese ends his appreciation of...