The Martin Scorsese movie would love to see in 3D: “That would be amazing”

Most people would agree that there are few things that could improve the work of Martin Scorsese. Simply put, he is one of the most consistently great filmmakers to have ever lived, churning out iconic pictures like a conveyor belt and winning over fans old and young with mastery of the craft. Even his movies that don’t make their money back are great. Does anyone remember Silence? Scorsese’s accountants sure do. 

One of the maestro’s most universally heralded movies is Taxi Driver, Scorsese’s 1976 ode to rage. De Niro’s masterful performance as Travis Bickle, its cutting depiction of a post-Vietnam America, Bernard Herrman’s chilling score, the film is a thing of jagged beauty. It was so good that somebody tried to kill the President of the United States because of it. Yet, even the man who made it concedes that it could have been better.

While promoting Hugo, the director’s 3D-compatible foray into family filmmaking, Scorsese told NPR about his desire to see his older works in a new dimension. “Taxi Driver in 3D would have been interesting,” he said. “Just imagine a 3D version of Robert De Niro asking a mirror, ‘You talkin’ to me?’ He’d be talkin’ to ya. That would be amazing.” 

Though often thought of as a modern innovation, 3D film has been around for over a century and was alive and well during the era that Scorsese made Taxi Driver. 1973’s Flesh for Frankenstein – alternatively known as Andy Warhol’s Frankenstein in some markets – made use of 3D to amplify the gory nature of its story. Its blood and guts were so realistic that it was given an X rating. There was also 1972’s Four Dimensions of Greta, a sex comedy sold on its four 3D sequences. Its tagline was “A girl in your lap”.

Every generation of cinema has its brush with 3D and, more often than not, it ends in disaster. The Polar Express, released in 2004, was touted as the format’s saviour but now lies mostly forgotten amongst a deluge of more cherished Christmas favourites. Even Hugo was a bust, making just $186million on a budget of between $150-170m. While the use of 3D was singled out as a positive by most reviewers, it came at a significant cost.

Graham King, one of the movie’s producers, told the Los Angeles Times, “No one really realised how complicated doing a 3D film was going to be.” He told the publication that he went through three different line producers trying to get an answer on how to get the best out of the format, but this ended up being a fool’s errand.

“Do I still think it’s a masterpiece that will be talked about in 20 years?” he continued. “Yes. But once the schedule started getting out of whack, things just spiralled and spiralled, and that’s when the avalanche began.” Scorsese’s next film was The Wolf of Wall Street, the most un-Hugo movie of all time. There’s no way to prove that this decision was made because of these disappointing numbers, but it wouldn’t be too outlandish to suggest they played a part.

If even the great Martin Scorsese couldn’t rescue 3D, then chances are nobody can. Still, it will undoubtedly continue to reappear as a gimmick as studios and producers desperately attempt to draw viewers away from their couches and back into cinemas. Although its director might be intrigued by the possibility, everybody knows that Taxi Driver wouldn’t have been enhanced by 3D. It’s perfect just the way it is.

Related Topics

This post was originally published on here