Mind you, I suspect it will win an Oscar anyway, just so Scorsese--who is, I believe, the greatest living American director--will finally have one. They give away plenty of questionable Oscars anyway, so why not?
Now, as you might expect, the movie is also riddled with historical inaccuracies. That doesn't usually bug me much, because they are just movies after all. But ya know, when you find out about the real history, and you realize that things that actually happened would make a better story than the one the moviemakers made up, it tends to annoy you. And that, alas, is also true of Scorsese's latest effort.
Speaking of which, City Journal has an excellent historical piece which both talks about the movie, and the real history of the era it tries to capture. It's a dynamite article, whether you saw the movie or not (and thanks to Gary Utter for sending it my way).
What I most especially liked was how you could see from it that, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I suppose that brings me to the main thing I did like about the movie: the way it'll probably spur conversations about the history, the time and place it was set in. But then, you knew I loved history, right? :-)
(This article originally appeared on Dean's World, where we defend the liberal tradition 24/7. Feel free to stop by any time!
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - andy
eh. At least we get a new U2 song out of it.