Movie Details
I came across this observation on a Reddit thread a while back, and it's a good one. In Goodfellas, during the "Funny how?' scene, when Tommy is causing trouble at the restaurant, there's a line that suggests his behavior is planned. Yeah, Tommy is a loose cannon, but the fact that he hasn't been paying his tab and breaks a bottle over the head of the manager isn't without purpose. Around 3:25 to 3:40, after Tommy throws dishes at the waiter and insults him, he looks to Henry and says, "You're supposed to be doing this stuff too, ya know?!" making in clear that it was intentional. The plan was to put pressure on the restaurant by not paying tabs and creating an unsafe environment. That way, the owner would go to Paulie for help, and Paulie could come on board and collect a share of the profits for offering protection.
17 Replies
Nah, not bloody likely.
Tommy's just a bad kid... a simpleton if you will.
I feel like I'm missing a reference regarding your comment but maybe not. Anyway, the fact that Tommy's a bad kid, along with the commotion during the scene, is what makes it so easy to overlook. Knowing Scorsese, the line was there for a reason.
You're supposed to be doing this stuff too, ya know? = We're taking a cut.
I've told him a million ****ing times. Tommy's a bad kid, a bad seed. What am I supposed to do, shoot him?
I feel like I'm missing a reference regarding your comment but maybe not. Anyway, the fact that Tommy's a bad kid, along with the commotion during the scene, is what makes it so easy to overlook. Knowing Scorsese, the line was there for a reason.
The 'idea' doesn't even make any sense from a story line perspective... add to that, this is NOT how the 'Mafia' worked.
While I do concur that this specific line of dialog has always stood out to me from the first time I watched the movie, I merely attribute it to a continuity error not some weird subtext idea... that is not how Marty makes Films. His movies rarely have any subtext to them.
Stop eating Mushrooms...
The 'idea' doesn't even make any sense from a story line perspective... add to that, this is NOT how the 'Mafia' worked.
While I do concur that this specific line of dialog has always stood out to me from the first time I watched the movie, I merely attribute it to a continuity error not some weird subtext idea... that is not how Marty makes Films. His movies rarely have any subtext to them.
Scorsese's work is overflowing with subtext. He's as good as it gets.
Not really no... he is a story teller, plain and simple.
Many of his older films are amazing essential works, but they are straightforward linear stories and he is exceptional at that. Combine that with an outstanding visual style... but his movies don't make you think.
Taxi Driver is in my personal top five movies of all time.
“At the time I wrote it [Taxi Driver], I was in a rather low and bad place,” screenwriter Paul Schrader recalled. “I had broken with Pauline [Kael], I had broken with my wife, I had broken with the woman I left my wife for, I had broken with the American Film Institute and I was in debt.” Due to his rapidly deteriorating health, having to live in his car and hanging out at porn shops in the middle of the night, Schrader naturally ended up in the hospital.
While he was in there, the writer figured out the exact extent of his depraved condition during a conversation with a nurse which led to the genesis of Taxi Driver: “When I was talking to the nurse, I realised I hadn’t spoken to anyone in weeks…that was when the metaphor of the taxi cab occurred to me. That is what I was: this person in an iron box, a coffin, floating round the city, but seemingly alone.”
In a very early interview, Martin Scorsese introduced his masterpiece to unknowing audiences by claiming that this was very different to his breakthrough film Mean Streets. According to Scorsese, Taxi Driver was a political and philosophical doctrine which revolved around the central figure of a character who was moulded after the infamous political criminal Arthur Bremer.
In order to point out the exact differences between Mean Streets and his new project, Scorsese explained that the ethnic focus of Taxi Driver was completely different: “Taxi Driver is sort of a return to the type of thing Mean Streets is but the point is Taxi Driver is not about Italians, it’s about a Midwesterner who drives a taxicab at night in New York which is the worst time you can do it… but it’s my favourite time in New York.”
Adding, “He drives a cab at night and he really is like Arthur Bremer – the guy who shot George Wallace in America. Sort of like that, he writes diaries [and] it has a little to do with political assassinations but really has to do with a fellow who becomes obsessed with something he can’t have – a blonde haired, blue eyed beautiful woman… It’s kind of a religious film in the sense that it explodes into great violence, repression into violence like a cleansing. It’s a very strange film.”
“We kept thinking in terms of the character and his loneliness and his acting out, not condoning the acting out, but he does act out and yet an empathy with him, which is really tricky,” Scorsese recalled about creating Travis. “Ultimately, what stayed with us was the psychological and emotional state of that character. As we know now, tragically, it’s a norm that every other person is like Travis Bickle.”
“We threw everything we knew into it, not knowing how it was going to be received,” Scorsese said. “We understood that people didn’t like him and even the crew, it turned out — I didn’t know until later — why are we making a film about this guy? He’s a horror.”
“This man may be this way but he still is a human being,” Scorsese added, defending his right to make movies about monsters. “He’s got a heart. He’s got a soul. By the end of it, he finds some kind of peace with himself and maybe the others around him. I think I was going there to try to find piece of myself.”
Studs Terkel interview with Scorsese and Shrader
Even though it wasn't written by Scorsese, The Departed is one of my favorite movies directed by him. As the title suggests, it's about those who have passed on. The underlying message has to do with the world we leave behind.
When Queenan and Dignam are recruiting Costigan to go undercover. Dignam's grilling Costigan about his family being losers and criminals and asks him why he's trying to be a state cop. Costigan responds with the Hawthorne quote: "Families are always rising and falling in America." He wants to be something more and give his family a good name.
At the end, the viewer infers that Costigan is the father of Madolyn's baby, not Sullivan. Costigan left something behind, and his name will live on. Sullivan wasn't able to create anything. He couldn't even perform in bed. Costigan's life is celebrated. Sullivan basically dies alone. Costigan made great sacrifices. Sullivan made none.
When Sullivan asks Costigan for the password to his file, he tells him that it's his name. There's a ton of subtext about namesakes, the lives we lead, and the legacies we leave behind. The themes are present throughout the film. He wants the audience to think about these things as they relate to their own lives. It's more than a good cop/bad cop story.
Scorsese also uses a lot of symbolism. Henry covering up his crucifix when he meets Karen's mom in Goodfellas, for example. That was written in to say something about Henry and not a random detail without purpose. Scorsese's incredibly meticulous, and moral themes are present in most of his work.
He does a bit of non-linear storytelling but not a lot. More often, he moves years ahead for following acts, and the audience is left to fill in the details.
Two lesser known films I'd recommend are Bringing Out the Dead and Silence. And it just occurred to me that I haven't seen Killers of the Flower Moon.
But when the restaurant owner goes to Paulie you see Paulie and Henry exchange sly knowing looks , which implies something was to a degree premeditated or at the very least they took advantage of the situation. But there's definite merit to the OP's point.
there's no 'sly' or 'knowing' look exchanged... but what ever blows your skirt up.
Mafia... is protection. Doubly so from that era/history.
there's no 'sly' or 'knowing' look exchanged... but what ever blows your skirt up.
Mafia... is protection. Doubly so from that era/history.
Yeah there is
Firstly at :44 Henry states "tell him [Paulie] what we were talking about", which clearly highlights that Henry had already advised him to take Paulie on as a "partner", which is really a euphemism for "Pay Paulie protection money".
Then at 1:57 Paulie asks Henry "you know anything about this f-n restaurant business" and Henry moves his lips in a maybe kinda way but there's a ghost of a knowing smirk on his lips too.
Then at 2.:20 Paulie , after agreeing to be a partner, then shoots Henry a knowing look while puffing on his cigar, as if to say the pig is now in the pot.
So yeah there's merit in what the OP states.
Initially, Paulie doesn't have a piece of the restaurant. The mob could simply use threats to extort the owner, but that could easily get out of hand and carries more risk. The other option is for members of his crew to frequent the restaurant, run up huge tabs, refuse to pay, and cause chaotic scenes. The owner knows who he's dealing with and isn't about to ban Tommy from the restaurant or go to the police, so he goes to Paulie instead. Now Paulie is signed on as a legitimate partner and can put pressure on the owner to pay up without breaking the law or doing any work.
These two lines from Paulie also help paint the picture:
"You think you're the only one? I talked to them a million times. They don't listen."
"What could I do? If there was something I could do, don't you think I would do it? You know me. I would like to help you out."
Paulie has the power to make them stop harassing the owner. Unlike the drug deals they did behind his back, this isn't something they'd be able to hide from him. If he wanted them to lay off, they would have.
I mentioned this in the movie thread a few months ago but wanted to share it here and add a few details. For those who've seen Manchester by the Sea, you already know. For those who haven't, major spoilers ahead...
Spoiler
Lee (Casey Affleck) loses his three children in a house fire after leaving the fireplace burning when he goes to the store. His marriage falls apart, and he becomes a shadow of his former self, showing no real signs of life. Later, his brother Joe (Kyle Chandler), is diagnosed with congestive heart failure. After Joe dies, Lee learns that Joe made him the guardian of his son Patrick (Lucas Hedges). Lee was never told about this and doesn't feel ready to take care of his nephew. In the end, a family friend is given guardianship, but they remain in each other's lives.
I love this scene at the end. Lee and Patrick are walking up a hill, talking, bouncing a ball back and forth. At one point, Patrick bounces the ball to Lee, and Lee misses it. He says, "Just let it go," as it rolls away. Patrick runs back, gets the ball and bounces it back to Lee. "Heads up." Lee catches the ball. It's one of my favorite pieces of symbolism in a movie. While somewhat obvious, not completely so, and a really beautiful metaphor. Joe left Patrick to Lee because Lee needed Patrick, not just because Patrick needed Lee. Lee is wanting to give up, but Patrick is there, ready to catch him, encouraging him to move forward.
The scene is from 2:10:47 to 2:12:06
