Movies We've Just Watched discussion
Movies of the Month
>
F-word, c-words, a-words, d-words
date
newest »
newest »
I applaud your first paragraph. These are exactly my sentiments. Expletives are boring, wearying, monotonous--and a terrible style with which to write dialog.However, I can't go along with the rationalization in your second paragraph. I see no reason to 'make an exception' for any movie. Hardly would I do so for any recent-release movie, in particular. Not for either merit or charity would I accept a lesser measure. I'd insist on applying the principle firmly (not for the least of which reason might be, to avoid a hypocritical or inconsistent stance). I insist that inordinate cussing in dialogue is never necessary simply because the principle is always solid; always the better aesthetic route to take.
There's been other 'hit movies' in the past 10-15 years which featured excessive cussing; (all of them going this way, pretty much thanks to Quentin Tarantino). They fail to impress. The cussing is a major reason why they're unwatchable, even though they all have glowing reputations with the public (which doesn't sway me either: the public is wrong. The public are morons).
There's also been other hit movies about American greed. No need to gush over it. Me, I grew up on classic Hollywood. That was a system which never broke its own rules--never cut corners--never had any easy breaks. Cussing, violence, and gratuituous nudity are the cheap ways to attract viewers. Classic Hollywood got along without any of these crutches. Yet, the products generated during that period, are still the peak examples of craftsmanship ever seen in this medium. To this very day.
I'm sticking to my guns. No exceptions. Expletives are always a dud in a screenplay. No two ways about it.
Before the Hayes Office began to forbid them, risqué situations and dialogs with double entendres were common in movies. Also, you can't compare cinematography today with the stylized world of black and white flicks. I love them, but also realize that they didn't have the equipment that movie makers have now. We would be thoroughly bored by cinema if it were still only b&w and static cameras. Movable cameras, new mikes,and incredibly better audio have certainly changed film. The classic films in b&w are still wonderful, and the b&w film in noir is still worthy of a frame by frame examination. My point is, that with no disrespect to silent films, b&w movies, or even early technicolor, you can't really use the classics as some sort of yardstick for today's movies. Nor can you disparage b&w movies by comparing them to more modern efforts. It's like listening to Tschaikowsky one day, but switching to Steve Perry another time.
Elaine wrote: "Before the Hayes Office began to forbid them, risqué situations and dialogs with double entendres were common in movies..." Yes, I'm aware of that. Relevance? The Pre-Code era was was early Hollywood; not the mature industry that it came to be. They did a lot of things in the early days which were happily, discarded from the standard production methodology. Its not just the results which speak for themselves: the professionals who worked in the 40's & 50's can attest (to what any artist anywhere usually learns): 'constraints' make better art.
Elaine wrote: "Also, you can't compare cinematography today with the stylized world of black and white flicks..."
I do this all the time. Why oughtn't I? Probably because the contemporary system suffers in comparison too much? But that's the measure by which you have to judge quality, right? Precedents matter. Set the newcomer against the best and see how it stacks up.
Elaine wrote: "I love them, but also realize that they didn't have the equipment that movie makers have now..."
Yes, much to the detriment of contemporary productions and much to the great good fortune of the earlier practitioners. Because the new equipment is a disaster.
Elaine wrote: "Movable cameras, new mikes,and incredibly better audio have certainly changed film..."
For the worse!
Elaine wrote: "We would be thoroughly bored by cinema if it were still only b&w and static cameras..."
Says who? That style remained in place for decades and no one complained. And, today's directors (the ones worth a damn) are all the time trying to go back to it. Its the most powerful form of movie-making ever known.
Elaine wrote: "My point is, that with no disrespect to silent films, b&w movies, or even early technicolor, you can't really use the classics as some sort of yardstick for today's movies..."
It is rather, the very best yardstick.
Elaine wrote: "Nor can you disparage b&w movies by comparing them to more modern efforts..."
When people attempt this, they rather show themselves up for fools. Its usually the gambit of the neophyte, multi-plex, blockbuster moviegoer. They're rather misguided apologists, because the comparison doesn't flatter the contemporary industry at all. All the honor is in the past. Similarly, in the field of painting, there's only one Italian Renaissance: because it only happened once. Painting didn't stop after the 1500s, but it certainly wasn't the same.
Elaine wrote: "It's like listening to Tschaikowsky one day, but switching to Steve Perry another time..."
A lot of people actually use this kind of stance as a defense, but its misleading. Sure, anyone can listen to anything they want to at any time. That's not at issue. The point is, seeing clearly what the attributes are for each style (of music, in this case) and seeing them clearly. Giving our cultural products proper 'rank' and 'weight'. This is becoming increasingly important in an era where orchestras are going bankrupt and money is hurled instead, at boy-bands practicing in their garages.
Capitalism sometimes forces us to choose what to preserve and what to discard. Resources are not unlimited in this world; so its somewhat of a latent responsibility on our shoulders, to choose correctly. We don't place a child's fingerpainting experiment alongside a Picasso and call them the same quality; and there's no reason why we should. There's every reason why we shouldn't. Another example: old Pennsylvania Station in New York. That's what can happen with this 'everything goes' attitude. Criticism has to be applied when necessary. Otherwise, you wind up with a situation like Americans taking 80 years to discover 'Moby Dick' and instead, esteem gets heaped on 'Hiawatha'.
well, you're welcome to your time bubble, Mr. Dzerzhinski and if you prefer to live in it rather than the 21st century, that's entirely up to you. but it doesn't effectively move the hands on the clock backwards. classic Hollywood didn't allow a man and a wife to be presented in bed together unless one had a foot on the floor. that was entirely artificial and laughably silly at the time. I don't see much reason to mourn its passing or laud its superiority. much of what is made today is garbage, but in reality, one could say much the same of 30s and 40s.
p.s. if memory serves, it was the movie studios who felt the need to police themselves; and so it was they who created the Hayes Office for that purpose, rather than vice-versa. They gave the authority to Hayes of their own free accord.
No, the Catholic League of Decency, which already banned movies for Catholics, threatened to publish as unfit any movie made in Hollywood. Then the studios didn't dare refuse to have an outsider calibrate morality in pictures. The censors actually detested the movie makers. In those days, the industry was run by immigrant Jews who didn't have WASP manners. Both Will Hayes and Joseph Breen overtly hated Jews. Did you know that Roosevelt sent Joe Kennedy to tell all the movie moguls not to make any movies about the persecution of Jews in Europe. If they did, they were told that the entire Jewish community in America would suffer?
I'm not sure what the logic was in the assumption that 'American jews would suffer' if informed of what was happening in Germany. Suffer how?Hayes Office: Catholics or not, no outside authority had the power to actually force Hollywood studios to do anything. Remember that no one had to 'force' radio to censor radio programs, either. It was simply standard professional practice; and came about because they-knew-what-they-were-doing and how-best-to-do-it.
Also --if you recall--Hollywood movies were the 'only game in town' as far as visual entertainment media. They had to serve all age ranges and all audience types. From kids to Great-grandparents. It would have been a disaster, if studios restricted themselves to 'seamy romps'.
In cinema, a bit of modest/clean restraint was recognized as simply better grounds for filmmaking. After all, you can't get very far artistically if you just 'play on' salacious material. Its a dead-end, and they were smart enough to see it.
Besides, after talkies came in, Hollywood received most of its material from Broadway plays, novels, and other eastern culture. How much illicit material was in them? Not much.
George wrote: "well, you're welcome to your time bubble, Mr. Dzerzhinski and if you prefer to live in it rather than the 21st century, that's entirely up to you. ..."But the truth is, I'm not speaking merely from my own opinion. I'm grounding my comments on basic points of media history.
I've never heard a good reason from any fan of today's films why they should be taken seriously at all. Meanwhile, you would have to seek long and far, to find any tenured or published film scholar praise 'modern filmmaking' one whit over the past. What does that say to you? I'm talking, 'pound-for-pound'. There is no comparison that anyone knowledgeable really subscribes to, favoring present vs past.
In the Golden Age, every studio pretty much made two pictures every week; and the ratio of 'quality' to 'filler' was extraordinary. Can't even remotely be matched in the present era. Its an established level of greatness which isn't seriously questioned by anyone with any sense.
Rather, its the current crop of movie-makers which have to prove themselves against this standard, just as their predecessors in any post-studio decade had to do. Hey, the 60s and 70s had a preponderance of superb films; so why not today? Making films with gee-whiz 'high technology' is an absolutely empty honor, if it doesn't make them better. Its just ludicrous to submit that computer-enhancement makes better films. The truth is, it does not.
George wrote: "classic Hollywood didn't allow a man and a wife to be presented in bed together unless one had a foot on the floor..."
Try basing an argument on more than an oddball, clumsy, 'extreme example' if you want me to respect what I'm hearing.
George wrote: "that was entirely artificial ..."
No more artificial than a porn movie made today. Or do you somehow imagine that XXX videos represent realistic adult behavior? Is all it takes to make a film 'robust' --in your eyes--is more exposed boobs?
In your remarks, you really are hilariously missing the broad, underlying, fundamental, point of cinema: movies are about human relationships, emotion, dialog, interaction. They're a heightened form of reality; and not intended to be 'precisely real' in the first place. 'Realistic' rather than 'real', is the ideal methodology. A couple on a bed giving the viewer engaging dialog--that is where the artistry comes in--and that is what you can't find anymore. Acting and emotion. Showing instead, more graphic nudity or expletives in a bad film, doesn't do anything but compound the error. Its lipstick-on-a-pig.
George wrote: "and laughably silly at the time...."
No, it really didn't obstruct or interfere with the audience's appreciation of films, at all as much as you're implying via the convenience and distortion of hindsight. No one at the time clamored that Hollywood should 'show more smut'.
Its bizarre to imagine that the generation of Americans in the 30s and 40s had the exact same attitudes toward sex that we do today. A ridiculous and all-too-common blunder lately.
George wrote: "I don't see much reason to mourn its passing or laud its superiority. ..."
Then you're not any kind of movie-buff or movie-fan, I guess. That's fine.
George wrote: "much of what is made today is garbage, ..."
True enough.
George wrote: "but in reality, one could say much the same of 30s and 40s..."
Actually, no--you couldn't. Not convincingly. I'm not sure what bubble you choose to inhabit, but this assumption on your part is not a 'given' at all.
George wrote: "but it doesn't effectively move the hands on the clock backwards..."
In any kind of art, you look to the best level of excellence, no matter when it took place. That's why we value the Renaissance more than we do, the Dark Ages.
Nothing you've said 'moves the hands forward' as far as I can see.
well that certainly took long enough to bubble up to the surface. it seems my few comments embedded themselves rather deeply under your skin. in any case, who was talking about porno, or do you just find it impossible to distinguish between XXX and R or even PG13 films? I don't think film in the 21st century need focus only on human sexuality in its various forms only that directors and writers should be free to explore that as they see fit, when they do see fit. As for the Renaissance art you profess to admire so much, it's reasonably clear those artists felt free to expose the female form, so why does the female breast on film repulse you so? why do you seem to want to keep film artists confined in chains in the Lubyanka? it would be interesting to know why you use the film image and first name of the first director of the Soviet secret police as your avatar though. Personally, I prefer Riley.
Sigh. Look. Let's take just one example from what Elaine started off with: 'improved digital audio', she says. Seems grand, at face value, right? But its very deceptive. Think about it: what is the benefit of new-and-improved, atomic-powered audio when--at the same time--all the 'background sound effects' you might conceivably hear in a movie..these days..are all purchased from just a handful of West Coast 'sound library' firms? Yep. That's right. Instead of actually improved audio you are instead forced to suffer a dramatic de-evolution in the art of movie-sound itself.
We have to bear a canned stock of the same, tired, corny, over-used, over-worn, sound clips... woven in-and-out of every flick. That's why every movie lately sounds exactly the same as any other movie. That's why action-films always have these painfully predictable "whooshing" sounds in every scene. Looped-clips of "heavy vault doors slamming shut". It is to groan over.
Is it an enhancement? Is it keeping craftsmanship thriving? Nope. Its a rush to the 'cheap solution' instead of the more costly, artistic, traditional technique. 'Buy' the sound you need--from a storehouse--instead of creating it as fresh as possible, for each production.
As for movie scores--the music (which is another possible beneficiary of enhanced digital audio which Elaine alluded to) that also, has gone by the wayside. Why, for cryin' out loud, you have 'The Great Gatsby' re-make with hip-hop pop songs in the soundtrack! Supposedly, this modern gaffe been going on even as far back as the Kevin Costner 'Robin Hood'. (I hadn't known that they put pop-songs in that POS).
So you tell me--wouldn't you say it is a mark of basic competence that when making a period-piece film--that you don't use contemporary music? When you have that level of in-competence, what good is increased audio clarity?
Recall that even Warner Bros' WWII-era "Merry-Melodies" and "Looney Toons" cartoons, had **full orchestra backing** and the compositional genius of Carl Stalling behind them. See what I'm sayin'? Yep, even a 1940s cartoon had better bang-for-the-buck--in terms of audio--than a blockbuster motion-picture of today.
I am simply against any technology which robs artists of the opportunity to hone their craftsmanship. If you want to talk about that topic (with regard to cinema) then surely you must see that this is what's happening, and on a massive scale.
Why, with the shift--by studios and distributors--to digital cameras (instead of filming with traditional 35mm film stock) that means that any up-and-coming young director won't even be given the chance to matriculate his career using the full scope of the medium. His talent will be restricted. He will be forced to play in the 'kiddie-pool' of digital films only [which is frankly useless for serious or mature film directing].
Do you somehow think that after only a hundred years of cinema, we can blithely just 'shelve' 35mm stock, as useless? The most fluent and incredible format for things like lighting, cinematography, and composition? If so, I would really wonder why. After all, you know that the decision to abandon 35mm was strictly for the sake of saving distribution costs and not for any technical improvement to the way films actually look to the eye (at least, I hope you know this).
I could raise fifty more points like these I've just explored. The bottom line, is that too many people are led to assume that 'newer' must mean 'improved'. Sure, lots of things are improved over time. Better fuel economy cars, for instance. But you don't get improvement in movies, by taking away the human element.
Well, I wasn't at all impressed with the most recent Gatsby and certainly the modern music detracted from my point of view as well, among other things. Obviously, Gatsby's been done a few times before, so they were looking for a somewhat different approach and it's not hard to believe that modern audiences would be less than enthralled by actual 20s music. I also tire from all the emphasis on special effects and explosions and certainly this Gatsby was damaged by all that. in the end though, how much box office did it really do? and in reality, how much different would you say this approach was than Cecil B's Cleopatra with Claudette Colbert from 1934? Much of that was astonishingly silly and inane. I rather liked Claudette, but what about those dancing girls and Anthony's little night on the barge? as for full orchestras and cartoons, that was entirely a financial decision, partially predicated on the fact that it was cheaper to use classical music that didn't require anyone to pay royalties for and the fact that under the studio system they had these guys on contract anyway, so they might as well use them as often as possible. it didn't cost them anything more to use classical scores with full orchestras or it wouldn't have happened. the result is more pleasing but the decision tree wasn't based on artistic grounds. The same for cranking out films like so much hamburger. If you've got to pay the actors anyway, better to have them doing something that might bring back some return.
anyway, you may go on and on about the beauty of horses, but we won't be going back to them anytime soon regardless. film making here has always beem mostly about the pursuit of the dollar and Hollywood generally prefers to rely on lowest common denominator decision making. it's less risky financially, particularly when convincing bankers.
my opinion on this subject is informed by william s. burroughs. as long as you allow words to get under your skin, the word is controlling you. you must control the word - use it, play it forward and backward, tear it to shreds. in short, don't allow language to fuck with your head.
follow word virus ... bradley was in a delirium where any sex thought immediately took three-dimensional form through a maze of turkish baths and sex cubicles fitted with hammocks and swings and mattresses vibrating to a shrill insect frequency.now some words about the image track - the human body is an image on screen talking - spread slow-motion flashes and you see the image sharp and clear - flesh done low motion - the short utne hype is subliminal slow motion - like this: a movie at normal speed is run at 24 frames per second - 25 framces per second is not perceptible as slow motion if the image is on screen longer than you are there watching it - that is you are being short-timed 11 frames per second - put a beautiful nude image on screen at subliminal slow motion and it will be built into your flesh - that is whenever the sound track is run, the image with literally come alive in your flesh.
George wrote: "Well, I wasn't at all impressed with the most recent Gatsby and certainly the modern music detracted from my point of view as well, among other things. Obviously, Gatsby's been done a few times be..."Feliks wrote: "I'm not sure what the logic was in the assumption that 'American jews would suffer' if informed of what was happening in Germany. Suffer how?
Hayes Office: Catholics or not, no outside authority h..."
President Roosevelt sent Joseph Kennedy to Hollywod to tell the movie moguls they shouldn't make movies that showed the persecution of the Jews in Eastern Europe and in Austrai and Germany. Roosevelt said that if they did, "it would go hard with American Jews." Remember Roosevelt, knowing full well what was happening to Jews still refused to allow Jews to escape from Europe to the USA, Before Dachu started to massacre Jews, Hitler told Roosevelt that he'd let all th Jews go if the USA and other Christian nations would take them in. When those nations refused, Hitler said, "If Jews are harbingers of civilization, why doesn't anyone want them." Roosevelt responded to that with silence. I had family in Ukraine whom we desperately tried to save, but even before Hitler when the Russians were massacring Jews, the US cut off immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe. My website, http://elaineostrachchaika.com is entitled "Four Families from Ukraine." The last page of the site deals with the Holocaust and there's a link to another website telling in detail what happened in Nowy Dwor, the village one of my grandfathers came from. In the picture galleries on the website, there is a poignant photo of one of my uncles who couldn't leave because in 1924, the USA cut off immigration by Eastern European Jews. The USA played a crucial role in the massacres and tortures visited on Jews, including babies. Does this answer your question?
Travelin wrote: "Elaine wrote: "Did you know that Roosevelt sent Joe Kennedy to tell all the movie moguls not to make any movies about the persecution of Jews in Europe. If they did, they were told that the entire ..."Roosevelt, like many others of his social class, saw Jews as competition for WASPs and he didn't want to let them emigrate to America. I have surmised this because I was puzzled by his behavior when I discovered the role he--and American congressmen-- played in the Holocaust. I know of no other reason. I was raised to adulate Roosevelt. I was a child during his 12 year Presidency, so I grew up with no other President. Immigration to America was cut off in 1924 because Russians were massacring Jews & the US didn't want to give them refuge. It's a long and grim story
Elaine wrote: "Travelin wrote: "Elaine wrote: "Did you know that Roosevelt sent Joe Kennedy to tell all the movie moguls not to make any movies about the persecution of Jews in Europe. If they did, they were told..."I'm a Canadian, but I've always heard such great things about Roosevelt, and Eleanor as well. Thanks for shedding light on this.
america did not accept ¼ of doomed Jews into the country. And, I am not a Zionist. The refugees from the Nazi camps went there because there was no other place for them to go. Some walked from Germany back to Poland or Ukraine, but were murdered by the Christians there who had taken over their homes and didn't want to give them up. Since it is generally known that most Polish Jews lived in hovels, I don't know why the Poles wanted to take them over. Now Poland has Jewish Festivals and is attempting to get Jews to come back to live tree. Apparently, the miss the contribution 3,000,000 Jews made in Polish society. Also, my Polish friends feel very guilty about what happened to the Jews. Why are we discussing this. It's supposed to be about movies., not anti-Jewishness, Nazis and WWII. Go on my website www.elaineostrachchaika.com if you're interested in what happened to Jews in Eastern Europe from the Pogroms of the late 19th century through WWII. I am Jewish and so are most of my grandchildren but I' not a Zionist and I wonder if the USA and Canada would open their doors to Israeli immigrants. That would end the horrific wars with the Arabs and Jews can be counted on to contribute a lot to America and Canada.
Why would Israelis want to leave Israel? Some would, given an opportunity, most would not, certainly not at the moment. As for the Holocaust in Poland, I can say I knew a survivor from Triblinka once, who told me he didn't hate the Germans, but he certainly did hate the Poles. Most of the Jews at Triblinka after they took the camp who managed to escape after they took over the camp were turned over to the Germans by Poles, about 90%.
I really don't think this discussion is relevant to my post. I'm sorry I took the bait of making comments about WWII. If we find this interesting, someone should start a comment on books about the Holocaust or about WWII. However, my original post was about a movie and its used of taboo words. It was a comment about censorship in th emotes that led to this discussion. You can access my website which tells what happened in Nowy Dwor, Poland, where my grandfather was born, at http://www.elaineosrachchaika.com Go to the Holocaust page and find the link to "Pain and suffering..." Actually, the page of Ostrach-Seidman stories is much more revealing about Jews in the Ukraine who lived amongst Christians. I'm not sure if Polish Jews lived with Christian neighbors. There is a picture of Nowy Dwor's main street on the website, dating from about 1898. Pictures of Ukrainanian Jews dating from 1911 are also in the epicure gallery on that website.
possibly not. but the conversation clearly evolved and it's relevant enough to to discussion that proceeded it. looks to me like no one has more to say on the original topic in any case.
I myself haven't been back to this thread in a while; not since my last comment maybe 6-8 weeks ago.But something just occurred to me last night and since it so admirably bolsters the points I made above; I thought I'd pop back in and contribute it.
Orson Welles and his theater company stomped into New York's theater scene in the late 1930s and made Broadway their bitch. They kicked down the door, took names, and turned stage plays upside down with the precision, force, and quality of their productions. Then, Welles barged into the world of radio and did the exact same thing there (and later would do the same thing in cinema). But just to dwell on his radio career for a moment to make my point: Welles' 'Mercury Theater on the Air'--that series of radio dramas was acknowledged throughout that era as the finest available.
Not only were there no expletives; no sexual situations; no lascivious themes--not only was the show not 'genre-based' (no detectives, no cowboys, no spacemen) the program never even stooped to less than classic literary works to form its agenda.
Welles & Co didn't take whatever novels were 'hot' at the time; they never went for cheap, salacious material for their shows' content. Instead they selected works like these: 'Heart of Darkness'; 'A Tale of Two Cities'; 'The Count of Monte Cristo'; 'Jane Eyre'; 'The Pickwick Papers'; 'Dracula'; 'Julius Caesar'; 'Les Miserables'; 'Sherlock Holmes'; 'Oliver Twist'.
And in each case they scored a huge hit; in each case, these broadcasts went over big no matter whether listeners were young or old. Welles made this 'old material' work simply by applying solid techniques of classic storytelling.
I'm sure if Welles wanted to become known for 'sexual-izing' radio; he had it in his power to do so. Think about it: he could have sank to the lowest-common-denominator and produced trashy, sleazy storylines and there probably would been a lot more assurance of success. But he didn't. He really chose the 'dustiest' material; novels which might have been considered old, or corny. And he re-told them 'straight' with no added seamy-ness or vulgarity. And it went across like gangbusters. Audiences ate it up.
That's the kind of thing that went on back then; this was the dominant working style for artists of that period. Its a matter of historical record. Ample proof for my assertions above.
needs expressed by and through languages. The only "logic" in language is "does it convey a message?" All languages I know of have taboo vocabularies, and they do get used.
In American society vulgarisms present the speaker as nonconforming, strong, manly, rude and uncaring. Language is a personal and social phenomenon, and Noam Chomsky aside, there is no logic in language. Rather there are elements indicating one's social identities, or trying to get a partner in crime, as well as expressions of concern and caring.
With that in mind, I hope you can see why I lauded Scorsese's brilliant barrage of bawdy words. He used them to show how vacuous these people were: how empty lives are that are concerned only with money, amassing the latest gadgets, and flagrant displays of wealth
How do you think you could have presented this message to an audience of young males today without using taboo words? For that matter, could you do it to little old ladies? I can't think of a more boring way of telling this story than by using polite language.
Feliks wrote: "I applaud your first paragraph. These are exactly my sentiments. Expletives are boring, wearying, monotonous--and a terrible style with which to
However, I can't go along with your r..."
Feliks wrote: "I applaud your first paragraph. These are exactly my sentiments. Expletives are boring, wearying, monotonous--and a terrible style with which to write dialog.
However, I can't go along with your r..."
I am a 79 year old lady. I was raised in a time when one didn't even say "darn!" Teaching college students and movie going has enured me to taboo words. Often, using vulgarities in movies is an easy way of not writing decent dialogue. I've flinched my way through movies in which fuck in all of its inflections peppers the dialogue. It is neither shocking nor witty. It's just plain boring.
However, I laud the incredibly foul language in The Wolf of Wall St.. Such a profusion of obscenity is virtually Shakespearan. Why do I accept this as a mark of a good movie? Well, Scorcese is portraying the emptiness of the lives of people propelled solely by greed and material values. They get their kicks out of cheating investors, inhaling incredible quantities of drugs and alcohol.. They have no meaningful relationships, no curiosity, no interests, no social graces. They indulge in graphically portrayed sex orgies--which, by the way, looked like hard work with no joy--not even orgasms, unless they were lost in the melee. Scorcese let the language, the sex, the business, the drug use all speak for themselves. There is nothing glamorous or appealing in this movie except for it's non-preaching portrayal of the vacuousness of a life of greed.