New York, New York (1977)

At the beginning of the movie, when Jimmy is trying to pick up Francine, the first thirteen words out of her mouth are the words "No." That would have been more than enough for most men, but Jimmy is so pushy that he keeps at it, getting nowhere. However, through a bizarre coincidence, Francine ends up with Jimmy the next day at his audition as a saxophone player. He flops. She tries to give him some advice, and he gets angry. Being a professional singer, she encourages Jimmy to accompany her in a song, and the manager is so impressed that he hires them as a boy-girl team. She agrees to meet Jimmy the next day, but when she gets back to her hotel, she finds out that her agent has a good singing job lined up for her, which means going on the road. But she has to leave early in the morning if she wants the job. As she has no way of breaking her date with Jimmy before she leaves, she simply takes off, giving her agent a letter to give to Jimmy explaining what happened.This first sequence of events is a harbinger of all that is to come, and so it is worth pausing here to see what this represents. First of all, Jimmy is a snob about the kind of music he plays, and thinks he is too good to take advice from anyone. Francine, on the other hand, is casually great, a natural, someone who sings the kind of songs people want to hear, and does so with a lot of personality and polish. This reminds me of "The Way We Were" (1973), when Katie works really hard, desperately trying to write the best essay in the course she is taking. Instead, the professor reads aloud the essay written by Hubbell, who probably just dashed it off the night before. And just to rub it in, the essay is about a man for whom everything came too easily. Katie is devastated. But at least she has the strength of character needed to admit that his essay was better, and to tell him so with a smile. Not so with Jimmy in "New York, New York." He can't stand the fact that Francine has more talent than he does. He resents her for it, and he begrudges every concession he has to make to her.Second, Jimmy is obnoxious, arrogant, and pushy, and Francine is submissive and passive, to the point that a lot of people see her as a victim. But Danny Peary, in his "Cult Movies 3," argues that "it is Francine who constantly victimizes Jimmy and who ultimately destroys (their professional and personal) relationships. He may do bad things, but she is the villain." (p. 152).Regarding the sequence of events already discussed, Peary argues that she promised Jimmy to perform with him, and that she knew that without her, he would lose the job. Well, the fact that Jimmy is not good enough to hold down the job on his own is not her problem. She was willing to help him out as long as she had nothing else going on in her life right then, but when something came along that was really important to her, she was not about to sacrifice her own career for someone she just met the day before. In other words, what people like Jimmy do not understand is that people like Francine only appear to be submissive and passive because they are good natured and easy going. And so it comes as a great shock to Jimmy that Francine really is not under his thumb after all, but is capable of bending that thumb back when it comes to the things she cares about. Call her a "villain" if you want, but let this movie be a cautionary tale to those like Jimmy who think they can dominate women like Francine.Danny Peary is my favorite critic, which is why I have given his Francine-as-villain analysis so much attention. He gives several more examples of what a villain she is, but this one really floors me: "Francine became pregnant without discussing it with Jimmy." In other words, I guess Francine should have discussed it with Jimmy before she decided not to use a condom.Jimmy's pushiness arises from an egocentric delusion. He thinks that what he wants, what will make him happy, will therefore make Francine happy. If she is reluctant to do what he wants, it is only because she just does not understand what is best for her. And so he just cannot believe that she stubbornly keeps wanting to do things her way, when he just knows that her true happiness lies in her doing exactly what he says she should do.She goes on to be a big movie star, while he manages to have some minor success owning his own night club, finally giving him almost enough self-confidence to tell her that he is proud of her in her dressing room where there is a party going on celebrating her successful return to New York. I say "almost," because in his inimitable, small-minded way, he immediately qualifies the compliment by saying, "in a way."He goes down to a payphone and calls her, asking her to meet him, because there is something he wants to talk to her about. Impulsively, she agrees. But then she gets to thinking about the important thing he wants to talk to her about, which obviously is about their getting back together. Not wanting to go through another scene of telling him "No," she goes home instead. When she does not show up, he realizes that she does not need him and just wants him to go away, which is what she tried to tell him at the beginning of the movie. At long last, he finally learns to accept this brute fact.

I love old Big Band music and the history and trials of their times and the road. But I would Never let my daughter see this for fear she might think it is OK to be mentally abused by someone who professes to love her.The plot is weak, there are no redeeming qualities of this film....Liza is a wimp.....Robert D even wears the same suit all the time!Its difficult to believe that Martin Scorsese to have created it.Shame on This for even showing it....and for Robert De Niro and Liza Minnelli for agreeing to be a part of it.I wish I could say something positive, but this is a bad message.

One cannot walk out of this without mixed feelings and without thinking "What in the world they were thinking when they decided to make such film?". But the main question is directed to its master and commander Martin Scorsese, specially his big fans, like me, who wonder why would he enter in a project where the screenplay was heavily constructed during filming and in the end doesn't have much to say about anything. Before this review get into trouble of being misunderstood, I liked "New York, New York" but one must be fair and point out the many problems of this film before getting to why it's such a nice film to be watched. For the most part it was an extremely and incredibly exhaustive journey to sit through a musical of two hours and a half (musical admirers know that a film like this shouldn't go on for that long).Marty pays a good tribute to his beloved city but this time in the way of a visually spectacular musical like the ones made in the 1940's, colorful, vibrant, that took place after the end of the WWII. In this ecstatic and joyful New York, sax player Jimmy (Robert De Niro) and singer Francine (Liza Minnelli) try to make their way through fame and success as entertainers as well as a troubled and strained romance. This story of love and their ups and downs in the middle of all that jazz, those songs and that magnificent city where if you can't make it there, you'll make anywhere, it's up to you, "New York, New York" is really an exuberant work for Scorsese who has some skills in showing his Vincente Minnelli/Stanley Donen side, he manages to make a decent musical in the sense of presenting his audience a musical the way they were back in the Golden era of Hollywood. What stands on the way of this being one of his greatest achievements is the countless defects of a story in which it's really difficult to relate with or its trivial characters hard to care for, among many other problems. Never Marty's fault (just a little), always blame on the writers who needed to make this more impacting and exciting than it is. They haven't figured out what the Metro musicals of before had that this don't have: a direction to go, nice and colorful characters, awesome musical numbers (the ones of where are mostly Liza and two or three singing, that's it, no second characters of great musical importance) and even if those films had to deal with a bit of drama it never, at all, to make you feel discouraged of watching the film. After a hour and half, "New York, New York" gets shallow, not so impressive. This film without the drama, with more musical sequences and the vitality of a "Chicago" (both films have songs written by Ebb & Kander team) then we would have THE movie.Those who wonder in bewilderment how such project failed with public and critics back in 1977, I say this, the reason for this to fail were huge: musicals were dying in that decade, few survived to be considered great; the script is purely improvisation, not solid enough to be good; and Scorsese was coming from the amazing success of "Taxi Driver" still fresh in people's minds, the dark, dangerous and filthy New York he gave us there was more interesting than this colorful and snowy city. This change of direction in his career would prove to be bad for him who resurrected with style and grace with "Raging Bull". Of all the Scorsese/De Niro collaborations this is my least favorite. He's a good actor, learn to play the saxophone, and has a decent chemistry with Minnelli (even though there's no love between them, they just look well together) but his over-the-top character is of a kind we shouldn't see in a musical/comedy. Worths the view because of everyone involved; the great art-direction and costumes; scenes like De Niro trying to impress Liza to go with him on a date; the always excellent theme song featured towards the ending, and the fun bit roles played by Barry Primus, Lionel Stander and Clarence Clemons. A good film to be appreciated for almost everything except the weak script. 7/10

Ah the infamous directorial dud. I can't seem to escape you lately. And this time you appear with one of the greatest directors of all time, Martin Scorsese. But I suppose it would make sense that you would appear in the form of a three hour musical romance. New York, New York chronicles the story of two lovers, Jimmy Doyle, a talented saxophone player, and Francine Evans, a very talented singer. The two meet on V-J day and continuously fall in and out of love as they try to elevate their careers to grand heights while trying to cope with the other. It is a story of two people so wildly talented that they almost cancel each other out and cannot contend with each other because of their own immense talent. The film is an epic love saga that I don't really think needed to be that at all.What I can say about this film, and what I will always say about a Scorsese film whether I like it or not, is that the visuals are great. The settings are immaculate and beautiful and all aspects of the production fit a thriving and grandiose time period excellently. The scenes are eloquent, the costumes dazzling, the overall atmosphere is vivacious and carefree. Plus, Scorsese directs with elegant precision, capturing a lively and spirited mood throughout the film. His huge dedication to filmmaking is very evident through the style which he imprinted this film with. Few directors can capture a time period in both a physical and mental aspect but Scorsese is one of them. There is a real hint of nostalgia in this film as we return to the glorious and romantic time of post-war America.These visuals can only keep one intrigued for so long, however. And that amount of time means nothing when your film is close to three hours long. There are certain films that demand three hour runtimes because of their depth and complexity. New York, New York is not one of those films. Too many scenes in this film just seem to be there to pad the film, making it longer so as to achieve the status of romantic epic. The film is bubbling over with scenes that could have been cut or shortened significantly and the film could have played out just the same. And so as the film neared the two hour mark I became terribly bored. The film opens with a bang that is a glorious explosion on the eyes and ears but its all downhill from there. The film gets slower and slower and drags more and more thing out way longer than they need to be. I'll admit that the ending is good and closes the painfully long story as best it could, but its an ending that shouldn't have taken three hours to arrive at.I wanted to like New York, New York because I adore Scorsese. However, I couldn't bring myself to fully enjoy this film simply because it is just too long and not interesting or deep enough to warrant this kind of runtime. Scorsese certainly created a visual spectacle, but that spectacle really starts to lose its shine about two hours into the film when you know you have almost an hour left. I can't say I hated this film because it tries to be very good and succeeds in some areas, but overall it misses the mark and falls short of being great.