I have spent a lot of time thinking about* New York New York *since I watched it for the first time several days ago. On paper, it should be a movie that I love. It stars Robert De Niro as he was cresting the peak of his sizable abilities as a actor; it’s full of great music from the big band era; it’s directed by Martin Scorsese, one of my favorite directors working in one of his most creative periods; it’s a character study with a sense of style; I could go on and on because really there is nothing about this movie that I shouldn’t like. But I don’t like it. The pieces don’t quite fit together and at the end of the day I don’t think that it works.
I appreciate what I think Scorsese was trying to do here. In the intro on the DVD he says that this was his first “Hollywood” movie after making a bunch of independent movies in New York, and that as such he wanted to make something that was reminiscent of the old Golden Age movies he grew up on. He wanted the style, the exaggerated beauty and color of those films, but at the same time he wanted to bring to it that same naturalistic sense of reality that he had used so well in films like Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, and Mean Streets, and Taxi Driver. And I thought to myself while I was watching it, “that sounds really interesting!” After watching New York New York, I think…why? What works about that? What is the point? In the end the only thing that the mixing of the styles did was to dilute them both. The naturalism was undermined by the style, and the style was made to look silly because of the naturalism.
But, it was a starting point for Scorsese. He was later able to balance these ideas quite effectively and push through creating his own unique sense of hyper reality that would be seen in films like Casino, The Age of Innocence, Bringing Out the Dead, and Gangs of New York, to name a few. So from that perspective, it is interesting to watch a director start to abandon the neo-Cassavetes style he had be working with and begin to find his own voice. It’s a struggle, and at times a bit painful to watch, but it is a start.
Beyond that stylistic stumbling block though, was the story. I don’t know about anyone else, but I found myself totally unable to engage with the characters. Jimmy Doyle is a bastard, Francine is a whiner and I can’t for the life of me understand why they stayed together as long as they did. As a character study of the two people and their relationship, I found myself totally unable to care about them or their problems. It is possible that had I not seen so many other films with essentially the same characters and plotlines already (many of which quite probably came after New York New York, but certainly not all of them) I would have been more interested, but like the stylistic choices the story seemed to me more homage than a story and was undermined by the knowing wink back to the films of old. The expressionistic bits, like the couple dancing under the streetlight in the beginning of the film, while beautiful, are a little on the nose in terms of metaphor and make the whole endeavor feel just a bit trite.
I wanted to like this movie, and came close to liking it even, I think. I PMd **twickster **after I finished watching it to tell her that I wouldn’t be able to write this OP on the 15th like I was supposed to and mentioned that I hadn’t decided if I had liked it yet. There is a lot of good stuff in the film, but at the end of the day if feels more like an experiment than a film, and the center doesn’t hold. It’s missing something genuine that gives it life and spark and ends up being just an experiment, an interesting idea that doesn’t quite work out the way the film makers intended.