This pretty much reminds me of a generations-old opening line: "When I was your age..." ("...we listened to REAL music, not this crap...we were reading ACTUAL books, not staring at YouTube all day...we went OUTSIDE and played games, not locked in our bedrooms playing video games with someone in China...")
For every brilliant independent film from a bygone era there were dozens of schlock "B" movies also crowding the movie houses. You didn't see "Mothra vs Godzilla" in 1964? "The Three Stooges Meet Hercules" in 1962? "Beach Blanket Bingo"?
When I was a kid, The Beatles and Rolling Stones (and a few others) changed everything. And crowding the airwaves simultaneously, The Monkees, Paul Revere and the Raiders, Gary Lewis and the Playboys and plenty of other "groups" that would make me cringe and somebody else swoon.
Yea, loved "North By Northwest". Also loved "Furious 7" ... oh, and "Finding Nemo" ... hmmm, "Aquaman" was weirdly satisfying, too! And I can't wait for the next "Star Wars" thing, whatever it is!
PS: "Beasts of the Southern Wild" should have won Best Picture in 2012. But I don't get to vote....
279
@Lyle Greenfield Lots of excellent examples. This kind of cherry-picking reminds me of the SNL effect. You always hear people say that SNL isn't as good as it used to be. People usually claim that whatever cast was around when they were 18-25 years old was the best.
People are always trying to compare the best of the past with the average of today. They don't remember all the junk and filler there was back in the day, no matter when that day was.
75
@Jason Smith I think Scorsese's point is that nowadays the junk and filler dwarfs the quality work in popularity. It's as if The Monkees were 100 times more popular than The Beatles back in the 1960s, which obviously was not the case.
187
@Lyle Greenfield
The point is, the junk movies and the inferior music was not the predominant trend they were the exception. And please don’t include Paul Revere and the Raiders with Gary Lewis and the playboys LOL… The Raiders were one of the first garage bands and Terry Melcher was a brilliant producer.
71
Ancient of days at 62, I find myself falling asleep in Marvel movies, pummeled by SFX and extraordinary computer graphics, but for the most part sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I'd suggest that those who are fans of Marvel (and the other, equally sleep/yawn inducing franchises like Star Wars and Star Trek) also tend to be video gamers, addicted to frenzy and adrenalin rather than an exploration of all-too-human nature.
1098
@jrsherrard I'm an ancient of days at 65 and I agree with Scorsese's reasoning. However, I'm also a big fan of Marvel movies and I've never played a video game and I not addicted to frenzy or adrenalin. My favorite movies that I can watch over and over again qualify as cinema by Scorsese's standard but I still love superhero movies, too, and they don't even have to be good.
77
@jrsherrard I love video games and am an avid comic book reader. My favorite video game from the last couple of years is called Celeste, which is literally about climbing a mountain, but metaphorically about confronting one's darkest, most depressing thoughts. An exploration of all-too-human nature.
I encourage you and all others who are dismissive of the current popular culture to take in a wider view of the media landscape, because there is art to be found in more places than you'd expect.
100
@Petyr Tell you what: I'll agree to play a video game if you agree to rent and watch any movie by Alexander Sokurov, perhaps the only contemporary narrative filmmaker whose work is on the same level as Scorsese's.
41
By the time I got around to reading Mr. Scorcese's expatiation on his Marvel remarks, there were 1500 comments and counting. Skimming the list, I find none that take issue with his premise. And I find that surprising. As a 69-year old dad who has bonded with my millennial daughter over each Marvel opus, I disagree with the contention that these films lack character depth and dimension; that they are cookie-cutter remakes; that they do not measure up to the "art" films cited from the past. It is true that many times the action/blow-'em-up sequences fascinate largely on the "how did they do that?" level. But I would ask him to note the foreshadowing conflict in Robert Downing Jr.'s vision of the Avengers slaughtered in "Ultron," or the brittle interaction of enhanced human and animated intelligence between the Red Witch and Vision at the start of "Infinity War." Note the classic struggle to sacrifice oneself on Vormir in "Endgame," the striving for peace in the soul of the corrupted Winter Soldier, or the irony of War Machine's loss of physical movement for a man who could fly! Just to cite a few magical moments.
These characters are created with more than everyday 3-D representative depth, human though super. To claim that the movies have no resonance beyond the act of viewing them is to admit that they have not been properly viewed.
The stories come from comic books, but that is no reason to spurn them out of hand. These movies can be viewed repeatedly and rewardingly.
377
@Expat50 the point is they're not challenging to watch and they take up space. Emotionally empty space, where you can't expect something to happen that hasn't been done before. There is no room for anything new, when they take up that much space. Even when the characters have their moments it's all Sewn into the fabric of the 'superhero problems' equation. There is less human, less challenge, to experience what's raw and human. Everything has to be blown out of proportion, overstated, and so hyped //even while it's still nauseatingly, repetitive to the point it's uninspiring. //
87
@Expat50 With all that you've said the one thing that's missing is that they are all a predictable, cookie-cutter experience. Regardless of the scenes, you named these movies aren't made to explore any of those issues in depth. They are made to give everyone a thrill, a roller coaster experience, and in the end, they are a theme park.
67
@Expat50 You can't have a billion-dollar franchise if your main character dies. Hence ZERO risk. Back in the late 70s when the OG Superman reversed the Earth's rotation and turned back time to save Lois Lane, there was a lot of criticism that it was cheating and disappointing. ALL superhero films operate this way now. Just because you enjoy something, doesn't mean the expert is wrong about it. This is why we're in the political situation we're in today; the devaluation of expertise.
70
You don’t need to explain. The audience just did it for you, with its feet — stayed away from “Terminator Dark Fate”, the most recent installment of the fabled Terminator franchise now a quarter century old. Dark indeed, both in substance and audience response.
Were I to describe this type of project “cinema” would be the last word I would use. Such projects don’t fall into the “marriage of art and commerce” paradigm but are an entirely different beast: commercial calculations. For creatives, working on them is Hell: Hired for a paycheck at producers’ sufferance only to be fired without warning. Supposedly, “Dark Fate” had no fewer than six writers. Anyone slightly familiar with how the business actually works understands that if flacks credit six another eight or ten took a crack at it — wrote hundreds of drafts that producers battled over no-quarter-asked, no-prisoners-taken. James Cameron admitted as much.
Making “Eyes Wide Shut” Kubrick shot as many as sixty slightly different takes of a scene — a single scene. Obsessively perfectionist. And to be artistically safe he shot millions of feet of “coverage”, as it’s called. One wonders how actors survived and editors coped. Because editors had to combine snippets culled from so many slightly different takes I suspect that they had it worse. To say “it suffered from overproduction” would be a mild understatement. Unsurprisingly, the final cut was so lifeless that it was almost static.
“Cinema”? More like ego-driven mania.
6
I find it *highly* ironic that Martin Scorsese made his name making gangster films, which are just as formulaic as superhero comics (if not more so), and draws much of his inspiration from noir films (lowbrow trash, and again, formulaic to a fare thee well). The only reason he's able to bloviate about "cinema" and High Art is because a) the passage of time makes those old noir films look very good indeed, b) the rise of cinematic violence since Bonnie & Clyde (again, a gangster movie that follows the old trope to perfection) and c) film critics in the 1950's and 1960's who decided that these formerly derided films were worthy of consideration and emulation.
I also predict that twenty years from now artsy young filmmakers will be copying the quippy dialogue from Joss Whedon's two Avengers films, the romantic heroism of Wonder Woman, the gorgeous cinematography of Black Panther and Guardians of the Galaxy, and the updated political commentary of Captain America: The Winter Soldier when they release *their* Oscar bait. Of course Marty Scorsese, who took that hyperviolent genre called "boxing films" and turned it into Raging Bull, won't be around to scold them about being predictable, but never mind.....
22
Thank goodness for Mr. Scorsese and the incredible gift of his art and his genuis, we are lucky to have him. And thank goodness he has spoken up regarding this issue. It's not that B movies have never existed before. They have since the first days of cinema. It's that they have never totally dominated an entertainment landscape as Marvel and the other event pictures do today. The big studios are making so much money it will never change unless we the viewing audience do something about it. Instead of blindly following along with the masses I encourage all moviegoers and fans of Marvel to skip the next 5 movies they shove down your throat and challenge yourself and go see an art house film on the big screen instead. You can see the Marvel movie when it arrives on Netflix or HBO and trust me you will survive until then (and you'll be the better for it). Until this starts happening in droves we all will be stuck with the same kind of B movies over and over and over for decades to come.
22
As I thought more about my earlier comment about how many movies could be made with one Martin Scorsese budget, I had another thought.
For me, many of Scorsese's movies—I guess we need to call them "pictures"—are another form of a Marvel franchise. Call them the Casino universe. A bunch of guys talking tough, some bloody nonsense, a woman is mistreated, more things blowing up, etc. with a big budget.
Then again, thinking back over Marty's pictures, how many moments are essential to see on a big screen with an audience? Remember that charming director's cameo in Taxi Driver with Scorsese as a cab passenger commenting on the possibility that his girlfriend is involved with another man who is not of the passenger's race?
Full disclosure and this is a second-hand story. When visiting the office of a distribution company, Mr. Scorsese happened to see a film I co-directed sitting as a VHS cassette offering to the distributor. Scorsese indicated the cassette with the comment, "You don't have to watch crap like this do you?"
Dude, you should have seen that particular film on the big screen at Lincoln Center with an audience. As well as catching Koyaanisqatsi on the very big screen at Radio City Music Hall that same year.
9
I understand Scorsese's points for the most part, yet:
1) independent films, 'art' films, foreign film, etc., have been difficult to see in many theaters for decades. I worked in a funky, bohemian movie theater cafe (the Hoka Theater in Oxford, MS) back in the 70s that was a breath of fresh air in a small, college town, yet not only did Ron have to show porn on the weekends to pay rent (college boys will be college boys) so he could show the 'good stuff' during the week, but he was eventually booted from the location because he was not The Norm. So while I agree that it is difficult for the 'art' film to get billing in this country, it is not due to being crowded out by franchise films or whatever is the genre of the moment. It is due to a society that does not demand 'better' films.
That pretty much boils down to saying that society does not appreciate (are ignorant of) the 'good' films. That may be true, but sadly, just like franchised food, the people demand it and will pay for it, time and time again.
Best to educate kids from an early age as to what constitutes 'good', and that would require proper funding of Art(s) in kindergarten and beyond. Good luck with that.
2) 'Asian' films, viz., martial arts flicks. We know where the story is heading, and we've seen some version of it before. Yet, some are brilliant due to script/acting/cinematography/etc. But even the old, poorly shot ones are better than some 'independent' works.
Not all 'art' is good.
2
The timing of this article amounts to front page publicity for his new movie. The front page of the NYT shouldn't be offered up to celebrities, whether good ones like Scorsese or questionable ones like Heard, or nauseating ones like Comey, or even just horrible ones like Steve Rattner. Enough already.
5
Amen.
3
Marvel movies are just so much CGI nonsense. It is a reflection of dumbing down in our ever so shaming PC society. The characters are not real besides some phony every-man identifying.
The people in charge of the of financing this junk aren't creatives, they are lawyers and accountants and they are placing the safest bets possible.
There is still some hope, but it's all for the small screen. Think Sopranos. The Godfather, Raging Bull or Deer Hunter would never be made today for the Big Screen.
7
Thanks for people like yourself Mr. Scorcese, or else we’d have little else than people in spandex with rays shooting from their fists while they fly at speed of light to entertain a generation overfed on consumer culture.
7
Let's hope that streaming will end up creating a niche (or niches) for cinematic art. Why NOT? Foreign and independent films are low budget and thus don't need big box-office. Anyone can now get a 65"4K TV at Costco for $500 or so. That's "immersive" enough for most people. Ironically, serious film doesn't require an audience to see it with to be thoroughly enjoyed, especially since most of it is not funny, so you're not missing all those yuks around you. Just set up your 4K, pay to stream, and get the Criterion Collection, which can already show you almost all the greatest films in movie history, plenty for the rest of your life, in fact. With popular demand, someone will put up a streaming service for really good indie and foreign films, too. Then, let them eat Raisenets all they want at the multiplex with Marvel. Who will care?
4
"Are you not entertained?"
Animated features (once called cartoons) and simplistic versions of the hero's journey are the new cinema. There are porn films with more complexity than the vast offerings of "movies" today. The market has voted with its dollar and yet takes offense when the behavior is observed for what it is. We can barely read, or write beyond a tweet, lack the ability to do deep cognitive dives, and seem to feel a more profound kinship with one dimensional characters. Our make believe world is the same as our reality.
These are calculated formulas for commercial success. Like cheap wine, fast food and Am radio. They demand little from the user in learning, knowledge or effort. They are a celebration of cultural laziness and intellectual defeat. Marty is being kind.
11
I spend a little time in the States: in NYC and out in the provinces in Florida. Well, NYC is not really part of America. It's an island surrounded by water and separated by culture. And culture is dying in America.
The kind of mass-market consumer-driven culture out in the provinces in the States is numbing. It's a cultural wasteland. They say that bad coin drives good coin out of the market. If you go to one of those big movie complexes in America - with ten films running at the same time - nine of those films will be kid's films: Antman, Spiderman, Terminator, the Addams Family. And the one adult film? Maybe some Jennifer Lopez tripe.
And this art which is not art - as Martin Scorsese observes - is transforming the culture. Ultimately nobody will know the difference between a McDonald's hamburger and one of those wonderful greasy onion-laden chili-smeared mayonnaise-slathered burger-shack creations which are disappearing - driven out by Mickey D's.
And let me offer an opinion that Scorsese is a genius of film: a Hitchcock, a Kubrick, a Jules Dassin, a Jean-Pierre Melville. He has made some marvelous films - Casino, GoodFellas, Raging Bull - and some excellent TV - Boardwalk Empire.
The thing that determines what is art and what is tripe is that art is constantly renewing itself, showing you something wonderful and new each time you see it. Why do people line up to see the Mona Lisa? (I don't) But I could watch "The Departed" a hundred times and never get bored...
12
As an adult who collected comic-books into his 30s, and who loved old movies (bad and classic), I came to the epiphany that film as art was dying off when my kids could't watch anything that was B&W, anything that wasn't cartoonish in plot. So, family movie night choices (in the days of VHS and DVDs) became one from the "pop-blockbuster" category and one from the "art-cinema" category. Over a few years, my kids really came to appreciate both types of selection. We have to expose ourselves, and the next generation, to aesthetics if we want that awareness to survive. Commenting in the Times will no more change this than will "liking" a meme on social media. Save theatre and film (and independent music and hand-made art) by patronizing it, by taking your family out to see it, by purchasing tickets to concerts and indie film venues, (and buy hand-made items for HannaChriSolstiKwanz gifts). WE get to save film, and civilization, by supporting it with our eye-balls and our dollars and sense.
8
I am a fan of Scorsese and a filmmaker. I am a fan of anyone who has the tenacity to get their project made let alone get distribution. BUT I am sad to see this. I was sad when he and Coppola made these statements originally. Everything is subjective - whatever turns you on, that's what gets your dollars at the theater or streaming service. Things change and the public changes too. I watch so much film - it's out there for the folks who want it. These comments sound sour - and as both of the before mentioned directors have had so many complaints about their films when they were young - too violent - base - bullet porn - come on! Taxi Driver was the JOKER of yesteryear. It is not for Scorsese to say what my emotional reaction or revelations are to any film. With streaming platforms and cultivated movie houses all around the states I do not have enough time to see all of the films I want to see. I reject the thought that all I can see if super hero franchise films. I reject the idea that this is a scary time to be a filmmaker. You are still a hero of mine Scorsese but this feels out of touch a a little bitter because something you knew so well is changing and it might not be recognizable to you anymore. I like all genres by the way.
6
Give me a Marvel or Star Wars movie over pretentious cinema any day of the week. Judge if you want; I like what I like and I refuse to feel bad about it.
4
Mr. Scorsese does not want merely a "big screen." Mr. Scorsese wants "to be in a packed house in one of the old theaters." He wants, in other words, a big screen in a big room with a big audience. To get that, he's going to have to research, test, modify, test and re-modify. That's the way it is. That's the way it's always been.
Somebody give Marty a Marvel movie to direct
4
Movies are movies, not "cinema". Trash, all of them.
Imagine if more superhero movies were like “Logan” a character-driven film that Scorsese didn’t mention but I’d bet would approve of. It had everything to lose in showing superheroes as not just ordinary, but vulnerable and desperate. I don’t know how it got made, but I’m glad it did.
5
There's no dispute that Martin Scorsese is a major talent, with several memorable films to his credit. Certainly his criticism should be taken seriously, reminiscent in many ways of Fred Friendly's prescient description decades ago of television as a vast wasteland. But just as Marvel movies are not for him, I won't watch another movie dramatizing and glorifying criminal and mob culture. Personal preference.
11
But the exact same critique could be made about your films sir. They are the same. The same dramas, conflict, risk, even subject! And they are made again and again because they sell. So I feel your critique hasn't really exposed anything. Hitchcock also made the films he did--because they sold.
9
It’s equivalent to a kids tv-show like Octonauts, but on the big screen.
2
Comic book fantasies like Marvel are not Art films, no will they ever be important enough to be in ANY serious art film collection. They wouldn't be in Cinematique in France, where I saw hundreds and hundreds of great films from the beginnings of cinema during my years at the Sorbonne. They wouldn't be in Criterion Collections, nor would any art- film cineophile touch them with a ten foot pole. They are for the dumbed-downed, for children, for vacuous minds, for the great homogenized booboisie ( HL Mencken ). Perhaps Scorsese hasn't read it, but Aldous Huxley called these stimulating innanities "the Feelies" in his work...and nothing made the proles feel better. Art-Film is not visual onanism; Marvel's are; superhero cartoons are; gadgets, gizmos, AI paintbrushes are; Facebook is; Twitter is....."M", "Strangers on a train", La Dolca Vita, Les Enfants du Paradis, Potemkin, ....all the Cinematique greats will be there when this Marvel and all uber-hero vomitous is long forgotten, or when the audience grows up. But I doubt that in a country which thinks McDonalds is food, Starbucks is coffee, and TikTok is cool there will be much growing-up soon. "Hugo" was a great movie because there was acting, tension, and a feeling of what is was like to be a human being. Comic Books, if you didn't know this, were drawn for children. You cannot compare Bergman films or Fellini or Woody Allen films with what passes for cinema. One is art the other visual sewage for the dumb. Period!
3
“Get off my lawn!” shouts angry old man.
7
@Mr. Scorsese: Lighten up.
5
I liked some of the early Marvel films. Now they are just dreck. The last one was just a completely unwatchable, uninteresting, CGI mish-mosh of fake fighting that made no sense and bad dialog. Let's watch the hero be beaten and beaten and beaten & then they come back & beat the bad guy rather easily. Do that from the start and give me back those 10 minutes of my life please. It's hard to argue with Mr Scorsese. I even commented to my wife recently that is seems like more and more movies are coming out that I just have no interest in seeing. Even as a lifelong comic book fanboy, you can't pay me to go see the Joker. Why would I care about his story and after being stuffed with these bad superhero movies for over a decade, I could care less about any of them.
2
Would I rather have a colonoscopy or watch a Marvel movie? Hmmm. Let me think about that one.
6
What a load of self serving pap. "It's not art because I say it's not art."
I like Roger Corman's formula better. Not an exact quote, but; "Don't worry about art. Concentrate on being a good craftsman, and if it occasionally rises to the level of art, so much the better."
6
What a snob. This man for rich off the entertainment industry and is now believing his own press agents.
3
The reality is art house films can be viewed much more comfortably at home and for a lot cheaper. I think that Netflix and the other digital platforms are the way to go for "creativity". I don't go see arthouse flicks anymore in the theater. Why? Because I can wait three months for and watch it at home vs. spending $50 bucks all in for two of us at a theater to seeing something that could seriously disappoint. Royal Tennanbaums is a great example--everyone raved, I hated it, wasted money... Also, I get Scorsese's point, but the same time many of his films were very repetitious and flowed similarly. I mean I loved Casino and Goodfellas, but you are kidding yourself if you don't think they weren't basically just about the same darn film. Also as other folks commented, there was a ton of junk back in the day. But when it cost a nickel and it was an event to watch a movie at all--no one felt bad.
2
Your Hitman film was propaganda. Who financed it and why are you in a hurry to get to traceable streaming? What world are you in? Brooklyn/Queens/Nassau?
Your colorful attempt at raising your work out of the gutter by trying to equate it with the truly greats must be some way of feeling clean about making another dirty social crime statement.
You'll always be nothing but a Mafia Movie Mogul that corrupts the souls of millions of otherwise blessed people.
I want you to think often through the years about the millions of young minds that will be corrupted into believing crime is fashionable and also think about how many new Mafia Wannabe's will be cultivated who go on to grow crime in my nation.
If you are smiling now, you'll understand what I wrote.
This paper rejects many of my comments but prints yours.
Now you know what I mean about corrupting otherwise blessed souls.
4
One can only hope that the mainstream reverence for superhero movies will give rise to a significant underground film movement for the 21st century. Nothing significant has come from Hollywood in decades, despite billions of dollars wasted. Here in Houston we get major films from other countries and great retrospectives, offered by the Museum of Fine Arts, not a chain cinema charging way too much for a nothing experience. As I see it, real cinema depends on an imaginative interplay of acting, directing, camera work, editing, music, voiceover, and most of all, stylistic idiosyncrasy. It is highly complicated. Scorsese calls this revelation and I agree. Superhero films are noisy, predictable, and ultimately hollow. Each new film confirms the dull strategies of the prior ones. Even the lowest budget Kung Fu films we watched in the 1970s had more style.
5
I disagree with Mr. Scorsese on what is cinema and what isn't. Directing and producing a $300 million movie with all of its constituent parts along with CGI effects is a far more daunting task than making the kind one-note mafia films that Scorcese's known for.
Another thing that sets his view of cinema apart from the MCU is its inclusive nature in terms of race and gender. I can't name one mafia film by him (and most of them seem to involve the Mafia in some way) that hasn't had scenes that were extremely offensive to African-American audiences who went to see his films.
I recall one instance during the filming of Taxi Driver where Scorsese and Paul Schrader wanted Travis Bickle's character to say something like I want or wish I could kill all of the ni--s and De Niro refused to do it. He told them both that it would cause a riot if he included that kind of dialogue in what is now a cinematic classic, in part because he left that part out.
7
"The Irishman" isn't a franchise? How many more predictable gangster movies with Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino are enough? By the way I do agree with the premise. Super-hero movies are hardly part of the cinema "art form". Formulaic and predictable would be complements for these movies.
3
What form of art is Michael Jackson's "Bad"? Or the remake of Cape Fear? Is Goodfellas good art or just a good mobster movie? Is it superior to The Godfather because it didn't have sequels or is it just one more in a long line of gangster genre films with often predictable characters and predictable plots? I dare you to watch the Asgard scenes in the first Thor movie, directed by Kenneth Branagh, and tell me that that isn't art as compelling and as beautifully shot as many a Shakespeare adaptation.
3
Scorsese makes some interesting points, and even though I enjoy Marvel movies it is true that when Thanos disappeared half the cast it never felt like they would be gone for long. Still, this piece by Scorsese misses Peak TV, where artistic expression is running deep. TV has all the storytelling and risk taking and artistic experimentation an auteur could hope for. And the character development is much better when you have 20+ hours to work with, as opposed to a movie that probably can't support more than about 4 central characters.
1
If Mr. Scorsese cared that much about cinema, then I would expect him to be trying to foster it in other mediums such as streaming. Unfortunately, I see from him and other Hollywood types (including Bob Iger who is idiotically criticizing Scorsese over the obvious) who have made their millions and continuing royalties who see little incentive to miss the international audience gravy train. Enjoy the Irishman accolades, Mr. Scorsese. It’s the last gasp of what Hollywood used to be and is no more.
2
So true. And the same has happened to pop music by committee in pursuit of one thing. Money. Unfiltered unrestrained capitalism is evil on so many fronts. But the death of the planet sadly overshadows the death of art. All caused by human greed allowed, encouraged, to run amok. The answer wasn't Marx and Mao. But it sure wasn't Regan and Trump.
4
I guess to some people it's just not cinema if it doesn't deliver long and pointless tracking shots. Sometimes I wish to heaven that Orson Welles never made that famous opening shot for Touch of Evil.
Say, I have the quintessential project for you, Mr. Scorsese! The life story of Garret Brown (starring Andrew Parks, the mandatory insider reference for those who get it). A film about the invention of The Brown Stabilizer, later rechristened as "Steadicam" will let you get in all the tracking shots your heart desires.
My people will call your people...
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
What Martin is saying is that there is a difference between comic books and actual literature. Let's face it: superhero movies are for kids; cinema is for adults. The problem is adults are increasingly becoming infanitalized (I know, not acceptable to Word), and children seem to have more money than ever to go to such movies (mainly their parents'). I find superhero movies tiresome and loud (boom! bang! pow!, just like those balloons in the old comic books). I wouldn't pay 10 cents to see one, which is what we used to pay for a comic book.
6
Marvel movies are just a reflection of what Hollywood is, and was always, about: money. Even when the movie executives take risks with art films, they still do so with the dollar in mind.
Think about it: when we say a move is “successful”, what do we mean exactly? That it was a hit at the box-office, meaning it made money.
2
I'm an economist by training, so it is unusual for me to tie the movies to what my students are studying in my class. But I did so not too long ago here:
https://econoforganizationsfall2019.blogspot.com/2019/10/some-links-for-class-session-on-tuesday.html
and there is remarkable overlap with what Martin Scorsese argues and what I was trying to teach my students. For that to have happened, something must be in the air.
I want to take issue with one point that Martin Scorsese makes, which is about watching movies on the big screen versus watching them at home. I used to go to the movies quite often when I was younger. Now, with debilitating arthritis, having a comfortable seat is as important to me as the quality of what's on the screen. I can better achieve that at home. My guess is that's true of a significant fraction of the viewing population. Please don't write us off because we don't make it to the theater.
5
Good for Martin Scorsese to share his insights. Having just seen "Joker," I tend to think that even in the comic universe, filmmakers can still deliver amazing art full of surprise and character development that Scorsese so cherishes. If we take the long view, cinema as an art form always had to exist within tensions of commerce and art, individual creativity and collective collaboration, and familiarity and shock. As a costly and collaborative endeavor, filmmaking is less novel or painting and more architecture with the need for investors and accountants. Having read this piece, I take Scorsese's critique not as an act of nostalgia nor self-righteousness (as was widely reported after the initial interview), but as a plea to restore the health of the complex ecosystem that makes cinematic art possible. As the most celebrated senior filmmaker, this is a courageous and loving intervention to advocate for the next generation of filmmakers.
6
True cinema asks questions and tries to answer them, in superhero movies there is no question to be asked , everything is immediately visible and the good guys win every time unless of course the actors want out of their contracts . It’s the difference between a Novel and a ComicBook , the ComicBook is entertainment but can’t be considered literature as it does not try to say anything about life and the human condition.
1
I appreciate this point of view, but I think Mr. Scorsese overlooks the contributions of superhero films, like Black Panther, which captured the world's imagination with a black superhero saving the day. In our society (and in many of Scorsese's films) the black male is often demonized and looked down upon, but in a movie like Black Panther tens of millions of people the world over celebrated in Black Pride and the belief that a black man could be just as important as Superman. And this is just one example of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Even superhero films deserve credit for their at-times transformative and ground-breaking ability to capture the world's imagination.
I can't reconcile this published piece with the Mexico massacre. I would fire whoever approved a writing by the man that contributes to the furtherance of American crime and violence.
1
I've had to attend a few screenings of these Marvel films because I'm in the industry. I was a film major and can enjoy films of all genres and eras but I could not for the life of me find anything interesting about these films. It just washed over me: the weightless violence, the snarky one-liners, the frenetic camera work, the bad wigs..It was truly a waste of time and it's truly disappointing that so many people spend so much time and money on this. I agree with you Marty! And I suspect he's not as diplomatic about it behind closed doors..
6
Agreed.
1
"If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing."
That's garbage.
5
Captain Marvel.
1
God this guy just made it worse.
1
Here here Mr Scorsese! Marvel Movies are the world’s most expensive audio/visual Mad Libs.
4
Mr. Scorsese has it right..
Superhero movies went bust and lost their panache around the time when Superman and Metropolis lost their phone booths.
https://www.supermanhomepage.com/other/other.php?topic=phonebooth
3
It really comes down to who decides what is art and what has value, yes? I no doubt love and appreciate the films he cites but its pretty myopic to say that the Marvel movies are without risk or don't qualify as cinema just because he doesn't connect with the films. That's elitism and arrogance defined. Especially someone who has produced (yet another) gangster film -- is there anything in American "cinema" so overdone, tired, redundant, and amusement park-ish?
I don't think anyone would ever think of comparing the final Avengers to Citizen Kane -- but its also quite a feat to tie such a wide franchise (22 films?) together relatively seamlessly into the two final movies. In it's totality its good (not brilliant but good) story telling and -- enjoyable story telling. Are Stephen King George R.R, Martin lousy writer's because they sold a lots of books? Are the Beatles or Michael Jackson lousy musicians because they sold a lot of records?
This reads like jealousy and sour grapes. **1/2
4
The cinema, Art, literature and culture universes are now cartoon driven. What we have are cartoons as Art, cartoons as novels and adults parading everywhere like zombie cartoons at comic cons. Hope for the cultured world is dwindling, but great for Peter Pan.
How many cinema Art houses remain in our city ?
Thanks, Mr. Scorcese. I will nevertheless try hard to watch The Irishman in a movie theater. And I will probably watch over and over again on TV.
1
There's already 1800+ comments, so someone probably already said what I am about to say.
A big problem with movies is that they are trying to appeal to a worldwide audience. Some things do not translate well (e.g. humor) but action doesn't need a translation.
What's ruining quality movies (and don't get me wrong, I *enjoy* Marvel movies) is greed, plain and simple. Movie houses don't seem to want to produce anything that won't make $100s of millions.
It's a real tragedy that the only movies that make big money are action films (well, *some*, I guess the new Terminator is not doing well). My wife and I have quite a collection of DVD/Blu-ray movies. There are a few we watch when nothing else appeals: Groundhog Day (yes, ironic), Jerry Maguire, Young Frankenstein... 20 years ago it was Liar Liar since that was all we had on VHS at the time.
Not too many newer movies are so re-watchable. That said, Thor: Ragnarok finally brought real humor to the Marvel Universe (without the blood and guts of Deadpool) and I tend to re-watch that if I am on a business trip just for the laughs.
Globalization is killing the movie industry, IMO, unless all you want are endless rehashes of Marvel and DC movies.
3
What I don’t understand is why movies like La La Land and Downton Abbey - which are both both office successes - can’t be produced more frequently. Don’t get me wrong Scorsese is my favorite director and several dozen (or hundred in Scorsese’s case) F bombs and well-placed gratuitous violence never upset me but sometimes I just want to settle into the movie theatre and watch a movie I can share with my morally conservative parents.
That being said I’ve loved most movies A24 has put out. And Groundhog Day, Moonstruck, and Waking Ned Devine always fill the need when nothing else will.
1
Great editorial. Alas, I am afraid that what Mr. Scorsese writes extends to nearly all other forms of art. One huge internet company dominating the book market, an other large conglomerate domination the visual art world, orchestras are struggling. In Chicago the number of galleries as well as book stores is vastly reduced, orchestras are continuously asking for money. When I attend a performance it is mostly others, in my gender, with balding heads, or, both genders, with great hair that do the same. Nevertheless we keep making things, high-class films that show individuality, classical music, paintings etc. That is what we do.
4
Marvel pics are evidence of just how conservative Hollywood is: they run the same tried-and-true formula (think Big Macs) and rake in the money. That irony - that Hollywood is a bastion of conservatvism - is lost on most conservatives. They prefer to think of Hollywood as a liberal sin pit when the opposite is true.
3
Yes! Thank you, Mr. Scorsese!
5
Martin Scorsese is one of a few to have brought into being the latent potentialities of cinema, and indeed, American cinema, in his great cycle of films from Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and the Last Temptation of Christ, to Casino. So, he knows whereof he speaks. The financial and ideological structure of film-making drives the current construction of films as meaningless global entertainment franchises. Art functions only instrumentally for the sole reduced purpose of films, corporate profit, rather than in conjunction with the latter. So crushing is this machine that it destroys everything weighty, significant, and astonishing even in a Marvel "universe" that in comic book form once marked itself out for precisely these lost virtues. These extraordinary characters are almost unrecognizable in the films. From the early 1960s to the early 1980s, Stan Lee's Marvel distinguished itself with full-bodied characters such as Phoenix and Wolverine whose lives were recognizably human, though their names divine or animal. Their suffering and death had weight because they were not just a series of rapid dehumanized effects but an arc that bent toward justice. In the movies, by contrast, what happens has no weight. The personal, and hence, the artistic significance is entirely lost. In films like Endgame, there is no time to dwell on the human significance of events, because the filmgoer might get bored. On to the next shiny toy.
3
The art of cinema is not dead, it has simply migrated from the big screen to the small one. In recent decades, television has come into its own as a bona fide narrative art form. Programs such as “The Wire,” “Breaking Bad,” “Black Mirror,” and dozens of others have expanded the possibilities of storytelling and production beyond anything imagined in earlier eras. There is no need to mourn the demise of cinematic art; it is alive and well in our living rooms.
5
It's even worse than that. Marvel movies are not even comics, since comics include drawing skills and creativity.
The state of movies is the worst it's ever been. I would rather watch a silent cowboy movie from 1922 than almost anything in the theaters today.
Thanks to Scorsese for your string of great movies. Your contemporaries must have succumbed to cocaine and wild women, and lost their way. You stand alone now, Martin.
6
Aw, c'mon Msr. Scorsese, what pray tell were you doing on Saturday afternoons in the late 40's and early 50's? Please don't tell me you were skipping out on serials like "The Lost Planet," or "Atom Man vs. Superman." Yeah, yeah, you're older, more refined now, I get it, the redundant adult/dark themes explored in (DC) comics, just don't supplant those of Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, The Departed etc.? Pbbth.
2
Calling out Mr. Scorcese for stating the obvious is a bit like folks defending eating nachos and diet coke for dinner and calling it "dining". Watching comic-book films is a bit like eating junk food. Everyone knows its junk food but once in a while, everyone indulges. There are those for whom junk food is a steady diet, whose only idea of "food" is corporate-created cheap calories high in salt and fat.
Same with comic book films. The magical realism doesn't make it more than a series of stimuli, always the same plot, never much in the way of dialogue save for zingers and snarky come backs, the salt and fat of film.
I've eaten doritos and diet coke at 6 pm as my final "meal" of the day. But nobody's going to convince me or anyone else that it's dinner.
5
I think the heart of Mr. Scorsese’s argument goes to the heart of current American culture as a whole: if people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.
That is the heart of American advertising, is it not? Push the idea so much that people think they need it and must have it. Isn’t that the model behind push advertising, robotics that calculate our viewing habits and push more and more of the same ideas to us?
Is that not at the heart of American social networking “news” media? Creating endless echo chambers until we believe lies as fact as long as they are repeated loudly and continuously enough?
There is a place for entertainment and a place for art. Both have value in their respective ways. But to conflate the two, and go so far as to insist the two are even the same, is another symptom of yielding to populist and financially motivated intentions. This country is suffering the consequences of those motivations. I believe Mr. Scorsese is rightfully calling the issue out.
5
Excellent, excellent clarification and insight. All Marvel-type movies are simply too formulaic....simply change the uniforms and level of action until it reaches levels of absurdity.
We need more "stories", more art. Some degree of CGI may be required, for historical context, but when technology grossly outweighs the artist, I am all-too-frequently so disappointed.
May your words and warnings rise up to those people who control the levers in your industry. If they do not find balance, they will rue the day they chose "formula" and expediency over art.
I'm with you, brother!
5
I think there is room for all kinds of movies. HBO, NETFLIX, AMAZON all provide opportunities for more niche, non-mass market films. I understand what Mr. Scorsese is saying but I also find it a bit elitis as well, Citizen Kane is not for everyone.
To me a movie should leave me with an emotional reaction, stimulate curiosity or take me away from all the hassle of the world around me. I want to be entertained, I want to cry cry, I want to cheer and I want to be inspired.
There are a lot of paths that can lead to where I want to be, the category of Drama, Romantic Comedy, Science Fiction, Superhero movies, matters less than how it make me feel.
1
Something Scorsese did not mention, but I have no doubt crossed his mind is the reduction in character complexity to accommodate international (particularly Asian) audiences, which are huge moneymakers.
6
Mr. Scorsese, besides agreeing with your premise, I'm completely taken by your passion for the art of cinema, which comes through in every word of your essay.
4
Is Joker in scope? That beautiful, dark, disturbing bit of cinema is cinema. I agree with Marty on everything else.
Just like comic books are not literature. I don't know. Comic books get people into reading. Maybe these Marvel movies get kids into film. Kids grow up watching them, then graduate to more high brow pics like...The Irishman.
I must say one of my favorite films of all time is Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ. That was cinema. It took risks, very moving, powerful. Also, an excellent soundtrack by Peter Gabriel. One thing Scorcese does better than anyone in film, he knows how to edit music into the moment. Thank you Mr. Scorcese for all the great cinema!
5
The problem is that movies are made for the world- not for single markets.
Action movies are made to appeal to every person on the planet. Artistic expression that appeals to an American audience may be incomprehensible to a Chinese audience.
You know what is comprehensible to everyone? Guns, explosions and car wrecks. Monsters and robots. Indestructible heroes and one-dimensional villains.
The movies have to be the same generic nonsense because that is what the consumer is: generic human.
5
I respectfully disagree. Black Panther was cinema to me. By Martin's own words "Cinema is an art form that brings you the unexpected. In superhero movies, nothing is at risk." Well, what's more UNEXPECTED and RISKY than making a film full of Black People about a fictional and mystical country in Africa that some how draws links to issue in cities like Oakland, CA?
While I understand and concur that many films blindly follow a formula, like many Marvel films, and do diminishes the unexpected and risk, the definition of FORMULA is "a conventionalized statement intended to express some fundamental truth or principle." When your truth and principles have rarely been shown in films, like with Black Panther, I would argue, presenting this version of the formula is, in and of itself, unexpected and risky. Just my opinion.....
1
@Richard Gray ,Dear Richard Gray, Black Panther was modeled after superhero movie, albeit with a "colored Twist". worse then being a conformist, hypocritical really, is being a "non conforming"conformist...
3
I understand what he's trying to say. It's like with Rap and Hip Hop. They are both very popular but they are not music. It does not take any musical talent to auto-tune singing and input beats into a drum machine. Yet today they dominate the market. But it's not music. And in Mr. Scorsese's opinion, popular movies are not cinema.
5
@Bob
That's absurd.
As a musician, I can guarantee you that Rap and Hip Hop DO require REAL musical skills.
That it's the music of ONE particular American sub-culture doesn't disqualify it at all.
That it is really popular isn't a reason to reject it either.
What Scorsese is saying here is that very high artistic standards are NOT respected in Marvel movies.
If you want to argue that that's the case with Rap too, what would your arguments be, concretely ... ?
1
Dear Marty,
My mother is a year older than you and she is an author. I remember I once told her how movies were a modern version of novels: a good story, but on top of that incredible photography, inspiring music, costumes, pace, and acting…
I disagree with your view of what Marvel has done.
You are right to point out that “I know that if I were younger, if I’d come of age at a later time, I might have been excited by these pictures […].”
I am 43, and the true feat of what those movies have done is bring to life a universe. As a teenager, I read a variety of comics (as of today I have over 3,000 comics, which I have been trying to re-sell for some time).
Marvel made a series of individual movies (23!) that are each watchable, with a solid story, character development, acting, etc… come together in a Universe. It exists on the large screen but also on the small screen!
They made a bet when they made that first Iron-Man movie. They had a solid movie and they built on it. Each movie is watchable. Each movie has some solid acting. Each movie has its own genre.
And when it finally comes together, in a big, EPIC, event. When those hundreds of super-heroes go at it against the ultimate bad-guy, we know each of their back stories. We’ve been with them as they grew. Marvel has kept what makes Cinema special, and merged it with what we loved about Comics.
3
Finally, someone has said it. That the movies that populate our local cinemas today are essentially unwatchable. When I grew up, movies in the community movie house were and remain great movies, many of them became legendary artistically and in terms of the influence they had on moviemaking.
"Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," "The Graduate," "Bob, Ted, Carol & Alice," "McCabe & Mrs. Miller," "Five Easy Pieces," "Carnal Knowledge". You didn't have to go to a film festival or drive 75 miles into a major city to a dusty independent theater to see these movies.
These spectacular films were just downtown in your local community. You just walked over or took the bus a few minutes and saw them. Today, the insufferably trite serial movies have pushed out the quality works and have hijacked the center of the movie-going experience.
Martin Scorcese, truly one of the most important figures in moviemaking history, up there with Griffith, Lang, Ray, Ford, and Chaplin, has the pedigree to weigh in on this. And he did, beautifully. Finally.
8
*Cinema is an art form that brings you the unexpected. In superhero movies, nothing is at risk, a director says.*
I'm sorry but although Scorsese is a genius he is not making any sense. He is no better than a classical music snob dissing rock and roll.
Superhero films are just a genre, just like Gangster films or musicals.
The recent LA LA land was a musical and was brilliant, containing as much depth as any of Scorsese's films.
But Scorsese's New York New York - was a failure, pure and simple.
I've seen *every* Scorsese film and i'm sorry but EndGame (yes) and Dark Knight are as good as anything he has ever done.
Sorry, but cinema snobs don't intimidate me...
4
There's is no bigger fan of Scorsese's work than I. As a 19 year old in 1989 I sat in a theater and watched the fat wiseguys climbing out of their Cadillacs. When the film cut to a slightly over-cranked close up on a fender of one of the cars as it rose upwards, time stopped and and I became momentarily lost in the realization that I previously had no idea what the possibilities of commercial narrative cinema actually were.
However, as has already has been pointed out, the genre movies of the 50's and 60's followed similar patterns of character development and lack of narrative risk as the superhero movies of today. I am glad that towards the end of his piece he implied an acceptance of an apples and oranges scenario, where audiovisual entertainment and cinema could coexist and overlap from time to time. Because in addition to the vertical corporate integration of the studios in the early 70's, it was after all his compatriots in the New Hollywood (Coppola, Spielberg, Lucas) whose films provided the foundations for the blockbuster pattern we find ourselves enslaved by today.
It's up to artists like Scorsese to persevere, as he has mostly done brilliantly throughout his career, and maintain that overlap. When Daniel Plainview paused when he said "I can't keep doing this on my own, with these...people", I got the same feeling I did when the Cadillac fender lifted.
Don't worry Marty.
4
I agree to a certain extent and see the same affect happen with the availability of distribution channels for music. But I don't think it's the right way to frame the issue. Film was an alternative to stage theater, vinyl to cassettes, it could be viewed as progress and this is simply nostalgia. Calling someone on the phone used to hold a lot of meaning but big budget for a different medium made texting the main form.
Newer generations have no issue with the new format
For me if you have seen one Marvel movie you can pretty much fill in the blanks for the next one. They are very formula with the same plot, the same tensions and the same over the top heroes. The worst had to be Ironman, trump in a high tech knights armor. I love Robert Downey but the character he played was repulsive.
6
There is so much from those comics, yet all the marvel movies are the same. The same effects, the same jokes, the same plot points. They are boring films. The Joker is a good example of the dramatic potential in these stories and characters. Maybe they can start being a bit more creative and interesting.
4
Typical Old Guard complaint against a society that has progressed past their own dearly-held childhood values. "Strangers on a Train" is great, but it's almost 70 years old. As the excellent Ken Burns documentary "Country Music" made abundantly clear, each established generation decries the legitimacy of the upcoming generation's art and artists, ad infinitum.
@Patti Jacobs
Too easy ;-)
It's not because some art is 70 years old that it would be inferior to today's art.
Art is art. And as such, timeless.
The problem is that Marvel pictures aren't art at all.
Real artists don't "decry the legitimacy" of the previous generation of artists, they love them so much that they try to innovate all while being as good as previous generations.
Simply rejecting the past and lowering your standards is no guarantee AT ALL that what you'll be making will still be "art" ...
9
How does a product based on comic books dare to try to be a product based on great writing? It's like comparing a comic book to the writing of William Faulkner or Philip Roth. A movie is only as good as the structure it is built upon. I agree with Scorsese because he, too, is one of the greatest filmakers of all time.
5
I can appreciate the director's work. I can say that some films are artful. I can say that conflict and risk are the natures of good storytelling. But I can also say what Hitchcock often said: "It's only a movie". Movies are literally moving presentations. They are ephemeral entertainment. Progressive. They can be wonderful. But they are more like comics (sequential images and statements) than art is (stationary artifacts meant to garner immersion) or some writing (meant to be understood as a complete corpus built of a multidimensional construction of parts) or math problems (useful tools for conveying important ideas) or theories (ideas that can be reaffirmed via testing or applied to other sets of data). Even the best films are meant to begin and end. That's why even still images from films, while profound like in the famous Cary Grant scene, aren't standalone pieces of art as we know they are part of a progression that lends them meaning. Just like comic books. So I respectfully disagree. Unlike with the rest, you are filling in most of the ideas. There is little room to "grow" your ideas to understand other things or incorporate other truths. That's the conceit.
1
Scorsese is correct. There is nothing for him to explain.
4
Thank you Mr. Scorsese, for spelling it out.
I remember seeing two super-hero movies on the big screen.
Out on the sidewalk, after watching the second Batman movie, I turned to my brother and said, "At last–a film for the brain dead." (I didn't mean to insult anyone other than the filmmakers and studio heads); the second, after seeing Iron Man with my then 10-year-old son, who declared it, "the best movie I've ever seen", and asked, "Did you like it, dad?" I replied, "If I was 10, I would have loved it." I'm pleased to report that this young man is now graduating from college and has offered me many tips on "must-see" independent films that have touched and moved him in many ways. It's a shame that I can't see them on the big screen, but proof that many great pieces of cinema are still being made, and are speaking to young people who grow up, develop sophisticated visual appetites and a real love of cinema.
4
I've got no beef with Mr. Scorsese, and am not particularly partisan about the Marvel franchise. But still, this seems pretty snobby.
I mean, is there really that much unknown about the contours of a mob film, either? Or a Dracula movie? It's just genre fiction, pop culture. And it's a field that Mr. Scorsese helped expand as well.
I would be more interested in hearing his take on the unsettling textures in DC's "Joker," which owes some pretty obvious septs to "Taxi Driver" and other urban verite classics. And is an example of how comic book movies are not bound by the preexisting expectations of critics or fans.
1
“Hugo” was the best adaptation of an illustrated novel ever. It should have won award for best picture( no one watches The Artist more than once”). However there is a certain pleasure in the shared universe of the Marvel movies that makes them feel like a new reality
1
I love Scorsese. His Taxi Driver and Goodfellas alone are worth more than all the Marvel Movies put together.
The man is a true artist.
I enjoyed the Ironman movies due to good special effects, chemistry between Stark and his lady, and the evil villains.
But Avengers Endgame and most of the other ones have been a waste of time and not even visually stimulating.
Be sure to see Scorsese's lauded new movie The Irishman, where the power trio of DeNiro, Pesci and Pacino give their best performances in decades.
2
fact is most viewers turn to movies as a form of escapism and can't be bothered to or intentionally avoid movies that might trigger some emotion, some thinking. and thanks to popular anti-"elite" backlash, majority of viewers even see it as badge of honor to look down upon truly great pieces of cinematic art
1
Thank you for this, Mr. Scorsese. I am currently trying to save the last "art" cinema in our little neck of the Connecticut woods and it's not easy!
I am an avid movie-goer and have seen superhero films that are exciting and technically impressive. As you say, they are kind of like a theme park ride. Not much stays with you after the initial rush...unlike films that tell stories of real human beings struggling with good and bad in a difficult, complex world.
3
I don't find myself necessarily disagreeing with any claim Scorsese makes, but his insinuation that what he labels "art" in film is going to be lost is almost surely wrong. Culture always ebbs and flows; for every new technological development that improves art there's a negative aspect to it. For every great part of art we lose as time goes on, there's a pesky tradition that we can't shake. Hollywood was literally created to mass-produce the new visual art that was cinema. John Wayne was in ~250 movies, and how many were virtually the same thing? Never once in the history of art has kitsch-y popular art ever completely crowded out other forms. It's always balanced out over time, to waste time arguing that somehow this time is any difference is pointless. Make the art you want to make and that's all you can do.
2
I've been harboring these same feelings Mr. Scorcese is expressing here about today's Marvel franchises that dominant theaters these days for some time. I'm glad he conveyed it in such an eloquent way. It's driven me to almost abandoning doing something I always loved- going to the movies. Instead I seek the newest BBC series and search for television programs that have great storylines and acting without special effects dominating the film. It makes me think of how horrible streaming has been for songwriters. It's harder and harder for writers of films and songs to make a living. It's sad for me to write this as well. Viva cinema!
9
Sorry, but as much as I respect some of your work, no one should define "cinema" or "art" to the rest of us. It's whatever the viewer decides it is.
4
Everyone should define art, especially artists. Why only allow the viewer the power to define it? If nothing else, hearing a famous director explain his aesthetic values is interesting. We all have the right to disagree. If we can’t as a culture stomach this kind of criticism then there’s something wrong with us.
7
actually no. not every viewer can comprehend art from kitsch, nor can every viewer recognize that what's unexplainable is actually art. thanks to social media unfortunately everyone nowadays thinks they are artists or identify art.
3
@Rebecca
That's absurd. No one denies that in the past, there have been absolutely outstanding movies, from an artistic point of view.
The challenge for the next generations is to make art that is as good as the art of the past, AND new.
Just being made today is NOT a valid criterium ...
The biggest problem, which Scorsese notes, is the closing of big screen movie theaters. I want to watch real movies like Scorsese's latest on the big screen, because I can't stand watching on a relatively small tv. (I don't care how big a screen it is - there's also something lost when you can watch it whenever you want and don't have to be at the theater at the appointed time, watching with other people who have the same desire as you).
Technology doesn't always imply "better" - we should realize that.
5
@Sirlar
Meh. I have a home theater because the other movie goers dont share my desire for total immersion sans chit chat, phone noises, soda slurping, etc.
But i love the MCU movies, so maybe there's something wrong with me.
Did the Irishman really cost 150 million to make?
As a filmmaker as often as I can raise money and often work with funding out of my own pocket, maybe films with these kinds of budgets and a slew of recognized "stars" are leading myself and others in a similar spot from contemplating a big screen release?
How many artistically ambitious films could have been made for that hundred and fifty very large? How about funding 150 films in the million dollar range? Maybe there would be new life in those big screens after all.
3
The most important point is no risk, the concept of franchise.
2
I am a lifelong fan of Mr. Scorsese, and it's not a long one at 28. I believe he understands film on a level that is simply beyond the capability of most. This is what makes him so special, but in this case, it's also what casts blinders over what he sees.
Down the road we have cherry-picked classic films with cinematic elements that would prove ground-breaking, revolutionary; full of character discovery and visual tropes that would alter the medium itself. These are the peak of cinema. They are also not representative of what was popular, or beloved by the general public either.
For every formulaic 'Save the Cat' franchise then, now, and into the future, there exists a new generation of behind-the-scenes filmmakers continuing to push the boundaries of what the peak of cinema really is. No, they won't make a billion dollars. No, the general public won't revel in their artistry. And yes, they are difficult to find.
But I say (and I think you would to, Martin), that's what makes them all the more rewarding.
4
Hearing this said by someone so influential is refreshing. When artists speak honestly about what they value and where they see art falling short, we are all freer. Intelligent criticism—whether you’re the one writing it or the one taking it in—keeps our culture healthy.
6
I think the big blockbuster films in a theatre are simply testing Antoine Artaud’s theory of “The Theatre of Cruelty.” Theatre is made to assault the senses first - storytelling is secondary. Movies always moved toward this... Weren’t they called movie exhibitions? It seems as other platforms of film storytelling arise, now movie theaters depend on the Comic Book movies that blast a full assault of our senses and their story is implied but not full fleshed out. Too many players on a football field - too much at once. I’m glad Netflix gave you the space and time to tell your story the way you see it, Mr Scorsese, without the parameters of how many times a movie theater can exhibit it in a day. I think that’s a freedom that directors like Curtis, Hawks, Ford, Capra, Hitchcock never had. All the while we thought the bad guys of old Hollywood were the studios when in fact it was distribution. It was distribution all along.
1
Martin Scorsese came-of-age during and unprecedented time in the Hollywood studio system. The studio heads were so confused with the boomer generation that they basically gave control to the artists. This all evaporated with Jaws and Star Wars. The studio heads now had their new formula and challenging works of cinema had to find refuge in independent companies.
In the 90's independent companies started to behave like big studios and started churning out product as well, ex: the "Tarantino" ultra-violence type film.
Savvy marketing mindsets as well as the internet have had a huge impact on the creative mind. Long gone are the days when a mind could create in relative isolation.
Yet there are still great movies coming out.
I would also like to add that there are many of us who can love a movie by Tarkovsky, Claire Denis, Orson Wells, etc. and still absolutely love Thor Ragnarok and Guardians of the Galaxy. We just manage our pretensions better.
3
Cinema, like art, literature etc. is about entertainment... What brings you joy in those media.
Scorsese prefers to get his entertainment from a certain genre of cinema. Others choose superhero movies. The point is that the medium of filmmaking is able to entertain everyone.
Whether you choose to read Dostoevsky or 60s pulp fiction, both are still literature and both can be of high quality. They are just to different tastes.
Similarly, not everyone going to the cinema wants to think about a whole load of depth and meaning. I would say most go for the exact opposite - for simplicity and escape - and for me that is what cinema, as an art form, is about... To take people outside of their lives and entertain them. And, as such, Marvel movies are excellent cinema!
1
Totally agree with Mr. Scorsese and also this is another moment to reflect on the fact that we continue as a society to make excuses for our failure to achieve greatness, whether be art or any other accomplishment. "You need a lot of money in order to produce great art!" Yes it harder but not impossible and we can go back in the history of modern man and great art was achieved without money. Some of the greatest artists, as Mr. Scorsese pointed out was born out of "Tension" and conflicts (The great art made during Big Studios). But it was done. What he points out, I believe, is that the artists and the movie industry continues to be "Sucked" up into the money vortex. The rest are excuses. Get to work and find ways as all artists have done throughout the ages and they literally starved in order to get it done.
1
Forgive me, Marty, but your films can feel a bit like remakes of themselves as well. How many gangster movies can one guy make and still consider plumbing the depths of the organized crime psyche not a retread?
Don't get me wrong, I love every one of them. I get that you consider your work your life's calling. You don't think people like the Russo Bros feel the same? So it's not your bag...that doesn't mean it isn't art. Maybe gangster movies can't cut it on the big a teen any more because we've heard that story already. From every angle, from every era.
Just like you and Frank Coppola ushered in a new era, so must you be ushered out. And I mean hell, didn't you just produce a comic book movie? I get that joker is basically a homage to taxi driver but it's still a comic book movie.
The industry, the big screen industry, is in the hands of a few. If you want more Indy releases, do what you can to change that or help to start a national co op of smaller theaters.
6
I’m 53 years old and grew up with comic books. I’m afraid I agree with Mr Scorsese. I just don’t understand the interest in these Marvel movies. They’re not exciting and the plots are always boring or very predictable. But that’s just my opinion (and Mr Scorsese of course).
4
Comic book films are ascendant because film viewers no longer read books. In my last year of teaching film (theory and production), my students stubbornly refused to read assigned texts.
I would run a power point that was only three slides long, and the key one said "You can gain significant experience, by proxy, through reading."
No effect. No knowledge of the word 'proxy '. No interest.
To truly appreciate the film experience that Mr. Scorsese writes about, one must have experience beyond the graphic novel and the comic book. As we 'progress' into a post-literate world, the depths of human experience are being lost to the thrill of sensation without reflection.
8
There is still hope Mr. Scorsese. The local chain movie house has for the few years been showing films more to my( our ) needs.
Recently seen:
Parasite
The Lighthouse
Jojo Rabbit
The Farewell
Maiden
Last Black Man in San Francisco
The Biggest Little Farm
All is True
Shadow
All seen at AMC Theaters in the Burbs since May 2019.
Please continue to allow me the opportunity to experience these types of films with my friends and family; and just maybe expand the horizons of some franchise film goers. Thank you AMC Theaters.
3
Marvel movies are animated comic books. And saying so doesn't make one a snob.
4
I agree...comic book or literature. Two different things.
1
I agree with Mr. Scorsese. Marvel movies were made for the multiplex theatres of today. I predict that someday again there will be neighborhood movie houses where my kids will be able to go see movies that were like Jaws and Rocky when I was a teen. After all, we're listening to vinyl records again.
1
As my old man used to say, "If you don't like it then don't watch it. But don't spoil it for those who do."
This goes for a lot of other things as well.
1
I've saved a ton of dough not going to movie theaters. I'm not happy about that really I used to go all the time. Adding it all up, I'm probably about flat with my streaming subscriptions. Still, it's overall a loss.
2
I want to start by saying that I love Martin Scorsese and his films. I just wanted to share my thoughts. I don’t think most people disagree with the statement that Marvel movies can be formulaic but saying that they aren’t cinema discredits the achievement that is this film series to begin with. There are examples of Marvel movies that subverted expectations or at least play with the feel and formula a bit (Thor: Ragnarok and Infinity War). As for complex characters, while there are a couple of flat characters here or there, the characters the series focuses on have some of the best development you could ask for and if you go back they change a lot in the 10 years they’ve been on the screen. People forget that superhero movies were risks in their own right up until Iron Man in 2008. That’s just my take I might be biased as a Marvel fan though.
3
I respect Mr. Scorsese a great deal and I empathize with almost everything he argues in this piece. But I can't help but play the devil's advocate. 1- Perhaps there really needs to be a distinction made between cinema as a form of art that is subsidized and movie making that is a commercial enterprise. I really don't understand why Mr. Scorsese thinks cinema shouldn't be subsidized, if he believes it's art just like any other form of art that? 2- Mr. Scorsese could have written this article equally well and effectively without the plug of his upcoming Netflix movie. But since he did, in some ways the article seems to loose some of its authenticity because it feels like a hidden agenda is inserted, one that intends to advertise his upcoming streaming-intended movie that completely defies the main argument made in the piece.
I think it's easier to relate to films about ordinary people, even if they're romanticized as cowboys, than it is to films about Avengers and talking raccoons. The first (older) films are meant to focus our attention on something real (whatever it might be); the second (newer) films are designed, I think, to do the opposite, to distract us from caring about anything much.
2
On the one hand, I appreciate his perspective and there is something to the conglomeration and marketability of franchise films that is off putting. The Marvel franchise does it well, everyone else trying to keep up and cash in are making fools of themselves. They will be weeded out. Marvel won't keep it up forever. Looking at you Star Wars.
On the other hand, Abbot and Costello made 39 movies in 38 years. There were 6 "Road to..." movies in 12 years. There are 26 James Bond films. There's over 90 Universal Classic Monster movies, including the Abbott and Costello films, the first film franchise or universe that began in 1923 and stretched to 1960, and is currently being exhumed. Ha. Some great movies, a lot of bad ones too.
There's always been shlock in all art. Shakespeare was once shlock, was it not? Interspersed in all these movies are classics. The box office from these movies also allowed the studios to put out the cinematic classics that Mr. Scorcese refers to. Netflix blockbusters allow for similar, smaller artistic productions. Mr. Scorcese could thank Stranger Things or the Netflix Marvel series for the ability to make his latest film.
While the technology has changed and the way audiences experience films has changed, the ratio of art to shlock is not far off.
Thankfully, throughout this change, the quality of Mr. Scorcese's work has not. I'm sure I will enjoy the Irishman as much as I've enjoyed his other films.
3
Don't be sad, Mr. Scorsese. Let me explain.
When I read "2001: A Space Odyssey" to the point at which the space traveler entered the monolith and exclaimed, "My God! It's full of stars!" When a colleague invited me to see the film which had just come out, I set the book down and went with him. Sitting in the middle of the theatre with my peripheral vision filled by the curved Cinemascope screen, as I entered the star gate with the traveler, I had no idea what I would find, but was completely transported in a way that NO home screen could begin to achieve. Same thing goes for the opening of West Side Story with the changing colors and Bernstein's magical score.
And yet, though I first saw Felinni's "8½" in 1964 on a big screen, it has never mattered what size on which I view it again and again, because the amazing artistry with which Federico shows how the Catholic Church created an emotional and intellectual dilemma in his main character (and most catholics) regarding the true nature of good and evil, always comes through with full force. So, knowing THIS film is highly regarded by you, Mr. S., be confident that such films with messages of truth and genuine insights will still get through – with or without popcorn and candy being sold in a lobby.
3
Brilliant editorial from a brilliant man. That said, I want a Goodfellas theme park!
1
Thank you SO much, Mr. Scorsese, for "telling it like it is"!
Plato's objection against democracy is that in a society where only a very small minority is educated, "democratizing" art would mean destroying all that humanity is able to produce at its highest level.
The solution is NOT to abandon art, it's to "educate the masses".
But that will only happen if we manage to elect presidents (more than one, obviously, as it takes generations of sustained effort before you can obtain real, radical change) who support this idea, instead of staying home waiting for a Savior, or voting for reality tv idiots ...
The phrase is “waiting for Superman”, but I understand your aversion to that wording, he’s a superhero.
Mr. Scorsese, allow me to review the movie "Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse":
"It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves."
Keep an open mind, venerable director. That's your job.
5
The one thing that stands out about both super-hero movies and comic books is that their psychological sophistication is on par with that of teenaged boys. Oh, wait, that explains everything.
3
That was a very psychologically sophisticated remark. Clearly sir, you are no teenager.
Not at all a fan of tent pole movies, no matter where the so-called intellectual property is licensed from.
They are largely awful, soul rotting and infested with ridiculous amounts of violence.
Marty is an artist. He's an American treasure and love that he penned this to the mutant community.
He's 100% right.
But most of them won't get it.
3
Of course they are not Cinema. They are visual junk food.
4
Of course there have always been films that were designed to be nothing more, or less, that audio visual entertainment. The early talkie musicals (which audiences soon avoided, like the plague), 3-D movies in the fifties, and so on. And there were always big Hollywood movies that depended on spectacle and big stars, but otherwise weren't very good. None of these have aged well, but smaller, more complex movies from these same periods are still watched, and have something to offer current viewers. I suspect the same will be true in the future, that current comic book blockbusters will feel dated, even laughable, in the future, while smaller films, rooted in the human experience, will still be compelling to watch. Mr. Scorsese has a clear vision of where films are today, and his viewpoint is realistic, not overly critical.
1
Please, Marty. Stop Scor-splaining to us. You just come off as increasingly insulated and entitled. When you claim your era's idea of film "was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves" and the Marvel Universe is far from that you just sound tone-deaf.
Marvel comics rise to prominence in the 60s was entirely about the exploration of characters and as the genre has moved to film there have been hits and misses but they have become increasingly diverse in tone, depth, complexity and presentation.
An ex-con tries to stay straight in order to save his relationship with his daughter while circumstances beyond his control keep frustrating his intentions? (Ant-Man) Oh, but Marty's version of it would be set in 1970s New York City and all the characters would be Italian.
Hugo's director can't fathom that films which require a generous suspension of disbelief can still have plenty of character exploration. You can't see Georges Méliès and Hugo Cabret in Tony Stark's relationship with Peter Parker?
Sure, the MCU is sucking a lot of money and screen real estate away from other genres. However, Marty's criticisms feel like a String Quartet complaining that because Opera is expensive, extravagant, and exaggerated it isn't really music.
6
Mr Scorsese,
Hot Damn! You write as well as you make movies. A terrific crie de cour and as well as a brilliant aesthetic. Thank you for this, and for all the great movies you've given me and the world. "Silence" will live in me for the rest of my life.
The first movie was a scrolling landscape for two people in a fake train compartment.
Was it expected or unexpected ?
Obviously it depended on how often one traveled by train, which was still rare at the time.
A next famous movie was about a train entering a ... train station, and it was so ... unexpected at the time that people jumped off their seats.
The notion of expectation is indeed quite a measure of one's self-confirming tropes ;-)
1
Thank you for writing this Mr. Scorsese! I couldn't agree more. It's okay to enjoy superhero films (I enjoy mindless entertainment from time to time) but they don't rise to the level of cinema.
4
I agree with Martin Scorsese - superhero movies aren't cinema. They're entertainment. I grew up on art house and campy drive-in theater movies.I'm so happy Tucson has Loft Cinema, a well-run independent theater . It also has Casa Video, a long-established video rental shop with more than 50,000 rentals available. Streaming is great, but titles can come and go, therefore I still frequent Casa Video. I love seeing films screened, so no matter how many times I've seen them on television, I will still pay to see them in a theater. I would also like to give a shout-out to TMC who are helping keep cinema alive. I think the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences might want to consider using some of the AMC hosts in the Academy Awards ceremony since the televised presentation ceremony appears to be in a state of flux.
1
Correction: TCM hosts - sorry.
Cinema is taking place on the small screen. Twin Peaks.
1
This needed to be said, and you have the voice to say it.
Ars longa -
Thank you, Martin Scorsee!
3
Thank you Mr. Scorcese, I absolutely agree. It's apples and oranges, and I don't even know why people take it personally that a talented auteur does not consider MCU films as the same genre as his own. People who actually take the time to be offended by this should watch some of the films referenced in this column. They might develop some taste beyond CGI, snarky quips and explosions. And to be clear, I LOVE superhero movies.
4
My ten years old son loves action movies but is already tired and bored with superhero movies.
Yes yes, but what is your ten-year-old’s take on Bresson? Does he prefer Pickpocket or Au Hasard Balthazar? Don’t tell me he’s more of a Bergmanstan. Ugh, kids.
I am older than Scorsese, with a long memory of the film business, and am very much in his corner.
Yet I must admit, as I think Woody Allen has Mariel Hemingway say in "Manhattan": "Everything changes."
Theater, vaudeville, big bands, radio drama, black and white movies - all gone with the wind. Big screens are probably not far behind.
I haven't seen "The Irishman" yet, but a young friend in the film business tells me it is great. No surprise there. Credit Scorsese, and don't neglect everyone else, above and below the line.
I checked Netflix to see if it is streaming yet. It doesn't seem to be. No surprise there, either. I'll wait.
Once upon a time I would have driven across half a state to see it on a big screen. But not now.
Don't get around much anymore.
(Remember that song? Don't hear it much anymore. "All gone, Miss Scarlett, gone with the wind.")
2
Dear Mr. Sorcese,
You don't need to explain, justify or apologize for a single thing.
When you see the exodus of A-listers flocking to television, it is obvious that there is a major shift taking place. The venue for good acting, well written stories, innovation and intellectual challenge is TV.
I cannot watch another super hero, another bone crunching, violence driven action movie or another lame comedy, but that is about all that that is left. An interesting small or mid-budget movie does not stand much of a chance.
If a movie is not loud enough or in your face, it it DOA at the theater.
1
Well said, Mr. Scorsese. I am in complete agreement. Risk in general has diminished as a value and virtue. Centralization, both politically and economically, is the new dogma, but under many different names. And with art the absence of risk cuts to the core.
1
I could not agree more with Marty. We need art. But the entire nation has the same problem. Harder and harder to get real food here. Fast Food dominates and it's increase mirrors the increase in Obesity. We need food and art to match "The Best Years of Our Life" by Frank Capra.
1
Instead of attributing infantilism, lack of sophistication or poor taste to Marvel fans, we should consider two things.
1) Costs. The movies cost at least $20/person for a ticket and snacks. We know that all movies end up on the small screen via cable, streaming, DVDs etc. The question is “what is worth $20 to see on the big screen?” Because if I just wait, I can rent any movie when released on streaming/dvd or get it “free” as content in my subscriptions (eg. Netflix). For many, what’s worth seeing on the big screen are the huge spectacles like Disney re-makes, superheroes, fantasy movies (eg. Star Wars, LOTR, Avatar) etc. Unless there’s a huge Oscar buzz around them, people tend to wait to see the smaller/more artsy films on the small screen. It’s not that Marvel fans, etc. are subsisting solely on a diet of comic book films; they’re just prioritizing the movies they want to spend their hard-earned money on.
2) Escapism. These are dark depressing times. Fascism on the rise, climate change, income inequality, etc. Consciously or not, people want to escape this reality and watch movies where demi-gods can save humanity, good triumphs over evil and the moral code is clear. The news feature plenty of the “human condition” and morally ambiguous characters. It’s not surprising that the much-derided Marvel movies are what people want to see in their spare time: people want happy endings because our world seems to be a never-ending nightmare.
6
Thank you, Mr. Scorsese -
the ongoing trend favoring plasticized beings in increasingly phantasmagoric settings may sate many millions, but that output can never be confused with complex, immaculately conceived and written characters in situations bearing some remote or proximate resemblance to life on this planet! Dialogue written and spoken in the 20s has firmly established a permanent place in daily exchange - who in 10 years will be quoting "Ant-Man"?
Thank you, Marty!
You just outlined why I don't to the cinema anymore.
I won't pay to see cars changing into giant robots. I won't pay to see talking raccoons. I'm not interested in flying people - unless some bad guy is throwing them off a bridge in one of your films.
I feel you, Marty. I really do.
1
The answer is simple. If you don't like Super Hero movies, then don't watch them. And if I don't like the Scorsese movies (and I don't) then I won't watch them.
3
I go see movies because they entertain me, I also watch documentaries at home, and of course some of the oldies, movies from 30's, 40's, 50's, I didn't care much for the 60's, but every decade after gave me so many different genres to enjoy, I love foreign films, and again I watch almost any type: horror, sci-fi, thrillers, romantic, drama, comedy, etc. I think that everybody is entitled to watch whatever makes them happy. I love Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel and DC movies, but I also rewatch Casablanca, Citizen Cane, Psycho and Godfather every year. I'm old but I keep an young heart and some of these movies make me cry, and it means to me that they have content good enough to make my emotions to run wild, and in my humble opinion, that is what makes a good movie. I'm not an expert in movies or knowledgeable film critic, but if I see a Marvel movie and I feel the pain of the characters, I will cry, if they say something silly, I will laugh and if a scene is putting me on the edge of my seat, I will sweat and hold my breath. I just love movies!
3
Famous supply-side economist Martin Scorsese on why people are not going to see arthouse films in theaters...
If audiences were flocking to smaller budget emotional films, Hollywood would happily follow the money in that direction. But ever since Scorsese's dear friends Lucas & Spielberg (who no doubt make "cinema" by Scorsese's standards) introduced the world to the modern blockbuster, there was no putting that genie back into the bottle. This is now what people demand. Supply meets Demand. It's that simple. Blaming Marvel or their fans or the artists who work every day to make these films for the end of cinema? Or to say that ENDGAME is somehow less valuable than, say, JAWS? Give me a break, old man.
4
Mr. Scorcese makes a valid point, but misses a key aspect. Not all movies are worthy of the great screen, and many are better enjoyed at home, free of distraction (people talking, cell phones, broken seats, smell snacks...). The great screen can be reserved for the visually compelling work of great artists and blockbuster effects films. Many theaters have screens not significantly larger in impact than a 70-100 -inch hi-def home panel. The tradeoff for streaming may be fewer mega-payouts for artists, but far more high-quality content for the consumer. If you think of streaming as the minor league farm system for the big league studios, this is a good thing. Scorcese laments something that is not lost and ignores the very real gain in this "Golden Age" of content.
Isn't it just the older simpler world with one venue - movie theaters - is being replaced with many diverse outlets?
Cinema as defined by Scorsese as an art is on display in many of these - streaming most notably - but it is overwhelmed in the theaters as globalization, technology and financial risk management have combined to favor big budget lowest common denominator B-Movie films that used to be found at the drive in.
Martin, before you bemoan the end of cinema look at the fantastic new shows being made for streaming and consider where one limit
Mr. Scorsese makes an essentially unfair comparison. The Marvel movies shouldn't be compared to art films of any era but rather to the now-forgotten westerns, cop movies and fantasies that crowded out art films when a typical theater only had one screen. His complaint here shows a nostalgic view of the past where all of the worst is forgotten.
1
This is all very admirable but really its a eulogy for an era when a moviegoing diet consisted of something other than popcorn. There is also a fair amount of hypocrisy in advocating for a big screen experience and understanding that a majority of Academy voters will watch Irishman on a screener or streamer. When the Academy of MOTION PICTURE Arts and Sciences advocates for watching things on an Apple Watch, they can start playing taps for the magic of movies as an immersive experience.
Lost in all of Scorsese's high-brow hand-wringing is the central character innovation that was carried over from the Marvel comics into the movies, and accounts for much of their success -- superheroes are just like you and me, normal people with normal personal problems and hangups.
4
Another great director, Sidney Lumet (who cut his teeth in early TV) commented on the size of viewing screens as those in multiplexes got smaller and those at home got bigger: the film experience was going to move from movie houses to people's houses. Lumet's prescience is more undeniable now than it was when he first addressed it. It's also undeniable that the movie house experience itself has changed: it's more exhausting and debilitating and - while it still maintains a certain amount of shared experience (necessary when movies helped populations endure the depression and the only truly frightening global conflict in humankind's history), that shared experience has left much to be desired by comparison. I do agree with Mr. Scorsese: most movies today are now, for the most part, sophisticated computer generated cartoons with stiff performers and stiffer plots plopped in to engage an audience hellbent on turning their theater chair into a theme park ride, the only beneficiaries being the producers who sweat out their gamble. At home, HD makes it harder to maintain the wall of disbelief long enough to enjoy a story, let alone get involved. (You can end up counting Vivien Leigh's blackheads on her forehead in the restored version of GWTW. That orange pancake must have clogged those poor actors pores.) Meanwhile, Netflix, HBO and Amazon are lifting the heavy cash to produce new fare (see "The Irishman"). In the end, see what you want, where you want, and hope for the best.
The Mona Lisa and the “painting” of dogs playing poker on black velvet are both technically the same - two dimensional images of an idea. If the standard for judging art is personal opinion, then both images are equally valuable. Hamlet has no more artistic merit than Ironman. There are objective standards that apply to creations that define their artistic merit. The Marvel movies fail to meet those standards.
These are my thoughts from a personal essay I wrote about growth in my gap years:
Over the last year, I’ve been to vastly different movies from indie films like Ladybird and Call Me By Your Name to Marvel blockbusters such as Thor Ragnarok and Avengers Infinity War. Vastly different types of movies, but I enjoyed them both all the same.
In rewatching many of the Marvel movies, I truly never thought I would love these movies so much and I know many movie snobs look down on them, but they’re the ones missing out. These movies are uplifting, powerful and allow you to transcend the mundane realities of everyday life.
Not only that, but I think these movies resonate with young people today so sincerely because we have grown up in a world where we have witnessed countless acts of terrorism and attacks on our peaceful world order to the extent that these superheroes symbolise the greater good and the fight for justice in our troubled earth. These films are an extension of storytelling, traversing planets and mythologies from the Norse God of Thunder to the moral American hero Steve Rogers. Moreover, for people who would like to criticise these movies, I would like you to look at the characters and realise that they have more depth than you would imagine. No one is a one-dimensional character, all have an element of darkness and face moral quandaries.
I can’t imagine a world without Marvel, they have meant so much to me and deserve to be enjoyed by those who wish to watch them.
3
I totally understand Mr. Scorsese's feelings. The state of the film industry today is a equivalent to what happened to post-war mass food production from which our bodies and brains are still recovering to this day. Quantity over quality was the name of the game. It is no different from cranking out many of the same this ultimately empty, repetitive, super-hero films. But when are able to go see extraordinary cinema like the recent "The Lighthouse" in a multiplex, then I think there is hope. Somebody, somewhere wants cinema to re-emerge as the true art form that Lumiere and more recently, Scorsese meant it to be.
These are my thoughts from a personal essay I wrote about growth in my gap years:
Over the last year, I’ve been to vastly different movies from indie films like Ladybird and Call Me By Your Name to Marvel blockbusters such as Thor Ragnarok and Avengers Infinity War. Vastly different types of movies, but I enjoyed them both all the same.
In rewatching many of the Marvel movies, I truly never thought I would loveseat movies so much and I know many movie snobs look down on them, but they’re the ones missing out. These movies are uplifting, powerful and allow you to transcend the mundane realities of everyday life.
Not only that, but I think these movies resonate with young people today so sincerely because we have grown up in a world where we have witnessed countless acts of terrorism and attacks on our peaceful world order to the extent that these superheroes symbolise the greater good and the fight for justice in our troubled earth. These films are an extension of storytelling, traversing planets and mythologies from the Norse God of Thunder to the moral American hero Steve Rogers. Moreover, for people who would like to criticise these movies, I would like you to look at the characters and realise that they have more depth than you would imagine. No one is a one-dimensional character, all have an element of darkness and face moral quandaries.
I can’t imagine a world without these movies, they have meant so much to me and deserve to be enjoyed by those who wish to watch them.
1
Some movies are there just for entertainment and their immersive qualities. Others, can entertain and provide more substance in plot and character.
The Marvel/Super Hero movies are intended to be immersive and allow people to experience briefly an alternate reality. But is that really any different than the musicals of the 1930s and 40s? Not all of them would be considered great films but they provided a needed escape from the world especially during the Depression.
All films can't be great films, some are just there for basic consumption. Most people just want movies to be an escapist art, not an art form.
I can appreciate both--everything from a Marvel movie to the Buster Keaton silent classic, "The General".
I am hoping that the big large budget films and their associated profit would allow the studios to make more films like the ones Mr. Scorsese references. I still think we should have both--those that just provide light and others that can enlighten.
The first 'Thor" movie sort of fits into Mr. Scorsese's basket.
It was directed by Kenneth Branagh, whose Shakespearean leg up on things that might've helped. He also thankfully left those action sequences mercifully short. The worst thing about those superhero movies are those tedious action sequences. You can only take so much spectacular CGI in one lifetime.
I’m encouraged too. Also keep in mind that Saint Scorsese is lamenting a change in media formats more than a loss of them. A screenwriter friend said to me last week, “All the interesting work is being done in television” Apparently the cable spectrum’s ravenous hunger for content is creating opportunities for solid actors, writers, and directors that never existed under the studio system.
2
Pictures today are usually made for an audience of 14 year-old boys of all ages. That’s where the money is: they will go, and go back again. Girls (and women) will go to boy pictures, but boys will almost never go to chick pictures. And the wild ride comic book pictures don’t need to have much in the way of characters, or depth, or acting, and especially that pesky dialogue that may work In English but play like lead (or gibberish) in the foreign markets where theatrical releases must make their money. But they sure do move like lightening! I am sure Mr. Scorsese remembers, as I do, experiencing movies made primarily for adult audiences (or kids eager for a peek into the mysterious world of adults) and showcased in theaters like the old Astor, the Radio City Music Hall, or even the Thalia or Bleeker St. where you had to sit in the first few rows in order to see the Jukes and Jim at all through the miasma of cigarette smoke - all, event destinations in themselves. The Marvel type pictures are flashy, wide, loud, and usually much too long - but in the most basic ways, it is the pictures today that are getting smaller, as Gloria Swanson would have it. Just the thing for a mall multiplex or iPhone streaming... not to mention the quasi legal practice of block booking through which most American screens are dominated. On a bright note, other antiquated arts still somehow fill halls with enthusiastic audiences. Look at opera.
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. Mr Scorsese can't have it both ways: the privilege of making mainstream movies financed by Netflix, which dominates streaming yet allows him a theatrical run prior to its television run (in a Broadway theater, no less). Or Disney, which dominates the movie industry with its many franchises, rightfully lauded as a successful media company by giving its customers reasons to go to the theaters at all. And who would claim that the studio lords of old ruled in a more artist-sensitive way than the executives running these companies now?
No, in truth the great director is lamenting for a lost time, similar in so many ways to those of my friends who write literary fiction they can't get published; the journalists whose magazines have disappeared; or the advertising executive whose life in a Madison Ave. agency is long gone.
Yet without Netflix, we would not have access to all those new Indie greats and old classics we can stream for pennies, nor all those brilliant series that they and their competitors continue to develop, finance and broadcast. Disney recognizes the fragmentation of cultural choices and bases its appeal on one of the few areas that still attract mass audiences beyond social media. In fact, give me Marvel over Facebook or Twitter any day.
New artists will emerge, along with new technology, and bring us their own 'Taxi Drivers' and 'Mean Streets' in some new fashion we haven't yet experienced.
3
Scorcese is right.
For my money, Marvel is more like a video game than art. The story lines are at best weak.
And I for one do not need to know how much people spent each weekend watching this stuff.
3
Thank you very much. For me, I'm so sick of "comic book films" as I call them, with very few exceptions. I understand why they're so very popular; however, I find it to be the "McDonalds of the film industry": cookie cutter films; almost identical. Although a different era, I find a similarity to the Hollywood film industry in the late 1950's/early 1960's. This being a very bad time for them. Right after the McCarthy hearings, "status quo" films in jeopardy, & most of all: TV becoming very popular. Large studios & producers were deathly afraid of, as they were stagnant. However, tStanley Kubrick (aka "The Man") did an interview with CBS Radio about 1959 (between "Paths of Glory" (1957) & "Spartacus" (1960). The part of his message I appreciate the most was this (abbreviated & badly paraphrased from memory; although I own it): "I find the advent of television a challenge. I believe it will force the powers that be to strengthen their abilities, which will result in a refreshingly improved product, one that I welcome." Always out on the edge; what others were terrified of, he relished the challenge. As he said, "Everything has already been done. Every story has been told, every scene has been shot. Our job is to do it better." And that he did. Another quote I love (& completely true in the way he made his films): "I do not know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." The polar opposite of all others. I miss him so much. The wizard.
1
I equate it in the food world to a wonderful restaurant being replaced with a chain restaurant. More of the sameness available in Anytown USA. It is a tragedy that makes the independent restaurant that much more impossible to succeed.
2
As a comic book-reading adolescent in the sixties I would have given my right arm to have the superhero mega-bore movies that dominate the theaters today. Sadly, I had to settle for the likes of “Bullitt”, “The French Connection”, “Rosemary’s Baby”, “Deliverance”, etc. Thank goodness I had no buying power and Hollywood could not have cared less what I thought.
2
I find Marvel movies just as boring as you do. I go to movies looking for plot and character, as well as action and mystery. But I also read books, not comics. And I definitely don't spend much time in theme parks.
I still find many movies to go to that are adult and hold my interest. Thank God for Netflix which is a cornucopia of unusual movies and TV series. My grandchildren however love the comic book kind of entertainment and what I enjoy would be mostly inappropriate for them. Many adults seem to prefer whizz bang entertainment too and I say, to each his own.
Scorsese is baiting here. We all know his work and this reads like a delusion of grandeur. He still produces crime inspiring gutter dwelling stuff. The artistic angle he presents is truly humorous.
2
Actually, if anyone is baiting us, it’s yourself. I mean, come on—“gutter dwelling”? Because his films explore the criminal mind, that somehow disqualifies them as art?
Give me a break.
You obviously haven't seen all his works, Your entitled to your opinion. We all are but it helps a bit if you know what your talking about.
First off, I absolutely revere Martin Scorsese. He has earned the right to be heard and his words have gravitas with me.
What I would respectfully add is that now, with the benefit of hindsight, one can cherry-pick the best of historical cinema and the examples cited by Mr Scorsese certainly illustrate the best of the best. However there have always been B-movies and many, many forgettable films. Not all films aim to the heights aspired to by Mr Scorsese.
Mr Scorsese also touched on the element of risk aversion in today’s industry. He did not explicitly call out one of the principle causes: Today’s blockbuster films are financed largely by banks which are inherently risk averse. No bank is going to lend money to a young up-and-coming artist. They want sure things and thus we get the safest of their safe bets: The Marvel Universe, an endless supply of animated films for children, and films with ample merchandise tie-ins.
So let’s call this what it is: The Marvel franchise is the modern version of B movies, except this time they are made on a gargantuan budget.
The part of Scorsese's op-ed that resonated with me the most was when he cited the lack of risk as the primary culprit behind the decline of cinema.
Simply put, he believes: The lack of directorial risk and the shift from individual artistic vision to consumer consensus have had a negative effect on filmmaking and viewers.
As a fan of Marvel movies, I find them entertaining, emotional, fun--and reasonably safe from a filmmaking perspective. Not much risk per se.
Some readers have argued that media company mergers have stunted cinematic growth because large telecoms are interested in generating profits not making cinema, as Scorsese defines cinema. I believe those people make a valid point.
I would argue that, culturally, we live in accelerated and challenging times. Movies are escapism, a positive one. We may not be able to stomach riskier films, perhaps, in this day and age.
Lastly: Films should leave us feeling different, disoriented, and perhaps even disturbed, not always warm and fuzzy, whether we sit up from our binge cosy sofas or leave the mega movies houses at the Mall.
1
This is my world: my son, when he was five years old, asked me why the movies we saw at home were black at the bottom and the top. Try explaining the concept of "letterbox" to a five year old.
I have given up. I no longer expect to have any type of transformative experience in the movies. I began to even question if such an experience was warranted or necessary. The film that did it for me was "Prometheus." The precursor to "Prometheus" was "Avatar." Both films were visually stunning but flat in terms of story. Neither was particularly satisfying; neither brought a new vision or a new concept of what were clearly unoriginal story lines. I recalled the HUNDREDS of movies I have seen in my life that have permeated my very bone marrow, changed who I am as a woman, a mother, a black female, a human. My son and I walked out at the end of Prometheus and I vividly recall saying to him, "perhaps the best I can hope for is to be entertained." Thanks to the feckless risk-averse individuals and bean counters that now rule Hollywood and beyond, we are being DCMarvel'd right out of our very existence. Marty is right, as he usually is.
1
Well said, Martin. At least some of us yearn for movies that are true art, have depth, take us along, and can get under our skin. By contrast, there is no risk in these superhero films (but thus very little emotional depth). The Marvel universe offers staple fare, if all you want is to lose a couple of hours in a comfortable theater.
2
I think quite a few folks are mischaracterizing or missing Mr. Scorcese's message here. Whatever he thinks of Marvel movies, he knows perfectly well that commercial cinema has always been mostly junk. He would just like to see room in the theaters for serious moviemakers again, because it really is a different experience seeing a film in a theater with other people. I have a decent television with a reasonable sound system and I can make pretty good popcorn but a film I watch at home doesn't affect me the same way. The consolidation of the movie industry and the difficulties faced by independent operators in all phases of the business, from the artistic to distribution to the theaters themselves, have resulted in a huge market of safe, profitable choices. That means things that can be franchised, or updated revivals of previously successful work. Good films, let alone great ones, get relentlessly pushed to the edges. Oh wait, I'm sorry, I just realized I'm talking about the music business. Or maybe the Broadway theater? Never mind.
The comments here are like a cacaphony of "Get off my lawn."
Good grief. We can, and in fact do, have mindless entertainment, deeply affecting work, and the stuff in between.
1
First, ticket prices are too high and there are too many movie theater deserts across movie going countries. Perhaps Netflix co-founders with movie-pass had an ok idea if bad numbers. Now if Mr. Scoresse knew that Iron Man and Black Widow were going to die in Endgame, he should play the betting markets; I was surprised. The Lord of the Rings is an incredible book but The NY Times was right to pan it. I don't know why Marty didn't write about Hugo.
To the surprise of friends who live far away, Birmingham has become a bit of a cinema treasure by virtue of its 20+ year-old Sidewalk Film Festival. For three days at the end of August, hundreds of films of all genres — comedy, drama, documentary, shorts, local themes, local productions, student films, overseas submissions — are screened concurrently in eight venues. Among the venues are the recently restored Lyric Theater and the historic Alabama Theater (which has a movie-palace-era pipe organ). It's not TIFF, Sundance or Cannes, but it's _Birmingham_ fer-cryin'-out-loud. (Yes, this is a plug; come visit next year; no I'm not employed by the Festival organization.)
Just two months ago, the Sidewalk Film Festival steering committee & benefactors achieved a milestone and fulfillment of a decades-long dream: The gala opening of the "Sidewalk Cinema," with two 140-seat theaters, offices, & film-learning center located in the basement of a restored historic downtown building. Both the cinema and the annual festival showcase the sorts of movies that Scorsese and many of the commentators wish were more readily available.
1
There's nothing wrong with eating marshmallow fluff, but if it's all you have in your diet, then you're an unhealthy person with the palate of a small child.
Similarly, there's nothing wrong with movies-for-the-masses as a cinematic escape, but if that's the sum of your movie-going diet, then you have an intellectual deficit that you're likely unaware of, and the palate of a small child.
I wrote the above assuming that no one fits into my second category. Then I read some of the comments, and learned how totally correct Scorsese is.
1
I disagree with Scorcese here... and yet it's easy to understand where he's coming from, and even sympathize.
In the '60s and '70s when he was beginning his career, when Hollywood was emerging from the constraints of the studio system and new filmmakers were flexing their creative muscles, it was possible — for a brief time — to think of cinema as more of an art form than a business. That creative flowering didn't last long, and it was the biggest successes of that generation (Lucas and Spielberg) who really rang its death knell.
He's right that there are still people like Wes Anderson making iconoclastic, artistic films. He's right that theaters are where films are best seen, and most of them are dominated by blockbusters, and the studios have engineered that, and the "midlist" is withering in cinema just as it is in publishing. It's a business model full of perverse incentives.
But he's wrong to lump all blockbusters together, and in particular to single out Marvel, with its remarkable run of films of which *the worst* are still better than average, and the best are truly distinctive and memorable. If he'd chastised, say, the Fast & Furious franchise, I don't think anyone would've batted an eye. But Marvel? To claim that films as diverse as Black Panther and Winter Soldier and GotG are mere "remakes" of one another, or that Kevin Feige's creative instincts spring merely from "market research," is to reveal that he really doesn't grasp what he's talking about.
2
Martín, you don’t have to explain.
Great movies are part of the fabric of my life. Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette in love in True Romance (and Gary Oldham as the most sinister pimp ever); Young Frankenstein (Marty Feldman "What Hump" and Blazing Saddles (Cleavon Little riding high in his Gucci saddle and Dom Deluise directing an all-male dance troupe) re-defining political correctness; Marathon Man making me scared of dentists forever; the Full Regalia scene in Django Unchained; the "you scream, I scream, we all scream for ice cream" scene, in a New Orleans jail in Down By Law; the Fantastic Mr. Fox eating breakfast like the fox he is; the long, languid, single-take death scene of Jack Nicholson in Antonioni's The Passenger; the soundtrack to Wim Wender's Until the End of the World; the cigarette smoking in Breathless; a motorcyclist's query "Who Are You?" in Lawrence of Arabia...shouting across the Suez Canal...all these movies and hundreds more are showcases of the art of cinematic storytelling...that I love so dearly.
2
"To be in a packed house in one of the old theaters watching “Rear Window” was an extraordinary experience"
Yes! The movie had been out of circulation for many years when it was finally given a re-release in theaters--& I was a Hitchcock freak. I think it was in a theater on E. 59 St somewhere, but I will never forget how the audience, as a unit--everyone--was screaming, squirming, howling at the screen: "Look out! get out of there!..." as we watched helplessly through the windows (James Stewart's view) as Grace Kelly was looking for evidence in the killer's apartment, unaware that Raymond Burr, the killer, was coming in. ... Never seen anything like that, before or since!
1
I am encouraged that an opinion piece about cinema could elicit more than a thousand thoughtful comments.
I enjoyed Scorsese's thoughts but am greatly heartened by my fellow readers comments.
6
The comment about Marvel movies being like theme parks was interesting. While I prefer National or State parks to Disneyland or Universal, theme parks do have their place. Variety, like a good diet is the better way.
A Man for All Seasons is my favorite movie, but having been raised on comics as a kid, an Avengers movie is fun.
Life isn’t all Shakespeare or Keats, Beethoven or Mozart... sometimes a Monkees tune works just fine.
And let’s not forget that Shakespeare wrote for the rowdy commoners standing in the straw, not just the boxes. Beethoven was dismissed as a pop star. It’s we who created the canon and fight for its membership.
The last three films my spouse & I saw in local commercial theaters were _Judy_, _The Current War,_ and _Lawrence of Arabia._ The latter I saw twice within a three-day period — it might not return to the big-screen for another thirty years; why tempt fate, I reasoned. For the first two, the preview/trailers were for "adult/serious" films that we might actually want to see; none were superhero/comic-book/action/animated films. In all three cases there were fewer than 20 attendees. QED.
2
Take away the "franchise" tag for a moment. The Marvel movies were the first-ever series of movies that had multiple protagonists across several films in the same universe, with different plot threads, and one unifying thread. They were successful because it was the first time anyone had done a multiple-superhero universe the right way, and it was exciting to line up and watch them on the big screen after midnight. As a kid growing up I can't imagine the Marvel multiverse done right many other ways.
It's not the same genre as a Scorsese movie, but nothing is. The Marvel movies are every bit as cinematic as anything else, they're just enjoyed by a larger group of people. You can bemoan the state of the industry (and Scorsese is right--Hollywood avoids risks as much as possible) and still think Marvel movies are cinema.
3
Martin, you obviously have not seen The Boys. That anti super hero movie is nothing like other hero movies. It shows the street grit and filth and politics, like your own movies show. It was of many modern scifi movies that has absolutely no reverence for the super hero. They can fall further than King Lear, and much faster. Tremendously unexpected themes and endings in such a show like The Boys...
1
The appeal of Marvel movies is exactly the problem with Marvel movies. Many, if not most, people go to the movies not to be challenged or to be made to think. They have enough ambiguity and uncertainty in their daily lives - they want a loud, brightly-colored thing to distract them. That's why they like Marvel movies.
Such an important point of view to hear in 2019. I don't agree with all of the points made here, but love that Scorsese has reached out here to clarify and illuminate. We can haggle over some of the details, but he is pointing in a very important direction. Thank you!
1
Bravo Mr. Scorsese! You put forward an intelligent and eloquent defense of your statement regarding today's Marvel franchises, which are more like linear comic book video games than real story telling. Some will try to compare them to ancient mythology - maybe a little superficially, but the Greeks in particular wrote much deeper human condition stories that informed and entertained, which the best story tellers always have and always will. The tales/films that stand the test of time are the ultimate final word of quality (granted they're digitized before they rot into dust). Relevant and important stories need to be made into films like this one... www.tentcityacautionarytale.blogspot.com
I think we used to regulate capitalism in such a way that small businesses had a fair fighting chance. Maybe we should think about going back to that viewpoint.
You’d think we could reconcile creativity, innovation, a crowded marketplace with many independent participants who have a fair fighting chance, and the reasonable need of capitalists who underwrite something as capital intensive as a major motion picture to make a fair profit.
Wasn’t that basically the American way before 1980?
1
God bless you Martin. You put into words what so many of us that worked for decades in the motion picture industry have been feeling from the day we started. I spent 30 years working in the industry, almost all in the camera department, from a loader to a camera operator. The sense of purpose and dedication to excellence drove everyone of those early wake up calls, and after very long hours, wraps. The collaboration that we all were part of was intense, seeing the story come to life, knowing that, that was the best take, they'll use it for sure, was a privilege to be a part of. For me looking through the camera was a joy beyond description. I too, am not moved to go to a multiplex and watch one or these superhero movies. I understand what a superhero is, I saw plenty of them in combat in VN. They were all human just like you and I. That's the magic of the films that you make, as well as so many more of your contemporaries. They are inhabited by real people, portrayed by real actors, who dig deep to find the essence of their character, supported by people from multiple crafts to bring the whole enterprise to life. Making a comic book movie, is to your films, as being in a self driving car, is to driving a Ferrari. Alpha Centauri to Earth is an apt comparison. Although I never had a chance to work with you, I know many who did, and I know it would have been a great honor. Thank you for the gifts that you have brought to our culture.
I'm piping in here when 1,627 comments have already posted, so I don't expect much, but here's my optimistic two cents anyway -
All is not lost. I have three kids, 10, 12 and 14, who are of the Marvel generation, who watch the Marvel movies, but who vastly prefer what Mr. Scorsese refers to as cinema. They love the classics, quiet adult movies like The King's Speech, interesting foreign films from Asia, Europe and Latin America, smaller movies like Eighth Grade and art house flicks that I deem age appropriate. Even when they stick to kids' fare, their taste runs to the better superhero movies, like last year's Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.
They are read quite a bit and accompany me to lots of museums, which I think helps them develop an understanding of character and an artistic eye.
Cinema has many new, young fans.
And I have two teens who enthusiastically enjoy BOTH Avengers and Godfathers. BOTH Star Wars and The Florida Project.
Younger people grow up more visually literate than we. They sample an astonishing range of media. They do not need to argue for neat dichotomies, carnivals and high art. They are sophisticated enough to see all films as some blend of entertainment and revelatory art.
@ banananut- you said it perfectly. I have 2 daughters, 12 and 14 and their friends were shocked recently to learn that they had never seen a Marvel movie. But then my girls asked their friends: have you ever seen our favorites? Which are “singing in the rain” (the 14 year old) and “Fantastic Mr Fox and “isle of Dogs” (the 12 year old). The answer was no.
There exists nostalgia and very real, definitive differences between different kinds of mediums and changes (arguably advances) within mediums through time.
As person in her 50’s, I was an introverted, reportedly-precocious child raised on books. I recently went back to school to obtain my masters and now my doctorate. I find reading academic journal articles on a computer screen energy-draining.
Learning can be enhanced when there are multiple paths of information: the feel of the pages as different books use different kinds of paper with different qualities - how the book and pages smell, hard or paperback, the sensations through my fingertips. I underline, highlight and make notes in the margins.
When I was a child transported me. A lot of sci fi & fantasy, McCaffrey & Tolkien, but also Louis L’Amour Westerns. Later, Kafka, Hemingway and Joseph Conrad and more. I was never big into TV but remember reruns of Star Trek & The Twilight Show.
Walking out from one of my first movies of my childhood, Star Wars, I felt…changed.
Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movies were amazing, technology finally able to bring to the screen this literature from my childhood. But the eloquent adaption of Conrad into Apocalypse Now blew my mind. Gangs of New York connected the past with the present socio-politically and was starkly stunning.
The points are that art, storytelling can take many forms, span genres, and some of it may have something to do with what you were raised on.
1
I agree with what Scorsese says, but one thing I dislike about what he says is that he talks about need for risk in cinema, and I dislike it because everybody it seems talks about need for risk, daring, critical thinking, passion,--all of that stuff in all arts and sciences but when it comes right down to it hardly any of that is allowed. When it comes right down to it all the petty censors will step in and put a stop to it. Notice how Scorsese talked about all that stuff but never actually said anything particularly daring or risky. Would the NYTimes have allowed him to write if he had actually said something risky? Why not conduct an experiment: Have the NYTimes publish some opinion pieces in which the people actually do attempt to be as daring, passionate, etc. as possible and invite people to comment in as daring a fashion as possible. See how that goes down.
@Daniel12 No one is censoring Hollywood except Hollywood. That's why the best movies you'll see this year aren't made by any of the major theaters.
The issue is not that Marvel movies exist. The issue is that we have a whole generation of adults who never grew out of them. I'm sorry but superhero comics were intended for children and teens. If you have a mortgage, the closest you should get to Iron Man is when you drop your kids off in front of the theater. Adults need to start acting like adults again. This includes consuming grownup entertainment, not radioactive-spider-alien-mutant nonsense.
1
I stop going to theater for superhero movies for this exact reason.
Beneath the flash, beneath the noise, beneath the fist pumping, beneath the visual spectate, there is literally nothing there.
3
The worst thing that has ever happened to the movies is CGI. Not that new technology is itself bad on the surface, it's the way they use it to bludgeon audiences in senseless 'action' and an explosion of over-the-top visual complexity. The old optical matting techniques and matte paintings were far superior in the sense that they appeared more organic on film and had none of the 'caught in a computer' vacuum that despoils the enjoyment of spectacle. The bean counters at the studios have cleverly adopted the American concept of fast food franchises. They know how Americans do not like the unexpected and revel in the expectation that they will get exactly what they want in a predictable manner. Mr. Scorsese is absolutely right about the sad state of cinema.The youngsters can be as ageist as they want in dismissing his comments but from where I come from, with age comes wisdom.
1
I guess one is never too old to backpedal. I'm looking forward to seeing Mr. Scorsese's next film when it debuts on Netflix later this month.
1
Whether it’s Marvel movies or ‘cinematic’ movies, they are both an embodiment of the director’s vision and the whole army of artists and the supporting crew that make it all happen.
Sure, in the case of recent movies, Star Wars and the Marvel sequels that keep on coming, the case can be made about the profit-making enterprise that the whole franchise has become (without any regard to what makes for good ‘cinema’ these days).
But I differ with Mr. Scorsese one one major point:
Whether it’s Marvel or Star Wars movies, they are as much abut ‘revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation’ as any of Hitchcock’s movies or the ones he may have aspired to emulating in his younger years.
And it’s as much about the characters today with all their complexities and contradictory emotions as it was in the ‘foregone era’, whether it’s Skywalker having a moment of doubt or Captain America making a judgement call for the ‘greater good’.
They all have ‘paradoxical natures’ that often defy common sense as they come face to face with their inner realities and those unfolding in the ‘greater universe’.
But certainly the new filmmakers would do well to learn from the wisdom and advice from visionaries such as Martin Scorcese and James Cameron.
2
Superhero movies are the cinematic equivalent of a Big Mac in food industry. Mass production. Same look, taste and smell. Made for instant consumption, with little to no nutritional value, high on sugar and salt.
3
Also, they take up all the screen real estate in town in a way fast food joints never could- imagine a city with endless repetition of the same fast food franchises and no other options (ok, imagine Oklahoma City). There used to be a seasonality to the dominance of comic book pictures, but that’s pretty much a thing of the past by now. The number of screens in America hasn’t grown in decades (has, in fact, shrunk).
Thankfully cinema is so much more than Scorsese movies.
4
Without doubt, he be the first to tell you.He didn't direct "The Pope of Greenwich Village", Manhattan or Chinatown. From my impression , praising the technique and originality of those who did make those Films.
@expat
Thank you for your courage in “breaking down” the, what I consider, avoided respect for well crafted storytelling in certain Marvel movies. It’s an old trick of storytelling to do 2 things at once: Give the audience their spectacle draw ( ( thus the admittedly predictable explosions at the end of every Marvel movie), while at the same time sewing in complex themes that reflect immediate issues, sometimes too overwhelming without the benefit of hindsight appreciation. Shakespeare played to the groundlings with theatrical spectacle as he sewed in his true thematic offerings with Hamlet and though popular ( like the marvel movies) at the time for bringing in crowds, only much later was his true human artistry appreciated. I know I’ll take hits for comparing Marvel movies to Shakespeare but I’m game. What’s popular isn’t always low brow folks.
2
some will say he admitted not watching those movies so unable to judge but he is right, studios have been invaded by marketers. not only films are vetted and revetted but they also must please the Chinese audience. and marvel is a good example: iron Man changed the ethnicity of the Mandarin... when you go there... cinema is almost dead but it had a great life and I loved it.
You tell 'em, Marty! I am going to the multiplex tonight to see Motherless Brooklyn.
1
Marvel movies are a reflection of our empty calorie culture. 100% style...0% substance. The cinematic equivalent of rap music.
2
The difference between superhero movies and "real" cinema is similar to the difference between comic books and literature.
Unfortunately, there are more and more "comic books" out there.
2
Martin, buddy, get over yourself.
The hours I've spent with my children in a theater, enjoying Marvel movies have been well spent. My children were inspired to make films, draw comics, and explore film beyond superhero movies.
I love you, my brother. But, you need to be secure in your abilities, and not be so condescending. Marvel movies have helped keep theatre doors open, so that your wonderful films still have a big screen venue. Without this genre, you'd be making after school specials.
9
Why would anyone be upset at Scorcese’s comment about Marvel films? Were Abbott and Costello films cinema? They sure were entertaining - in ‘Buck Privates’, we got the Andrews Sisters singing ‘Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy’ and learned all we need to know about how to play craps! But cinema? Not really.
How about westerns? Some were epic - ‘Stagecoach’, ‘The Searchers’ or ‘The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence’ - but most were aiming to entertain and not much else.
How about musicals? ‘Singin’ In The Rain’ was glorious, but the ‘Broadway Melody’ series of films had brilliant dancing and singing numbers, great comedy, and made lots of money...without too many people thinking they were automatically legendary.
Excellence is the exception to the rule. Box office success is not the same as excellence. Scan the rankings in almost any year to see the distinction.
They don’t call it ‘show art’. Scorsese is interested in that, and many audience members, too. Why would saying this aloud surprise anyone?
3
There is no real human drama ..in franchise films..
It`s all about business and the bottom line..
Those folks are so scared to try anything original it`s really disgusting
And there`s sooo much good material out there
In the SciFi genre alone !
but no...lets have "Batman Returns"(for the umpteenth friggin time !) or Spiderman 57.!..
all Trash...
and shame on any such supposed A list actors..
for cashing in on that crap
American culture has been dumbed down and corporatized for maximum profit. This has affected movies, music, and every aspect of American culture, which used to be a shining light.
Sad.
2
I agree with most of what Mr. Scorsese says as would be expected since I am a huge fan of his movies. But not all Marvel movies are equally bad. The Avenger ones are by and large unintelligible, tedious mashups. But one Marvel movie is funny, has a great cast and unusual outcomes, and that is Thor Ragnarok. How can you not like a movie with Cate Blanchett, Jeff Goldblum and more of Tom Hiddleston that the other Thors?
I like a lot of the Marvel Universe films and even some of the DC film, however it's clear that Mr. Scorsese is, in many ways, stating what we all know: that there is "cinema" and there is "going to the movies." Going to the movies inevitably means seeing a popcorn movie and the Marvel Universe falls squarely into that bucket (pun intended). Major Hollywood studios that used to produce the likes of Chinatown, In The Heat of the Night, Reds, Midnight Cowboy, Nashville, Days of Heaven spend their money on franchise film after franchise film and what Mr. Scorsese laments here is absolutely true. Movie chains are more interested in running these franchise films (frequently in multiple theaters...one in 2D, one in 3D, one in IMAX, etc) as that's where the money is. Crank out enough of them and newer generations will never know what they're missing...and they're missing A LOT!
1
They may as well set up a camera in front of a pin ball machine and let it run for two hours. That's how exciting and emotionally costly it is to watch Marvel and other movies like them.
4
Scorcese puts his finger on what bothers me most about most new films/entertainment: the inability to develop emotionally complex characters. I fear that this inability is a reflection of the fact that humans are becoming less emotionally complex, more automated.
3
Sadly, Mr. Scorsese has explained why I, a person who loves film and films, rarely goes to the movie theater anymore. Most, but thankfully not all, of what's out there, most of the time, is pure junk, and of no interest to me. I remember my art history professor of yesteryear speaking of film as "the art form of the twentieth century." Maybe the problem is that the twentienth century ended quite a few years ago. Nonetheless, I am looking forward to seeing Mr. Scorsese's "the Irishman". By the way, Mr. Scorsese's "the Last Waltz" was the best rock and roll film ever made, in my humble opinion.
7
Hopefully, as with renewed interest in vinyl and film photography, passion in cinema as Scorsese has so eloquently described, will see a new appreciation. While there are few small chain/independent theaters (Dallas has a few), I imagine the margins are small and have to be supplemented by concessions and other event related tie-ins. Hence the die-off of the single/dual screen theaters in the late 80s/early 90s.
I digress...I tend to think the world is a big place and their is room for everyone.
One thing of note around this relatively recent trend is how the big media companies have come together to make 'movies' money making powerhouses through not only ticket/streaming sales, but through product/promotional tie-ins. I'm happy I never had the opportunity to pick up a Raging Bull water bottle or a Goodfellas beach towel.
1
I will take issue with the assertion. Yes, the multiplex is, at times, overrun with these big budget films, however, there has never been more content available. It is incumbent upon the lovers of cinema to seek out and support these films when they are in theaters. I say this as someone who saw Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon at my local theater on the day it opened. As someone who went alone to a sparsely attended showing of Pulp Fiction during its first week of release. And , perhaps most amazing of all, to see Casablanca in its entirety for the first time in my life at age 22 in a theater at my local museum. It was and continues to be an experience I treasure. Yes, I had heard many of the quotes from that film, but I resisted sitting down to watch it on a Saturday afternoon at my family home. No, I pestered the museum to show it as part of their history weekends and when they finally relented, it was then I saw it.
I enjoy a great popcorn movie as much as anyone but supporting art is our responsibility as a society. There are other screens at these multiplexes, see what is showing and support it.
2
I would be very grateful to hear what Ryan Coogler and Taika Waititi have to say about this piece.
1
My wife and I have a giant HDTV, and we sit close enough to it so that we feel the big screen effect. I therefore think streaming is the best form of distribution, for it allows those who can't get out, who have too far to travel, who want to choose exactly when to schedule a film, or who are just lazy, a wide variety of choice.
So it doesn't have to be about the big screen. On the other hand, I completely agree that there are fewer and fewer movies that fit Mr. Scorsese's criteria and fit into the category of "cinema," that is, art.
My hope is then that streaming and independent video outlets, like those that feature foreign films and series, will discover that there is an audience for fine cinema, too. Now, you really have to sift through the junk to find something worth watching. Eventually, streaming will become cheap enough so that even good films will have a chance. Like books in an airport store full of throw-away reading, you will simply have to look for the keepers.
I'm a middle aged female and have been going to the movies since I was a young girl. I loved the Disney movies that featured real people, like Freaky Friday with Jodie Foster and Escape to Witch Mountain. I quickly blew through James Bond, Stephen Speilberg, Star Wars and Star Trek movies and focused on films made from the 1920s to the 1990s, which often featured strong female characters in the leading role (my favs include Greta Garbo, Katherine Hepburn, Emma Thompson and Kiera Knightly). The oldest movie I've seen is a Swedish film starring Greta Garbo made in 1924.
And yeah I agree that the majority of superhero movies are schlock and most lack strong leading female characters.
I also avoid Martin Scorsese films (I've seen about a dozen of them) which all seem to be the same to have the same storyline: a criminal like white male character who is often a mean, violent and usually Italian-American with weakly written female characters.
I spend a lot of weekends venturing to independent cinema venues in search of small feature films and foreign films that don't involve men in car chases, gangster roles, male led monster movies, and male-led super hero movies, and other schlock. Television often is my go to place to find movies and television series featuring strong female characters in complex storylines, which sparks my emotional and intellectual interests.
3
The Marvel movies are video games come to life on the screen. They're also blockbusters because of the Peter Pan syndrome prevalent among everyone from Boomers to Millennials in refusing to relinquish their childhoods to actual children.
This isn't just some bitter bystander complaining about the State of the Market. This is St. Martin, who should be regarded with Picasso, Nabokov, Maria Callas (I could go on) as one of the greatest artists of the 20th century, and enduring into the 21st.
But the great movies have to fight their way to survival and recognition.
And they are...just this year - 'Us', 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' and 'Parasite'.
Great Cinema is never going to die.
Hear, hear! We need more voices like Mr. Scorsese's -- respected cinematic elder statesmen still producing masterpieces! -- to speak up and say this.
The thing about cinema -- and this is certainly true of the works of Mr. Scorsese, from TAXI DRIVER to GOODFELLAS to GANGS OF NEW YORK -- is that it challenges cultural assumptions about heroism and individuality.
Superhero movies (and "mega-franchises"), on the other hand, reaffirm our faith in messianic archetypes (because what are the Avengers and the Jedi if not demigods who arrive in the nick of time to solve our problems?), but they also do something even more insidious: They promote consumerism. When every new film in a franchise is merely a three-hour promo for the NEXT one, you're never required to ruminate on what you just watched -- merely to open your wallet once again. If you want to be a true "superfan," you need to see all the movies, watch all the shows, read all the tie-in books, and purchase all the merchandise. Mega-franchises -- just like theme parks, meaning Mr. Scorsese's analogy is apt -- seek not our audience but our obedience.
Cinema has gone the same way that pop music has. Artistic talent, creativity, and a willingness to take risk all take a back seat to the bottom line. Even though creative, risky films can be highly successful, the studios have no appetite for that any more, and haven't for some time now. The result is I rarely see movies anymore in a movie theater, which is unfortunate because I love the big screen experience so much more than watching a movie on TV or computer screen.
There are films and there are movies; they are made with the same equipment and each has it merits.
What generation hasn't decried the decline in art as they age? There is absolutely a difference in the quality and composition of a Kubrick film and those of the Marvel Universe, but context matters, and pretending we can judge every film side-by-side is to complain that your perfectly grilled porterhouse didn't win the pie contest.
Such amazing, artful and spirited comments. The article is fantastic all around. And if I am repeating a comment than good! Nothing will change the "art" of going to the movies! As a kid, adult and now with my children, the exciting and rewarding adventure of "going to the movies" can't be replicated by the Netflix, Hulu, companies of the world.
I know my kids tell me Dad its 2019 get with the times, blah blah. And I quickly remind them about the art of going to the movies and what it means. I challenges them to remember the laughter, excitement because we "went to the movies". To me and hopefully many aside from the amazing cinema produced over 60+ years, the "going to the movies" is/was an artful of its know - slowly dying but still a memory cherished by many!
Forgive redundancy - cannot scan 1500 comments - but I note that Scorsese, whom I admire, makes two odd assumptions. Both revolve around the tired tension between "high art" and "popular art."
First, he confuses all movies and all directors with those who structure their films around surprise, emotional risk, twists. To be sure, such films often are among everyone's top 100. Who doesn't love Hitchcock? But Wes Craven also uses emotional risk and surprise. Does he make entertainments or films? Even North by Northwest contains little emotional risk; an elite everyman being "lost" is an unoriginal metaphor for the 50's, done cleverly.
Is there room in Scorsese's universe for films that instead emphasize structure, archetypes, resolution? If there is not, then the hours we have spent on films from Wizard of Oz and Singing in the Rain, to the Shining and Apocalypse Now have been wasted on carnivals.
Were Kubrick's chesspiece actors in 2001 "at risk?" Did they grow? Scorsese assumes "real" movies are a style he likes. There are other styles, even among the elite. Worse, even among the money makers. Consider Jaws.
Second, Scorsese assumes circa-WWII forms. He ignores serial design in some modern films, to be consumed like (gasp) television. Characters develop across films. The reveal and the growth can take years. Forget Avengers, what about Linklater or Apted? Face it: Jon Hamm could be a lot more nuanced than Cary Grant. But Mad Men was just for the hoi polloi, I guess.
4
I totally agree with Martin here. These movies, as entertaining as they can be (if you can ramp your saccades up sufficiently to follow the synthetic action!), are just basically hours-long advertisements for...more such movies. A whole lot of people in the world, after about a hundred years worth of activity and technical progress, just do not subscribe to film being an actual artform. But it sure is, and hopefully there will remain a subset of innovators who view it that way, and a subset of investors who support them.
1
Two points:
(1) Movies like the Star Wars and Marvel franchises are made secondarily to tie into very profitable theme park and attraction tickets. Disney controls 100% of the profits for themed rides, merchandise sales, and licensing deals on any of its stable of characters. I've called them "theme park" movies for a while now; apparently Scorcese likes that term as well.
(2) The deal that Scorcese made with Netflix closed out the usual 72-day exclusivity window for theatrical showings. Theater owners were willing to reduce the window to 60 days, but Netflix insisted on 45 days. Kinda like a deal with the devil. I haven't seen "the Irishman" yet, but even with the strong positive reviews and word-of-mouth, it will still only have a maximum 45-day theatrical run before going to streaming and downloads. In the meantime, "Avengers: Endgame" ran in theaters for several months before going to digital distribution.
1
Thank you Mr. Scorsese for saying what many of us are thinking; it is sad in some ways, but maybe it is generational. When i see a Marvel film, i'm thinking I'm watching a video game and cannot relate to it at all as cinema as i always thought cinema should be. But attention spans appear to be shorter with the new generation, and so minimalist films like 2001 (I urged my students to see it and they found it somewhat boring and slow). On the other hand we still have brilliant directors like yourself still making art. Bladerunner 2049 comes to mind for e.g.as a masterpiece. I heard a teenager recently tell me that Polanski's Chinatown was the best film he ever saw! HItchcock, like yourself, was (is) a genius, wherin he could merge entertainmen into a transcendent artform. This certainly is a golden age of TV (streaming); lets hope that we start seeing more cinema, or has the artform evolved to the brilliant serials that we see now being streamed on Netflix, which is wonderful too. TV did evolve fortuitously away from reality shows, maybe cinema will evolve away from Marvel....
3
Scorsese frame's his critique of superhero franchises as a defense of the venerable but questionable auteur theory, but I think that misses something more fundamental. Cinema has always been an expression of popular culture, and popular culture has since its inception within capitalism been a site of contestation that unconsciously reflects the class conflict that drives the whole social order. As a mass market populist form cinema mostly provides profit-making opportunities for capitalist corporations that also contains occasional expressions of cultural and political opposition to capital. This tension is always present in the form, even in movies that ostensibly reinforce the dominant ideology of class hierarchy and the war of all against all. Unfortunately, one can only seldom find expressions of this opposition in the superhero genre - a genre that has always been fundamentally an anti-democratic one that promotes worship of the Strong Man (now, sometimes Strong Woman) figure that will establish justice and solve all problems for the passive mass of humankind, and reduces this kind of a narrative to formula. The formula appeals to a large portion of modern audiences that feels powerless to effect any change in its social, political, and economic condition. The social conditions that produce the sensibility that gives rise to comic book and cinematic superheroes also produces Trump.
Years ago I tried to turn my dad on to the, at that time, new form of Jazz: Fusion. Being a Jazz purist, my dad was unmoved by this "new development." We can talk about art from the Dutch Masters to Basquiat and pose endless semantical arguments about their qualities. We can talk about literary works from Shakespearean classics to dime novel thrillers. These are basically academic exercises that will usually bifurcate the high brow from the hoi polloi of which Mr. Scorsese is obviously the former. The distinction that he makes seems pretty clear and the mass appeal of these Marvel movies pretty much bolster his point.
Well said, however, I don't agree when he said that Marvel pictures lack "revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger." That's untrue. Some of those films have all of those and much more. If you can get passed the special effects and costumes etc., then there are some revelation, mystery and genuine emotional danger beneath the surface.
1
Thank you, Mr. Scorsese.
Hollywood has lost its way. There are multiple causes, perhaps a thousand little ones but the biggest crime is to have lost faith in STORY. The executives who make decisions and the corporations that direct them no longer believe in telling stories, they no longer believe that the human drama will command audiences to go to movie houses or pay for the many varied ways the films are sold afterward. As a result, movies are more about sensation than the human dilemma.
One big reason is that the international market became a huge factor in pulling in money. US films are big around the world and the temptation to slant them for that market, having made a bundle here, is enormous. What works overseas? Bombs, explosions, car crashes, special effects (FXs) and thin story lines that don't require much interpretation or mental involvement.
Another major contributor, not often mentioned nor written about: too many cooks in the kitchen. Ever notice the number of corporations involved in a single film? Once there was MGM or United Artists, now there half a dozen companies taking credit, or blame, for a single movie.
Films are test marketed to death before they ever get a green light. This, too, discourages innovation and risky story telling because subtlety doesn't test well. An audience can't possibly like something it hasn't seen or can't imagine.
If you want stories about human beings and their condition, go to foreign films. They haven't given up.
3
November 5, 2019
The art of language in all forms is always a journey that invites spectacular and then the dollars for the commercialization of the arts - thus the tears will disappear but if voyeuristic to the public then its another divine comedy in the arts of the Dante genius of the medieval epoch. The show goes on just are we the producer or the spectator to just to say the human drama:
'we as stuff of dreams .'
1
Any movie that contains more than one explosion is not for me.
3
Welcome to Commodity USA: Scorsese lays out the fundamental problem with $Capitalist America$: “And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing”., namely mostly junk food!
1
I'm an old codger, and I agree with Mr. Scorsese, another old codger. Sure, we had our "B" movies, some good, some fun, but none misconstrued as art. I prefer to watch quality movies at home on an oversized high-resolution flat screen - the only video experience I regularly enjoy as we refuse to subscribe to "TV." Besides, the movie theater audience of today often acts as if they were viewing in private - with spontaneous conversations breaking out, popcorn bags and candy wrappers rattling away, fellow movie watchers be damned. Truthfully, today's "action" movie genre, which includes the Marvel movies, is a tonic for sleep, formulaic to an extreme - I have a hard time sitting through one. Intellectually, there is little stimulation taking place - lots of action, but no emotional connection. But, as noted, I'm an old codger, and I'm sure my experience is different than that of a younger generation who grew up watching this stuff; the numbers attest to that. I grew up reading this stuff when I was in grade school - they were called comics. As an adult, the attraction has faded.
1
Slamming Marvel movies (which as comic book franchise blockbusters go, are pretty good) is missing the point. The point is that we should let go of expectations that anything intelligent or arty has to be seen at the multiplex and anything seen on a TV, laptop or cell phone screen is garbage, which seems to be the underlying assumption in Scorsese's comments.
Just look at a top ten box office list for any recent year: it's one franchise blockbuster after another. Forget anything risky or arty at the multiplex. That business model supports only the most risk-free content because of the need to fill theater seats reliably to support inefficient brick & mortar economics.
On streaming, I've seem far riskier stuff like The OA. I have no idea what that was, and the risk didn't pay off in the end, and yeah it deserved to be cancelled, but it existed. And something else risky (Russian Doll?) could be made in its place.
Streaming supports risk because there's no physical place to support, no need for a power bill or insurance or property taxes or paying ticket takers' salaries and benefits. The efficiency of streaming allows a far greater range of crazy risk taking, which can result in crap, and result in a library full of weird stuff to paw through, but every so often you get a gem like Mindhunter or Bojack Horseman that makes it all pay off.
And streaming also supports risk like The Irishman, which Paramount bailed on. If Netflix hadn't rescued it, it wouldn't have been made.
2
No reason to explain, Mr. Scorsese, you're simply pointing out the obvious. Marvel movies aren't cinema, they're predictable garbage, rehashed over and over. The state of American cinema is abysmal, and this needs to be called out again and again. There is nothing new or artistic. The same is true in the pop music industry. There was a time when Disney animation was awesomely beautiful. Now it's all dull CGI blobs and nobody seems to care. It's why I don't even go to the movies anymore, something I miss very much.
2
Mr. Scorsese is absolutely right. Movies used to be amazing and even mind-blowing. Now they seem like cartoons. At a recent family reunion, almost everyone in the family said they rarely go to a movie theater anymore. Television has eclipsed movies. For several years we had the option of going to see a movie on Sunday or watching Game of Thrones. Hmm, another idiotic Marvel movie or the greatest tv series ever? We still want to go to theaters and buy our ticket and sit in an audience enthralled by what's on the screen. But what's on the screen is not nearly as enthralling or captivating as Breaking Bad. Or Mad Men. Or Better Call Saul. Or Deadwood. Or Succession. Or Peaky Blinders. You gotta stay home if you want to watch really great stuff.
2
A million years ago, a girlfriend had a small note on her refrigerator that translate to, approximately: "necrocynestia - the yarning for, since long dead, swans"
I don't know if she had picked it up somewhere or invented it, but the expression stuck with me (it is much more elegant in Swedish: "längtan efter sedan länge döda svanar") because there are many things in life that when you think about them you realize they are gone, they will never come back, and it hurts a bit.
I think what hurts Mr. Scorsese, and me, is not the movies that are not "cinema," it is more the situation where the balance between the various players are so extremely offset.
It was certainly offset also before, the big studios like MGM and Warner could do much grander productions than Andy's Film & Shoes Inc, but the difference was somehow withing human comprehension.
It is not just about film. Actually it has nothing to do with film, the money creates its own path, its own reality, it consumes the many and leaves untouchable empires in its trails.
And we, me and Scorsese, long for a time, a time since long dead, when humans made the rules. When humans made decisions out of feelings and ideals. If such time ever existed.
Oh so much whining by someone seeing their utility dwindling. The current cinema is every bit as valid as Mr. Sorsese’s cinema. Those who teach the next generation of filmmakers can dissect a feature film into specific parts; script length, the hero, the challenge to overcome, the apparent solution, a turn for the worst, a resolution. To be sure some scripts hide this recipe better than others, but that is not his point. He claims that there is truly something different about his “cinema”, the films that he admires, and the blockbusters of the Marvel and similar franchises. And further, his point is that we, the movie-goers don’t know any better. We are victims of the industry; sheep who merely do as we are told. He is in error. Cinema is an art form, but while the artist gets to revel in their accomplishments on a personal level, it is society (not the Academy) that ultimately judges the value. Nobody is being forced into the theaters and anyone in the theaters can leave at the time of their choosing. Over my years, just a few less than Mr. Scorsese, I have sat through the credits in deep in reflection on occasion: “Platoon”, ”The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover”, ”Lost in Translation” to mention a few. But also walked out of a few films well before they ended: “Dawn of the Dead”, “Taxi Driver” (sorry Mr. Scorsese), “Caligula”. Today I watch the Marvel films until the screen goes black. Of course the producers know how to capture us by tossing in a few last tidbits!
2
I love Martin Scorsese, and I can feel and even share his anguish of the passing of a great era. But as a guy who works in the business of marketing movies, I think I need to mention that this is a business. Recently Ang Lee directed Gemini Man, a high concept non franchise action film. It TANKED. Risk is alive and well for the movie studios. Look at the numbers. Some big movies - even franchise movies (like last weekend's Terminator reboot) are not doing well. Fact is... in the era of big home screens and surround sound, it's getting harder and harder to get people to go to theaters and buy tickets. Audiences have SO many options from incredibly vivid games, to dozens of streaming options, to cable and broadcast... the competitive environment has changed forever, and it ain't changing back. You can make movies small and special (and cheap), or big and broad and "branded". But if you want to do a movie with A list actors and a real budget that works as 'cinema', you'd better do what Marty just did, and have a streamer backing you. The studios are in the event business now, the market is forcing them to be.
2
Some of these comments I find disheartening "living in a fallen society", "barbarians have overrun us", etc.
There's always been mediocre drivel for mass consumption alongside high art.
There's more ways to find and consume now than 40 years ago. There's more immediacy and that in a way can feel overwhelming. Maybe that's what people are really bothered by.
Scorsese is right to voice his concern on the industry. And when enough people get tired of it, the studios will hand the reins back to a group of artists and new "New Hollywood" can have its time.
We each have enough self-control to tune out the garbage in the meantime.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the buying public.
In the words of Hal Holbrook: “Follow the money.”
2
Scorsese is not completely wrong, but he keeps on with this "they're not cinema" thing, which is the big problem. Yes, they are cinema. Making that distinction is the same thing older people have always done, like "Oh, that's not real music" or "that stuff isn't literature". It's a condescending and pompous viewpoint.
Along with that, he claims the big problem is these movies are crowding other things out. He then also claims this is not supply-and-demand, and that they're so big because you keep giving them to people, as if people are mindless zombies with no will of their own. This is, of course, ridiculous. People don't go to movies as much as they used to, and when they do, they go to these big movies. That's because these movies still benefit from the big screen, whereas I can wait and watch the latest "cinema" in my home 4 months later with no real loss. Plus, there are so many things to watch, including streaming movies and shows, that I don't need to go to movies. It is 100% supply-and-demand. People want to see good, fun, action movies in theaters, so Marvel and others provide good, fun action movies.
The bottom line is if theaters started restricting these big movies and giving "cinema" more availability, it wouldn't result in more money and interest in the "cinema"; it would result in less money for theaters and studios. People wouldn't migrate back to "cinema" and walk away from Marvel movies. They just wouldn't go to movies as much.
2
Amen! I agree with Mr Scorcese! Enough cartoon films. We want real cinema.
This needed to be said. Superhero movies, Netflix, Game of Thrones, Amazon, "peak TV," video games, and (most of) the rest of it all are capitalism at work, churning out tasty but empty calories, mass entertainment dressed up as "culture."
Of course folk, popular, and mass culture have produced some gems, but the vast bulk of what's out there in streaming-land is formulaic dreck that any thinking person will soon tire of.
Yeah, I'll probably see the next Star Wars film, and the go to McDonald's, but I also want something more thoughtful and substantial.
1
The last few films I saw were big screen revivals of Alien, Star Trek The Motion Picture and Lawrence of Arabia. I am lucky enough to live in LA where these can be seen. It's tragic that 40 and 50 year old films are much more enjoyable than any current releases. Mr Scorsese is right on here. Most releases these days are 3 hour toy commercials. Thank god for Netflix.
As a huge fan of all kinds of movies, including Marvel movies: He's... not wrong.
The main issue is that movies are no longer made for the US market. As moviegoers in the US decline, a movie studio's main return on investment increasingly comes from China or other such markets. Indeed, movies are no longer even made for the "english-as-a-first-language" market (this the focus on the spectacle rather than the story or complex dialog. The market has spoken, and it wants these kinds of movies.
2
As someone who has been reading Marvel since 1965 (DC since 1961), I have watched comic books change over each decade.
And then the movies made about those comic book started around the beginning of the 21st century (excluding Superman and Batman movies, which were in their nascence).
I understand readers' pushback toward Mr. Scorsese, but I agree with him about superhero movies.
You get around 5 minutes in two or three scenes in the movie where characters EMOTE, instead of planning or punching. Is this "depth of character"?
Do we really know Thor better at the end of the first Thor movie than at the start? The Marvel movies are a case of "emotion-lite." Not because the characters lack emotion, but because the movies are action pictures, and there is not a great deal of reflection in action pictures, made for 13-21 year old boys, THE target audience for these movies. If they had to sit through complex emotions which they themselves (for the MOST part) have not yet developed, they would not be going to these movies.
Contrast these with Star War movies, in which there is plenty of action, but also time to unfold naturally, with tremendous revelations occurring ("Luke, I am your father") as part of the "unfolding." Perhaps it is due to the era - as Scorsese points out - the films were made in.
People all talk the same (EVERYONE speaks perfect English - no matter what dimension they come from) and have the same set of emotions, no matter the species.
Scorsese is observant.
2
I’d like to commend Mr. Scorsese on his heartfelt piece. And I’d like to offer anthropologist David Graeber’s analysis of superhero movies as a possible explanation of what is missing in these pop culture spectacles.
As Graeber notes, there’s is something fundamentally conservative about the superhero genre, something running deep and harkening back to their post-war comic book roots. These super heroes are ultimately little more than deeply conventional bureaucrats and consumers.
Superman isn’t using his powers to build homeless shelters in mountain sides during lulls in the villainy. He’s courting an officemate. Batman’s a playboy and Ironman’s juicing the arms industry while Thor does much the same in Asgard and the Guardians of the Galaxy grift among.
Not only do these characters not have anything resembling a positive agenda, their creativity is limited to a consumerist pallet of getting to pick out fancy costumes, drive cool cars and deck out their lairs. These characters don’t have lives. They have accessories.
So increasingly we root for the real creative forces - Thanos, the Joker and the other agents of creative destruction these fantasies hold out.
Art as the essential creative act can move us forward. Staying on this thrill ride as it goes around and around not only leads us nowhere. It makes fascist power fantasies to truly change the world seem fresh. And we know the world we create when we choose visionary villains over empty bureaucrats.
"And we came to understand that the art could be found in many different places and in just as many forms" - but just not Marvel's form.
You're repeating the same, tired trope that we've heard over and over again. That the new way of doing things is wrong. That culture should remain static. Which is ironically such a boring and cookie-cutter story.
2
Mr. Scorsese: Does one need to press your argument beyond the word, "cinema?" As the great Rabbi Hillel wrote many centuries ago when discussing health, "All else is commentary." The first film (art) I recall is L'Atalante (photographed by my cousin by marriage). I was too young to grasp the elegiac imagery or internal landscape of its characters, but I knew it was like those big, bold, color abstractions at Modern Museum: both took my breath away - I have been trying to catch it ever since.
With respect and admiration
Living in a small college town, I gave up long ago expecting to see films of the type Scorsese mourns. There is a one screen house in a city an hour away that has survived, and I always look forward to seeing a film or two when I travel to NYC. But options even in NY seem to have diminished. Film festivals are the only places where I can gorge on the kinds of cinema Scorsese describes, and thank goodness they remain profitable and thriving (aren't they? If I'm wrong please don't tell me!)
1
@Joseph Buckhalt
What?!? Auburn University has no undergraduate-selected film series?
There is no group of iconoclastic, idiosyncratic students booking avant garde, offbeat, classic movies for their classmates to see, enjoy, be enlightened by, learn from? No weekly retrospectives of films directed by Akira Kurosawa, David Lean, Stanley Kubrick, Ingmar Bergman, Francis Ford Coppola, Spike Lee, Francois Truffaut, or (wait for it) Martin Scorsese?
How sad to think those students will one day graduate and consider themselves well-educated.
To paraphrase, "A college town is a terrible thing to waste."
2
@A. Reader
Welcome to the South
Thinkers, sophisticates, artists need not apply
The only thing my younger brother read as a kid was comic books. I warned him that he won't amount to anything by just reading comics, that he had to read the classics (Charles Dickens, etc.). Well, he grew up to be a fine MD, practicing today in California. Go figure.
2
Perhaps the word Pop could be brought into play. In music there is a loosely accepted notion that the emotional intent (and opportunity) of Pop music is quite different from music with deeper emotional intent. Not to get bogged down in definition arguments, but there is a palpable difference in intent between “A Day in the Life” or “Sounds of Silence” or “Gangster’s Paradise” and say, “Happy” or “Gangnam Style”. Better or worse judgements are not the issue, as Mr Scorsese expresses. And there are broad overlaps and fuzzy non-borders everywhere, but we can observe a variety of intentions in songs, including making money and fame to light feel-good emotion to profound thoughtful emotion to commentary on social matters...every song with its own mix of mix of multiple intents like a roleplay game character with a dozen attributes each rolled with 20-sided dice. The set of intentions in what Scorsese calls Cinema is simply a different “character set” of intentions in franchise movies. The classic films he refers to each have their own sets of intentions, but he is accurate in pointing out, in effect, that the intentions of Spider-Man XIV are just really different than Casablanca. “Sugar Sugar” never wanted to mean what a song like “Born to Run” could mean. And maybe a telling element...Marvel movies are movie expressions of comic books (no offense intended to the depth of graphic novels). Archie and Veronica are just never going to hit the emotional range of “Little Women”.
@Bob McNally Excellent analogy.
I totally agree with what he is saying. I like the CGI movies but a couple of weeks later I have forgotten all about them. I find myself renting redbox and being mad at myself that I just saw it. They are so formulaic and easily forgettable.
In 1959 Igor Stravinsky said this about jazz:
“Jazz is a different fraternity altogether, a wholly difficult kind of music–making. It has nothing to do with composed music, and when it seeks to be influenced by contemporary music it isn’t jazz and it isn’t good.”
When it comes to the kind of “cinema” Martin Scorcese is talking about, you can take the Stravinsky quote and substitute various words:
- “cinema” for “jazz”
- “film” for “music”
- “commercial movies” for “composed music”
- “blockbuster movies” for “contemporary music”
It would then read like this and still makes perfect sense:
“Cinema is a different fraternity altogether, a wholly difficult kind of film–making. It has nothing to do with commercial movies, and when it seeks to be influenced by other “blockbuster movies” it isn’t cinema and it isn’t good.”
Oh god, Hulk can take out Travis Bickle any day! Puny Bickle.
Only joking. I tend to agree with Mr. Scorsese here, even though I grew up on Marvel comics... The Marvel movie experience is usually not a rich one.
No need to explain. When do we get back to meaningful storytelling in films? Somebody's got to care.
1
I hear Scorcese talking about what filmmakers/artists want, what studios want. But what about what audiences want? I watched more than your fair share of independent films and loved them during the 80's/90's and beyond, mostly in theaters. But frankly, I'd prefer to watch most of my films at home, on my personal home theater set, and I'm impatient for when movies will just release simultaneously that way. The experience of getting to a theater and sharing the experience with others is best left for spectacle films such as MCU/StarWars franchises, where the carnival ride makes sense to me. Otherwise, leave the more personal, intense, private experiences for me and my family/friends in my living room.
1
While I appreciate his sentiments and can agree with some of the things that he said, I believe that Mr. Scorsese is missing something here. Data, and some perspective.
Marvel only releases 2-3 films a year, out of hundreds of films available. Just by the numbers, the amount of films that are out there is dominated by non-comic book films. Barriers to entry are a different thing, but clearly there is plenty of room for material that isn't a franchise guaranteed to come close to or top a billion dollars. The fact that Marvel makes so much money is something that's being conflated with other issues in the film industry. The consolidation that has resulted in so few Studios being viable is a problem. Distribution problems are clearly an issue. But those are not the fault of Marvel or comic book movies in general.
Comic book movies are no more shallow than any other genre out there. Is it high art? I would say that some of the stories get there, like Joker has, like Logan has, and one may even say for Captain America: the Winter Soldier, or even Infinity War. People are invested, emotionally involved. It's easy to get caught up in the spectacle, but people are not hooked on coming to see every single installment just because of the visual spectacle. These are characters that we care about.
No, a lot of it is not going to approach the realm of high art. But at the same time, there's only so much about the human condition that we can mine from gangster movies as well.
5
@Anonne Great points, very well reasoned and articulated, I couldn't agree more. Thanks for making such a thoughtful case for this genre.
2
Superhero movies are the American equivalent of Bollywood musicals - well-acted/performed, forgettable entertainment that doesn't require any in-depth thought and appeals to the masses. Those films are for people who prefer movies to be escapes from the often troubling realities of life. To each their own, but Scorcese is rightfully frustrated but those that would place these superhero movies on the same level as classics like The Departed and Goodfellas.
1
One notable aspect of Marvel films is that they are critically acclaimed. They receive high scores from most critics. It's not just the financial muscle of these films that allow them to be all consuming at the theater, but the gate-keepers of the industry are happy to sing their praises too.
How much of this is genuine critiques that sends Ant Man 2 over 80% on the Tomatometer or the humbling reality franchise films benefiting from a burgeoning group of millenial comic-con-er critics on pop culture websites. These folks have stewed for much of their lives in the muck of franchises, from books, to video games and now films.
@Nick
Critically acclaimed? What does that really mean? Who are these critics? What are their credentials? How long have they been critiquing film? What media outlets do they work for? Did they come out of the film industry? Do they teach cinema? Are they being paid by the studios or their PR/marketing firms? If the critics dislike Marvel films would you disagree with them and say film critics don't know what they are talking about?
Liking one type of film over another is all a matter of personal taste. Hey, there people who think "Plan 9 From Outer Space" is a great film.
Art, whether static or motile, is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Regardless of category, there’s always” good” art and “bad” art, but this doesn’t mean that the bad cannot be just as gratifying as the good, thus the reference to the eye of the beholder, particularly when it comes to cinema. I have watched both Fellini’s 8 1/2 (an indisputable masterpiece) and Howard Hawks’s LAND OF THE PHAROAHS (a truly great “guilty pleasure”) countless times over the past fifty plus years, enjoying each just as much on every subsequent viewing as when I first saw them, but the former is undeniably “good” art (emotionally provocative) while the latter is irrefutably “bad” art (entertaining kitsch).
4
Yes Marty. You are so right. I feel this also applies to jazz; America's gift to the world which is also now treated now in most spaces as watered down mass/more consumable product. Product being the operable word.
Mr. Scorsese:
I’ve been a fan of your movies since I was a kid. My older brothers loved mob movies, and there was never a shortage of them. I hold great respect for you. However, to say that superhero movies hold no weight, is to say that solely YOUR genre of movie is the only one that matters. I can enjoy your movies, AND I can enjoy superhero movies too, because they are two different styles of storytelling. Where your movies give a glance of gritty, hard reality, superhero movies offer a chance at emerging from that grit. We are a generation of kids who grew up having actors and cartoon characters as our parents, and those images are what keep us hopeful in this dreary world of end-stage capitalism.
I once wrote an essay on the dangers of the marginalization of art, classified as either “high” or “low” art, is to then create an art world that is just as censored and empty as the real world. Claiming that only certain types of art matter in the world, such as what’s considered “cinema,” is to then draw a stark line that eliminates the voices of those who don’t belong to your clique of artists.
No disrespect, sir, but you’re gonna die sooner than the rest of us. Your contributions will always be stuff of legends. Let someone else have the opportunity to do the same.
3
I’m so thankful for Turner Movie Classics. It’s all my wife and I watch anymore.
3
I have followed film all of my life. Taken classes in it and reading a book in directing now. That would be for say 50 of my 60 years. I remember going to the premier of Z in NYC when I was 10. I have family in the industry going back to the 30's. Here is the thing. From the standard of art there were always good films and lot of so so ones. Today's Marvel was the Cowboy of War films or the serials that led people like Lucas and Spielberg to make some great films. The other thing is that movies are too expensive in theaters. I go only on the cheap days. I am simply not willing to pay over $6 to see a movie. The ones I do see in a theater are the big ones like Marvel or Midway which is coming. Want more diversity reduce prices. Pretty simple economics. The movie experience is in the parlance of that field highly elastic.
1
I have been telling what Scorsese says here, to my marvel-movie loving husband, for many years. Marvel is nothing but advances in technology and animation trying to disguise themselves into a narrative and failing miserably. Impersonal devices can never evoke the pathos of humanity.
3
Any film that resorts to constant computer simulation revealing unimaginable visuals in a "life like" or spectacular way actually become the opposite. They look so unreal, so unconvincing and simply a cartoon. Not much depth. No great compositions. Recycled stories. Mind numbing cliche.
Kudos to Marvel for giving movement to comic books. It can be fun like a carnival ride. But in the end all the films are just that. Comic Books. Moving, exploding, punching, melting, flying, flashy, 3D comic books.
1
To a large degree, I think Scorsese is right, but not entirely. A handful of Marvel (and DC) movies have been worth seeing on their own. BLACK PANTHER, for instance. These are the ones with one or a few heroes, and make sense even if you haven't seen the last 17 movies. But most of them, especially the ones with all of the superheroes, aren't worth watching.
About making films with no risk, that was the intention of the studio era. And they succeeded for a long time.
But I do worry about the end of theatrical cinema, other than the tent pole movies. These days, I watch more films on TV than in a theater. I wish I was otherwise.
Joss Whedon's TV series, "Marvel's Agents of Shield" a counter example, but I agree that the film-length movies have been bores without depth of any kind. A very excellent essay.
I appreciate the explanation, but it's overkill. Marvel movies et al (most any horrific genre of film) are simply modern versions of gladiators dying to the death in the colosseum. They appeal the masses. Classical Film, classical music, classical theatre and other fine arts have and will forever only appeal to a distinct subtype of academic viewer, and is a very small slice of the population.
3
Easy for him to carp about the lack of theatrical release or cineplex space for "cinema" films - The Irishman is, last I heard, only opening in one theatre in NYC, and no deal has been hashed out for a broad cinematic release, even for a few weeks. He's my favorite director, but I don't subscribe to Netflix, so will probably never see it.
I think it will become more available soon. I have Netflix (amongst others), & he is 1 of my very top favorites, as well. Btw, I feel the same way (probably worse) about Apple TV's "See" starring Jason Momoa & others. I forgot my Apple password 5 years ago; the answers to security questions (I swear I've never seen) as well, & lastly, I haven't known the password to the backup email in 5 years, too! I have to go to an Apple store, which I will not resort to. It's ridiculous (sorry for the rant). My point is this: Marty Scorcese turns 77 on November 17th, Ridley Scott turns 82 on November 30th, & William Friedkin turned 84 a couple of months ago. Of course those are 3 of handful of my very favorite (living) directors. Personally, I think Denis Villeneuve (he's 52) is on the cusp of greatness. "Arrival" (2016) is the best Sci-fi I have seen in years. You must watch it at ,meast twice; 3 times is better. **Spoiler alert: What I thought (Amy Adams, cast as linguist "Dr. Louise Banks") was precognition turned out to be her "remembering the future". It's absolutely brilliant in all ways (the writer Ted Chiang's book "Story of Your Life" of course). Villeneuve's casting - he would only (& I do mean "only") make it with Amy Adams in the lead. I cannot think of a better person for her role (btw, the producers were more than "very concerned" she wouldn't be available); the screenplay; concepts; cinematography; & especially sound. His direction is flawless.
Obviously Mr. Scorsese is entitled to his opinion and there's no arguing it isn't one more informed that most, but it's still only that. As a working artist and student of art history I personally find his particular definition of art too narrow, essentially claiming that an artifact must play upon a very particular range of emotion or a very particular kind of narrative to be considered truly "artistic". This is certainly not the case in any other medium, so why should it be true for film? One might rightfully and subjectively consider the Marvel franchise (or any other franchise) "bad art", but to dismiss even the most familiar stories well told as objectively "not art" is the very definition of elitism. It's pointless and denies the deep and personal and *real* emotional relationships that people have with these films.
4
You miss the point entirely. The author is not calling goat any particular narrative or any particular emotional range. His point is that cinema is commodified to the point that the audience requires no thought or emotional engagement of any kind. Dramatic storytelling, when it can be considered to be artistic, achieves a relationship with an audience, as opposed to an individual, through what that audience considers to be truthful and beautiful. Because of its interdependence with an audience, the art is a reflection of its audience. It’s function, according to Hamlet is to hold a mirror up to nature. It is not coincidental that the dramas that continue to be considers artistic through decades, centuries, and millennia were created in the context of great societies. Unlike other art forms which are intended to be experienced personally, the collective response is at the heart of any performing art. Unlike the ‘70’s, we now live in an era when personal experience is the arbiter of when and how truth and beauty are recognized. Our tech revolution has deprived us of the communal experience that constitutes artistic merit in the performing arts. We just don’t have an audience. Nobody cares.
1
@Cold Eye Oh I understood the point. It's still nothing more than the opinion of an industry elite acting as a gatekeeper, and of course you are entitled to buy it. But it's a factual fallacy to suggest that artistic media hasn't *always* been commodified to one degree or another, or to suggest that the purpose of art is to only and always reflect the zeitgeist or challenge the audience with the novel or unique. Here in the West we have literally millenia of art telling the same stories over and again in every medium, facilitated by the patronage of the wealthy to reflect power and piety, driving a message to the masses. Other commenters here suggest that Marvel movies are nothing more than Roman bread and circuses but I think one might easily argue that these stories have more in common with Christian "entertainment" above. And given their critical and commercial successes, the Marvel phenomenon is clearly a *massive* communal experience whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
1
Sad for sure. Yet another way the pursuit of manufacturing profits ever more efficiently (instead of art) creates innocuous “entertainment” for the increasingly passive and unthinking consumer.
2
Thanks, Mr. Scorsese! The global cinema needed your words.
But, the evolution of the contemporary society is such that it is gradually suppressing the individual freedom of artistic inspiration and production.
As you wisely said, the art cinema may be sometimes a financial failure, as it is the case for a plastic art expo and an abstract painter or sculptor.
Where are the Mecenates ready to put money in a truly artistic work but at risk of financial failure?
Some European states put public funds in private cinema productions to let the art movie survive. But I am not sure this is the solution and workable for the long term.
1
The person who cited media consolidation as the villain here is no doubt right, but that's just a (major) symptom: Popular culture, including cinema/video entertainment, is born of the broader social dynamics of its era, and since the '80s we've been increasingly overwhelmed by a globalizing hyper-capitalism that melts everything both solid and airy into monetized, consumable, disposable product. Through Facebook, Instagram, etc., people today eagerly throw even their very lives into the great commodifier.
For a society raised on Grand Theft Auto, Big Brother and Twitter, Marvel movies are the inevitable cinematic corollary--an experience emptied of everything except dependable digitized thrills and a brand known worldwide.
"North by Northwest," let alone "Nashville," make little sense to a brain with a 12 second attention span and intolerance for more than 12 seconds of screen time without some CGI effects. I actually had to endure the impatient eye-rolling of some twenty-something acquaintances I'd dragged to see "North by Northwest"--they couldn't get past that sadly non-digital papier-mache Mount Rushmore.
Russia is not going to become a democratic society anytime soon, nor is today's American society/economy going to produce another '70s run of great popular films like "Taxi Driver," "Chinatown" and "Annie Hall."
Vote Warren for better movies!
2
Great article. I’ve watched the indie theaters close one by one in NYC. NYC! If you can’t count on being able to go to an independent theater in NYC that kinda says it all. What I will offer about Marvel films is that they are akin to the hankering I sometimes get for pizza or hot wings. Are eating these things a high culinary endeavor? Of course not but I enjoy them occasionally. The same can be said for People Magazine and a lot of pop music. A steady diet would never work for me but having an awareness and a certain kind of appreciation for these things is not a bad thing in my mind. I’m glad Marty is arguing for the importance of great art. We will always need high artists to carry the torch from one generation to the next.
2
Most of the people who criticize Mr. Scorsese for "only making gangster móviles." Could take a couple of minutes to check his vast and diverse filmography on a place like IMDB.
But no, they won't bother because, like climate change deniers, it goes against their thesis.
Great essay, Mr. Scorsese. Many of us agree.
2
I have an app for Netflix and for the Criterion Collection. I recommend both.
1
I am reminded of a wise fish telling Bojack Horseman that the movie he's making "isn't Casablanca." Bojack thinks he means that the director feels the movie isn't good. But the director means is that, since Casablanca has already been made, that's not the movie he's making.
In a world where TikTok and YouTube reign supreme, cinema is a pocket and personal experience. One should ask if he enjoyed other comic book movies like The Kingsmen, Blue is the Warmest Color, Ghost World, or Persepolis. The difference between those comic book movies and the current Marvel comic book movies is the stories they tell and to discount one as cinema is more, or less, a subjective experience.
Here's the short take on it: Cinema is a subjective experience. You can not objectively dismiss a film as "not cinematic" as you have a personal, not universal, view of what cinema is.
That said, this is an editorial where the term "ok boomer" is more than apt. Of course, the response to such two word dismissal is as follows: "You're welcome."
1
There always exists this tension with 'commercial art', heck it exists in the non profit world. Back in the 'golden age' of hollywood, for every 'great movie', like a Citizen Kane or African Queen or Maltese Falcon, they produced a lot of, to put it lightly, schlock. Things like "The Thin Man Series' (which I love) were not great art, but were fun. I understand of course where Mr. Scorsese is coming from, when it seems like the trifles are dominating everything it can be hard to take, you wonder if anything great will be made or watched, but it will be.
The real scary part to me is if the world shifts to a model where most viewing will be through streaming, what will be out there? With Disney and other giants creating streaming services that are exclusive, what kinds of movies will be on them? Will a Taxi Driver or Mean Streets even get made if all the streaming services use the Disney model? Right now streaming services are in a horsepower war with producing product, but if they become like 1970's tv studios, will all we see is tripe? TV in the 1950's did a lot of wonderful things, by the 1960's and 70's it was for the most part a wasteland with some glimmers of greatness.
1
This reminds me of the arguments I had with fellow cinephiles in the 70's as to whether it was a "movie" or a "film”, many of my friends were what I’d call “Foreign Film Snobs”, they revered the “films” of Bergman, Goddard, Truffaut, but looked down their noses at the “movies” of many popular American Directors, if it hadn't been for the French and the “Auteur Theory", would directors like Hawks, Ford and Sam Fuller be as respected today? So if we’re discussing a Marvel movie like Iron Man, does it rise to the level of “cinema” in Martin Scorsese’s opinion, who cares, we’re all entitled to our own personal tastes.Very often it takes a more objective viewpoint to see if there’s anything there, sometimes that comes from the passing of time or the perspectives of another culture.
Times change, I used to anxiously await the film reviews of Pauline Kael, or see if either Roger or Gene might agree with my opinion of a movie’s merit, today people go to Rotten Tomatoes. Presently however, much of a film’s merit seems to be derived from it’s opening weekend box office totals, as if no great movies were ever failures at the box office. Frankly I’m heartened by the number of wonderful smaller, sometimes independent movies still being made today even if they have to take a back seat to blockbusters, as they appear to be what’s keeping movie theaters afloat, as more and more people watch movies on their Home Theaters, where they can freely talk out loud and look at their smartphones.
2
If the definition of art is entirely subjective, there really can’t be any definition of art. It’s like saying; “Aristotle has his opinion and I have mine”.
Yes. [Multiple bad words], YES!
Thank you so much, Mr. Scorsese, for articulating all the things I've been thinking and feeling for so long now. I used to love going to the movies, Tuesday was cheap night, and I saw so many wonderful films at so many theatres here in Vancouver that are no more. Off the top of my head... Europa Europa at the old Royal Centre; Life is Beautiful and Ne le dis à personne at the Granville 7; Caramel and also the Three Colours series at the Famous Players; and oh, so many more.
Of course, there's the film festival every October, and the brilliance of some of the films I've seen there can't NOT be mentioned. But that's only once a year, and it's an awfully long wait between Octobers.
1
I'am with you Marty, 100%. The stuff being shoved down our throat by the current mega-mergers between comic book creators and the studios, have about as much resemblance to film as carnaval trinkets has to the Crown Jewels-Both sparkle and shine in the light,but the trinkets are simply paste and sparkle, and obviously meant to be thrown away after one viewing.
Even many of the so called 'Creature' and earlier Sci-Fi movies (which also were originally thought of as merely entertainment) like 'Frankenstein', 'Nosferatu','Hunchback of Notre Dame', King Kong' , or "The Day the Earth Stood Still', 'Forbidden Planet' or 'The Day of the Triffids' put acting, plot and the depiction of human foibles and interior strengths ahead of the special effects, bombast and cheap emotional manipulation that the current crop of Super Hero movies seems so heavily to rely on.
And No, it's not that a good Sci-Fi or even Super Hero movie can no longer be made, such as Ridley Scott's 'Alien', John Favreau's 'Ironman', Alejandro Inarritu's 'Birdman' or Guillermo del Toro's 'The Shape of Water' to a few of the best ones. It just seems like the studios have so heavily invested in the Comic book heros that they are afraid of doing anything that they think might offend the fan base.
I think however the studios would be surprised at how pleased the fans (and all the viewing public, as a matter of fact) would be to see more life and unpredictability, and less formularic bombast coming at them.
3
I once read poetry—and by extension, art—described as a "news of an awareness," something that makes the consumer realize that reality is in fact different than they had previously understood it. Like realizing that an island has a peninsula that always there but that we just weren't aware of. That's how I understand what Scorsese writes here, as pointing out that superhero cinema tends to operate by reaffirming what is rather than challenging it, thereby confirming that the structural assumptions underwriting our current social, cultural, and economic situation are themselves correct. All art is activism; if it's not, then it's not art.
Pierre Bourdieu also has a great model in his field of cultural production, which maps a text based on whether it garners economic capital or cultural capital. It's easy to see where Scorsese would situate Marvel films on such a chart.
There's also a danger of elitism here, though, as the films that qualify as "art" instead of just spectacle are less accessible by design, because the spectacular films, the films that do nothing but confirm or reaffirm our assumptions, are constructed in a way that makes sense to us. Hero narratives like messiah stories and monomythic returns (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc.) appeal to foundational ideas in our culture. They speak a language we're all primed to understand from birth, while "art" challenges that language, creating a barrier to entry that takes work to overcome.
1
I wonder why it is that “elitism” is a negative when we talk about things like art and literature, when it is celebrated in just about all other areas of our hyper-consumptive society. Nobody complains about elitism in sports, or business. Maybe it’s because those things, sports and business, actually matter to people. We are Phillistines.
1
I totally agree with Martin Scorsese. I also am not a fan of superhero movies. They seem to me more like a video game than a movie. And it is the reason that I've seen one movie in three years instead of a movie a week.
2
It's not Marvel versus marvelous, populist versus high art. I loved "Iron Man," and thought Robert Downey was terrific in it.
I thought "The Departed" was well done until its clichéd ending. As Duke Ellington said, there are only two types of art -- good and bad. -- thegamesmenplay.com
Thank you Marty. I'm seeing The Irishman on a big screen this Friday. I like the convenience of a DVD (yes, I still rent them) or Netflix. But the cinematic experience is the best.
My husband and I have busy lives that also include work, volunteerism, and other art forms in addition to the cinema. We bemoan the fact that if we don't see a "real" movie quickly, it often leaves the theaters.
I remember the days of standing in line for transporting films at cinemas all around Manhattan. People waited, but they also conversed. I saw American Graffiti four times in one year. Raging Bull twice in two months. I went to double-matinees at the Thalia. The latest European directors, and then later, someone like Almodovar would break through, and once again cinema seemed new.
The repetitiveness of blockbusters bores me to tears. I won't see these films.
1
Bang on
Most movies that are made aren't that good, targeting Marvel movies is a bit unfair. To paraphrase Roger Ebert regarding the Academy Awards, Hollywood mostly puts out junk but once a year everyone cleans up and showcases a few worthy movies that somehow got made and distributed.
1
I’m thinking the Latin quote is misplaced here. Mr. Scorsese is standing for his work and the work of others as Cinema that is art. So, while tastes are not subjects to dispute art is, and “Time will tell who has fell, and who is left behind..”My money is on Mr. Scorsese.
Mr. Scorsese you are entitled to your well-informed opinion, which I find myself agreeing with for the most part. However, I'd like to point out that Comics are basically a modern day form of mythology and their mass appeal probably says something about the current state of our culture, society and entertainment industry. Maybe there's a compelling story to tell.
5
Are Marvel movies crappy? Yes. However, that doesn't mean that they're not "art"- they're just not GREAT art. Add to that the fact that the movie market for the past several years has been FLOODED with them and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that people are getting sick of it.
To put it another way: I'll go to a fast food place and grab a burger and fries if that's what I'm in the mood for, but I'm not going to pretend it's haute cuisine. Sometimes you just want some junk.
2
Aren't Marvel movies just larger-scale, higher-tech versions of adventure serials that ran on the big screen back in Hollywood's "Golden Age"? Flash Gordon, Perils of Pauline, Sherlock Holmes, Lone Ranger, and many others thrilled audiences weekend after weekend. They were formulaic, but exciting - and hugely popular during the same period when Hitchcock classics were also sizzling the screens.
There was room for both blockbusters and art films in the past. I suspect there always will be.
For now, I'm happy I can take my 10-year old son to see the simplistic portrayal of heroic sacrifice in Avengers: End Game. When he's ready, I'll take him to see the same themes played out at the next level of artistic complexity: The Seven Samaurai.
2
@Patrick Talley But, movies like The Seven Samurai won't exist anymore. That's the point. Wouldn't you want to see NEW films that achieve the same level of excellence?
1
@Joshua Davis But that's what's great about Cinema, you can always revisit the best films made and you'll die before you could ever watch them all. A film like The Seven Samurai is timeless, even though it was remade as The Magnificent Seven twice and as Battle Beyond the Stars in 1980, there are plenty of new excellent films being made, you just have to look a little harder. If you include original content from HBO, Showtime, FX, Netflix, Hulu etc. being made today that niche is certainly being filled. The fact that I can look at a film on my gorgeous 65 inch plasma TV with surround sound at home is a dream come true for me, this is a great time to be alive if you love movies. With all the extras included on the Criterion Blu-rays it's like going back to film school!
@William B. Winburn
Um, you CAN go back and rewatch great cinema, but it doesn't change the fact that we still need NEW good stuff.
And, as far as watching at home, you may want to read Walter Murch's In the Blink of an Eye. It'll open your eyes so much you may forget to blink.
A critical assumption is that films have to be seen on the Big Screen to be appreciated. If we take that assumption away, there is nothing to be concerned about. Indeed, we are then in a golden era for cinema, because there are now more outlets for creative work, more demand for content, than ever.
So, two ways to get past this assumption:
(1) Film makers: Create for the Small Screen.
(2) Film aficionados: Get a big screen at home.
2
@Jan
No way. You missed the point.
Soma! Soma! Soma!
2
Heroic comment?!
This issue is not confined to cinema. This is seen in music, theater, classical music, pop music, etc. Being an artist is more untenable today than at any time in popular memory. Late stage capitalism. The goal is maximum butts in seats, so the fresh and daring is never given a shot.
2
Just call ‘em what they are Marty: mass-produced garbage.
3
Ok Marty, I get it but gotta admit you sure sound like a guy yelling at those kids who keep throwing their ball into your yard.
4
great article
1
One missing, but pertinent, fact in this discussion: Marvel Entertainment's CEO is Ike Perlmutter, BFF of Donald Trump and founding member of the 'Mar-a-Lago Crowd'.
2
Was this brought on by "Joker"? So confusing.
All due respect to a master filmmaker, even by his own admission this is the opinion of an old man who admits he hasn’t even seen the films he is ranting about. Storm in a tea cup. Mr.Scorsese has made wonderful movies, many of them masterpieces, and he is entitled to say whatever he wants. I personally believe he 8s just sad about his own aging process, about feeling the world leaving him behind with new types of films and with seeing his world fading away. It also makes me sad. I can share his feelings, but I happen to have seen many of those films from Marvel Mr.Scorsese demonizes and they are as much “cinema” as any other movie, including his. Many of them are extremely well made. They are just a different type of movies. Probably many filmmakers back in Mr.Scorsese early days felt the same about the movies he and his generation were making. The great genius Billy Wilder used to lament the takeover of Hollywood in the 70s by “the youngmen with beards”. Martin was one of them. Such is the fate of all artists, even great ones. You don’t need to explain yourself or your emotions, Mr.Scorsese. And we don’t really need to take them as anything more than what they are. The Irishman is a masterpiece and I hope Marty continues to make many more. I just don’t expect him standing in line at comiccon to see a panel about the new avengers movie. Neither will I. Who cares, really.
2
you darn neighbor kids stay off my lawn!!!!
2
Great comments by Scorsese. We need to stop marvel films. Such unartistic disgusting movies that waste time! We need more real cinema like JOKER. DC is still delivering the goods and i know martin will agree. DC is our last hope against Disney ruining cinema! Hail DC! Hail WB! Hail true art!
1
He's not wrong. The Marvel movies don't take any risks. They're entirely non-controversial to the point of being predictable. Even if anything bad happens, or a character has some sort of hardship, it's never permanent, so the weight of that hardship is never actually that heavy. That's what Scorcese means by saying they have no emotional danger. War Machine fell out of the sky and was paralyzed, but lo and behold he was up and walking because of future technology within about a half hour. Half of the Marvel universe was erased but there was no way to feel bad about it because they were all going to come back, and they did. Heck, Loki was killed and there was a legitimate sense of loss for Thor, but what did they go and do? Bring him back in a "new timeline" and reverse everything. It's cowardly, generic filmmaking that is too afraid to do anything controversial, so all they do is make stories that always end well. It's impossible to feel any emotion in the rest of the story because you know that whatever else happens, the good guys will win, and if they don't in this movie, it'll be the next one.
3
One dimensional man made real.
The pink slime of our Disney overlords shall not be questioned!
1
I do not lament not going to theaters. Our media room has a 65" high-def screen flanked by very good speakers. Movies are as immersive there as at the theater, and obviously a lot more convenient. We pay for streaming services freely because it's so awesome to have movie nights in our own home, with no sacrifice in quality. Some theaters play the sound so loud that I have to use earplugs, so our home theater is actually better.
1
"But no matter whom you make your movie with, ...most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures.
And if you’re going to tell me that it’s...a matter of supply and demand, I’m going to disagree. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing."
Folks, let this be a lesson for what life will be like when artificial intelligence and algorithms take over all forms of decision-making.
2
Artists, of all kinds, have always started with a vision and used a medium to communicate that vision. Craftsmen, on the other hand, tend to be masters of the medium, using that medium to create beauty. Artists generally have to master the craft to some degree, but craftsmen focus on manipulating the medium for its own sake. Thus, it is the conception and intention that define art, and the production is secondary.
Mr. Scorsese is defining cinema as art and other movies as not art, which can be a useful distinction.
But if it is correct that is the artist’s inspiration, not the medium itself, that defines art, then his assertion about the big screen is not accurate. Certainly older cinema was made explicitly for the big screen, and his assertion may be relevant in those cases. But I do not agree that there is something so special about sitting in an auditorium looking at a projected image that is inherently necessary to define art. This is simply the familiarity of the old medium.
Clearly, the technology to view media at home on a largish screen is becoming very advanced. It cannot help but become as immediate and vivid and anything in an auditorium. Exchanging a public experience for the convenience of a more private and personal experience is simply a trade off.
Artists will, and likely already have, begun to conceive art for the home screen, for the very reason that it is their conception, not the medium, that defines it as art.
In the same way that social media has expanded personal interaction?
I fully concur. These movies are nothing but special effect sequences stitched together with the barest of dialog.
Comic books were created in an era when many couldn't read. It's unfortunate that, years later they are considered 'art' when brought to the big screen.
1
Thanks forever to TCM. Its movies are what art is to color-by-numbers.
3
There plenty of art movies that run on the big screen. The Favourite, La La Land, Vice, Green Book to name a few from the last 2 years. You do not see them in every theater but they do get into some theaters. Go to the movies in September and January for many of them. Of course living in New York we have movie houses which is why we have many choices. The awards season helps many party movies make it to the big screen. Streaming has changed the face of entertainment so less complaining and embrace the variety offered by these services.
Mr. Scorsese hasn't seen "Joker," has he? I believe it would fit all this criteria for "cinema." Although it's not a Marvel movie, it's ostensibly a superhero movie and in the same genre, no?
And, it's been compared to Mr. Scorsese's grittier movies of the early 70s. Is that ironic? I feel like that's ironic.
I'd rather sit through ten superhero movies than half an hour of anything from the risibly dreadful "Fast and Furious" franchise.
Mister Scorsese has made so many movies, of which at least five are absolute masterpieces and quite a few are awful.
But even the awful ones are time spent better than any but one or two superhero movies.
I mostly fear for the little ones - the 10 y.o. godson can only play with figurines that are constantly killing and battling each other.
Depresses me.
2
Holywood output is being overtaken by the desire and profitability of the Chinese moviegoers. When you sit in a movie house to watch a superhero movie made in the USA, it really has as the target audience the Asian, predominantly China's market. Only indies productions have so far survived this trend, but as the powerhouses, as Alibaba continues to produce in Holywood, the writing is on the wall. No pun intended.
3
I recently saw two of my favorite films: Wait Until Dark and Twelve Angry Men. No chases, explosions, sex, cartoonish characters and fight scenes, and all the action took place on ONE set. But, oh, the acting, the plot, the script! It keeps one entranced throughout the picture. THAT is true moviemaking as art. Nothing like that can get produced today. Unlike might most, however, I do not blame the studios. They are following people's tastes and desires - and taste and class, throughout our society, has fallen into the dust bin.
2
It has to have been already said here in these thousands of comments, so I’ll say it again . . .
Actual human beings can never be Marvel comics “superheroes.” However, human beings actually have been, are, and will be the people in the cinema that Scorsese is rightfully praising here.
And these two immutable facts are behind what gets into movie theaters, both here and in the largest movie-going audience in the world, China.
Cinema defined here by Scorsese can move audiences to power—which can be quite dangerous to existing power. “Superheroes” created by Hollywood leave audiences in a dreamy, reverie-filled stupor—which is the ultimate goal of any existing system of power.
So, whether we’re movie-goers in the U.S. or China (for example), those in power now certainly understand that raising a nation’s children on a steady diet of “superheroes” is the obvious choice over allowing cinema (as Scorsese defines it here) to move the huge masses of movie audiences to power.
2
I feel like i've heard these thoughts before, different subjects. Amazing films will always be created. Things evolve and we need to be open to seeking things out in new and unexpected ways. Nothing stands still.
1
I just want to point out that the faults Mr. Scorsese identifies in the Marvel films could be applied, word-by-word, to porn:
"What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes."
2
De gustibus non est disputandum, Mr. Scorsese. You're confusing taste with art & just digging yourself deeper into a "what is art" argument. You of all people should know that's not an argument you can win--or one you should even have. Naturally all the art snobs are coming out of the woodwork in these comments to support you (just look at how the NYT Picks are 100% in support of you).
But, hey, why stand up for all art--and all artists--when you have your own film to promote, right?
1
I can go low brow with the best of them. My guilty pleasure is the Mission Impossibles, Jack Ryans, etc. I love a good spy thriller with multiple locales, and some high tech gadgets but also enjoy smaller films. The Favourite, Call Me By Your Name, Sorry to Bother You, and Moonlight all come to mind.
The Marvel stuff is utter schlock imo. If I never see the smug face of Chris Pratt, that consummate practitioner of the vapid jape, it will be too soon. Ditto, Deadpool’s Reynolds.
The insipid wisecracking has gone too far. The remake of The Magnificent Seven was a parade of quips, one-liners, and, look, Chris Pratt again, between diets.
Though I will forgive Chris Hemsworth and those locks in Thor. Kaleesi with serious guns. Mercy. Nor should his performance in Bad Night at the El Royale be missed. I think it safe to say he broke Deep Purple’s Hush. Saw Bad Night on cable, delightfully Tarrentino-esque. Jeff Bridges was also in Bad Night, and wish more actors were so incredibly good.
Add Bridges and Maggie Gyllenhaal in Crazy Heart to the list list of fantastic smaller movies. (Her husband, Peter Sarsgaard, was the only redeeming thing about the Magnificent Seven.)
To think we end on M7. Maybe not: they don’t make ’em like Dr. Detroit anymore.
Yes! Marvel movies are soooooo boring. Sometimes you luck out and get a movie like Guardians of the Galaxy which is funny and quirky with a charismatic cast at its core. Otherwise it’s just a bunch of meatheads throwing each other around in fancy costumes. No one can die or get grievously injured- they’re too strong and lack any vulnerability. Marvel movies add nothing to the film canon. They are however great studies for business school. Studios have lost their creative courage and its very sad.
1
Glorified TV series is all.
Mr. Scorsese is an entitled snob who not-so-subtly implied in his original quote then even less subtly implied in this long column that people who enjoy bowling over opera have no real value on Earth.
@DLA
Except for The Great Lebowski I agree!
Opera over bowling every time.
I hadn't read this article. My immediate visceral reaction to the headline brought me to all of the musicals and the "show must go on" movies of the Thirties. Are Fred and Ginger schlock? The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is this time's Wizard of Oz. The good guys win. Period. The superhero phenomenon began then with Superman, Captain America, and The Spirit. They sustained their readers by making it possible for them to become answers to wishes. (Gosh! Wouldn't it be nice sock Hitler in the jaw! Captain America did.) Pinocchio! Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs! Were those just cartoons? Stan Lee and Jack Kirby (May they both RIP!) initiated the MCU and created an oeuvre that included teenage angst and world eating predators; anyone could find a place therein. And thrive. Mr. Scorsese, you have made exceptional cinema; however, I find it hard to attend to a story that I already know its denouement, Hoffa died. Tony Stark stopped his company's weapons development after wiping out terrorists. Wakanda forever! It's all about hope. Get it?
1
We get it! You're out promoting your new film and need to drum up some controversy.
"For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness."
It's funny because Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon A Time In Hollywood mocks this very statement.
Scorsese's own book about Cecile B DeMille's The Ten Commandments where he brakes down why it's the one of the greatest films in history, can be applied to the Russo Brother's Avenger's Endgame. If this was suppose to be an honest opinion piece on cinema (rather than controversy for publicity sakes) then the only thing Scorsese has proven is that he has a bias against characters in spandex. After all thematically, story and production, what is the Avenger's franchise if not The Ten Commandments told over 10 movies? The Russo brothers even had the parting of the Red Sea moment.
On Sunday, I saw Parasite, maybe the best film I've seen this year. Last Monday, I saw The Lighthouse, Eggers' masterpiece. On Friday, I'll see Almodovar's new film, Pain and Glory. I'll have to fit Joker in somewhere before it leaves. I may see Dark Fate, might not, but its existence had no impact on the production of these small, arty films (Joker's success notwithstanding). There is a rich, thriving film industry constructed around smaller, niche productions. The fact that Scorsese mentions Aster, the Andersons, Bigelow, and Denis, artists actively making distinguished films, demonstrates that cinema has room for the all kinds of work. It's disheartening that he's doubled-down on a blinkered, narrow-minded definition of cinema.
It's also enlightening that he sermonizes on what Marvel films are without actually having seen one.
1
Thanks to Mr. Scorsese for expressing what I believe to be true about the state of movies today.
Comic book films are not remotely emblematic of the true meaning of cinema. They never were, and they are not intended to edify. They are made to sell popcorn and pop and to keep teenagers eager for the next bloated, meaningless installment. Comic book movies are about nothing more than the bottom line.
Any adult who swoons over one of these films as if it's a life-changing experience hasn't fully grown up.
Additionally, the most rabid fans really have no loyalty to the beginnings of these stories (via comic strips or comic books).
They can't possibly believe, as forced on audiences in the dreadful "Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice," that Metropolis and Gotham City are across a bay from each other, or that a punch from a human (Batman) could actually knock down Superman.
Comic book movie fans are no longer true movie-lovers. They are nothing more than sheep for bankers and the most vocal backers at studio board meetings.
Comic book films have lost their magic and their ability to engender wonder.
1
Could not agree more! My millennial peer group lives for Marvel movies and when I challenge them on that adoration, they are incredulous. I think part of the problem is that they haven't seen the classics, haven't seen everything that cinema can be. Let's bring more film study classes into the fold -- many of us take literature classes at some point. Good cinema is another branch of the same tree. The film study class I took in high school absolutely changed the way I look at film. Without out, I might have been destined to suffer a fate of mediocre movies!
3
Scorsese takes issue with a movie industry market that puts pop movies on many screens and doesn’t support the production and exhibition of films that strive for what is possible in the art form. MARVEL started as a comic book publisher and is not a movie studio, albeit a subsidiary of a behemoth entertainment conglomerate: Disney. MARVEL makes superhero movies, most of which are based on comic books. Cinema, Movies. Film. Hamburger. Cuisine ... Whatever. I think Mr. Scorcese has a problem with literacy, not the movie industry. Complaining that superhero movies are taking up space at the multiplex is like complaining about talk shows taking up afternoon TV time. Just keep doing your thing, Marty. The Hulk isn’t coming for you.
1
Marvel movies? BOORING!
Give me good characters, and their development, great plots and twist and turns in a story, saga, glory, human fallacies...paradoxes great music, not NOISE, and I will pay money to go to a theater. Otherwise I’ll check out the oldies on Netflix.
I'm dying to know what Scorsese thinks about "Joker". Does he think it lives up to it's pretentions? Does he think it "really isn't a superhero movie"?
It's a very good thing for the blockbuster movie industry to have pointed criticism since so many blockbusters fall flat on their faces. Is it because there weren't enough 'splosions, or CGI? Was there not enough of the pablum Scorsese, et al., are so depressed about? No. It's because of the lack of the very things Scorsese laments the absense of, and the bean counter committee control he hates. So the industry continues to have independant creators that can helm movies people actually get something out of, even with franchise movies. And a glance at the long list of November and December movies due out in last weekend's NYT shows only "Star Wars" to displease Martin Scorsese.
Me, I'm skeptical of art. The Emperor's New Cloths pretentiousness of most of what's out there is devoid of meaning. True pablum. It exists only for snobs to convince themselves that they see deeper meaing than the hoi pollio when in reality there's nothing there. The difference between "true art" and popular movies is that one isn't lying.
Scorcese prefers to make movies that aren't made with a revolving door of actors, similar themes, similar archetypes, similar photography, similarly constructed soundtracks (a hit song as a backdrop for a violent montage! Wow!), and overly-long indulgent running times.
No, Scorcese would rather make Goodfellas, Irishman, Casino, Departed, Mean Streets, and Wolf of Wall St.
I was tempted to include Gangs of NY, which is a crime/mob movie except it takes place in 1860s America.
3
So what can we lovers of true cinema and creative filmmaking do about this?
In my Ohio town there are two longtime "art house" theaters showing mostly smaller independent movies.
My small commitment to cinema is supporting those places ....and avoiding both the junk movies and cracker box theatres showing them.
1
Thank you! This is precisely the reason I don't go to the movies anymore. The acting is boring, the stories cliche and if you don't know the backstory to these various comics you basically have no idea what you are watching. Again, boring.
3
It looks like a case of Golden Age Fallacy. It reminds of a Woody Allen movie where a writer finds himself struggling to be a Hollywood screenwriter or a "real writer" like his heroes Hemingway, Fitzgerald or the likes. I can imagine movie directors' actors, and screenwriters going through the same thing. Do I keep low and follow the studio's demands for a successful movie? Or do I risk everything and try to make something that I truly believe is cinema?
I totally agree with Mr. Scorsese, and I have a personal example. When his film of "The Age of Innocence" was released, it did not play in theaters in the town where I was living at the time, so I only had the opportunity to rent it from Blockbuster. 6 or 7 years ago now, it played at MOMA as part of a retrospective, and I made the point of seeing it on the big screen. What an experience! I missed so much only seeing it on a television screen.
To add to Mr. Scorsese's larger point, I feel the same way about books. When I read the Times Book Review, almost all of the fiction best sellers are series books or popular novelists. Today's top 5 are Michael Connelly, John Grisham, Nelson DeMille, Brent Weeks, and John Le Carre. All good writers (and I love Le Carre), but only rarely does a Colson Whitehead, Zadie Smith, Kazuo Ishiguro, or Margaret Atwood break through; and Atwood probably wouldn't have it not for the Hulu adaptations of her books.
2
I guess we've always been 40% this, 20% in the middle, and 40% that in this country. And the "winners" are those best marketed.
That said, sometimes the winners shine through the marketing mayhem and find their audience on merit alone. Such as a film about a guy who drives a taxi. Or a prior President whose main asset was his humanity. And that's why Mr. S keeps making his movies. And that's why a gay mayor keeps running. Merit still has a place in America.
The arc of progress is long and rocky, but I still have faith in our country. Keep up the good fight please, Mr. S and Mayor P. Current times in politics and art are depressing. But the drunk is now bottoming out in the gutter. Better days, better voters, better audiences, better politicians, and better movies ahead.
I agree, as much as I like a super hero movie once in awhile, I think the quality has gone down, and find myself falling asleep somewhere in the middle of the long ones
Those who are belittling the mafia movies, I find that they really don't glorify the activity, yes there is violence and sex but they examine the human condition as well. No one is really happy in these movies for the most part at the end.
In regards to drama in general, there are a few each year, last year I loved Blackklansman & Greenbook although it seemed some argued you could not like both. Also the Wife & the Favorite.
Can You Ever Forgive Me was the one I thought I would not enjoy, and watched it on a plane and it was great.
I also long for a good romantic comedy, I'm not sure why most of the romance movies are so emo and the kids are always sick or dying.
And long for a good comedy, I find myself re-watching wedding crashers, horrible bosses & the hangover only the originals, and such, has been couple of years since something really good has come out.
I do find great comedy on Netflix & Amazon, Ms Maisal, Fleabag and some others.
An elegant defense of his position from Mr. Scorcese. Even as someone who has enjoyed the Marvel movies to varying degrees, such films were known as "tentpoles" because they propped up the type of cinema espoused by Mr. Scorcese. Now, the movies seem to be all pole and no tent.
With respect to streaming/home viewing, however, I recall an argument I read from an extreme audio-visual-phile. Modern televisions can produce an image of higher quality and resolution than the standard multiplex screen. Home sound systems can produce sounds of greater clarity and dynamic range than standard multiplex sound systems. So why spend irreplaceable time and hard-earned money and brave crowds to go to a movie theater when the experience, at least from an audio-visual perspective, can be re-created, if not surpassed, at home? I still enjoy going to the movies for the shared audience experience, but it is an argument worth considering.
1
In the words of numerous movie heroes of the past, when seeking the heart of a mystery, a mystery that has placed them in the center of the story, the story so compelling we all must watch... follow the money.
Sadly what has happened to movies has also happened to contemporary music. Accountants and executives have taken over the forms, artists have been largely diminished or even eliminated, and all of it sounds the same or looks the same. Entertainment has replaced art. The K Pop phenomena is an example. The groups were not created by people who meet each other and want to make something together but by money executives and companies that plan it all to maximize profit. The same thing has happened to movies. I applaud Mr. Scorese for his bold statement.
Mark Knego
San Francisco
2
I cannot disagree with Mr. Scorese more.
I believe we live in a golden age of visual storytelling, albeit one mostly on T.V., and if anything these major blockbuster films continue to make film relevant in people's lives. Beyond that, these multi-billion dollar franchises might be formulaic, but if that is what worries you just go read Joseph Campbell. We've been basically telling the same stories for thousands of years.
Additionally, the large, wildly successful franchises allow the studios to take risks on more art-house style pictures than they would otherwise be able to. Joker comes to mind as a picture that took enormous risks and was only ever a sure thing in hindsight.
When Disney acquired Fox it also brought Fox Searchlight along with it. Take films like Jojo Rabbit or Lucy in the Sky and tell me that Disney is not taking risks in film.
We need people to go to these franchise movies so that the studios can have room to take the risks and encourage the young filmmakers of tomorrow.
Art is rarely an either-or proposition, but rather complex ecosystems filled with conflict, contradiction and relationships that can be difficult to understand. (I'm not pretending that I understand all of it either, to be clear.)
Is Guardians of the Galaxy II in a different catergory than Mulholland Drive? Sure, but the next time you are sitting in a theater watching Cap throw his shield remember that you are helping plant the seeds for the next up and comer.
I really have just one question for Scorsese: How is it that we can't have an exceptional cinematic experience--wrought with all the revelations and unexpected moments you talked about--via a film or TV series on Netflix, HBO, or any other channel/platform?
You're advocating for the big screen as a specific experience, and I don't disagree, but then you're also talking about the attributes of a film, which I think can--and have--been transmitted via streaming platforms.
We have had franchises for a long time: How is James Bond much different from Marvel films? There was no real risk in Bond movies. And yet they co-existed with excellent films and TV shows. Likewise, today I think we are in a golden age of cinematic experiences on the small screen, enabled by the decision by companies like Netflix and HBO to pour millions of dollars into shows like Mad Men, the Sopranos, Breaking Bad, etc.
Look slightly beyond movies to the broader world of telling stories on a screen and I think you'll find our situation isn't as dire as you're making it out to be.
1
There's no doubt that the American cinematic experience has suffered in the 21st century. The main reason? China. Most tentpole films are made to satisfy Chinese audiences and censors, with the hopes of raking in cash from the international box office. Just take a look at the top grossing films of the 21st century and you will understand why. These films are action-packed and devoid of both plot, individualism, and humanity, just as China likes it.
2
Amen, Mr Scorsese. I swear to god this brought me to tears. So much lost and big screens everywhere just filled with garbage. I’m well into middle age and whenever we talk about “going to the movies” ( rare, but it happens; Joker most recently)with our friends they look at us like we just got back from Borneo. And then ask “Why?”.
1
Just saw “The Lighthouse” on a big screen. Risk and the unexpected aren’t dead yet. Just on life support.
I disagree on a fairly fundamental point. Scorsese says that "[I]f people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they're going to want more of that one kind of thing." The problem with this argument is that people are given all sorts of choices, and for better or worse, they choose certain films over others. When the blockbusters aren't around, people stop going to the theatres. The box office figures are clear about that. Unlike in the past, theatres compete with home entertainment for drama. What draws the majority of people to the theatre are big visuals, comedies or horror for people on date nights. There is a relatively small audience for what Scorcese considers cinema and those folk don't keep the major theatre industry going, because they do have alternatives. Serious drama has migrated to streaming.
1
I love a really subtle, complex well-prepared meal. A paella that has achieved just the perfect soccarat. A ratatouille that achieves a sublime balance. An expertly-grilled steak dressed with a compound butter that transforms it from merely delicious to magnificent.
I also sometimes love a good pizza. And let's face it, there are a lot more pizza restaurants out there than truly fine restaurants. One is not intended to take the place of the other. Nobody is calling pizza fine cuisine.
By the same token, lovely, quirky, complex films with three-dimensional characters and story lines that surprise, disturb and delight are the things that distinguish between a movie that entertains us and one that transforms us. I love a movie that makes me think. I'll take Lars and the Real Girl over Spiderman more often than not
But I also love watching Wonder Woman fight the German Empire, Bruce Banner view the world with sardonic humor and Thor smash stuff with a hammer. Usually while eating pizza.
There's plenty of room in the world for both.
I thought this piece would be a pullback from Mr. Scorsese's previous comments but am glad it wasn't.
There's a reason many people have zero interest in seeing movies in theaters these days. We get the feeling we're being served up recycled ideas. We think the movie business has pretty much sold out.
I respect Mr. Scorsese explaining what he meant and sticking by what he said.
7
"I’m certainly not implying that movies should be a subsidized art form". WHY NOT? This is what they have in Europe. If brute capitalism rules filmmaking, the chance of having unusual and thought provoking work financed is somewhere between 0 and minus 100. The richest country in the world, has no budget for this critical art form? SAD!
2
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Scorsese.
Marvel films and similar genres have their place. They can be entertaining, but ultimately they are also forgettable. That is to say (and I speak only for myself), days or years later, I would have a hard time recollecting that experience.
Great films stay with you. They inform you about a time and a place, whether on the physical landscape or within our own inner dynamics. Travis Bickle of "Taxi Driver" is as real to me as anyone who I know that actually exists. His character, as developed by Paul Schrader, touches on some of the very things I have thought, or was afraid to think, or have avoid thinking. "The Last Temptation of Christ" gave me an interpretation of Christ's life and in the processes, brought me, a non-Christian, closer to an understanding of him.
There are plenty of more examples from Mr.Scorsese's films alone, never mind the other great directors. I once read that M. Scorsese considered "Ugetsu" by Misoguchi-san one of his ten favorite films. I felt compelled to watch it and then it became one of my favorites too. Again, a story about peasants in medieval Japan touched me in a way that I can never forget.
I think that the bottom line is that there is the art form called cinema and then there are the movies. Each has its place, but only the former will help make you who you are.
4
What Scorsese decries is akin to saying "Water is wetter before." The phenomena he is seeing is the inevitable evolution of a competitive field, and it's as old as time. There has always been a constant cycling between the fringe and the mainstream. Mr. Scorsese was a young upstart himself, and probably faced his own set of detractors along the way. But having successfully captured the mainstream, now is seeing his grasp slipping. One can argue with the merit of the new mainstream, but you can't argue that unpredictable change, from which Scorsese was actually a beneficiary, is the constant the drives the narrative. The current domination by Marvel super hero movies is brought about by disruptive technology of CGI, pure and simple. But this too shall pass, until something else comes along.
One thing is for sure, this whatever else is not gonna be the same old drivel from Scorsese's era.
1
Are cartoons an art form? Marvel films are cartoons on legs. Some of them were enjoyable, until the execs capitulated to ideological pressures du jour. The recent creations are close to unwatchable.
2
Spot on, sir. I saw Once Upon a Time In Hollywood over the summer and it was like eating a steak dinner after months (years?) of sugar candy. We need more movies of substance and less superheroes.
4
I’m surprised to see only one reader accurately cite the reason for this trend: media consolidation. The telecommunications act of 1996 allowed unprecedented vertical integration of media companies, which creates incentive for service of a handful of tried-and-true pieces of intellectual property. The films become loss-leader advertisements for theme parks, merchandise, and more profitable television properties. The gargantuan advertising budgets for the big films suck up so much oxygen that mid budget films can no longer compete. Those mid budget films, which were vehicles for well made original ideas that did not represent any business beyond the film itself, are mostly gone. Annapurna’s bankruptcy shows that with a handful of tiny exceptions, the genuine cinematic space today is exclusively run by patrons, not business people. This is a problem with regulation, not artistic vision.
613
@Daniel Walter Err, well there's also the fact that the paying customer isn't paying to see movies like The Irishman in the multiplex anymore. People could refuse to watch franchise blockbusters and instead reward non-franchise art movies with their box office dollars, but they don't. Let's not put the blame for this on telecommunications acts like human beings are somehow unable to decide of their own free will what to spend their money and time on.
"Still, I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters."
Okay, but do you know audience members who want to see art/intelligent movies on the big screen? You'll need millions of them. if they would rather stay at home and watch anything but franchise blockbusters on their big-screen TVs or, worse, on the cell phones while commuting, there is no stopping them.
Ultimately the "blame," if there is blame, is on the customer. The studios, filmmakers, streaming services and movie theaters just follow the money.
20
@nerdrage
Well said. And that's why I watch my library of 2,500 (more or less) classic movies I recorded off of TCM. Great movies from the 1920s on through the 60s, with the major crowd pleasers being 1935-1949. I only see modern movies in a theater about twice a year because there's just no "there," there anymore.
14
@Daniel Walter
I would say that the trend is a continuing appeal to the lowest common denominator. High arts are not very profitable and today profit is our most revered edifice.
28
I am a 19 year old cinephile(I have Alfred Hitchcock tattooed on my bicep, I freaking adore cinema). I love movies of all kind, franchise or independent. With his first comments, I disagreed with the idea that Marvel movies are not cinema, but it was his opinion. With his comments later going further into calling them invaders and F. F. Coppola calling them despicable, and then Scorsese going as far as saying young viewers don’t know real cinema, I took issue, because I have sought out as many independent andOriginal movies this year as I could, I know cinema AND I find depth in Marvel and other franchise movies, and so I took issue with his latter comments.
That being said, with this article, I (for the most part) couldn’t agree more. This is exactly what was getting lost from his first comments BECAUSE of his latter comments. I still find depth and thrills in franchise films, but I’ve been wanting to watch The Irishman on the big screen. I didn’t want to wait several weeks to watch Jojo Rabbit or The Lighthouse. I despise the fact that for most “Best Picture” movies, I’ll either have to wait till early next year to watch in the theater or rent to watch it at home. I don’t think it’s the franchise films that are invading, I think it’s the theater chains not giving independent or original movies a chance. Theaters need to be more open to showing these movies, so that the distributors can be more open to, ya know, distributing.
2
I can't speak to the broader points that Mr. Scorcese is making, but personally I can't stand most of the movies from MCU. It isn't that they are bad in any particular way; rather, it’s that all of them are so eminently forgettable. Its hard to recall any standout moment, memorable character, or a quotable line, even just a few weeks after the movie. Hell, even the special effects seem completely average and forgettable (not the actual quality of the graphics, which are undoubtedly eye-popping, but what is actually done with it). With all the compute power at their disposal, the visual effects mainly involve people hurling things at each other in outer space and shooting colorful beams.
My gripe against MCU is not that it is escapist fare. The problem is it is unremarkable, audience-tested escapist fare. I suspect Mr. Scorcese feels the same.
3
They eliminated the risk. The art suffers...
Franchise films like marvel's get made because they are safe
1
Scorcese mentions "It's Always Fair Weather" as an example of Cinema. That was a sequel to a successful film, turned out by the MGM musicals factory (itself a genre), written tor a production code and flopped because Gene Kelly turned auteur. More superheroes, but with Technicolor and Comden and Green.
Mr. Scorsese... I read your essay & it brought tears to my eyes. I am 23 years old & work in film preservation. (Every year, our funding at the museum gets cut.) I am a fan of Marvel & of classic cinema. There can be no argument that one of those things is thriving and that interest in the other is dying. I chose this career not for the money, because Lord knows there isn't any, but out of appreciation for writers & directors & characters who have touched my heart in ways I cannot articulate properly in a NY Times comment. When I go to the cinema, I want to be frightened as I was during PSYCHO; I want to be delighted as I was during your beautiful film HUGO; I want to be as confused as an original CITIZEN KANE audience member, unable to follow the non-linear plot & trying again and again until it clicks. I want to think about that film for days. I wish so much that there could be enough room at the multiplex for superheroes & great art. Maybe one day there will be, again.
516
@Mimi
Beautifully said, Mimi. I am so heartened to know that a young person adores and is committed to cinema. Please keep up the important work you do.
47
@Mimi All is not lost. Okay, the paying customer just wants superheroes and explosions at the multiplex. I'm as guilty as any I guess, I haven't seen a single movie in a theater this year. I did mean to see Avengers Endgame but my job was crazy and then I was traveling for work and then I was on vacation and came back and was sick for two weeks and by then even Endgame's long run was over.
People's schedules are hectic and it's hard to even find time to get to a movie theater, assuming there was anything there worth watching.
If some art movie comes and goes in two weeks, it's probably not a two week span I was able to get to a theater anyway. Mostly it's just a parade of franchise blockbusters and if I can't find time to see a blockbuster I actually do like, forget it, I might as well admit that movie theaters are not for me anymore. Anyway, they show ads before movies at theaters (not trailers, actual ADS), which makes the experience so unappealing that I guess I'm finding excuses not to go and be subjected to a crap experience that's expensive to boot.
Instead I stream everything from Netflix or Amazon. And on DVD as well, don't forget that. Just watched Chernobyl from HBO, wow. As good as any theatrical movie. And I'll make time for The Irishman on Netflix when it shows up there.
11
@Mimi thanks for doing what you do mimi. and your comment brought tears to my eyes.
22
He's right.
2
It is business, not art.
2
Art is a business, not an art, IFYSWIM. Good art, outstanding art, art of inventive genius almost always struggles in competition with “art” funded and promoted by people interested in the art business, as opposed to art, is almost always boring to those who appreciate art as an intellectual activity.
He's right.
Nothing can excuse snobbishness in cinema. If an engrossing story is told and we forget our own problems while viewing, then mission accomplished. To follow Scorsese's logic to its conclusion "how many mobster flicks are too many?" Before they become trite and repetitive?
3
Mr. Scorsese, I stopped watching your films a while ago. I knew, without a doubt, that nine times out of ten, there would be horrible acts of violence, gruesomely realistic, and played for the shock value. I got sick of it. I also got sick of seeing the mob depicted in a way one can only describe as admiring. I don't know why you are so fascinated with those people, but obviously you are, as you keep making films about them. Those individuals are not Shakesperean characters with human flaws. They are sick and stupid and, oh yeah, they kill people. Shame on you.
2
@CM I, too, think that art should only be about people who are nice.
@Graham Funny, don't recall saying that. I think it would be great, though, if art should not only be about people who are monsters.
"Get off my lawn!" said the crabby old guy.
2
@mjan Maybe, but Scorsese says it much, much better. For that matter, others who disagree with Scorsese have said it better.
We humans beings seem to have this puerile obsession with the superhero, the dude in the silly get-up (The Pope, the military strongman decked out in his ridiculous uniform), men mostly, who can save the world. It’s baked into in our religion (Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha), it’s in our politics (Trump’s “I alone can fix it.”). I don’t get it. Aren’t we all about ‘personal responsibility’?
1
Mr. Scorcese, You have hit the nail on the head. I have watched one or two of the superhero movies and found them boring because there is no tension. There's no real art, just spectacle. I loved Gal Gadot's voice, but beyond that, there wasn't much to keep my attention. Where's the genuine character arc? Will I watch it annually, like North by Northwest?
Spectacle has its place. I enjoy a good fireworks show the same as everyone. But when you see it every night, it is very, very boring.
He's right.
Martin Scorsese: "The situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness."
^ Like Mr. Scorsese, whose films I greatly admire, I fear that cinema as we know it may not survive as a medium over the next several decades. But who knows what new medium will come next? Adapt or perish is nature's inexorable imperative.
Vaudeville was killed by radio. Radio was killed by cinema. Cinema was killed by... To be continued.
1
Amen, Mr. Scorsese. I’ve seen one Marvel movie—Wonder Woman—and it was manure. I think it was about an island of super women, and one leaves the island—though I don’t remember why—and travels to England, and looks good in regular clothes. Was the movie about fashion? About Gal Gadot? Don’t know and don’t care.
That said, many of the non-Marvel films, especially ones that get nominated for Oscars, are equally ridiculous (The Artist, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri come to mind). Clichés abound. The unexpected, to use Scorsese’s word, is completely lacking. Risks are never taken. And god forbid the film challenges the audience with an ambiguous message (Kubrick, Rohmer, Fellini). That excitement of sharing a new great film with a packed house of eager cinephiles (as I did the night Annie Hall opened), no longer exists.
@William First, Wonder Woman is DC. Second, Three Billboards was a very well done movie. Why pick that out as a bad Oscar bait movie when there are many more that are much worse than it was?
1
@William Have to disagree about Three Billboards. Great execution. Frances McDormand, Sam Rockwell, and Woody Harrelson owned the screen. Captivating.
These filmed comic books suit the current American mentality
perfectly. We've become a nation of idiots.
3
I've kept quiet on this but now he's gone too far- you essentially made gangster movies bro. Movies that glorified cruelty and greed, short-tempers and violence, slick schlock that more than one generation grew up absorbing, to "the culture's" detriment. Sure, you did it well, or at least well enough to make your pulp smell like "cinema." But telling me there was no risk to putting out "Black Panther," that there wasn't something real in the excitement and apprehension James Gunn built in the GOTG films, like there was no fine craft to the humor in the latest Thor movie, is like telling me water ain't wet. Put a product of human effort in front of me, and I'll find the humanity in it- that's maybe the most engrossing challenge of life, and it's my responsibility alone. If you can't see past your stodgy pretentions and find the beauty in what clearly billions of other people have, maybe you should look inward for what's missing.
5
Thank you for saying this Mr Scorsese, it certainly needs saying and saying often. Marc Maron expressed a similar opinion one night on Conan O'Brien's show and was roundly booed by the audience. It's the same despair I feel every time I check the listings at my local multiplex. The question anymore is not what to see but is there ANYTHING I'd want to see. I remember the night in 1976 that I saw "Network" and raced all the way across town to see "Rocky" the same night when they were both released. I don't expect to ever see another night like that but if cartoons and superheroes are my only choices I won't be seeing the inside of a theater anytime soon.
3
"There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema."
You said it nicely. I will say it is film porn. You have seen it once, you have seen it all.
1
Lots of people like this stuff. Lots of people don't read or vote. I can't expect most Americans to agree with MY opinion, and I think this stuff is crap. I won't watch any of it, let alone PAY for it. But, then most folks probably don't like what I like. It's why we have chocolate AND vanilla.
2
Perhaps Mr. Scorsese should use his considerable wealth and entertainment industry connections to open some new independent theaters across the US.
1
While I agree that superhero movies aren't cinema, or at least not good story telling, it's hard to hear this from someone predominantly known for making mob movies. All Scorsese's mob movies stick to a tried-and-true formula, portraying Italians as brutal, conniving, and immoral criminals. I'm from an Italian family and we don't know anyone in the mafia. With each new mob movie Scorsese makes, the same Italian stereotypes are perpetuated. I think that's a worse formula than using comic books for inspiration.
3
4 movies about the Mafia. That is exactly an "elimination of risk" which Mr. Scorcese now decries.
6
Is Scorsese really lamenting "franchise films" here? I'm no fan of Marvel movies, but please. You literally JUST added to your gangster franchise with your last release. Try something new, and get off your high horse, clearly you've been up there way too long.
2
For God's sakes, Martin, would you stop making mob pictures already?! NOTHING is less resonant to my life experience or interests than mafia pictures. What year are you working in, 1927?
2
Children’s movies for a nation, a world, of arrested children. The most pronounced representation of adults in America is endless, protected childhood. The highest aspiration of science is to preserve adolescence so nobody has to grow old. The most popular & socially acceptable form of insult is to make disparaging reference to a person’s age (“OK, Boomer!”). The President of the USA (formerly, soberly, referred to as the “leader of the free world”) is a pathologically arrested ‘tweener. It really can’t be a surprise, can it?
I am surprised by so many stuffy comments. You know what stifles inspired art more than commericalization? Cultural control freaks. I'd rather watch honest entertainment than pretentious "cinema."
4
Can someone explain to me how this changes the perception of his comment?
The issue that caused the uproar was that, in your sense of importance, you thought you could delineate what is and is not art. That somehow your skill as a director gave you the right to interpret and classify other's work. Not everything has to be snooty and sophisticated. Cinema, as an art form, has room for both.
Want to talk about taking risk? make a statement and stick by it. If you don't grasp the pejorative nature of your comment, writing a whole op-ed explaining yourself without apologizing isn't going to change much anyway.
2
I came to this op ed ready to chastise him for being unable to get with the times but I agree with everything he said. Market monopoly is claiming another victim. One sliver of hope is the rise of A24 and increased access to foreign films over the last few years
1
And gangster movies are "art"?
Cultural appropriation is art? Scorcese, DeNiro, Pesci and Pacino bring you...drumroll please.....The Irishman.
Nobody cares Marty.
2
They knew what you meant, Mr. Scorcese. They just didn't like it.
You're rigjht Martin! The Marvel movies are great that they bring the old comic books alive, & are great fun. However they are mostly computer art. Computer art doesn't require great acting & it is very questionable if it contains great "camera work". There is great cinema being made, just not inside a computer.
1
As always, I'm so grateful for Scorsese's constant thoughtfulness, and his willingness to share with the public what he knows and intuits.
2
The franchise format reduces risk for the investors. That shows up in the product: the film will be risk-averse, and therefore less interesting.
The Marvel movies are not for me either. Full disclosure, I am Gen X and might not be the target audience. That said, Martin... you have been making essentially the same film over and over again with many of the same actors. Cinema, as you put it, should be original and not derivative.
3
Marvel movies have been the demise of movie going. I hate super hero movies they are all the same. Since Hollywood has become smitten with those I watch Netflix and other streaming services. Superhero movies are a lot of noise and slambanging around and zero substance.
Cinema is art, "movies" are commercial entertainment, and, as such, attempt to appeal to the broadest possible audience, and, in that process, are inevitably in the shallow end of the pool.
It's simply the difference between literature and comic books.
Both can be entertaining, but there are no deep revelations from the latter. Critics of Scorcese's comments seem to be on the "but look at all the money they make" train, oblivious to his salient observations.
Film can be a measure of the ongoing evolution of human consciousness, attempting to understand the "here and now" through its artistic representation of humanity. Or not.
1
Intellectualizing about films has always part of cinema. Some criticism is artful and insightful and some, like Scorsese's here is reactionary.
The fact that more people would rather see the latest Avengers film than Scorsese's work is also a fact that has always been true. He could have said the same thing years ago about the Disney animations that competed with Taxi Driver or Deer Hunter.
The fact that high art and popular art are different products that meet different needs should not have provoked Scorsese to issue such sour grapes.
1
You completely missed his point I am afraid. Perhaps you should first read the essay again and then go to see some Hitchcock and a Marvel movie back to back.
Aesthetics for the masses is not what Marvel delivers. It is just junk food.
1
@Dennis That's his whole point. His critique is that the Marvel franchise is Disney spewing out movies for mass appeal and commenting on the aspects of the movies which relate to their content, not complaining about the fact that more people see them than his movies. He's one of the most celebrated filmmakers of all time in pop culture, and has made some of the most iconic movies in film history. I don't think he cares about how much he's making at the box office relative to a cookie cutter movie
1
I thought it was an apology when I started reading it. I’m happy to see it is not. I also like the distinction between audio-visual entertainment and art on film. These are in fact different things and they can both exist. Why not recognize the distinction?
1
The gradual but steady elimination of risk - coddles everyone and respects no one- and takes experimentation out of the process (films can be good and bad and sublimely good and bad at the same time). The best art, film, and music is oftentimes the most difficult to take in and understand.
While this is not the standard the Marvel ascribes to, in the system in which Marvel flourishes, big money spent requires a big return. Repertory cinema, museums and non-profit theaters are some of the last models to the insidious sea of change that for-profit theater chains and production companies have collectively wrought on us. Chicken-and-egg indeed - if movie theaters aren't exciting, even with blockbusters & franchises , then people won't go. Sadly it seems that we are in the end-cycle processes of homogenizing what constitutes "exciting".
1
It seems that an elder statesman of film appreciates his own set of esthetics at the expense of those which he has deemed to be lesser.
A film treatment of a novel is no less capturing of art than a film treatment of a comic book. The story of humankind is infinite in its possibilities, and its story tellers are all artists.
That which you can not imagine sitting through for two hours should not be dismissed.
2
Bravo, Mr. Scorsese!
While I was in grad school, I started a tradition with my two sons who were 6 and 8 years old at the time - MOVIE NIGHT on Fridays.
Each week I would select a film far from the big franchise model,
"Harold and Maude", "Doctor Strangelove", "The Russians are Coming" "The Philadelphia Story" and so many more (as they got older, your movies too).
The way, we humans avoid in-depth conversation and connection today in exchange for a "like" is disheartening but on a positive note, my sons still quote Peter Seller's character in "Doctor Strangelove", "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"
I can hear Alan Watts emploring the masses, "It's time to wake up!"
Part of your genius is that your movies wake the viewer up to the intense complexity of the human condition.
Our lives would not be half as rich without you, your craft
Thank you!
4
Mr. Scorsese says “the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures.” Yes, but not necessarily the individual movie houses. At the Hollywood 16 in Tuscaloosa the new Terminator movie is playing 21 times a day, far from a record. But I’ll bet most of the showings are barely half full, and chances are I could see it at the first of the day with only 3 people in the audience. I want to see it but will await Blu-ray release. It is nearly an hour’s drive to the theater, so that’s 2 hours of my time gone already. No doubt it will look fine on my 61-inch 4K HDTV. Generally my preference is to watch movies alone, like reading a book, a personal experience.
He says that with certain moviemakers “I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience.” My sense is that the audience today does not want that. If “Psycho” were released today, you can bet that the trailer would show the shower scene, and “Janet Leigh gets bumped off” would be part of the publicity campaign. Audiences do not like to be surprised. They are much more comfortable knowing what comes next. Which is a pity. But not the moviemakers’ or Hollywood’s fault.
I love the cinema he describes and I love many of the big franchises. Of the latter, some are crap, but as Theodore Sturgeon once said, “90% of everything is crap.” Popular? Yes. But so was Charles Dickens. And he, over time, became art. Ditto the Marx Brothers.
2
For the record, Comic Books have for a long been an influence on the "cinema" Scorcese laments the loss of. Early French films like "Fantomas" was based on pulp, as was a lot of Godard (Lemme Caution "Alphaville") and many Japanese films.ALL of Sergio Leone's Masterworks from "Fistful of Dollars" onward owed their inspiration and even their design to comics.
The Marvel films (not alone in their singular focus on bankable, pre-sold franchises - see Fast and Furious etc etc) are inspired essentially by Video Games. The CGI graphics and the manic editing are only understandable as Video Game art. By the way these are eventually transformed (literally) into theme park attractions. It's a closed system allowing little time for alternatives. Independent films offer some relief but lacking pre-sell advantages like franchises offer tend to linger in a different space: Art House Culture and do not often reach the wide audience. Not that they're not important but I don't expect a "Chinatown" or even "Fargo"
Market-driven movies trigger green lights automatically before anyone seems to have written a script. Too hard for the spread sheet auteurs to say no to.
This extends to the "binge worthy" series that go on with no end in sight, and when the "end" finally arrives, proves writers are as exhausted with stretching the narrative out to some existential vanishing point as the diminishing audience. I'm remind of "Lost" which set the template.
1
I unfortunately have to teach students coming from a so-called entertainment department into my humanities film class. This fall term they are exposed to all the films of Luchino Visconti. During the first 5 weeks they couldn’t sit and were confused but now after Rococco and His Brothers , The Damned, Death In Venice, and Ludwig, as I walk them through history, content and form, they are stunned. It takes much time but once exposed and explained they get it. Bresson again next and I have over 25 auteur and genre classes that rotate, 6 per year. Sometimes I fear to start the classes, Fassbinder and Godard being the best tools to teach cinema but hardest, but I know after 5 or 6 weeks I have built some type of appreciation. After Fassbinder Ballhaus and Robert Bresson they know the problems of your films too ;) !
Marvel is frightful but wait to you see this coming generation cause the latter is going to look great because their New habit is brass base YouTube productions. I whiffed how low that was last year and couldn’t get out of bed for days.
2
I have found that the he best place to see thought-provoking films is going to local film festivals. The best in this area are Woodstock, Film Columbia, and Berkshire. An entire three or four day weekend spent reveling in films and the art of film-making, surrounded by other thinkers. Most of the showings have the director present and allow for Q&A. These types of weekends can sustain me for weeks, even months, as I relive the festival experience and remember the films again and again.
3
The writer talks a lot about churning out the same type of movie over and over again and how boring it is. I have to say I could not agree more! When my husband said to me that we could watch "The Irishman" the other night I said that I would pass because it was just another mob related movie about guys staring either Pacino/De Niro/DiCaprio and was most likely going to involve a shoot out at some stage. Boooring; I saw that movie already; am I right?
Like the writier, I also wait with bated breath for the latest Lee/Bigelow/Anderson movies. But here's the thing; I love the Marvel movies; most of them are highly entertaining and have good story lines. I can also enjoy them with my kids. It is not an either/or situation.
Big studios have always been around and they have always been churning out successful crap. I love watching the old movies and I seem to remember that there was a lot of fluff produced during the WWII. I would say that here is part of the key to why the Marvel movies are so successful. The news outside is nothing but bad; people need to escape to a world where, even though things are bad right now, the good guys will eventually overcome.
5
Looking at the films that succeed at the box office these days is an exercise in despair. I honestly don't remember the last time a thought provoking film made a large profit. With how easy and simple it is to churn out trash such as Marvel and make mass profits, the movie industry no longer has an incentive to produce art. So goes the continued dumbing down of American culture and society itself.
1
Superhero movies are not cinema, true, however like in minstrel shows of old, performances of merit should be lauded as such. The best example is the new Joker movie, though the subject matter on the surface is simply pulp fiction, the movie goes much further into the analysis of human darkness and derangement. Furthermore, Pheonix's portrayal and acting prowess were masterful and more than Oscar worthy. So, not all superhero movies can be simply pigeonholed into the genre anymore. They are like, everything else, constantly evolving.
We watch TCM and I keep wondering where all the 18-24 y.o. men were during Hollywood's classic period. How could the great movies dominated by female stars have been made if studios only cared about juvenile dreck? On through the '70s and '80s, movie offerings seemed more varied. But now? Week after week goes by, and there is nothing showing that appeals. Some cinemas now look more grown-up than ever, with pubs and luxury seats, but nothing to see but garbage.
2
I absolutely love some of Scorsese’s work; and yet Hugo was so treacle-y and ham-handed... with literally nothing at risk. Stones, glass houses, etc.
Marty should also check out Noah Hawley’s take on the MCU in Legion. It’s modern, risky, extraordinary and human storytelling. He’s a filmmaker for the future.
2
Move with the times or get left behind
I blame Speilberg.
I have had fun watching some of the Marvel movies, but I'm with Scorsese on this. And the problem isn't Marvel, it's Disney. They take no risks. New is risky, remakes are safe, and safe is more consistently profitable for shareholders. It's entertainment by committee, with predictably boring results.
2
You have nothing to explain or apologize for, Mr. Scorsese. Marvel movies are entertainment. They intersect with art at the pivot point of that definition. They are judged by how much money they make and how good their special effects are. Nothing wrong with all that if one's sole purpose in life is to consume entertainment like one sucks back an extra large pop and ten dollar bag of popcorn.
1
I couldn't agree more. Actually, I do agree more because I think that Marvel movies are terrible in so many ways. Martin may have said it more peacefully but I would say that they just suck. Going to the movies is a drag now because the stories are the same every time and I cant believe so many talented people could be proud of the garbage they are producing. That is just my opinion. But consider this; I used to go to the movie theater at least 3 times per month. Now? I have only been to the theater 2 times in the last year.
1
Consumer's opinion: I enjoy many of the movies created (End Game is the main exception, thought it sucked), even multiple views afterward. These provided what they (and all movies) do, entertainment. You can call it art but there are many forms of art. Each of these superhero movies tug on emotions, bring underdogs up, or completely ruin a few hours in a dark room next to my wife, kids, or stranger. Your (Mr. Scorsese) have done the same. None of this movie content is going to last anyway. Use your imagination sometime and enjoy one with some kid who has only read the comic book. Take a foster (or any) kid to one of these and watch those eyes light up. If you are only into movies for their reality likeness, how boring you have become.
I am a fan and will always enjoy your movies as well as the superhero ones. Thank you for being part of my family's entertainment.
I find it so dull and annoying to see "classic" movies with murdered, underdeveloped, cliche, or just missing female, queer, and/or POC characters. I don't have much interest in the well-worn tropes of murderous mobsters who secretly have a heart of gold; angsty, privileged, "nice guys"; sleazy gay villains; agency-less manic pixie dream girls; magical, always helpful POC in need of being rescued; or hot, hypercapable Mary Sues that somehow also need to be rescued - or at least put in their place. I've seen all of these too many times.
I also simply don't identify with those types of movies and characters. Representation is not the only thing that matters, but it does matter. A lack of it can indicate a film that does not even bother to examine the larger social context.
Are all Marvel/superhero movies good? Of course not. Neither is much of the cinema that precedes them.
2
Yes, bravo Mr. Scorsese. I got hooked on cinema watching afternoon classic movies on local tv, escaping the summer heat and humidity in the cool and dark "club cellar" of my parents' home. King Kong was probably the equivalent of a superhero for that time, the 1950's, and Bogart the heroic human, or villain, if the role called for a heavy. Crisp black-and-white still has the power to impress and hold a viewer's attention if the story engages.
I've tried and cancelled Netflix three times, but found the selections disappointing - - limited classics and endless choices with unfamiliar directors and actors. I rely on the great public library system and an occasional lucky find at Goodwill for movies these days. Went to the theatre last weekend for a great actor's directorial debut, but more than half the seats were empty. Previews seemed endless and unenticing. Passed a couple of shuttered and fenced independent movie houses in the district on the way home.
1
I agree with his analysis but not his conclusion.
Cinema has a long history of visually engaging, emotionally shallow, works going back to that first film of a train coming at the camera that caused audiences to shriek and run.
I doubt anyone would say that Birth of a Nation (the DWG version) or Triumph of the Will were particularly insightful about the human condition except to how to manipulate it.
There is a place for these films in “cinema”. (Well, not the racist and fascist stuff, imo, but the equivalent of the train film). Audiences enjoy them.. My complaint is that is all that gets financed.
1
In a world in which people now 'take' decisions rather than think in order to 'make' decisions, why be surprised that the biggest money makers in moviedom are stories of imaginary super heroes with fantastical abilities and imaginary responses to unreal world issues?
2
What Mr. Scorsese is saying is essentially this: no matter how tasty you think the The Olive Garden is, now matter how big a heaping mound of spaghetti they can fit on a plate, no matter how many warm, buttery breadsticks they bring to your table, no matter how many shrimp they include in your pasta bowl, they are not going to get a Michelin star.
Ever.
In the interest of avoiding confusion, let us reserve the appellation "fine cuisine" for other forms of cookery.
2
In response to Mr. Scorsese's critique of modern film culture, much of what he says is right on the money but fails to address one aspect of artists working in film - everything is cyclical and people will come around to appreciating the art of great filmmaking. I didn’t see many empty seats at the recent A24 Studio film, The Lighthouse. The current situation may be "brutal and inhospitable" for aspiring filmmakers but let's not give up hope. Art will find a way!
1
Mr. Scorsese,
You just made another mobster movie with some of the same actors you have used many times before. Wow. Some Art Form.
5
Oh yes. If Hamlet could have just flown away from Elsinore, there would be no story.
1
According to Scorcese, Can a comedy or a musical be a “film?”
And film choices by studios have become less adventurous because the cost of making and marketing them is off the charts. It’s a business, not an arts patrons club.
Every film festival gas quality dramatic films made for no money, but that’s not the Scotcese model.
He’s just bitter it’s gotten hard to fund his high quality but poor commercial prospects projects. It’s a shrill voice.
2
What an obnoxiously toned bit of clickbait. If director Scorsese had stated "generic, low-effort movies aren't cinema and I also don't like spectacle films", he'd come off as sensible, if a bit curmudgeonly. That works for bad action films, the Transformers series (except for that one), the endless uninspired comedy films, cash-grab horror movies, etc...
But by making this about Marvel/superhero movies, Scorsese torpedoes his own point. Risk-free, safe, uninspired movies aren't a new thing. Almost every Arnold movie blurs together (except for the good ones). There were some truly uninspired Bond entries. Comedy has (except for the good ones) been moving backwards for decades. Are we on Saw 15 yet? But by making this a superhero movie discussion when superhero films aren't truly their own genre, Scorsese reduces himself to yet another old man ranting about __ popular thing and casting his crankiness as a sign of virtue.
Note that he doesn't list exceptions and says superhero movies are inherently artless and riskless, safe business investments. Dark Knight, Deadpool, Logan, Black Panther, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ragnarok, Far From Home, Infinity War, Endgame, etc... There are enough obvious exceptions that I had to use "etc..." Deadpool was one of the riskiest movies of all time. Even Aquaman, a terrible film, was risky and had spectacle film value.
It's okay not to like something. Claiming virtue for an ill-informed opinion, though, is tasteless.
3
According to an article in today’s NYT, “In a study, preschoolers who used screens less had better language skills.”
We are living through a period of “digital” dumbing-down. There is No youth involvement in politics at a time when our democracy and the environment are being destroyed. In San Francisco we even see fleets of motorized kiddie scooters and massive murals of superheros in historic places. Sad.
2
Oh Marty, you are getting old. Like some around us who dwell in some melancholical idea for defining art. Some kind of myopic vision, or an effort to draw a metaphysical line.
I remember comments by both the pianist Keith Jarrett and Walter Becker of Steely Dan who raised their voices and said that music today has become garbage. Sounds familiar?
Art navigates the seas of subjectivity. And you are getting sick? Why blame the captain, the boat, the crew, the environment, or anyone aboard not getting sick?
At the premiere of the Bolero, a lady stood up at the end and shouted "au fou" (he's crazy). To this, Maurice Ravel replied: "At last, this one understood!". We do too.
2
Thank you Martin: Living in the bay area suburbs , in the 70's i remember the excitement of going to the University theatre, the gilman theatres,in Berkeley, the surf in san francisco and seeing the newest Herzog or Fassbinder films. Truly eye-opening. Along with the creativity of that American era in film, Cinema lived. Also local station ktvu channel 2 would show the Janus collection of films on Saturday. Great foreign cinema that expanded my suburban world view.I stopped reading comic books when I was 14, the age which these films are made for. Times change, the audience changes, but there will always be room for art in film. Art films never made much money, the audience has always been limited. It's the emotional response to cinema that matters
1
For me, it comes down to believability. I don't watch Marvel movies because the premise -- and therefore the characters and the drama -- is not believable. It's that simple.
1
This is a well-written opinion piece which would be more persuasive if:
"...I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me..."
didn't clearly conflict with the critical generalizations:
"What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk."
These elements absolutely do exist in the MCU. I'd argue further that the emotional investment is larger, deeper, and more significant than has been done previously. The characters, and the audiences' attachment to them, developed over dozens of movies across more than a decade. When the characters die, it is profoundly moving in a way that is difficult to achieve in traditional, smaller-scoped movies.
This is not something you can pick up on by trying to watch a couple and deciding they are not for you.
3
Thank you for this opinion piece, Mr. Scorsese and NYT! On numerous occasions, I've struggled to explain the exact same sentiment that I harbor to those around me. I am now privileged to be granted the luxury of only having to redirect them to this article instead.
3
my sentiments exactly.
1
Imagine high school English teachers assigning the comic book version of Great Expectations. That's what we've got here. Maybe the teacher can sneak in the occasional original Great Gatsby between abridged versions of other great novels, but risk-free offerings seem to have won the day. And who knows, maybe some Marvel-besotted moviegoers might actually get something out of thoughtful and thought-provoking films of the kind Scorsese crafts.
2
I see the same watering down in the Academy changing Best Picture nominees to 10 instead of 5.
I await the next Out of Africa, There Will Be Blood, Schindler's List, Day Of The Jackal, Gattaca, Casablanca, Gandhi, Alien, Witness, The Godfather; the list goes on and on. I may be waiting a very long time.
While waiting, I stick with the small budget movies at my independent arthouse cinema. It's close by; a luxury many people don't have.
Want to be blown away? Go to your library and order The Best Offer with Geoffrey Rush. Played all over Europe but barely anywhere here. Ok I know your television isn't the same as the theatre, but trust me.
1
Scorsese should direct Disney/Marvels Fantastic 4 remake..
If Scorsese is so great he should show us how it’s done,,
3
Said the man who cannot leave gangster movies well enough alone and take a few risks himself in other "cinema" genres. Marty, you're cool, everyone says so...move on dude and make a film NO ONE WOULD EVER EXPECT YOU TO. Isn't that what real artists do?
5
Marvel movies and others like Terminator and Zombies are fun films, which I see.
Something like Motherless Brooklyn or The Shape of Water are "fun", but in a much different way.
1
Dear, Brilliant Mr. Scorsece,
Although I agree with many points you make. Please see JOKER. It's taken the franchise to an entirely new dimension. It's a masterpiece and I'm convinced it's a film you above all, will appreciate.
In the same vain, what's up with constant stream of Spiderman movies that have been coming out over the last decade? They don't even bother changing the story - just the actors. And people still flock to them (mostly millennials and gen-Z I assume).
3
I think most, but not all (because nothing is 100% absolute), would agree that Martin Scorsese is a brilliant filmmaker. However, even in his case, there is a repetitiveness to much of his work. His fascination with organized crime (one could even argue that some of these films are "genre" films because of this focus), a predominance of white male characters interacting with other white male characters, even his choice of actors.
This is not to say that his movies are not well crafted and engrossing, but not every one of his films is a life changing experience. Just the same, I can enjoy his films for what they are - and they definitely are cinema. Many are truly great cinema. But there are examples of great cinema in every genre: Musicals, Westerns, Science Fiction, Animation, Comedy, Horror, Romance, Thrillers, and yes (even though most here are violently against the idea) Superhero films. There are also examples of some pretty terrible films too.
I recognize today, that if we disagree, those we disagree with need to be classified as "wrong" and perhaps even "stupid", "Sub-literate", "low IQ",or even worse. That what we enjoy must be "great" and "perfect" and what we don't must be "terrible" and "sad". That's a shame. I enjoy many different types of films from "Meant Streets" to "Endgame". They are all cinema to me and I don't need to denigrate one to enjoy the other.
1
I'm (a lot) younger than Mr. Scorsese, but I couldn't agree more. Franchises have become far too prevalent and it's easy to see why. It's a big risk handing a director a pile of cash and trusting them to turn out a film that generates profit. The industry is cowardly and they want the easy money. If a formula sells, they'll beat that dead horse until every penny has been extracted.
The downside is that half the films in theaters today are some variation on a handful of basic formulas. There's nothing new to see there and it bores me. You can only get so much entertainment from watching superheroes blow stuff up. I'm just glad there are occasional gems being turned out from more independent directors like Mr. Scorsese. Otherwise, I'd probably stop going to the theater entirely.
2
The vast majority of these endless super hero movies are cotton candy drivel. Exhaustingly repetitive and unoriginal, without any insight into the human condition or to challenge ones perspectives. Sure the spectacle can be interesting once in a while, but my dollars are better spent on movies with a story and substance. Blowing up cities in every single movie is uninteresting and derivative.
2
Bravo!
1
Amen, brother.
1
No reason to make any excuses. None. The superhero films are dreck.
3
Spot on
2
Amen
2
Well, can't deny that the man has a point. I love the Marvel movies anyway. Most of them, at any rate.
Still though, in this era of prestige television, the artistic drive has shifted to the small screen. I think that in terms of total hours live action entertainment crafted with artistry and individual flair, there is at least as much out there now as when Scorcese was coming of age.
1
Sorry, but I don't see this as an either-or proposition. I happen to love CITIZEN KANE *and* THE DARK KNIGHT, TAXI DRIVER *and* LOGAN (which, with its integration of classic American cinema archetypes into a contemporary genre setting, is a film that I think would fascinate Scorsese).
Can't we just get along?
1
Thank you for organizing my thoughts on this, Mr. Sorcese. I can’t quite get through one of these movies either. I salute their technology but they’re not the art form that classic films are. They’re just comic books for non-readers brought to vivid exposition.
2
I used to go to the movies about four times a month - often more. Now I go about twice a year, if that. It's simply too expensive and time-consuming. Plus TV is way more interesting these days.
But when I do go to the pictures I want it to be a sure thing, given the cost.
Caught Once Upon a Time In Hollywood on the big screen with my wife and it was sublime. Last film I caught at the theater before that was probably Finding Dory with the whole family, which was also fantastic.
I would probably make it out for the Irishman but there is no need. Very much looking forward to watching it on Netflix...
1
Once talkies blow over, real pictures will come back.
5
Scorsese sure hit a nerve here. I love movies and I don't have a big problem with the Marvel movies. In terms of frequency of production, on that basis alone they constitute an astonishing achievement. What is it, nearly two dozen films in the space of just 11 years going back to the first Iron Man movie? It took more than 40 years for the James Bond franchise to churn out that many movies. And I don't think anybody would call the Bond films an example of a high art form.
Scorsese appears to be implying here that Robert Downey Jr. should come to despise Tony Stark the way Sean Connery came to hate James Bond. I hope that doesn't happen. The Marvel movies revived the somewhat moribund pre-2008 career of Downey and turned him into a superstar. For that reason alone I think Marvel films deserve some praise. Downey was an often misused, misunderstood talent until he stumbled upon the role of his life in Tony Stark.
I've watched many Scorsese films over the years--Goodfellas, Mean Streets, Hugo, The Wolf of Wall Street, The Departed, The King of Comedy, and others. All great, but the Marvel films have created something special and interesting as well.
1
I appreciate Scorsese's explication of his viewpoint here. I too wish access to indie theaters was universal across the U.S. I have but 2 issues with his piece:
1. Nowhere does he touch upon representation / inclusiveness in film and how important it is to people to see their own selves and stories represented on screen. In this respect I think movies across the board have come a long way since Scorsese's heyday, and I wish he would acknowledge that. "Black Panther" is an interesting case study where, while not as nuanced/subtle as Scorsese might like, the movie (directed by an African-American) very clearly had a positive emotional impact on black audiences around the U.S., and that is a valuable phenomenon irrespective of other considerations.
2. I think Scorsese understates the value of easy access to high-class cinema in the modern world. He can't seem to get past the ideal of the big-screen experience--which I understand, seeing as how he's a career filmmaker. But streaming services have allowed countless people to access the sorts of movies Scorsese supports here directly from their homes, and that's awesome. I see where he's coming from to an extent, surely--inattentively watching a Netflix movie while on the treadmill or something is pretty clearly not the ideal way to experience it. But I think most middle-class moviegoers are more likely to shell out a few dollars for an Amazon Prime rental than risk $13-18 a pop on artsy offerings at the theater.
1
Scorsese's criticism of the Marvel movies as lacking character development and real humanity is well taken, but trying to define which films qualify as "art" and which don't is very risky business. He has his definition; others may have their own, and ultimately, the passage of time best determines which films are regarded as great art. If Scorsese would define art to exclude the Marvel films, on which side of the divide do the Indiana Jones and Star Wars movies fall? What about Jaws? I think that, ultimately, Scorsese's efforts to categorize films is as flawed as the older effort to distinguish "high art" from "low art".
What a beautiful text about the essence of cinema and filmmaking. I grew up with an old movie theater beside my home and would go there every week. During college I had friends who were studying cinema and we set up a “Cineclube” where we would show movies different from the Blockbusters of the time. We ended up broke....
But I think what Mr Scorcese says about not being only about demand is right. I have a collection of DVDs and blu-rays at home and exposed my daughters to different styles of filmmaking from different countries and they loved them and showed them to their friends at school who would also like them.
But at the end, I also fall a bit for the Marvel movies... If only they would not push other movies from the big screen!
1
Yes, I agree with almost everything he wrote. Moreover, in general it's pretty slim pickin's today for movies made for mature, thinking audiences.
But I'd remind him that many good movies today are, and many over the decades have been, focus grouped to see how certain scenes-- especially closing scenes-- play to audiences. This is hardly a 21st century comic book franchise phenomenon.
1
I love the movie experience. Of course, there is nothing new under the sun, but there are countless ways to portray the few universal themes we are all living. For me, there are various continuums of excellence, beauty and truth and when these all reach a high level in a particular film, it is miraculous and often life-changing.
A poorly constructed film may yet be built on a story powerful enough to overcome the other weaknesses. I actually don’t mind hearing the camera noise in that shot in Rocky, or the rear screen projection in Hitchcock.
But, to the point: some art reaches a level at which we expect to find it in a fine museum and some doesn’t. If it is beautiful, good and true art, then there will be a place for it and it will be honored by its own audience.
What I need is not a formulated reminder of human values and the heroin’s journey. I need to be surprised, challenged and to have the fire rekindled to leave the theater changed for the better. I’ve had enough mere entertainment to last two lifetimes. If challenging and waking me are what Scorsese is about, thats where I want to invest my cinema hours. My life was never more recalibrated than when seeing To Kill a Mockingbird or Shenandoah. I can’t recall anything other than brief sugar high from the last superhero movie I saw. Life is short.
Well said - Scorsese puts into words the feeling that many of us (and I'm a millenial) have that art, and the culture that goes with it, is dying. I was fortunate to be introduced to great cinema by my Dad growing up, and I feel lucky to have this appreciation. I find the superhero films to be entirely formulaic and unwatchable, but unfortunately they seem to be here to stay. While I'm not in the arts, I hope that those of my generation who are might read this article and decide to take up the fight. We owe it to ourselves.
3
Interesting, but I still regard cinema as a social phenomenum strictly tied to the state of the society. So, there would be no way to think current cinema without considering the development of the entertainment industry - and underlining this indisputable aspect: it's an industry, so certainly it is thought to be free of risk.
Maybe Marvel is not art, as Scorsese argues (and I tend to agree). But is cinema only art piece? Well, that is a point to discuss.
I'd heard from a Marvel fan the comment made by Mr. Scorsese and instantly knew, without learning more until now, what he meant by the Marvel movies are not cinema. And, for the most part I agree.
Although, I would argue that the stories do contain an element of "...the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures"; they are largely show pieces highlighting the mastery of highly sophisticated graphics.
There's a fairly small percentage of the overall movie that contains shots of real people or places. So I get it when he says they're more like amusement rides. Fun but not much substance. In terms of consumption it's not much different to swilling down one of the large sodas they sell for $7 at the theater...just a lot of empty calories.
1
My man dropped truth bombs
2
“For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness.”
While I agree with Marty, in every particular- his quote above, is exactly the situation actresses have always faced, plus we also get rape or indifference.
1
So many comments are passing judgement on today’s generations, for partaking in the “shallow” experiences of Marvel movies. To them and to Mr. Scorsese, I would posit that they just may not have looked deeply enough into Marvel movies and the like, past the CGI, and instead to the film and its characters.
As someone who has watched the earlier films many times over, the recent Avengers: Endgame evoked more raw emotion in me than any film I have seen. Tony Stark was a character whom I had loved as much as one can love a character. The way he died crushed me more than any media form has ever made me feel. I have been unable to watch a Marvel movie since that point, simply because it makes me too sad. Will your films do that for me, Mr. Scorsese? Can any of them make me so truly, profoundly sad that I will be unable to even look at it for months afterwards?
I believe that Mr. Scorsese’s own criteria of cinema in this article all work to describe Marvel movies. Complexity of characters who hurt and love one another and come face to face with themselves: this is all seen throughout the Marvel saga. Some of the movies are more shallow than others; but as a whole there is a greatness to it. From the massive character arc of Tony Stark, to the profound sympathy and understanding one feels for the “villain” of Black Panther, a product of Oakland who aspires to black liberation. The complexity and revelation is there, Mr. Scorsese. You simply have not allowed yourself to see it.
3
Word.
I am in the film and cinema biz; I am not sure I would go into it today because I would not have been exposed to the world of cinema that inspired me (and the the challenges and fun of working with celluloid film).
Onward to wherever.
2
In the era that Scorsese was making some of his best films, the early 1970s, I was first introduced to the colorful and dynamic Marvel Universe. The characters and their stories—purchased in 25-cent increments on 7-11 spinner racks—filled my imagination and immersed me in the soap operaesque stories of Peter Parker, Steve Rogers, the X-Men, and many others.
When the nascent Marvel film franchise was building momentum, I did not foresee the day when it would become the dominant brand offered at our Cineplexes. Despite a nearly lifelong adoration of all things Marvel, I began to experience a degree of exhaustion with the films. Despite the fact that reading Marvel comics was perhaps THE single most enjoyable form of entertainment I engaged in as a child, the films themselves were pablum, regurgitated stories that were themselves rehashes of stories we had already seen in a dozen different genres.
I continue to love the Marvel universe, but the films, I'm sorry to admit, actually subtract from the experience for me more than they add. In an effort to bring these stories to the masses, their original novelty has been lost.
Mr. Scorsese is right. The age of blockbusters has quashed the art of film. Marvel is a symptom. We can only hope that more artistic offerings eventually make their way back to the screen, despite the intense wave of momentum against them.
I am fortunate that I live in a town with a major university that has a theater that shows a steady stream of indie films. I've seen some great ones there: After the Wedding, All is True, First Reformed, and The Guardians. I will, say, however, that I have enjoyed Netflix originals like the Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society. I can understand that filmmakers may want their work released on the big screen, but there are times when I prefer to watch something in the privacy of my home. I guess that's one of the changes we're going through in our culture. On both fronts (having a local indie theater, and having access to streaming content) I'm grateful I don't have to drive 50 minutes to enjoy good cinema!
1
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Scorsese. The repetitive formulaic Super Hero narratives have usurped the available screens to presence the gift of a real auteur’s vision, and to enjoy the experience of real film art in the manner it was intended, in an auditorium or “palace” with all the latest sound and visual technology available in service of worthy stories, that speak to our humanity, and the most stirring emotions of our personal and social reality.
I am so incredibly fortunate living in Maryland to have the AFI (American Film Institute) cinema in Silver Spring, Maryland where I can be found at least four or five times a month watching the great films since the silent era to today’s more limited menu of art cinema. For an avowed cinema addict and actor/screenwriter myself, it is an eternal balm l, and more, an actual antidote and form of therapy where I can defeat our current social malaise and the metastasized mediocrity invading every arena of our waking, zombified lives. At the AFI I can continue to experience the sublime, beautiful, poetic, powerful, and soul-informing experience of what cinema was meant to be, that I grew up with.
I was at a multiplex last week screening PARASITE and it was afforded the tiniest theatre and screen in spite of having won the Palm D’Or at Cannes, because garbage formula movies had the honor of all the big screens. In cinema, as in every other intellectual endeavor America has devolved into imbecilic mass-mesmerization. Tragic.
3
He's right! And I'm going to see The irishman at an "event " Broadway theater!
2
I'm considerably younger than Mr. Scorsese and I couldn't agree more. Even before hearing his remarks, I often likened going to the Marvel and other superhero films as theme park rides. They are filled with plot holes which their makers expect will be forgotten along with the fillings jarred out of your head by the sound. They are thrilling but throwaways and ultimately forgettable. I can't say that about any of the films he mentions, or any of his own work. I would welcome a day when theaters promote films like Rear Window the way they do these big films. True, there is nothing wrong with them for fun, but they aren't art. They are commerce, as one can tell by the obsession over their gross receipts.
2
Although I love Mr. Scorsese's movies, and empathize with his positions; the world moves on.
I am certain Shakespeare would have hated radio or cinema, it was no t the stage where true art was performed.
To hate television and streaming because a theater is where true cinema is shown, is just a bunch of condescending arrogance.
2
There was never an over abundance of great movies compared to the amount of movies made. Who cares where they are watched. Netflix has produced and shown some good films and tv shows. Scorsese’s among them, I’m sure.
Looking forward to The Irishman!
Marvel Universe is for Children. These "films" are no more fun for adults than a bouncy ball pit is.... Sure the kids love it but so what? Anyway, there are still over a thousand good movies I haven't seen yet.. Scorsese is right.
1
The picture (by Jasu Hu) accompanying this story says it all. One person in a theater that can seat hundreds is not going to cut it. Theaters have to pay rent and employees. That one person may as well sitting at home. Don't blame the franchise film industry for empty seats....
Buggy whips were great when we rode buggies
1
I know a writer for some of the Marvel movies.
Let me tell you there is room in this world for a Martin Scorsese films and Marvel movies.
This debate only matters in so much as people get out and see both at the theatre. When it devolves otherwise, it only serves to hurt everyone.
Go enjoy movies, they all have something to offer.
The super hero movies are nothing more than advertising vehicles for the after market junk merchandising. I seriously doubt anyone really remembers what they have viewed after watching 2 or 3 movies of this genre. Complete disposable trash. I guess that are an equivalent of an Ariana Grande song.
1
Funnily enough, when I was growing up in the late 50's and early 6o's none of the great artistic masterpieces were on the "great screen". On that screen you saw Taras Bulba, and Westerns. To see the art of Kurosawa, Fellini, Truffaut, Satyajit Ray, you had to go to an "Art Cinema" and see it on a relatively small screen. It has been, and will always be so, that the industry in which all of these films percolate and see the light of day consists of two words: show...and business. And I'm at least grateful that the works of Scorsese, will be on my TV screen, or my Mac, or my phone...in the same way I would have loved to see Ashes and Diamonds at a local multiplex (which didn't yet exist) but I'm glad I saw it at all back in the day, anywhere.
2
And graphic novels are not War and Peace. Now can we all go back to pulling our hair out about something that matters? Like mass extinctions.
Paraphrasing a TV ad from the '80s:"When Scorcese talks, everyone should listen."
No need to apologize for having desires past those of a 12 year old. It's just too bad the industry as a whole is just a garbage factory. It used to be most of the movies were generally at least fairly good with a few clunkers mixed in. Now, its almost all clunkers with a decent surprise mixed in here and there. But at nearly $20 for one ticket before parking, a date's ticket, concessions etc, who even wants to find out anyway?
1
I was brought up on "The Early Show" on CBS in which all sorts of Black and White films were shown from the 1930's,40's and50's. I understand where Mr. Scorese is coming from. I use to go to the 8th street Cinema in the Village in New York to watch all of Kurosawa's films which were stories that slowly developed, where you got vested in the characters. That is not what we are seeing today.
Super Hero movies are predictable, you have good guys and women, bad guys and women and a big Boom at the end...oh well.
Until the movie industry lets people write and film character films and not look for the next block busting money maker, we will lose the art that Mr. Scorese so desperately yearns for, and we, the audience, will be poorer for it.
"Cinema," eh, viz., more likely camera angle and lighting.
So, "Don't hate me because I think you have bad taste. It's just that the things you like are terrible". No apology required.
Another victim of the "woke" culture. So sad. All of these super hero movies are rather pathetic and predictable, so he should not have to apologize for stating the obvious.
This essay parallel's the great Harold Bloom's criticism of modern "young adult" books like the Harry Potter series.
There is dross and bilge and there is art.
Then again, Harry Potter and Marvel movies are art in the same way Duchamp's "fountain" was art.
1
I'm glad he didn't apologize for his comment about superhero movies. He just explained his comment but was not sorry for it as he shouldn't be.
However, this article is preaching to the choir. Those that didn't like his comment aren't going to read his op-ed in the NYT anyways.
Marvel movies aren't for you, I get it. Mob movies aren't for me.
1
I still love you, Marty, and I love a lot of Marvel, too. This summer, I viewed your buddy Leo’s “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” at an actual movie theatre and was shocked to see a much darker screen in front of me than my 65 inch Samsung 4K UHD at home where I watched Leo’s sparkling trailer on YouTube. I watch you, too— on TCM and Hulu and Amazon and Netflix—and, yes, I am really looking forward to seeing your new film “The Irishman” on my beautiful TV.
Thank you Mr Scorsese.
Well said Martin. Somebody had to speak out against the junk in the theaters today. Lot of people are sick and tired of these comic book movies.
1
This is a little like a great novelist going off on comic books.
1