Talk:Martin Scorsese/Archive 1

Boston link
The Boston link could do with updating to point to the appropriate Boston article, but I'm not sure which it is. --John 23:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC

Film Foundation
I liked the article but I am surprised at the lack of attention given to Scorsese's work on Film Restoration. He's like the most well known and influential in the Film Restoration awareness that happened in the 80's and he's helped save many classics for future generations. If someone can find complete details on this it would be nice.

Auteur Signature?
Given the fact that Martin Scorsese often works with the same production team is it possible to detect an individual auteur signiture within his work?

Further to the Auteur Question
The article as it now stands mentions movie project titles, year made, leading actors in each film, box office success or lack thereof, and awards bestowed on cast members of the film. The article suffers from a lack of discussion as to the director's changing style (Mean Streets and Taxi Driver are quite different from New York, New York, and all of these are quite different from Gangs of New York. Scorsese has frequently worked with the same people as lead actors or as production team, yet the films differ.

One question to ponder is in what way has his style changed? Another might be (by contrast), what ingredients or aspects of approach have remained similar or ever-present?

Scorsese Repeated
The word Scorsese is used too often and can be replaced with he

eg- "The critical success of Taxi Driver encouraged Scorsese to move ahead with his first big-budget project: New York, New York. This musical tribute to Scorsese's home town was a box-office failure (it was released at the same time as Star Wars), and the disappointing reception drove Scorsese into depression. By this stage Scorsese had also developed a serious heroin addiction. However, Scorsese did find the creative drive

Just replacing some scorseses with 'he' would probly fix it or more continuing sentencesJesus On Wheels 03:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: Dewikifing filmographies
Why did you leave the red links in Martin Scorsese? You think because there are a few of them? Thank you, Adnghiem501 05:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As I commented on your talk page: "I noticed that you dewikified the Martin Scorsese filmography, as well as several others. Unless this is a policy I'm not aware of, it is best no to dewikify links like this, especially in the case of filmographies. It incites people to create the articles by demonstrating the lack of a page on the topic. Also, once the page is created, the links don't have to be re-added."  --Comics 06:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I already read yours. Adnghiem501 06:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So what's your point? Comics 06:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Many red links in a filmography section of some articles remain unfinished. Some are not shown red; others can often be seen in blue, showing they have been complete. I'll leave the red links to the section whatever you need. Adnghiem501 07:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph
I changed the bland and misleading "Scorsese often deals with difficult subject matter such as inner city turmoil, violence and sex" to "Scorsese’s work often addresses Italian-American identity, Catholic themes such as guilt and redemption, and the violence and hyper-masculinity associated with sociopathic personalities." I think/hope that's more accurate and interesting.

no, that sucks 24.68.207.114 00:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it much better, even though it was a change made long ago. It is more accurate. Many films put sex and violence into a light manner which isn't difficult. Same for "inner city turmoil". It may be that those who do most, dream most. (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Should Martin Scorsese fit in the the Category:Former Catholics?
Because I read that he claims that he no longers pratices the Roman Catholic Religion so he should be included in Category:Former Catholics? Even though he is included already in Category:Roman Catholics. Put your own opions here if you want to or not to put Martin Scorsese onto the Category:Former Catholics. Thanks.


 * No - not until you get citeable proof, more than just "I read somewhere". SteveCrook 08:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is addressed to Steve Crook why is Scorsese listed under Category:American Agnostics, is there public announcements or something? Or can that be ammended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artihcus022 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I didn't add the category -- SteveCrook 21:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then how do you get rid of that category link in Scorsese's page? As recently as the cover story featuring Scorsese a few months back with Ian Christie, Scorsese talked about being a Catholic albeit a lapsed one. ---Artihcus022. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artihcus022 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Filling out the Scorsese Page
I felt the biog of Scorsese was without much depth and failed to put his work in any kind of overall context (of course a common wiki problem). There was little considertaion given to his evolving style, technique and thematic concerns. I've set about filling out the page with more details on specific films and providing further insight in to the director's work and his methods (basic details such as Raging Bull is a biopic about a boxer weren't even evident!).

I've currently extensively re-written his career up to Raging Bull. I try to add info rather than delete info, but I felt on occassion there were fair amounts of repetition and some untruths (eg his parents have not made appearences in 'most' of his films).

I hope to later work on the remainder of his career. I think it's currently unfair that his early 80's work is dismissed in one sentence (a lot of critics and Scorsese students would concur that the King of Comedy deserves more than a slight mention in passing in a summise of his total career)

Any thoughts on my changes would be much appreciated.

GK 21st feb 2006

Director trademarks?
Section seems to be original research. How about some sources? savidan(talk) (e@) 13:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Filling out the Scorsese Page
Nice rewriting of the Biography. I agree that King of Comedy does require more than a mere mention and should be considered one of, if not his best peice of work.

query for msyeres edit
Hi, the addition to my original sentence changes it meaning and renders it untrue and arguably devoid of meaning

However many would argue the film contained little of the style associated with the director and was relatively anonymous in its point of view.

I meant anonymous in stylistic terms. I would argue that The Aviator, indeed any film, doesn't have a "point of view". If this could possibly be reverted to original edit unless someone could clean up the sentence.

Can anything "weld auteur sensibilities" and be relatively anonymous? SteveCrook 14:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In reply to this Steve, it was an "attempt" to 'weld auteur sensibilities with..Golden era Hollywood...etc'. Only partly succesful. None the less The Aviator remains aruably (and some would argue very strongly) one of the directors most stylistically anonymous movies.

Fair point, but doesn't that imply knowledge of what he was thinking of? I agree it's one of his most anonymous movies stylistically. But can that be then linked to auteur sensibilities? Surely it's one or the other. SteveCrook 01:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please sign all comments with four tildes SteveCrook 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I disagree. A film can retain elements of auteurism and still be relatively anonymous compared to the rest of a director's canon. You agree that The Aviator is stylistically his most anonymous. I hope you also agree that the film uses elements of expressionism in its final scenes depicting Hughes mental decline - which recall 50’s cinema, most notably key works of Nicholas Ray. Even if this is challenged, Scorsese’s well documented cinephilia in itself should be enough to contextualise the film’s Hollywood setting as a deliberate comment on film-making/cinema itself. These alone are clear examples of directorial/artistic signature (there are many others). However, compared to the passionate commitment of Mean Streets and The Last Temptation of Christ, The Aviator’s stylings seem somewhat flat and emotionally un-engaged.

In the end, the comments on The Aviator were not intended as critique (this isn’t after all a critical arena- indeed far from it). They were trying to thematically/stylistically place the film in the context of Scorsese’s entire career, drawing on the general critical consensus the film has garnered since its release. I think it was well balanced to suggest that the film had personal trademarks yet overall remained stylistically anonymous in comparison to the director’s entire oeuvre. Your comments are very much appreciated and if you feel The Aviator section can be improved, please feel free to make some suggestions. Strummer72 10:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

removed "legendary" film director
Sorry, removed this word. Absolutely meaningless in this context.

Hi Invincible Ninja. Yo removed the word "endemic" as in "violence endemic in American society". It was there for a reason. Scorsese doesn't just offer a casual analysis of violence as a natural outcropping of modern living- Gangs of New York, Goodfellas and Casino (and others) identfy violence as intrinsic to the working of American culture specifically, a very life blood and marrow to US civilisation. Unless you can argue its removal I shall be adding it again.

Also you've added links to words which don't warrant it. Guilt? Is it even relevant in this context? Following that logic there's a handful of nouns through out the artcile you can add links to. Keep links relevant to subject in hand please. Strummer72 11:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

age of innocence changes
sorry whoever made changes to Age of Innocence, but your reversion made a nonsense of the paragraph. The point was on the surface the film was a departure for the director, but underlying was thematic/stylistic consistency with the director's previous work. Your changes removed the second part of the equation and made the paragraph redundant. Please try and keep changes consistent with the context of this section of the article- ie thematic/stylistic development of the director. A cast list is irrelevant unless well integrated in to paragraph, as was the assertion that many think it's his best film. "Many" also think Afterhours, King of Comedy or The Aviator is. "Many" other don't.

The Blues
Scorsese's work on The Blues isn't mentioned anywhere. It should be. http://www.pbs.org/theblues/ Badagnani 02:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added in a brief section on "The blues". Hope this is satisfactory. Perhaps some one can add a piece on "No Direction Home" too, the dylan doc. It may even be wise to do a whole seperate section on his extensive documentary work- and move all the doc info there; Several other docs such as Made in Milan also don't get a mention, but adding them all to the main body would disrupt the consistency of the whole section. Any views? 62.190.4.10 09:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

cape fear misogyny
I removed the additon of "what some critics mistakenly perceived to be" from the following in the Cape Fear section:

"[the film was] lambasted in many quarters for its scenes depicting what some critics mistakenly perceived to be misogynystic violence".

The reason? Simple. The fact that Cape Fear depicted scenes of misogynistic violence isn't open to question. Max Cady was a misogynistic psychopath. The film depicted his violent acts. The original sentence wasn't inferring the film was misogynistic. It is the same as saying that Mississippi Burning depicted scenes of racist violence. No bias is being inicated by that comment, it is simply descriptive. Hence can I ask people to stop changing this section without at least first grasping it's meaning. 62.190.4.10 10:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "Cause Celebre" used in Taxi Driver section
For some reason Quadzilla99 you insist on removing the phrase "cause-celebre" from the Taxi Driver section as you deem it "Microscopically obscure and pompous". I take great issue with this. This phrase/word is in common usage and is not in the slightest bit specialised. I've replaced it only to have it removed again. Even worse, your revision is written in really bad english. I've changed your sentence in to more acceptable english but would like to replace the "cause celebre". I will refrain from doing this until perhaps some other contributors could add their thoughts on this. STRUMMER 72

This is an encyclopedia which is generally for common people to read and use to illuminate themselves on various subjects. It should therefore have common language. I seriously doubt that as many people know the term in question as you claim. No one can doubt that "it had controversy surrounding it" or some variation of that is less obscure than cause celebre (which is French I believe). You could put cause celebre in and then put the definition of it in parenthese perhaps, but to have to leave the article 3 or 4 times (auteur, ouevre, and others were also in the article) to look up words is not something most people find desirable. In an article about micro biology or computer architecture arcane words are unavoidable but not here. I'm not anti-illectual I just don't feel this is the right place for some of the terminology that was used in the article. --Quadzilla99 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you link Cause célèbre correctly then I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. Isn't there another version of the Wiki for people that don't like long or difficult words?

Yes Quadzilla99, it is a French phrase. But so are many other words and phrases that have been adopted into the English language. Have you never used words or phrases like agent provocateur, à la carte, apéritif, art déco, au pair, avant-garde? And that's just a few of the words beginning with 'a'. There are also many words like chic, déjà vu, eau de cologne,  fiancée, risqué or even RSVP.

As somone once said "I don't really approve of all these French words and phrases being adopted into the English language, but it does give the language a certain je ne sais quoi" -- SteveCrook 04:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now that you've said that "auteur" is an obscure word when talking about one of the most acclaimed directors in the world, I really feel you've lost your perspective on this (argumentum ad hominem). I'm not in favour of intellectualisation for the sake of it, but this is an encycopedia! We cannot write aiming at the lowest common denominator. Ps I did add a link to 'cause-celebre' for any readers that might find it 'difficult'. STRUMMER7262.190.4.10 09:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here I've edited this discussion section and added a foreign phrase that you are obviously not familiar with. See how uncomfortable it is to read through something and have to leave to learn a phrase you are not familiar with just to continue in the article.Quadzilla99 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't shoot any messengers, and I was already familiar with the phrase. But I still think that phrases like cause celebre or even auteur are quite acceptable in articles. Although I have different problems with auteur, regarding it as a silly theory for such a collaborative medium as film-making. -- SteveCrook 01:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Obscure Latin words(and no, I wasn't familiar with that phrase) cannot be equated with a familiar term such as "cause-celebre". Quadzilla, we'll have to agree to disagree. Obvioulsy you didn't know the phrase hence you think it's obscure. I think it's well know. There's no common ground. Steve Crook agrees with me but two people isn't a consensus. I'm willing to leave out "cause celebre" unless we obtain a wider consensus. Hopefully we can all see that in the big scheme of things having a long winded argument about one phrase/word is rather trivial! STRUMMER7262.190.4.10 09:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reading the above exchange(s), I continue confirmed in my assesssment of Wikipedia as merely a pseudo-intellectual blog. Someone actually removed the phrase "cause celebre" because s/he felt it was "too difficult." What more can one say? And there is not one contribution above that does not contain at least one serious grammatical error, the kind we were taught in sixth grade (argumentum ad hominem). 66.108.4.183 08:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Talk page guidelines ask you to: -- SteveCrook 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sign your posts
 * Don't misrepresent other people
 * Don't edit others' comments
 * Answer a post underneath it

Shouldn't that be "the kind THAT we were taught in sixth grade?" Oh, and also the conjunction "and" used at the beginning of your sentence is somewhat suspect. Does it really serve its purpose as a transitional function from the last sentence? I think that's questionable. Having said that, I'm glad that someone else agrees with me that "cause-celebre" is hardly an arcane term. And before you interject Quadzilla....argumentum ad hominem. STRUMMER7262.190.4.10 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by saying before you interject argumentum ad hominem. Maybe you don't understand the term. "Shooting the messenger" is a vulgarization or simplification of it. Basically it means insulting or questioning the qualifications of the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument on a logical basis. I never insulted anyone or resorted to that kind of discussion. Here is an example of a logical argument that doesn't resort to logical fallacies:

The basic issues in my opinion are : 1) are the two terms different significantly? (does one add a different meaning that can't be obtained by the other?), 2) should an encyclopedias use the most common language possible?, and 3) if so which is more common?

1) controversial means: Of, producing, or marked by controversy: a controversial movie; a controversial stand on human rights. Cause Celebre means: An issue arousing widespread controversy or heated public debate The difference between the two is very minor and almost negligible as I see it.

2) This I am just taking as obvious. Unless we want to start inserting verisimilitude for aunthenticity and ascertainment for finding because they sound better.

3) A MSN english language internet search returned 7,705,906 results for controversial and 469,359 rsults for Cause Celebre. Meaning controversial is roughly 16.4 times more in common usage on English language internet pages. If all three of those statements are true then logically it is a fact that Cause Celebre is not a proper descriptive term for an English language encyclopedia for the reasons just stated.

Now a logical response would either dispute the three statements I have just made or one or all of their validities as criteria or dispute that they presuppose my conclusion. An illogical reponse would point out grammatical errors, question my intelligence (or if we were in person make fun of my haircut or shoes), or point out that I took the time to write this reponse and must have no life (I was bored and am easily susceptible to petty arguments). Quadzilla99 02:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Quadzilla. The reason it sounds to you as if I'm shooting the messenger is that my argument is based on the fact that it is YOU that finds the term cause celebre difficult. I dispute the term is difficult. Hence logically my argument will focuss on your disability to comprehend a common word/phrase. On a broader level, I whole heartedly disagree that we should use the most "common"language. I think we should use the most concise, descriptive, relavent. Cuase Celebre fits the bills. Finally I'd like to point out I never pulled apart your grammar. That was some other contributor. If you look above you'll find that you're conducting this argument with 3 different people. I myself was critical of the grammar pedantry (I've inserted my name above so you recognize my enteries) Strummer72 62.190.4.10 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I made my basic points in the previous post which I still consider valid. I have read and understood the simple French phrase "cause celebre" it's difference from controversial is extremely, extremely minute from all the dictionary definitions I have read (and sourced). How exactly is a cause celebre different than a controversial event?

Now I made my point but I also want to say one thing in addition that is irrelevant to the issue. Maybe I can teach something to someone and make something positive out of this from my perspective. "Shooting the messenger" is not an interpretation of {[argumentum ad hominem]] I adhere to. That's a simple vulgarization of it for people who don't understand it at all. It means addressing the person's credentials or lack thereof instead of the logic of their argument. It is a logical fallacy. You stated that "logically your argument would focus on me"(paraphrasing) which is as utterly illogical a statement as I have read in a while. Basically logic completely and utterly denounces credentials and evaluations of the person making the proposition. It is one of the basic tenets of logic which I happen to consider myself an expert of. An argument is good or bad on it's own merits regardless of who says it. Read the Wiki entry on argumentum ad hominem again, Hitler could make a statement about the Jews and from a logician's standpoint it doesn't matter who says it. It is right or wrong on it's own merits his credentials do not factors in (see deductive logic for a primer).Quadzilla99

It's happened! You've committed Godwin's Law! Brilliant! Ok Quadzilla, on that note, I'm bowing out of this discussion. It's gone too far beyond the boundry of relavence. I go back to my original point: if there is a wider consensus, I will at some point add cause celebre back in to the article. If I can be arsed. You've made your point about cause celebre and revealed your expertese in logic etc and it's been noted. If anyone else wants to contribute, feel free.

I used it to make an extreme example about argumentum ad hominem. Most logic professors make an extreme example to illustrate the fallacy. They may not use Hitler they might say a person's calculus equation is not incorrect because he is mentally retarded but because it has the wrong number as the answer. Godwin's Law is not recognized logic by any logician in existence anyway and he is just riding on the coattails of Leo Strauss who made a needless addendum to reductio ad absurdum when he made the pop culture phrase about Hitler anyway. Even so you used that incorrectly also. The Wikipedia page states about that "It is particulary concerned with logical fallacies such as reductio ad Hitlerum, wherein an idea is unduly dismissed or rejected on ground of it being associated with persons generally considered "evil"." Which means you're stating that I compared you and your argument to Hitler. Where did I do that? Also please answer How exactly is a cause celebre different than a controversial event? Quadzilla99 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's all about nuance. Controversy is a dry term meaning 'causing dispute' etc. Cause Celebre means more than just being controversial. It implies being known for being controversial/ celebrated for being controversial. It's about something existing in the public consciousness as a controversial event/subject. Surely you can see the difference? Taxi Driver may have been controversial. But it became more than that: it became a byword for cinematic controversy. These ideas, or at least some of them, are encapsulated in the phrase cause-celebre. The bottom line is that it is not, and I repeat not, an arcane term. Strummer7262.190.4.10 11:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately stating something emphatically does not make it true. A 5 person poll is not proof in my opinion that the French phrase is well known in America. Also regardless of what you think it implies your definition is not found in any dictionary to my knowledge. Basically I really feel that the word is not in common usage and most people do not know it. Let's just agree that we have both made our points clearly and understandably. People can also read both of our points and comment on it further if they like.Quadzilla99 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely you proved that it was in common usage when you found 1/2 million articles that mention it. How many does it take to count as "common usage" in your opinion? It may not be as commonly used as controversial but I think 1/2 million citations proves common usage and that it should be regarded as a well known phrase. -- SteveCrook 08:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

the last waltz
anyone else feel that The Last Waltz wasn't a minor documentary like mentioned in the article? i mean, is there anything minor about Bob Dylan, The Band, Neil Young, Van Morrison, Muddy Waters, Eric Clapton...and, well, lots more. im not trying to be a fanboy or anything, but holy fuck are all those big names - too big to call that thing minor. thoughts anyone? JoeSmack Talk 22:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it's a minor documentary. But where does anything suggest that it is? -- SteveCrook 23:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's under the 1970's subsection: New York, New York and Minor Documentaries. JoeSmack Talk 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That does say the highly regarded The Last Waltz (1978), documenting the final concert by The Band so I don't think that sub-heading applies to that one. If anything, I'd change the sub-heading. That section doesn't really have much to say about "minor documentaries" -- SteveCrook 04:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed the word 'minor'. Thats that. I think i might add something more for the Last Waltz too. JoeSmack Talk 04:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice too see Last Waltz expanded. I've further ammended the sub- heading to reflect content. Not sure about the "air of desperation" aspect though. Seems a terribly subjective thing to say. I'm very familiar with the movie but don't particularly agree. Plus it equates this with his alleged drug use which is a little presumptious.62.190.4.10 10:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Awesome job. And perhaps if we can find an interview or some such it'll seem less so, cause i've seen the drug info in a few other places. JoeSmack Talk 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

edit request
Hm, I just want to point out to Wdchk that he reverted some small edits that helped establish flow, accuracy, & neutrality in a few paragraphs. I’d just revert it if it weren’t for the fact that I’m on mobile & it’d start a juvenile edit war...66.41.37.182 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Declined. I agree with Wdchk's rationale: "without explanation, not clearly an improvement". You've done nothing here to justify those edits. --Yamla (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do I even need to elaborate on how changing the wording from “unbridled” to “volatile” for Pesci’s characters more accurately fits, esp. in Casino? Changing from something arguable like “excessive” violence to “graphic” for that film, esp. considering Goodfellas & Gangs of New York wasn’t much better? And I didn’t know Raging Bull must absolutely have “widely viewed as masterpiece” as an unchangeable label, where not even “often considered” can work.
 * Anyway, Scorsese pages often have some sort of misguided fanboyism going on so your statements aren’t surprising. 66.41.37.182 (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

full name on Yahoo Movies
On the Yahoo Movies biography of Scorsese the full name is identified as Martin Marcantonio Luciano Scorsese. Is that any more credible than a log of political contributions that identifies him as "Martin C. Scorsese"? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm putting this in the wrong spot: Added "Marty" to his first name as he is referenced in the article and sources as "Marty" on occasion, as well as in the iPhone commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleHermann (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Leo Scor Diaz(GangsofNY)-.jpg Nominated for Deletion
On which films did Martin Scorsese have Final Cut Privilege????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.113.159.74 (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Frequent collaborations
TheLastAmigo deleted quite a few of these and asked if the whole section should be deleted. I don't think so, there are some genuine frequent collaborators, not just the actors either. The table might be overkill and might encourage editors to add people who had only collaborated on a few projects. But how many collaborations makes someone a "Frequent" collaborator? If it's more than 2 then that excludes Jodie Foster and Barbara Hershey. Maybe that section should explicitly say how many collaborations are required to be added to the list – SteveCrook (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What does the blocked off area in the "Frequent collaborations" represent? – SteveCrook (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Influenced by
This seems to be another list that is growing out of control. How many of these people has Marty actually said have influenced him – the people, not just one of their films? Should it require citations for each person named? – SteveCrook (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put them in alphabetical order. Maybe that will stop so many people changing the list so often – SteveCrook (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Each entry in the "Inlfluenced by" and "Influenced" lists here are subject to the same standard of verifiability as any other fact in Wikipedia. So the problem is: I don't see any way to currently verify these facts. I propose eliminating these lists and re-populating them with as many or as few entries as can be reliably verified. --Ds13 (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support that – SteveCrook (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's been over a week and I didn't hear any objection to this. As proposed, I have removed the lists.  The original text may be found here for reference.  I have seeded the "Influences" list with its first two verifiable entries (Satyajit Ray & Roberto Rossellini). For notable, verifiable influences, it should be easy to re-populate this list with existing article references or new ones.  --Ds13 (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference you gave doesn't mention Roberto Rossellini (we must be strict about this) – SteveCrook (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. I misread something.  A Roberto Rossellini should be relatively easy for someone to find. Thanks for removing that.  --Ds13 (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro be merged into Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro. I think that the content in the Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro article discussing that relationship specifically can be merged into the pages discussing those individuals generally, and the latter articles are of a reasonable size in which the merging of the former will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 98.239.179.93 (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * NO. The Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro article shouldn't be merged with anything. It should just be deleted. It doesn't add anything that isn't already said in the individual articles for the people & the films they made together and nothing else links to it – SteveCrook (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Why the focus on actors?
Why does this focus so much on actors? (sections Frequent collaborations & Actors' awarded performances) It isn't just the actors and the director who make a film. What about all the other people who Scorsese regularly worked (& works) with? – SteveCrook (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Mind the hyperbole
From the Raging Bull section: Raging Bull, filmed in high contrast black and white, is where Scorsese's style reached its zenith: From the Goodfellas section: many view Goodfellas as a Scorsese archetype – the apogee of his cinematic technique.

Zenith and apogee refer to two different orbital phenomena, I admit but perhaps it is best to choose one. How about referencing these as high points or starting and ending phases to his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.201.152.7 (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Frequent collaborations (again)
First, this section should be retitled "frequent collaborators," it does not require a chart, and it should only list those who have worked with Scorcese in sizable and notable roles in at least three films. So, all those who have worked with him only twice, like Alec Baldwin, should be removed. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  00:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that twice is not "frequent". Any director with a filmography the size of Scorcese's is likely, intentionally or not, to work twice with the same actor – that doesn't make them "frequent collaborators". Nor does it mean that Scorcese is the one who actually cast that actor in each of those two films. This chart is too much of a WP:COATRACK to actually have any useful meaning or data. it would need to be trimmed to be encyclopedic or useful, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

organization of the career/movies by decade
Why are some movies in bold and others are not, like Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, which is well-regarded and got an Oscar? Also, why are these two movies combined on one line in bold: New York, New York and The Last Waltz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.23.56.159 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

edit request
In 2008, Scorsese was invited to serve as a mentor for the Rolex Mentor and Protégé Arts Initiative, an international philanthropic programme that pairs masters in their disciplines with emerging talents for a year of one-to-one creative exchange. Out of a very gifted field of candidates, Scorsese chose Argentinian film director Celina Murga as his protégée. RMP2014 (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Without substantial coverage of Scorsese's participation in independent reliable sources, I have some qualms about whether this kind of information, if sourced only to a press release or sponsor website, is significant enough to belong in the article about Scorsese (or any of the other mentors for whom similar edits have recently been requested ). At first blush it all sounds a bit promotional, but our article for Rolex Mentor and Protégé Arts Initiative does include some substantial reliable source coverage of the program (with the Telegraph calling it "one of the world’s most extraordinary arts programmes"), so participation in the program may be a legitimate indicator of notability for the "protégés".  (I note that this program is mentioned in the Spanish Wikipedia article Celina Murga, but that she doesn't yet have an English Wikipedia article). --Arxiloxos (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 March 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Here is an article on the pairing: http://variety.com/2012/film/news/murga-rolls-on-scorsese-exec-produced-river-1118062827/#

RMP2014 (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Actors' awarded performances section
I find this section unnecessary to the article, as it seems to constitute trivia. This article is about Martin Scorsese, and the actor collaborations section is enough. Information about accolades awarded to actors for performances in Scorsese's films does not belong in his biography, and just serve to clutter it up. It is best to just remove it. Any thoughts? K atástas i (κατάσταση) 00:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Illeana Douglas
I find it strange that Illeana Douglas links here, but there is zero mention of her in Martin Scorsese. I actually came here for a reminder of her name. I eventually had to feel around in the dark for the film Grace of My Heart (search: 'heart film music matt dillon').

I do understand from browsing the discussions here, that an excessive list of related persons had to be culled from the article. However...

It is not in dispute that Douglas was a romantic companion to Scorsese for several years. Perhaps it is in dispute that such relationships include a unique component of creative osmosis which is rarely recognized as bidirectional, due to sexist notions. [cited!]

From that perspective, a complete omission feels like an intentional erasure of history.

Thoughts? – Crnk Mnky (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Brief comment on plagiarized paragraph that I've removed
I have removed a paragraph that was plagiarized from the book Scorsese on Scorsese. As the URL wouldn't fit into the edit summary space, I'm reproducing it here for reference. You have to scroll up a bit (forgive my for not formatting this better). Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This addition was added at which was made on 2006-10-09. Given that the book was published in 2003, it's clear that Tigercompanion25 was correct to remove that paragraph. --Yamla (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Why no mention of his support for child rapist Roman Polanski?
Given the celebrity of both men isn't Scorsese's support noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8002:500:78E7:CAFB:C60A:19AA (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There is now a mention of his support for Roman Polanski. However, I've looked into this in the past, and the list of people who support Roman Polanski seems to be forged. If you go to the source article from the Guardian, that links to a French website, which has removed the page with the petition to release Polanski. I suggest someone (not me!) get to the bottom of this, and figure out whether he really supports Polanski, and if so, get a proper source. 2001:1C01:4602:1F00:589A:6958:56B7:F39E (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request
I request to be unblocked from this page, i only wanted to improve this page without doing any acts of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.184.239 (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2017
Change "With eight Best Director nominations, he is the most nominated living director and is tied with Billy Wilder for the second most nominations overall." to "With eight Best Director nominations, he is the most nominated living director and is tied with Billy Wilder for the second most nominations overall.

His films Taxi Driver, Raging Bull,  The King of Comedy and Goodfellas, are ranked among the greatest films of all time." 79.32.187.174 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Declined. We already have 13 mentions of "greatest" in the article, including 6 for "greatest film", we already have "he is widely regarded as one of the most significant and influential filmmakers in cinematic history", and you have not explained why this needs to be in the lead. --Yamla (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2017
Change "He has directed works such as" to  "He has directed seminal works such as".
 * No. --Yamla (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2017
Change "Scorsese's other film work includes" to "Scorsese's other notable film work includes". 80.104.83.178 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The proposed text is not an improvement either grammatically or stylistically.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Frequent collaborators
Per the consensus in the discussion above, I am going to edit the frequent collaborators list to include only those people with whom Scorsese has worked at least three times. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  16:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Good pruning. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  00:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Other actors in at least three Scoresese movies:
 * Diahnne Abbott - Taxi Driver; New York,New York; King of Comedy
 * Barry Primus - Boxcar Bertha; New York, New York; the Irishman, and
 * Bill Minkin - King of Comedy; Who's That Knocking at My Door?; Taxi Driver

108.52.237.79 (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Frequent collaborators table
That table should be reversed, so that it is taller than it is wide. It's not very usable in its current configuration, even on a huge monitor. Makes me wonder if there's a tool for automating such a change, since doing it by hand would be tedious. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  12:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It is not very useful in its current form.  I also wonder if it doesn't need to be pruned a little more.  On the Terry Gilliam article, we removed the chart altogether and went with a simple list – but only after deciding that the number of collaborations had to be at least three.  Here, I think at least four would be better.  I also think the roles themselves need to be notable, more than a simple cameo.  Just a thought. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  14:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * All of the collaborators are currently in at least 3 films -- SteveCrook (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There are four films in the table (Kundun, Bringing Out the Dead, Hugo, and Silence) in which none of his "frequent collaborators" appear. I propose they be removed from the table. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  13:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Having heard no objection in well over a month, I am removing those four films. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 14:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Given the ridiculously complicated nature of that chart, I couldn't figure out how to remove those titles without screwing the whole thing up.  I suggest the whole thing be ditched and we start from scratch. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 14:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If you keep the current specs here are Other Frequent Collaborators

Other actors in at least three Scoresese movies:
 * Diahnne Abbott - Taxi Driver; New York,New York; King of Comedy
 * Barry Primus - Boxcar Bertha; New York, New York; the Irishman, and
 * Bill Minkin - King of Comedy; Who's That Knocking at My Door?; Taxi Driver

Other actors that have been in at least two: Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Jake Hoffman, Emily Mortimer, Chuck Low, Stephanie Kurtzuba, Dick Miller108.52.237.79 (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there any easy way to make the table scrollable? I tried it a bit, but couldn't seem to get it to work with the current format. Might have to go with what  The Old Jacobite The '45 said and just do it over. --- Primium (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I just used some basic CSS. --Primium (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Critics' Choice awards
Do you think the Critics' Choice Movie Awards are relevant enough to be added into the Major awards received by Scorsese movies' section? Brayan Jaimes (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nationality/Citizenship
Since Martin Scorsese is a recognized dual citizen of both Italy and USA. I believe it would be incorrect to consider him a "naturalized Italian" because according to Italian nationality law, he was able to inherit the citizenship by jus sanguinis therefore making him an Italian citizen since birth. I could be incorrect on this but naturalization basically means he would have either gotten his citizenship from marriage or from residence (though he got it from the basis of inheritance). In other words, his parents never filed his birth certificate to the nearest Italian consulate due to obvious reasons and so therefore he waited until about a year ago to get his recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarslayer01 (talk • contribs)
 * That sounds plausible, but we aren't permitted to apply our own original research here. So, you need to find a reliable citation making this specific claim. --Yamla (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Those sources don't claim he is a naturalized citizen anyway, he is simply a dual citizen and should be written as such. Or write American-Italian Vaselineeeeeeee</b>★★★ 00:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "American-Italian," which is being used, doesn't really work. Just as "Italian-American" indicates that a person is an American of Italian descent or origin, "American-Italian" indicates that a person is an Italian of American descent or origin. "Italian-American" would seem most apt in Scorcese's case, given that his Italian citizenship was only officially recognized in September 2018 (speculation about jus sanguinis making him an Italian citizen since birth notwithstanding). However, if we absolutely have to acknowledge his dual citizenship in the first sentence of the article--and do we?--the only correct way to do that would be to describe him as (both) an "American and Italian filmmaker." Jhw57 (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Broken table
The table under 'Frequent collaborators' is broken or not showing properly. Can someone fix it? MushroomDiamond (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Collaboration
In the Section above the chart it lists some people who have worked with Scorsese multiple times, but these are rated inconsistently. Verna Bloom is listed as three movies, so it must include Street Scenes 1970, but Keitel's work in that was not included in his count of 6 instead of 7. Also what is the second movie Nick Nolte is in other than Cape Fear? If it is New York Stories then Roseanne Arquette needs to be added to the list too. 108.52.237.79 (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Birthplace
The article states he was born in Queens, and moved to Manhattan. However, in interviews, he grew up at 232 Elizabeth Street in Manhattan, and the 1940 census shows the family living there two years before Martin was born. Could be he was just born in a hospital in Queens, but that would seem to be a bit unusual. Not sure how to clarify that.  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫ 22:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

How is he italian?
Citizenship doesn't define his nationality as italian. Hughes Anderson (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Who's saying it's his nationality? Having an Italian citizenship does make you Italian by law, however, in this case by blood jus sanguinis. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 03:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Post-movie institutionalization
Emily Blunt said on Jimmy Kimmel's show, "What I had heard is that Martin Scorsese, at the end of a shoot, is so exhausted and so stressed that he often has to institutionalize himself or check himself into a hospital for a week" (March 10, 2020). This seems significant enough that it should be included, though there should probably be another source than Blunt's "what I had heard." 128.101.112.222 (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Robert De Niro listed as being in The Departed
In the intro, Robert De Niro is listed as being in The Departed, which is inaccurate. I don't know if he was really in 9 films directed by Scorsese, but The Departed is not one of them.


 * Thanks for the heads up. Was a incorrect change. I now solved it.Lobo151 (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)