RSS 2.0The Aviator (2004)
The first collaboration between director Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio turned out to be moderately disappointing, mainly because DiCaprio didn’t seem capable of giving a credible performance in Gangs of New York. Apparently the two of them got along well enough to justify doing two more films together. The first of these two, The Aviator, is based on the rather tumultuous life of Howard Hughes, a man obsessed with three things: movie-making (and the women that came along with it), airplanes and, most importantly, ultimate control.
The American public is a sucker for stories centered around the fulfillment of the American Dream. Even though the life-story of Howard Hughes (who directed and produced films such as Hell’s Angels and the original Scarface) does not fit that definition, as he was born rich, his story is all about fulfilling your dreams. Hughes not only made films, he also was a pioneer of modern aviation. Unfortunately, for these dreams a price had to be paid, and in Hughes’ case the toll was high.
What becomes clear in Scorsese’s biopic is that Hughes dedicates himself to film-making and aviation with such a fierce passion, it almost appears obsessive. It is this obsessiveness that eventually drove him towards madness, making him overly suspicious and mysophobic (frightened of dirt). It is DiCaprio (who is still shedding off his Titanic reputation, a film he now regrets making) who shows absolute commitment and devotion towards his part. He seems to have found a genuine connection to the life of Hughes with all his abnormalities and peculiarities. It makes you wonder where Leo found the life experience to depict such a complex character and leads you to no other conclusion than that the boy who is no longer a boy possesses some incredible acting skills.
Scorsese focuses on all three aspects of Hughes’ life (film making, aviation and the man’s madness) and takes his time to do the story justice. Besides DiCaprio there are some pretty decent performances, especially by Cate Blanchett as a young Katherine Hepburn, though her acting borders on caricature pastiche she has enough restraint to not ridicule it. Besides Blanchett, there is John C. Reilly (who never disappoints) and a Kate Beckinsale, as well as a rather flat Alec Baldwin and a tiny part (one scene actually) by Jude Law.
I am starting to develop more and more resistance to people saying that every film exceeding 150 minutes is too long. Yes, The Aviator, that clocks in at around 170 minutes, is long, but DiCaprio’s acting takes you away and does not cease to astound. He carries the movie and I felt hungry for more, since The Aviator stops in the mid 50′s, even though Hughes died in the mid 70′s after spending nearly twenty years as a hermit in hotel rooms.
Is there anything left for criticism, you might wonder. Scorsese goes for penetrative visuals, but some of the filters he uses are rather distracting, mainly during the first half. There are some pretty impressive action sequences involving the planes Hughes flies and even though The Aviator relies strongly on the acting performances, the visuals and a little action provide a varied take on Hughes’ life. As a whole this is a rather standard biopic, though one with an excellent lead performance.
In short: DiCaprio literally lifts this movie to a higher level.
Directed by: Martin Scorsese
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Blanchett, Alec Baldwin, John C. Reilly, Kate Beckinsale, Jude Law
Runtime: 170’
Release Dates: US: 17 December, UK: 6 January, The Netherlands: 20 January
Official Website
Arjan Welles (213 posts)Arjan Welles - law graduate. I work at a bank, I work as a film critic for Dutch and English media. My favorite directors are David Lynch, David Fincher, Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino. I love arthouse over blockbusters.
12 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Great review.
Comment by Paco — Sat January 22, 2005 @ 14:09um thanks
The Best Actor in a Leading Role category for the upcoming Oscars hasn’t been easier to predict than this year:
- Jamie Foxx – either Ray (will review this one today: AMAZING film) or Collateral or both => he’s gonna win it for Ray
- Tom Cruise – Collateral
- Johnny Depp – Finding Neverland
- Jim Carrey – Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
- Leonardo DiCaprio – The Aviator
my bets are on Foxx for Ray…
Comment by arjan — Sat January 22, 2005 @ 14:16I don’t think Leonardo DiCaprio was right for the role of Howard Hughes. He did a good job but I thought he was just far too ‘boyish’ to play Hughes – especially as he simply didn’t age throughout the film which spanned 20 years. It really looked like he was ‘acting’ too on several occasions. I’d be very suprised if he won an Oscar.
Cate Blanchett had an incredibly challenging role as a film actress portraying a film actress (Katherine Hepburn) who’s words, voice, gestures are so familiar (though perhaps lesser so to a younger generation of moviegoers). I thought she had the hardest task but did a great job capturing Hepburn’s voice and her idiosyncratic way of expressing words. But I found her wild gesturing a bit over the top. She appeared a bit mad actually and not delightfully, intrinsically eccentric like our Kate. (She copied her rather than slipping into her skin.)
I loved the plane crash (no spoiler as it’s in the trailer) which was so realistic it was frightening (and definitely see this in a movie theater and not on a TV screen). And the ‘penetrative visuals’, were just fabulous…
And I loved the little touch of using Glen Miller’s Moonlight Serenade in the closing credits. Apart from it just being a great song anyway, the famous Big Band leader mysteriously disappeared on a flight over the English Channel during World War Two.
It’s a long film indeed. It keeps your interest but I would have chopped out a fair chunk about two-thirds of the way through.
An OK film.
Comment by PiP — Mon January 24, 2005 @ 20:20Well, I believe with this part DiCaprio is trying to shed off his boyish reputation. Come on, he has to start somewhere, and this was a pretty decent attempt.
Especially the scenes in which he locks himself up in his room for weeks are really showing signs of DiCaprio’s acting capacities…
Anyway: I thought Blanchett restrained herself enough not to look silly…
Comment by arjan — Mon January 24, 2005 @ 20:42but nice to hear you had the time to watch a movie, Pip…!
Comment by arjan — Mon January 24, 2005 @ 20:42It wasn’t DiCaprio’s fault. It was the casting. And I think DiCaprio will have to do something far more dramatic to shed his boyish reputation.
All he did for the isolation scenes was grow his hair and lose his clothes (oh and pee into a milk bottle) and it was still Leonardo DiCaprio and not Howard Hughes. In my humble opinion.
I SO wanted to give Cate Blanchett a big thumbs up as I know it was an incredibly difficult role she had. But, being very familiar with Katherine’s Hepburn’s work, I have to say she did go a little over the top. Like I said, I felt like she had watched loads of her movies and copied/mimicked her rather than slipping into her skin. Which, for example, Judy Dench did beautifully in Iris.
And as for having the time to watch a movie. Well, if any friends of mine are reading this who have gotten perturbed at the fact I told them a week or so ago that I have too much work for hours in the day and aren’t going out for a month… I simply needed a break and got rescued by a friend for a few hours this afternoon. And what better place to chill than Amsterdam’s Tuschinki. Though I didn’t have my usual champagne as I had to come right back and work…
Comment by PiP — Mon January 24, 2005 @ 21:45well, that may be subject of discussion, but considering the fact Leo WAS cast, he did a pretty impressive job if you ask me
Comment by arjan — Mon January 24, 2005 @ 22:17I didn’t find him that different or any more impressive to his role in Catch Me If You Can. But, it’s just my opinion… We obviously just don’t agree on this and that’s fine…
Comment by PiP — Mon January 24, 2005 @ 22:38Yes we do, which is ok…
just as long it’s not Calender Girls
Comment by arjan — Mon January 24, 2005 @ 22:40I must say that I’m a bit disappointed with how this story was told.
First of all: I didn’t deem DiCaprio fit for the role. Yes, he is a good actor (always was), but he wasn’t (physically) fit for it. A simple case of miscasting; you don’t put Jim Carrey in an action movie either.
I also thought that Cate Blanchett was over-acting: she was too obviously mimicing Hepburn and that became annoying after a while. Suprisingly, I thought Beckinsale to be quite good in a funny role.
As far as the story goes, it didn’t know how to choose which aspect of Hughes to light out. The focus on his activities was too evenly distributed, as if not to appear incomplete in describing his life’s story. A lot of issues were tackled (censorship, corporate politics, movie industry, avaition, psychologic disorders, papperazzi, etc.) but no clear choice was made to explore some of those aspects in depth. I was more interested in the person of Howard Hughes and how such a succesful man could be so sick at the same time. His obsessive behaviour was the most interesting, but like in the story itself it was chosen nog to explore it. Too bad.
As far as the length was concerned: some parts were not serving the story and seemed like filler. Again, this has to do with Scorsese’s inability to make a choice here. He kinda did the same thing with Streets of New York.
Not a bad movie, but it didn’t get the maximum out of it.
Comment by Paco — Tue February 1, 2005 @ 12:37I think Leonardo Dicaprio did better then anyone ever could in The Aviator. For all of u Leo haters and people who think he did bad or wasn’t fit for the caractor or think he is a bad actor,ur just messed up in the head.for all of u who think it was perfect for the role or did good or think he is a good actor,then u are just right cause if u think he is bad u are out of ur mind and are a complete and total maniac.so that my coment about him.The Aviator is my fave. drama/action movie ever.
Comment by Jesse — Thu July 21, 2005 @ 4:46sincerly,Leo Lover
For some reason I was expecting this film to be crap. Perhaps my memory had filtered and retained just the negative comments above, so I was pleasantly surprised when I popped this in the DVD player.
However, having read a couple of biographies of Howard Hughes, I had a lot of background knowledge about him and wondered if enough information was offered in this film for viewers with no prior knowledge of the man. Did Scorcese make the right choices of what to leave out and what to focus on? It’s a question I find very hard to answer myself and I imagine it must be immensely difficult to adapt someone’s life to the screen. After all, if you’ve read ‘the book’ you keep noticing what’s been left out, yet if you haven’t, you might not miss it at all – or you feel you’re missing something but you don’t know what it is.
I thought the way Scorcese (and DiCaprio) portrayed Hughes’ obsessive compulsiveness was excellent. It crept in throughout the film, gaining intensity. Cate Blanchett’s Katherine Hepburn was OK – but why did they make her look so unattractive? Hepburn was beautiful, and so is Blanchett (albeit in a totally different way), but not with bright red lipstick making her mouth so huge it could eat Cleveland! Perhaps it was the style of the make-up at that time, but I felt it went a little overboard. All I could focus on was her mouth!
Beckinsale was good. She looked to me, for the first time, as a woman rather than a girl. Perhaps it was the extra pounds she put on for this production that helped that? Or perhaps she is simply maturing, beautifully?
I did feel this film was a tad too long (sorry Arjan). Let’s face it, how long can a person physically sit still to watch a film? Length is going to work against the director eventually, as the chances of viewers sitting through your masterpiece from start to finish diminish rapidly as you pass the 2 hour mark. After all, I’m sure Scorcese and most directors would prefer not to have a viewing of their work interrupted for toilet-runs and stretching exercises.
The fact that Scorcese ended the story where he ended it, I understand. But there are more interesting tidbits in the last two decades of Hughes’ life which were left out of ‘The Aviator’ and which I will mention here for those interested. The employees with which he had surrounded himself were chiefly of the Mormon faith. He appreciated the fact that they didn’t drink alcohol, if I remember correctly. However, as he became increasingly reclusive from the 1950′s onwards, rumour has it that these employees ciphened off Hughes’ millions into their own (and Mormon community) bank accounts and encouraged his isolation from the outside world.
Also, there’s a theory that his obsessive compulsiveness and mysophobia were agitated by the fact that he contracted syphilis from one of the hundreds of women he bedded in the 1930′s. Syphilis can make you go mad and change your personality and Hitler’s megalomania is sometimes attributed to his having syphilis too.
The final rumour about Hughes that I know of is that he apparently died from a common cold as he had no resistance to simple bacteria after so many years of living in obsessively sterile conditions. But I’m not sure if that’s actually true
Comment by suzero — Tue November 1, 2005 @ 10:18