Mentally unstable cab drivers, career mafia members, and
greedy Wall Street executives. Scorsese creates these characters to inhabit
their respective film worlds while also giving them intensely complex
personalities. Their complexity derives from a multitude of factors, including
their narratives and the worlds they inhabit, but also, and most importantly,
by a lack of restrictions placed upon them by moral connotations. Director
Martin Scorsese grants them this freedom and allows the narratives of their respective
films to progress into a ground of relative moral ambiguity. Though any film
viewer can likely attach moral connotations to the characters of these film
worlds, Scorsese never labels any of the characters that inhabit them as good
or bad. This distinguishing characteristic assumes
that the audience is capable of suspending their own
assumptions of morality so that the characters can be viewed free of any
corruption that may be placed on them by any predetermined moral assumptions.
Scorsese abstains from morally labeling his characters in an attempt to provoke
his audience to form non-morally-based opinions about them. This effort is met
with mixed success, however, as the actions of some of Scorsese’s characters
are too morally polarizing for the audience not to apply labels of morality to.
Scorsese’s greatest challenge in
keeping his characters morally ambiguous is found in Taxi Driver (1975). The film follows the day-to-day exploits of
tortured war veteran and title character Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro), as he
encounters a full spectrum of the people inhabiting Scorsese’s hellish vision
of New York City. The film is narrated by Travis himself, giving the audience
frequent glances into the thought processes that drive him. Alongside of this
is the fact that the film shows the audience numerous uncomfortable events
without ever cutting away to something less graphic. The sequence in which
Travis takes Betsy (Cybil Shepherd) to a porn flick on their first date is not shortened
and the audience bears witness to this unfolding disaster. The same is true
Travis’ final vendetta against Sport (Harvey Keitel) and his associates. The
effect of every bullet is shown as Travis literally blows apart his enemies. Scorsese
uses these methods to show an unbiased view of these unfolding actions. Everything
is shown equally, both the bad, Travis killing the pimps, and the limited good,
Travis “buying” Iris (Jodie Foster) for a few minutes but choosing to simply
talk to her, as well as Travis’ overall demeanor, which is considered milder
and less racist of sexist than some of his counterparts.
Because of
the unflinching portrayals of Travis’ day-to-day activities, Scorsese must work
hard to keep his characters morally ambiguous in the eyes of the audience. He
succeeds with Travis, but faces a near-impossible task with Travis’ ideological
opposite in the character of Sport.
Travis
first then. Scorsese is sure to show us that Travis is a mentally unstable
loner. He is often framed alone and at a distance. His interactions with
others, cabbies, passengers, etc., show him to be mostly quiet, generally
keeping his opinions to himself. This makes him seem appealing in comparison to
many of the bigots and sexists that he encounters. According to Patricia
Patterson and Many Farber, “[Travis] is set up as lean and independent, an
appealing innocent. The extent of his sexism and racism is hedged” (Rosebaum).
Even his final bloody escapade against the pimps is something that may draw the
audience to Travis’ side, though certainly not enough to label him as a “good”
guy.
On the
receiving end of Travis’ rage is the character of Sport, a pimp whose favorite
prostitute, Iris, is only twelve years old. Even though Scorsese sparsely
comments on Sport’s morality, his ethics and actions speak for themselves.
According to Leonard Quart, “For Scorsese, people like Sport, the wild street
kids, the prostitutes parading in front of the cab drivers’ cafeteria are an
integral part of the city’s daily life – people to be viewed as striking
cinematic images rather than social problems to be dealt with…” (69). Despite
Scorsese’s lack of judgment against Sport, the audience forms an opinion
against him because of his occupation and his relationship to the character of
Iris. Sport’s philosophy is that he is only giving the people what they want,
but this non-judgmental tone cannot absolve Sport from his crimes in the eyes
of the audience, and viewers therefore label him as morally corrupt.
This is
somewhat unfortunate, and it does work both for and against the moral ambiguity
that is placed on Travis. Travis seems relatively tame compared to the
character of Sport, which prevents him from being labeled bad. However, by
Travis killing Sport in the film’s conclusion, Travis is almost pushed into the
realm of “good” for the audience, which works against the ambiguity that
Scorsese tries to establish. The final confrontation between Travis and Sport
is more interesting if both characters are viewed as morally ambiguous, as it
can be seen as a clash of philosophical views: Travis’ longing to clean up the
streets vs. Sport’s doing what he must to get by, rather than the traditional
good vs. evil. Though Scorsese puts a great amount of effort into keeping
Travis and Sport morally ambiguous, Sport’s actions are too much for audience
to accept as morally ambiguous. The film seems to agree with this idea as well.
For example, Travis guns down Sport and is later seen grinning as he continues
on with his life. However, this helps establish Travis’ moral
ambiguity and, thus, it serves the film’s purpose overall.
While Taxi Driver focuses on a few days in the life of a morally
ambiguous antihero, Goodfellas (1990)
follows decades of a career mafia member. The film chronicles the rise and fall
career mafia man of Henry Hill (Ray Liotta). Henry narrates the film and the
audience follows him from the time he was a young boy longing to win the
approval of the local mobsters to his eventual conviction and subsequent
placement in the witness protection program. Throughout the film, the audience
sees Henry commit numerous crimes, but also be a family man who looks out for
his friends while holding a sense of honor. All of this is within the context
of Henry being a mob member. The film never vilifies Henry for any of his
crimes, but it also never states that any of his good actions atone for the
criminal ones. According to Scorsese, he tried “to be as close to the truth as
possible in a fiction film, without whitewashing the characters or creating a
phony sympathy for them” (Galenson and Kotin 38). The film keeps the audience
within Henry’s head for the entirety of the film in an effort to generate real
sympathy for him.
By gaining insight into Henry’s head,
the audience sees what motivates him. Henry is a man who is struggling for a
sense of belonging in a family unit. His biological family, especially his
father, is uncomfortable, to say the least, of his life choices early on. Henry
does eventually get married and start a family, but this is far from perfect as
Henry begins to feel unhappy with this life and begins keeping mistresses. Meanwhile,
Henry is working his way up in the local mafia, but even in this family Henry
recognizes that he can never be fully accepted because he is half-Irish. In
this way, Henry is shown to be incapable of having an ideal family. Henry’s
crimes are framed as chores for his family units, and his sins against his
biological and marital families are almost exclusively a result of his
dedication to the mob family, which he fits in the best with.
Henry fits in best with the mob because
they (mostly) accept him as he is. Despite this, Scorsese does hint
stylistically that Henry’s faith in the mob might be misplaced. According to
George Castellitto “The use of freeze-frames in Goodfellas highlights Scorsese’s methods of ‘freezing’ significant images so that his
tale becomes a series of relevant ‘things’ accentuating the film’s themes of
misplace motivations, the fragility of power, and human self-destruction.”
(27-28) Scorsese does not judge Henry for any of his crimes; he is just a
family man fulfilling his family duties.
At first, this may seem complicated by
Henry’s betrayal of his mafia family in the film’s conclusion, a stark reversal
of the honor that Henry displayed for much of the entire film. However, this
betrayal is justified, in that Henry is betrayed first. The mob shuns Henry because
of his heritage, but at the same time accepts all the hard work he does for
them. Henry knows this, and since he has nothing left to gain inside the mob,
he begins to go outside the mob and deal drugs, an action prohibited by the
mafia. The film does not condone or condemn Henry’s drug trade, instead equally
showing the audience the consequences it brings. Henry gains money and power,
but at the same time he becomes addicted to drugs and is eventually arrested
for his narcotics. Though the drugs lead to Henry’s downfall, it can be argued
that this is the result of the actions of a man who had nothing else to do. He
had gone as far as he could with his family, and so he goes even farther
without it. The second set of betrayals occurs when the family turns their
backs on Henry as a result of his violation of their rules. He is given
“Thirty-two hundred dollars for a lifetime.” Cast out from the family and
likely marked for death, Henry is driven by fear to the Witness Protection
Program and he testifies against his former family in court.
The film does not condemn Henry for
this action either. Instead, these actions are presented just as all of Henry’s
previous actions, as events that Henry must do for his family. This final
action is different from all the others in that Henry is now working for
acceptance in a new family group, the FBI. This action leads to Henry’s
salvation when he is spared from death and he can live a semi-normal life as
opposed to going back to prison. Henry is even shown briefly grinning at the
camera in one of the film’s final shots, though his voiceover
indicates that his new life is far from a happy.
Neither of the betrayals by either the
mob or Henry are used to vilify either group, rather the film uses them to counteract
each other and to avoid judgment on either party. The mob expels Henry because
he has violated their rules and Henry turns on the mob because he has been expelled.
But Henry would not have violated the mob’s rules if they had not refused to
fully accept him in the first place because of a factor over which Henry had no
control (his heritage). This does not vilify the mob, both because it is
standard mafia practice and because the mob still accepts Henry to a degree and
allows him to gain power through and because of them.
This is the core argument of Scorsese:
that nothing is done without provocation. Judgment is not handed down; the
actions of the characters are shown, as are their results. It is left to the
audience to decide whether or not the actions taken were warranted, and whether
or not the consequences of the actions justifies or condemns them. As Owen
Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly puts it: “Scorsese has brought off the rare
feat of making a genuinely amoral film.” By doing this Scorsese benefits by
granting himself the freedom to fully explore the character of a mobster
without needing to frame the story within a moral lens. This complex character
analysis would not be possible if the characters were morally labeled, as it
would cause audiences to be biased in their view of the characters.
Scorsese
takes this a step further in his 2013 film The
Wolf of Wall Street, which chronicles the rise and fall of real-life
stockbroker Jordan Belfort. Throughout the film, the audience witnesses many of
Belfort’s frat-boy like antics, including rampant drug abuse and outrageous
parties involving dozens of prostitutes, among other things. All of this is remorselessly
narrated by Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio), as he details taking thousands of
clients’ savings as well as cheating on his wife and obstructing a federal
investigation. Scorsese presents all of this unflinchingly, but he never comes
around and states that what Belfort has done is wrong. He is eventually caught
and convicted but, as Belfort himself says in reference to his current
situation in prison: “I’m not ashamed to admit it: My first time in prison, I
was terrified. For a moment, I had forgotten I lived in a world where
everything was for sale.” The final scene of the film shows Belfort, now out of
prison, hosting a salesmen conference with almost all of his old swagger
returned.
The
character of Jordan Belfort presented a unique challenge to Scorsese in
comparison to the films of Taxi Driver
and Goodfellas. Whereas the character
of Travis Bickle was purely fictional and Henry Hill, though based on a real
person, was mostly removed from the public memory at the time of the release of
Goodfellas. The character of Henry
Hill also had the benefit of committing crimes that didn’t harm innocent
people, for the most part.
The
character of Jordan Belfort is starkly different than both of the archetypes
for several reasons. Most notably, the real-life Jordan Belfort was still
relatively well established in the public memory at the time of The Wolf of Wall Street’s 2013 release.
The challenge for Scorsese is to create a personification of Belfort that does
not expressly condemn the character, as this would significantly decrease the
complexity and intrigue of the film’s core narrative. To make his argument, and
to prevent the film from being a scathing condemnation of Belfort, Scorsese
crafted the film almost as a glamorization of the lifestyle that Jordan and his
friends and coworkers lived. This is meant to balance out the inherit
negativity directed at Belfort, but it almost comes off as casting a moral
judgment on the characters.
Scorsese
frames the actions of Belfort and co. glamorously, while also maintaining
Jordan’s narration of each event throughout the entire film. Bright colors and
excessive slow motion fill the screen, the latter of which is often used to
humorous effect. Every action, no matter how illicit it might be or how much
harm it might cause, is shown the same as practically every other amoral action
in the film. The only difference being that the illegal actions are often
fueled by drugs, and thus occur in quicker sections of the film as opposed to
the few, non-drug-fueled segments. The only slight exception to this is when
Belfort’s first wife catches him cheating on her and the film briefly takes a
serious and stern tone. However, this is only because this event directly
negatively affects Jordan and after the thirty seconds of this relatively dark
tone, the film moves ahead and the audience sees Jordan moving into a glamorous
new penthouse with his glamorous new girlfriend. Jordan has effectively traded
up, and all the film shows that he suffers for it is one brief uncomfortable
encounter with his then-wife.
A. O. Scott of The New York Times does
note that this treatment of women makes the “strongest evidence” that the film
is propaganda as opposed to satire. This trend continues throughout the entire
film. Jordan and company will do something illegal, which never seems that bad,
or bad at all, and the film immediately shows the money, sex, drugs, etc., that
they gain for it. The reward is always greater than the cost, even when the
characters are finally caught and convicted at the conclusion of the film. The
propaganda elements of The Wolf of Wall
Street do follow the film’s argument against the demonstrated behavior.
Scorsese does not flinch in showing the audience these behaviors, as they
contribute to his overall argument about them, demonstrated by the film’s
conclusion.
The conclusion of The Wolf of Wall Street is both its most important factor in its
argument, and also its most controversial. It is true that Belfort and his
friends end up in prison, but this is briefly shown before Belfort is once
again free. Belfort’s narration pervades this entire sequence, and lessens any
condemning tone that these scenes could convey. Belfort is sure to tell the
audience that nothing really bad will happen to him, and the film conveys this
by showing Jordan playing tennis is prison.
In this way the, film does not judge
Jordan and simply leaves him as he was in real life, free from prison after a
short stint and perfectly able to make his way in the world. In an interview
with Mike Fleming Jr., Scorsese said, in reference to the film’s ending: “[A moralistic
ending] wouldn’t mean anything. People would accept it and forget about it. You
see that on television, like every two seconds. It no longer means something. I
felt here that if we were going to try and say it, let’s do it, full out. Be as
open about it as possible” (Deadline). Simply put, Scorsese refused to pass
moral judgment on his characters so that their stories would be memorable.
Throughout the three films discussed,
Scorsese attempts to create characters that are free from any moral judgment by
the films themselves. The varying degrees of success that Scorsese achieves are
mostly dependent on the characters’ respective actions and the resulting
audience reactions. Though some characters, such as Sport, may be unredeemable
to the audience because of their actions, it cannot be said that Scorsese ever
expressly condemns these characters himself. Rather, he lets their actions
speak for them and the audience is left to form their own opinions about the
characters. This creates arguments about the characters and the concepts they
are involved in that would not be possible if the characters were expressly
defined the terms of their morality.
The clash of life philosophies in Taxi Driver is far more interesting than
a simple psychopath killing a pimp. The life story of a man failing in all of
his family units is more captivating than a story about a gangster’s life and
the crimes that he commits. Repeated episodes of debauchery and law breaking
are more thoughtful than a simple condemnation of a stockbroker. By not placing
moral labels on his characters Scorsese is able to craft his narratives to make
arguments, not to tell the audience what they already know.
Works Cited
Castellitto,
George P. "Imagism And Martin Scorsese: Images Suspended And
Extended." Literature Film Quarterly 26.1 (1998): 23-29. Web. 13
Apr. 2015.
Fleming
Jr., Mike. "Martin Scorsese On 'Wolf Of Wall Street': A Happy, Moral
Ending To Scandalous Stockbroker Expose Would Have Turned It Into A TV
Movie." Deadline. Penske Business Media, 6 Jan. 2014. Web. 8 Apr.
2015.
Galenson,
David W., and Joshua Kotin. "From The New Wave To The New Hollywood."
Historical Methods (2010): 29-44. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
Gleiberman,
Owen. "Goodfellas | EW.com." EW.com. Entertainment Weekly, 17
Jan. 2015. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
Quart,
Leonard. "A Slice of Delirium: Scorsese's Taxi Driver Revisited." Film
Criticism (1995): 67-71. Web. 14 Apr. 2015.
Rosenbaum,
Jonathan. "Hell on Wheels." Chicago Reader. Sun-Times Media
LLC, 29 Feb. 1996. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
Taxi
Driver. Dir. Martin Scorsese. Focus-Magazin-Verl. 1975. Blu-ray.
Goodfellas.
Dir. Martin Scorsese. Warner Bros, 1990. Blu-ray.
The
Wolf of Wall Street. Dir. Martin Scorsese. Paramount
Pictures, 2013. Blu-ray.
Scott,
A. O. "When Greed Was Good (and Fun)." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 24 Dec. 2013. Web. 12 Apr. 2015.
