Not sure which is more revolting, Scorsese’s determination to cast Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank Sinatra or his determination to do to The Voice what he and Leo did to Howard Hughes: reduce and distill a great man who accomplished great things down to his worst elements; focus on the flaws instead of the many, many accomplishments…
Like anyone who lives to see his 82nd birthday, Sinatra the man is defined by more than just wherever some storyteller decides to point his soda straw focus. Sinatra the man was also a “man,” a virile, strong, fiercely independent, two-fisted scrapper who fought for everything he achieved. Regardless of his gifts as an actor, there is no way the eternal boy-faced DiCaprio can fill those shoes convincingly — especially if Scorsese wins the day and tells the story of the sixties, which began with the singer’s 45th birthday.
Tina Sinatra, the late star’s daughter, is said to be unhappy with the “dark direction” of the film’s script and wants a more “sanitized” version of her father’s life story. …
“Marty wants it to be hard-hitting and showcase the violent, sexually charged, hard-drinking Frank, but Tina wants to show the softer side of her dad and let the focus be on the music,” a source told the New York Post.
“The Sixties were a very swinging time for Frank – he was having sex with a garden variety of bimbos and cementing his Rat Pack status. It’s a really key time to his mythology. Tina really wants to make sure that a sanitized Frank comes through, and that it’s not overly negative.”
First off, the story of the Rat Pack has already been told in a pretty terrific 1998 HBO film, but what an absurd claim that this “swinging time” is anything close to “key” to the mythology of an individual who won two Oscars, will reign forever as the Beethoven of 20th Century music, openly fought for Civil Rights as early as the 1940s (!) and quietly did more for charity than any entertainer before or since.
Frank Sinatra was a Great Man, a flawed man to be sure, but one no more defined by the 15% of his ring-a-ding period than Scorsese is by 20% of a post-“Casino” life spent directing one bloated, over-rated, disappointing chase for an Academy Award after another.
The article uses the word “sanitized” to describe what Tina Sinatra is after, but this is grossly unfair. A better word would be “context,” for their can be no truth, no “key” to the whole of a human being without context. The article also ignores the fact that the singer’s daughter was a producer on “Sinatra,” a 1992 television miniseries, which was not only produced while Frank was still alive but “sanitized” nothing in its unflinching look at her father’s life … far from it.
Finally, from a pure movie-lovers point of view, using bad marriages, various addictions, mental illness and periods of bad behavior — the worst of the individual — as a three-act structure biopic crutch has been played out to the point that these films are becoming numbingly predictable. Will someone please sit Scorsese down and screen him “Malcolm X,” “Lawrence of Arabia,” “The Song of Bernadette,” “Patton,” “A Man for All Seasons,” “Schindler’s List,” and all of The Mighty Paul Muni’s work in this genre…?
The psychology behind an industry that takes so much obvious glee in tearing down and deconstructing greatness is for another post, but there’s no denying that Tina Sinatra’s approach would benefit everyone. As an artist Scorsese needs to surprise again and as a legend Ol’ Blue Eyes deserves better than “The Aviator” treatment.