Thugs with thick skins: in Goodfellas (1990) De Niro boils over with conflicting emotions. Photo: Moviestorecollection.com
Show Hide image

Mythical, merciless butchness: Martin Scorsese’s men

From De Niro’s snarl to DiCaprio’s sinewy wildness, no director has explored masculinity as acutely as Scorsese, writes Tom Shone

Do you know how Martin Scorsese came to cast Ray Liotta in Goodfellas? At the height of the controversy over The Last Temptation of Christ, the director took his film to the Venice Film Festival, and one morning, walking out of his hotel on the Lido, he saw Liotta across the lobby. The actor’s audition tape had just arrived at his office back in New York. “I got the tape!” he called out. “I haven’t been able to view it yet!”

As Liotta came towards him, one of Scorsese’s bodyguards grabbed the actor’s arm and Scorsese noticed something interesting: the actor held his ground with the bigger men, but made them understand he was no threat. “Oh, he understands that kind of situation,” he thought. Goodfella.

If masculinity were a product, then Italian-American masculinity – florid, violent, hungry for respect, as thin-skinned as Italian sausage – would be the brand leader, thanks to the movies. What does it say that a generation of men, asked to pinpoint a film that speaks to them as men, will quote lines from The Godfather or Goodfellas? A certain butchness has always attended the inner circles of auteur theory, which allowed the boys’ club of the nouvelle vague to swoon over the ritualised violence of Hitchcock and Hawks without embarrassment. Somehow, it’s harder to think of critics today wanting to apply the term “greatest living director” to one of our feminised beta males – a Spielberg, say, or a Woody Allen.

Real auteurs don’t care about pleasing the crowd, or fantasy, or jokes. They give you a piece of their mind. They get their films off their chest, hewing them from the rock face of their impenetrable psyche. Good­fellas is convincing on so many levels – from the thrust and parry of the wiseguys’ talk to the flora and fauna of their clothes and apartments – that it’s easy to forget that underneath it runs a piece of wish fulfilment as plangent as that of Spielberg’s desire to be visited by aliens. As Scorsese put it: “It’s what I thought of these guys when I was six.” Underneath all the carpeting and ­double-breasted suits is a dream of what it is to pass muster with thugs.

The body language Scorsese recognised in Liotta was his own, growing up on the streets of Little Italy, New York: antennae attuned to the first sign of trouble, anxious to avoid another beating from his elder brother, making everyone laugh by talking very fast, turning his nerves into comedy. And beneath the laughter, beneath the nerves? Humiliation. It was a “humiliation” for Scorsese’s family to move back in with his grandparents on Elizabeth Street after an altercation with a landlord. Humiliation, too, was what he saw on the street; good men turned into nervous wrecks by their work for the rackets.

It is the thing the protagonists of his films fear the most, certainly in those he made with Robert De Niro, that kettle drum of thin-skinnedness, who turns Taxi Driver into one long trawl for potential insults and affronts to Travis’s dignity: he picks them up like radio signals. It is the great Scorsese paradox, the source of so much comedy as well as tragedy in his work, that men capable of unleashing such violence do so at the daintiest of provocations: a misunderstood word (“mook”), a glance, the number of blueberries in a muffin. “It was outta respect,” says Henry Hill (Liotta) as he torches a parking lot in Goodfellas, and when Scorsese lost the Best Picture Oscar to Dances with Wolves in 1990, the thing that hurt him the most? “They put me in the front row with my mother, and then I didn’t win” – the ultimate slap to an Italian male.

And the women? Let’s start with his mother, in fact, as she is the source of so much, not least the cascading torrents of talk that spill from Joe Pesci in Goodfellas, or Sandra Bernhard in The King of Comedy. “Why are you sitting over there?” asks Catherine Scorsese of her husband, Charlie, seeing him perched on the end of the sofa at the start of Italianamerican, Scorsese’s 1974 documentary about his parents. “This man, after 42 years of marriage, and he sits over there!” Voluble, quick-witted, with a flair for self-dramatisation that explains why she found it so easy to slip into the ensembles of Goodfellas and Casino (she has 13 acting credits), Catherine is star material. She was also the inspiration for Ellen Burstyn’s Alice in Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, Scorsese’s outlier about “emotions and feelings and relationships”, for which Burstyn won the Oscar for her sparky, rebellious, humorously self-martyring mother.

The movie is a gem – easily Scorsese’s most underrated film, blithe and funny and heartbroken. It was made at that point in his romantic development when even his disappointments felt fresh, too absorbed with what the critic Manny Farber called “a visceral apprehension about an eager-messy world” to know yet what a “Scorsese film” was, or what subjects it should confine itself to. In fact, if you set Taxi Driver to one side, the number of these early films of his which are about “emotions and feelings and relationships” – Who’s That Knocking at My Door; Boxcar Bertha; Mean Streets; Alice; New York, New York – outweigh the films hewing at the rock face of the impenetrable masculine psyche by a margin of five to one. Sometimes I wonder what Scorsese’s career might have looked like if he hadn’t met De Niro and stuck with Harvey Keitel – so supple a presence, so full of sprezzatura, with a touch even of the ladies’ man. “He would be much more comfortable around new people, or new women,” Scorsese noted, a little awed by attributes he felt he lacked. “He was a little more fearless.”

No. He would give himself over to the tetchy, saturnine genius of De Niro, mining the actor’s volatility in four films, back to back, by the end of which even Scorsese was wondering if the actor would ever let him go. They shot 19 takes of Raging Bull’s climax, in which Jake LaMotta delivers Brando’s “I could have been a contender” speech from On the Waterfront to a mirror. De Niro favoured the more emotional take. Scorsese wanted it flat. So they watched both, back to back, but failed to change each other’s mind. “I still think the one I have is best,” said the director. “All right,” said De Niro, “let it go.” Which one was right? We’ll never know. It’s a measure of just how angry Scorsese was back then – with Holly­wood, with the audience that had, as he saw it, deserted him on New York, New York – that he refused to give them an inch. No tears. No redemption. Just survival.

Both men have now mellowed, De Niro tearing up in Silver Linings Playbook, and also while promoting his recent HBO documentary about his father. Scorsese not so much – Hugo notwithstanding, The Wolf of Wall Street had the snarling, scary life of someone falling off the wagon; Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance seemed fashioned entirely from muscle, sinew and will, bending himself to his master’s bidding. Maybe he venerates the director too much ever to give him a truly great performance – De Niro and Scorsese used to bicker like brothers. Silence, the director’s long-gestating adaptation of Shusaku Endo’s 1966 novel about Christian missionaries in Japan, feels like suitable atonement. Then it will finally be time to say goodbye to De Niro, who will appear alongside Pesci, Keitel and Al Pacino in Steven Zaillian’s script about a retired hitman, The Irishman. If it comes down to the wire in the editing suite again, this time I hope De Niro wins. 

Tom Shone’s “Scorsese: a Retrospective” is newly published by Thames & Hudson (£29.95 paperback)

This article first appeared in the 08 October 2014 issue of the New Statesman, Grayson Perry guest edit

JOHN OGILBY/PRIVATE COLLECTION/BRIDGEMAN IMAGES
Show Hide image

Why did Britain's first road atlas take you to Aberystwyth?

Alan Ereira's new The Nine Lives of John Ogilby tells the story of a remarkable book – and its remarkable creator.

John Ogilby was a talented dancer with a bright future. Performing at White Hall Palace in February 1619, the 18-year-old leapt higher than ever to impress the watching James I and his queen. But then, crashing to the floor with a torn ligament, Ogilby never danced again. It was one of many misfortunes he overcame in a remarkable life. He went on to become a theatrical impresario, the deputy master of the revels in Ireland, a poet, a translator and a publisher of ancient classics. He even organised the public celebration of Charles II’s coronation. He was also an accomplished soldier, sailor and spy, as Alan Ereira reveals in this entertaining account of his “lives” and times.

It was a remarkable collection of lives for a man born in Scotland in 1600 and raised in poverty, the illegitimate son of an aristocrat. Yet Ogilby’s greatest achievement was to put Britain on the map when he was appointed “His Majesty’s Cosmographer and Geographick Printer” in 1674. His Britannia is the first detailed road atlas ever made. It opens with a map of England and Wales showing, he wrote, “all the principal roads actually measured and delineated”. It contains a hundred or so beautifully engraved plans of roads as winding ribbons sliced into sections. Rivers, forests, villages and bridges are included as landmarks.

Embracing the new science of measurement and experiment championed by the Royal Society, Ogilby’s surveyors used a wheel with a circumference of 16ft 6in and a handle that allowed it to be pushed along, as well as a clock face that recorded journey distances. With no universally agreed length of a mile, Ogilby chose 1,760 yards. Britannia led to the accurate measurement of almost 27,000 miles of tracks, paths and roads, though only about 7,500 are depicted in the atlas at one inch to the mile.

Britannia was published in September 1675. There were few who could afford it, at £5 (roughly £750 in today’s money), and it was too heavy to carry. Instead, travellers found their way around the country by following printed itineraries, with lists of the towns to pass through on any particular journey.

Britannia is not, as Ereira explains, an atlas of commercially useful roads of the day. The first journey is an odd one, from London to Aberystwyth, then a town of fewer than 100 houses and a ruined castle. Some of the roads chosen were no longer in use, while important routes such as those to Liverpool and Sheffield were left out.

But the choice of roads in Britannia begins to make sense as being those necessary for the royal mastery of the kingdom. The London to Aberystwyth road led to mines nearby. In the days of Charles I those mines contained lead and silver that helped the king pay his soldiers during the civil war. Britannia was a handbook, Ereira explains, for a conspiracy leading to a new kingdom under a Catholic king.

Ever since the start of the Reformation, Europe had been rumbling towards a religious war. When it came on the mainland it lasted 30 years and left millions dead. The subsequent Peace of Westphalia led to a new map of Europe, one of countries and defined frontiers instead of feudal territories with unclear borders and independent cities. England was not included in the peace but shared in its vision of separate sovereignty. This led to different results in different places. In France, the king became an all-powerful despot; in England it was the ruler who lost power as parliament emerged triumphant.

In 1670 Charles I’s son Charles II decided to throw off the restraints he had accepted as the price of his restored monarchy. He wanted to be the absolute master in his land. To achieve this, he entered into a secret treaty with the French king Louis XIV. Charles needed money, an army, allies to execute his plan, and detailed knowledge of the kingdom; Louis was willing to bankroll the venture as long as Charles converted to Catholicism. Britannia was a vital part of Charles’s strategy to assert military control: he would use it to help land and deploy the 6,000 French troops that Louis had promised him to assist his forces. The pact remained a well-kept secret for nearly a century, even though it soon fell apart when the French and British got bogged down in a war with the Dutch.

No matter. Ogilby died in September 1676 and in 1681 Charles II dissolved parliament for the last time during his reign. “Britannia provided an extraordinary grasp over the business and administration of the 399 communities that it identified in England and Wales, and the crown took a grip on them all,” Ereira writes.

In this way, the atlas played a significant part in enabling the king’s revenue to grow by one-third within a few years. No longer needing financial help from Louis, Charles ruled by divine right, exercising absolute power until his death in 1685. The lesson of Britannia was that whoever controls the map controls the world.

Manjit Kumar is the author of “Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality” (Icon)

This article first appeared in the 12 January 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's revenge