'New York, New York': When great directors make bad movies

Martin Scorsese is my favorite movie director. I love almost all of his films and I've seen almost all of them. But I can't, no matter how hard I try, love New York, New York (1977).

It's an overlong, self-indulgent mess but it is fiercely watchable, hence my three star rating on Netflix. But it's also mind-bogglingly off-putting in long stretches.

It may contain some of the worst acting of Robert De Niro's career. You'd think in a face-off between him and Liza Minnelli that he'd give the stronger performance -- but he is unhinged here and doesn't seem to even be directed by Scorsese. Minnelli is incredibly sympathetic if not entirely believable.

Why is she not believable? Because we are supposed to believe that she's fallen in love with De Niro's character and he is such a misogynist, childish, obnoxious weirdo that we never accept that someone seemingly as well-adjusted as Minnelli's character could love him.

That should be rule number one of the any movie that purports to be a romance -- the two leads should have some chemistry or some reason to be in love. This movie provides none.

This is a post-World War II period picture and it opens with an interminable (although beautifully shot and scored scene) where De Niro's character literally sexually harasses Minnelli's character for what seems like 15 minutes. He isn't charming, even in an offbeat way, he's positively predatory -- it's no wonder some critics compared his role to his psychopath Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver.

De Niro in New York, New York

His character doesn't so much woo her as wear her down and once he appears to have seduced her he doesn't start show any vulnerability or humanity. Instead he unveils a creepy controlling streak which is exhausting and unpleasant.

There are moments where De Niro's character seems to be suffering from some sort of acute social disorder. Scorsese has admitted that he allowed the actors to run rampant with improvisation on this film and sadly it shows.

Even an actor with De Niro's talent can and should be reigned in. Here scenes run way too long and De Niro goes off on these tangents that don't propel the story or establish anything worthwhile about the characters.

This is the first and only Scorsese movie I can think of which I find occasionally boring (I've never seen Kundun, which very well may be). It lacks the narrative propulsion that made movies like Goodfellas feel urgent and accessible.

If Scorsese's goal was to chronicle a dysfunctional relationship then the movie is a rousing success but I think his intent (or so he says) was to make an old-fashioned movie with characters who are neurotic in a modern (for 1977) way. But De Niro's behavior in particular is so erratic and caustic if defies any reality.

Take for instance the pivotal scene (spoiler alert) where his character proposes to Minnelli. He does this by dragging her to a justice of the peace without telling her why, becoming irate when she demands an explanation, him flailing around and delivering the most self-serving proposal in film history and her inexplicably caving in. Later, when her character reveals she's pregnant -- we cringe because the thought of this dysfunctional couple raising a child is truly depressing.

Scorsese movies routinely present us with images of women being mistreated and men behaving badly but here it doesn't feel edifying or entertaining -- it's just a bummer.

So why can't I bring myself to hate this film? I guess part of it is loyalty to a director I have a lot of personal admiration for. I also am well aware of the fact that most of the directors I really admire have crash and burned with films on multiple occasions (Spike Lee in particular is either genius or awful).

Scorsese on Taxi Driver set

The movie also has a lot of interesting stuff in it. I like the sets (even the intentionally superficial ones), the music, the recreation of the big band era. And the ending is actually terrific.

Minnelli is also quite good in it. I miss the days when unconventional looking actresses like her got top billing in movies.

When the movie slows down and revels in its quieter moments (such as Minnelli's rendition of "The Man I Love") it can be quite arresting. In De Niro's defense, he is committed to his role for better or worse (he reportedly took sax lessons to make his performance look more authentic). He made a strong choice with the Jimmy Doyle character but it just doesn't pay off.

Unfortunately, for a film as overstuffed and unwieldy as this one, it doesn't surprise us. You know from the moment Minnelli and De Niro's characters team up (she's the singer fronting his band) that she will outshine him and he will drag her down. So we spend roughly two hours watching them fight and in De Niro's case be rude to everyone he meets and I'm not sure what cinematic value there is in that.

I do think as a fan of film though you can learn a lot by watching a great director's failures as well as their successes. What I think Scorsese hoped to achieve was something akin to what Todd Haynes did with Far From Heaven (2002), which was to project a modern sensibility onto a film that was shot and performed in an old fashioned way. His love for the look and style of the classic films he grew up with is all over this film and he just missed the mark.

Scorsese was apparently at the peak of his drug addiction when he made New York, New York which might explain its disjointed nature. He didn't make another film for three years and when he did it was Raging Bull, a high point for himself and for De Niro.

Sometimes when we hit a false note, we can still manage to make beautiful music.