New York New York (1977)

Director – Martin Scorsese

Writers – Earl Mac Rauch, Mardik Martin

Starring – Liza Minnelli, Robert De Niro, Lionel Stander, Barry Primus, Mary Kay Place, Georgie Auld, George Memmoli, Dick Miller, Murray Moston, Lenny Gaines, Clarence Clemons, Kathi McGinnis, Norman Palmer, Adam David Winkler, Dimitri Logothetis

Review by The _Void

Not one of Scorsese’s best,
Martin Scorsese’s music drama is a tribute to the ‘big band’ era of America and stars Robert DeNiro and Liza Minnelli as a couple of lovers and musicians. The film starts off brilliantly, with Robert DeNiro trying to charm his way into getting Liza Minnelli’s phone number and, in fact, the first half hour is as good as anything Scorsese ever did; but unfortunately the film quickly loses it’s way.

The reason the film doesn’t completely work is mostly due to the characters that Scorsese has created; Robert DeNiro’s character, Jimmy Doyle, starts off as a likable scallywag who’s both amusing and enticing, but he quickly degenerates into one of the most hate-inducing characters ever portrayed in a movie. Liza Minnelli’s character, on the other hand is dislikeable for completely different reasons; she bears the brunt of everything we hate Doyle for; and that’s the problem, she simply bears it; he says jump and she says how high, and this gives us no reason to care for her, despite the fact that she’s the innocent party. The characters are the centrepiece of any movie and a film that has no likable characters will be difficult for the audience to like, and that is where ‘New York, New York’ fails.

The film isn’t completely devoid of good moments, however; obviously, Robert DeNiro stars, and that is a credit to any movie. His performance here isn’t among his best…in fact, it’s a more a re-run of previous performances if anything; but DeNiro’s screen presence is always enough to make him worth watching, even if he is only doing what he’s done before. Liza Minnelli seems to be a strange casting choice to me; she was obviously used to musicals by the time this film was made, so I can see Scorsese’s view from that point, but she isn’t believable as a romantic interest, mostly because she just isn’t attractive enough…she’s very funny looking, isn’t she? She does have some good moments in the film, though; most of them towards the end in the big dance numbers, including the catchy “Happy Endings” and, of course, the title track; “New York, New York”.

However, despite the film’s plus points; it can’t get over it’s dislikeable characters. If it had, we may have had another Scorsese “classic”, but it doesn’t; and overall this makes the film one of good moments, rather than one of a satisfying whole. Which is a shame really.

Review by Gary F Taylor
New York, New York (1977)
Often Brilliant In Spite of Major Flaws,

Released in 1977, Martin Scorsese’s NEW YORK, NEW YORK instantly divided critical response–and, facing box office competition from no less than STAR WARS, proved a major financial failure. A significantly edited re-release followed not long afterward but proved even less well received and even less profitable. Although a double VHS release eventually brought the film to the home market, the film remained unpopular and made barely a ripple in public consciousness. In 2005, however, NEW YORK, NEW YORK received an unexpected release to DVD. At long last it may begin to reach a significant audience.

As a story, NEW YORK, NEW YORK draws from a number of oddly “Noir-ish” musicals made at Warner Bros. in the late 1940s. Most particularly, according to Scorsese’s commentary, it drew from MY DREAM IS YOURS, a film that not only starred Doris Day but actually reflected her life in its tale of a talented big band “girl singer” trapped in an abusive marriage with a musician. Although the film force-fed the audience a happy ending, later films would not. In the mid-1950s, Doris Day’s LOVE ME OR LEAVE ME and Judy Garland’s A STAR IS BORN offered stories of a gifted female vocalists locked into disastrous romances that played out to a very distinctly unhappy ending, and NEW YORK, NEW YORK draws from them as well.

Scorsese not only repeats the basic stories and themes of these films, he also repeats the artificially heightened visual style typical of Hollywood films of the 1940s and 1950s–it is no accident that Liza Minnelli looks and sings remarkably like mother Judy Garland in this film–but he does so to an entirely unexpected end. The bravado performing style of such films is completely snatched away, and the characters are presented in an almost documentary-like realism. In theory, each aspect of the film would emphasize the other; in fact, however, this was precisely what critics and audiences disliked about the film when it debuted. They considered it extremely grating.

But perhaps the passage of time has opened our eyes on the point. I saw NEW YORK, NEW YORK in its 1977 release and, music aside, I disliked it a great deal. I expected to retain that opinion when I approached the DVD release, but I was greatly surprised. It holds up remarkably well, and most of the time the balance of artifice and reality works very well. But there are significant flaws. In a general sense, the film has a cold feel to it that occasionally becomes so downright chilly you begin to detach from it. But even more difficult is the character of Jimmy Doyle, the abusive husband of the piece.

The recent DVD release includes a noteworthy director’s commentary, and Scorsese states that both he and actor Robert De Niro sought to push the character far beyond the extremes of MY DREAM IS YOURS, LOVE ME OR LEAVE ME, or A STAR IS BORN. They were perhaps more successful than they expected. The result is a character you actively do not want to watch or hear, and although we are eventually allowed to see beyond his annoying qualities that moment comes much too late in the film to make him acceptable in any significant way. It makes for more than one bout of uphill viewing.

Overall, I recommend the film–but it is very much a “Hollywood Insider” film that is probably best left to those who know a great deal about film history and who can recognize the numerous antecedents from which it draws.

Review by Jack Gattanella
New York, New York (1977)

Even a lesser Scorsese/De Niro film has some good film-making,
There are different ways I could try to give criticism of New York, New York, director Martin Scorsese’s 1977 (first) ‘big-budget’ film. I could give it in the historical context of why it was good or bad, dealing with Scorsese’s excesses off-screen and on (he was in a cocaine addiction among other substances, and in a relationship with Liza Minelli). I could deal with the deconstructive context, where I break down as many scenes as possible, using different ways to talk about the acting and the sets, music, etc. Or I could deal with it the overall way, talking about the things just entertainment and story/character and so forth about why I consider this a lesser Scorsese picture.

First though, I want to point out what I did like about the film, and there was a good deal I did. If Scorsese was in a state of excess at the time of the filming, at least some of it rubbed off the right way with his style. Everything (like the studio musicals of the 40’s) is expansive, and true to almost all of Scorsese’s films is energetic and always giving an eyeful. The music used for the film is superb, especially for the jazz enthusiast like myself (while I have heard the song of the film’s title too many times to count, Minelli does a fine job with it, if not great) with cool, swinging jazz music and original tunes by John Kander. The production design, much like Scorsese’s Gangs of New York and the Aviator, is something to behold, and should have received some Oscar nominations. And the story at its core is one that resonates well with the spirit of the old-time musicals: two people falling in love, trying to make it big, and dealing with the pressures of being entertainers. At times, as well, the acting from De Niro and Minelli gels.

Now with the problems I had with the film. In interviews about the film, Scorsese has said that he tried to combine the atmosphere and joy of a studio musical from the Golden Age of Hollywood with the drama and character analysis of not-so-ordinary people like in a Cassavetes film. It becomes a mixed bag of a combination. On the one hand he has his screenwriter from Mean Streets and Raging Bull, Mardik Martin, giving the dialog a fresh feel, like it does sound realistic. On the other, the story at times becomes a little too hard to believe, or maybe just a little too difficult for its own good. It’s a challenge to find the balancing act between making a solid romantic story (and Scorsese can deal with romance in films, no question about that) with a depressing, downward spiral. I wonder if the chemicals Scorsese had on the side affected him, or if it was just a combination of the elements at his disposal. The look and movement of the film is always eye-grabbing (provided here by one of my favorites, Laszlo Kovacs), but either he’s pushing himself too much here, or not enough- the naturalism and intensity of the characters/actors/story can only go so much hand-in-hand with the conventional narrative; he ended up finding this precisely in his recent films ‘Gangs’ and Aviator, but I have a feeling he was still experimenting here, not sure sometimes how much to stick with the visual side or the dramatic side.

It’s also a disappointment to say that I found De Niro, overall, to have given one of his lesser performances as well. To put it another way, he’s not bad in the film, but because the character he’s playing, Jimmy Doyle, is very hard to like, it becomes a struggle to find empathy or sympathy with him- at times the character reminded me of a slightly toned down (violence-wise) version of Jake La Motta only with a sax instead of boxing gloves. He does what he can, but like with the conventions of a studio musical of old, the character is mostly one sided, and aside from the rare moments of a calmer scene, he seems to always have the same attitude (and, yet again, I liked how he played his own sax music in the film).

Minelli, meanwhile, is given a little more depth, is the more grounded one, but sometimes I wondered why she would be in this relationship for so long. The idea behind two creative people being together and having strife off the music is interesting, though with the realism kicked up to the usual Scorsese notch, I wondered what the motivations were for her character. There’s also the question of whether or not the two actors have chemistry together, and they do (notably in the musical scenes, which are the best), but again De Niro can out-act almost anybody, including Minelli.

One reason for my complaints about New York, New York is not necessarily based on what is there, but what’s not there. Most of the time the film works as a vehicle for the stars, with some elaborate shots, great atmosphere, and music that strikes up the best of 40’s swing and jazz. But being this is also the only Scorsese film I have yet to see until now, I might have had my expectations raised a little high. The film is not a mess, but at times I was scratching my head while staying with a watchable film. It’s a genre picture that he tried to subvert, like others, and it’s just not as successful as his other films. Still, if this was made by any other director, I would likely be even more impressed.

New York New York (1977)
Review by Wayne Malin

The “lost” Scorsese film,
This was a real change of pace for director Martin Scorsese–he decided to do a drama/love story with music set in the 1940s. But he wanted a DOWNBEAT film. It was released in 1977 (after about 20 minutes were cut out by the studio) and was torn apart by the critics. It was reissued in 1981 with all the cut footage restored (in now runs 165 minutes) and the critics raved about it! Go figure. After that, however, it seemed to disappear. Too bad–it’s actually good.

It’s about clarinet player Jimmy Doyle (Robert De Niro) falling in love with Francine Evans (Liza Minnelli). She’s a singer and they preform together in the same band. But Jimmy has serious temper problems and when Francine gets pregnant things go out of control.

The film is certainly stunning to look at–the sets and cinematography are just great. Some of the sets are (quite obviously) fake but it actually works in this movie. It seems to be a homage to the big, splashy Technicolor musicals of the 1940s and 1950s–but has its characters act like real people and deal with adult situations. The direction by Scorsese is (of course) wonderful. What’s especially surprising is his directing of the big “Happy Endings” musical number (which was originally completely cut)–who knew Scorsese could direct a musical?

The acting is good–almost too good. Minnelli is very good as Francine–she’s just magical when she sings and there’s a powerful sequence when she just explodes in the back of a car. De Niro plays Doyle as an insensitive jerk–and that’s the main problem with this film. His character is loud, immature, obnoxious and always pushing Minnelli around. More than once I wanted her to turn around and punch him out. His character is so unlikable it’s hard to really give a damn about him. But Minnelli is beautiful and likable and the sets are unbelievable. The music is great and when Minnelli sings “New York New York” you can’t take your eyes from the screen. Also old time stage actor Larry Kert (who sadly died of AIDS in 1980) pops up at the “Happy Endings” sequence–what a voice!

A lot of people find this film sick and too dark–it is, but it IS a Martin Scorsese film. It should be reissued again and find a new audience. It’s been over 20 years. Well worth seeing.