Martin Scorsese says Marvel movies are 'not cinema'
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/oct/04/martin-scorsese-says-marvel-movies-are-not-cinema
shareHe continues to never be wrong.
share
MovieChat Forums > Martin Scorsese Discussion > Martin Scorsese says Marvel movies are '...
Kind of a dumb thing to say. No real reason to shit on someone else's work when you can just say it isn't really your thing and move on to the next question.
shareHe's not shitting on someone else's work. He's describing them as theme parks. And that's actually quite a good description. After all, Disney is a theme park company.
And there's nothing bad with theme parks. I love theme parks.
It depends on how you define cinema. You can make the definition as wide as to anything projected in a big screen, or narrow it. His definition is a narrow one. That's all.
To people that are in the business of making cinema, saying that their work is not cinema is pretty much shitting on them.
Disney is not in the business of making cinema, that's a ridiculous statement. Their films are the artistic equivalent of baby food. It comes basically pre-digested
You just have to look at their conveyor-belt production of Star Wars movies and live-action remakes to see that they could not care less about anything other than making money by providing mindless weekend entertainment
He wasn't talking about the crappy Star Wars films, he was talking about the MCU and comic films.
And to make a broad generalization statement like that is just incorrect. It reminds me of what critics used to say about the slasher genre in the '80s. It may not be your cup of tea, but that doesn't mean it isn't cinema.
So the MCU is cinema because you like it, but "crappy Star Wars films" aren't? They're both the same thing: soulless cash-grabs from a content-starved greedy corporation. MCU films just happen to have better producers: like a Disney ride vs. a local carnival ride
And there was at least something earnest about 80s slashers. Stock characters, sex, and kills. We weren't asked to believe that they were more than that. But we're supposed to care when Gamora is killed or when Spider-Man is turned to ash like we don't all know they're coming back for the dozens of sequels that have already been announced? It's a joke. It's so phony. A good time, yes. But so is a theme park
Somebody hand this man a prize.
share[deleted]
Cyber bob you are the man, preach!
shareIf its shot on film and its shown in a theater. Then its cinema. Like all art, it can be good and bad. But that dosn't make it art. Stop with your shitty semantics. Plan 9 from outer space is just much art as Citizen Kane. One just better than other.
shareSo you concede that some art is better than other art...
Scorsese is saying that, basically. He just chooses to use idiosyncratic phrasology like "cinema", because he's an old man who can't be bothered to provide a TED talk about how he defines certain terms
To him, "cinema" is a movie that focuses primarily on quality storytelling. "theme park" movies focus primarily on spectacle and drawing in the masses. "Cinema" does not compromise its intentions in order to reap mass profits. "theme parks" do compromise at almost every turn in order to the widest possible audience
I am not going to continue explaining Scorsese's POV for him. You either agree or don't. You either wanna dig into his interviews and essays to understand his POV or you don't. I don't really care. I agree with him, don't care if you do or don't
Who know that corporation wanted to make money, Commie. Also earnest is not how describe 80s slashers movies. More like Stupid and Predictable as hell. Im not saying the MCU are masterpiece. But there not pretending to be. And Hollywood has been in the business of making theme park rides since the beginnings. Its called Escapism. Its actually been around for a long time. Maybe you should stop acting like a pretentious dipshit.
shareWho know that corporation wanted to make money, Commie. [..] Im not saying the MCU are masterpiece. But there not pretending to be. [...] Its called Escapism. Its actually been around for a long time. Maybe you should stop acting like a pretentious dipshit.
Let's apply your way of thinking to modern art.
A guy takes a balloon full of paint and throws it against a canvas. Scorsese says that's no art. Is it? What would you answer? Let's hear you:
Who know that painter wanted to get a quick painting, Commie. [...] Im not saying the splatter are masterpiece. But there not pretending to be. [...] It's called Abstract. It's actually been around for a long time. Maybe you should stop acting like a pretentious dipshit.
Interesting your take on modern art, huh? share
Well i would say who gets to decide what is art. Is a 6 year olds drawing not art. Are primitive Cave Painting not art. Is JRR Tolkien books not literature because he wrote about Hobbits, Wizards, Talking Trees and Orks. Dose Art have to be about A$$holes in the Real World. Or can it be about the Fantastical. Can art be about Good People and not Just A$$holes. I think its a lot more Creative to come up with worlds off the out the top of your head. Then go to the most horrible places or people on earth, looking around and make movie about it. Im not saying all the MCU movies are masterpieces. A lot of the solo hero movies have been same-y lately. But not all of them are bad. I do like more high brow stuff. Like Citizen Kane, The Third Man, 12 Angry Men, The Shawshank Redemption, To Kill a Mockingbird. Sorry, Outside of a few things. Im not much of a fan of Marty. Anyways There a long history of pretentious people trying the be the gatekeepers of what art is or is not.
shareHuh, interesting that you feel that 80s slashers are inferior and have no problem voicing that opinion
But if someone like me or Scorsese say basically the same thing about movies that you actually like we're pretentious dipshits?
Not surprising that MCU fans think and talk like children considering what their favorite movies are
Im not going say that the MCU movies are all masterpieces. But to saying that there not Cinema and not art. Is fucking pretentious. Its the same pretentious shit they were probably saying in the 30's about Universal Monster movies. The same pretentious shit they said about Hammer Horror movies that Marty loved as a child. But obviously his not a hypocrite. I hate to break this to you. But the MCU and Superhero movies in General are not the first fucking examples of Escapism in Cinema/Films/Movies. The more you demand that art can only be about depressing shit. The more you sound like Pretentious twats. Do i think 80's slashers are not art or cinema, no. But i think there predictable as hell with boring characters and besides the first Halloween. There mostly forgettable.
shareNobody is saying art can’t be escapist but these dopey superhero movies don’t even try to say anything interesting or try to do something new. It’s the same formula repeated over and over and somehow lemmings keep forking over cash.
I love Scorsese, but I completely disagree with him. Marvel and other superhero movies are definitely cinema, and some of them are quite good.
shareSuperhero films are the whole definition of cinema. Films that show how the real world is and teach us real life lessons are important and should always been made.
However Cinemas main purpose is entertainment and that's what Superhero films deliver like no other film does.
If you aren't entertained from them that's fine but... you're in the minority
Films that show how the real world is and teach us real life lessons are important and should always been made.
People flying around in tights and fighting in outer space aren't what I would call a film that shows me how the real world is. But I guess some of the comic book films have good lessons about responsibility, morality, and doing the right thing.
I love Scorsese, he's my favorite director, and while I agree with him most of the time, and as sick as I'm getting of comic book movies at this point, I would disagree that they aren't cinema. It's ALL cinema. Just a different genre. share
It's more that films based on real life events and are more realistic try more to teach us a lesson than films based on fantasy and sci-fi.
shareI don't want to watch movies about real life all the god damn time. If i want real life, ill watch the fucking news.
shareAgreed 100%
Escapist silliness (zombies, superheroes, John Wick type action stuff) is way more enjoyable than the terrible news every evening
'House fire in Queens kills family, Mass shooting at Oshkosh Mall, Police kill a guy!' ...Hard Pass on that stuff
Give me fun stupid entertainment anytime
I understand the need & pleasure of escapist entertainment, and enjoy it myself. But one of the inherent messages of superhero films is that ordinary people can do nothing meaningful to improve or save their lives. Only the super-powered can do that. Yet in the real world, as opposed to that of entertainment, it's precisely those "ordinary people" who have made the difference, time & time again.
shareIs that always the case, though? I find that, often, some of the best life messages are coming from fantasy and sci-fi films. Wrath of Khan, for instance, deals with aging, with facing loss and grief, and with the limitations of heroes. Okay, it's a book, but Lord of the Rings is the most renowned fantasy story of all time, but its messages about friendship, the corrupting influence of power (and greed), its messages about environmentalism, its themes about selflessness (and on and on - just scratching the surface) are delivered as powerfully as any "realistic" world.
I do think a lot of comic book movies are vapid, formulaic junk food. Doesn't mean they aren't fun, and it doesn't mean that none of them have value, but I can't write off movies as being shallow just based on genre alone. Within the superhero genre, I could point to Logan or Batman Returns and say that they contain powerful commentary on the real world.
To me a movie like The Savages (with Laura Linney and Phillip Seymour Hoffman) are movies that show how the real word is. Not the typical superhero movie.
shareI never meant Superhero films show how the real world is.
I simply said that films that show how the real world is should also be made, not only Superhero films.
I think he's right. They're candy; there's no nutritional value, as it were. I'm not saying it's bad. But, what Scorsese's talking about here, I think he's right. I'm not sure all of them are that way, but most of them are fluffy fun. Which, is perfect, because I think that's what they're trying to be, right?
Kevin Feige's response was childish, by the way: mentioning the billion dollar profits (I made more money, so there!) and that Hitchcock never won Best Director. You, sir, are no Hitchcock.
Kevin Feige's response was childish, by the way: mentioning the billion dollar profits (I made more money, so there!)
I can't stand people who do this! Ugh. Well, it made more money than you, so take that!
Milli Vanilli made a ton of money. The boy bands, Britney Spears, Justin Bieber...all made a TON of money. Money does not equal good. Money does not equal talent. I wish more people would get that through their skulls. share
All Scorsese would have to say is: "at least I don't make the same kind of movie". Feige has produced only superhero films. Literally. He doesn't have a single producing credit in movies or TV that isn't superhero related. I'd love to see what Feige would have to defend that statement.
shareThank you for pointing this out! Despite being known for gangster pictures, Scorsese's CV is amazingly diverse!
I've seen interviews where Joss Whedon is candid about how the Avengers movies he directed were basically just goofy, dumb fun. He embraced it. He knew what he was making. Graham Greene used to draw distinctions between his novels (his serious works) and his "entertainments" (the pulpy and/or fun ones). These are people who recognise that the world is big enough for art films, well-made cinema, AND theme park ride superhero flicks.
Feige's response should have been, "You bet: that's exactly what I make: fun."
Exactly. There's nothing wrong with admitting that you made a popcorn movie. When you try to make it sound like you've done high art, that's when it starts looking foolish.
shareFeige sold his soul to Disney and Bob Iger. He's like a sweatshop laborer except that he's making millions. They pay him well to ensure that he continues working only on Disney related properties to keep the dough rolling in
shareThe thing is that these movies are box office slam dunks. Anybody who has money could produce these and people will go just because it's a Marvel movie. At some point when you're a producer, there should be a time when you realize that you have to move on to something else. It's been 11 years and he's still producing only superhero movies. And who knows how many there are coming up. This isn't good producing, it's just obvious producing and he's capitalizing on it.
shareThere still making Superhero movies. Because Avengers Endgame made 2 billion dollars.
shareIm pretty sure that Robert Downey jr isn't being paid sweatshop money. Feige didn't sell his soul to Disney. If anything Disney bought him. Maybe you'll have to live with the fact. That some people actually like Escapist Fiction and Dont have stick up there ass. Sorry
share"Feige didn't sell his soul to Disney. If anything Disney bought him."
LOL, wtf is the difference? In order for one party to sell something another party necessarily has to be buying it. It's called a tautology
That argument certainly belies an insecurity at the heart of the person invoking it.
shareKevin Feige is a producer. Not a director you. Escapist Entertainment is been around forever. And not everyone wants to watch movies after movie about some kids puppy get run over by a truck. Dumbass.
shareAlways exciting when famous director makes a statement like that!
shareLove the irony of Martin Scorsese making holier than thou statements like that whilst casting real "actor" Leonardo DiCrapio in particularly every film he makes for, erm, I guess, his acting abilities 😂
shareWatch "What's Eating Gilbert Grape", and then come back and belittle DiCaprio's acting abilities.
shareI think perhaps you missed the point...
shareOh, you had a point??
All I saw was you obliquely disparaging Leo DiCaprio, in a post that purported to be about Martin Scorcese's failings as you perceive them.
If you meant to put a point in that pointless post, maybe you should actually make a direct statement.
You never saw me obliquely disparaging him at all - I literally put quotes around him being an "actor" and questioned him being cast for his acting abilities. And the purpose was to draw out a drooling DiCarpio fan as it inevitably would to make the point stand out - a point you were always going to be too triggered to see.
The point was already there but I'll restate it - It is IRONIC that Scorsese would mock comic book films as not "real" movies whilst having so heavily cast an "actor" many people would consider something of a joke. Now obviously you and others may not think that (and I'm not going to further elaborate on the merits or otherwise of DiCaprio, that's not the point) but I personally find it amusing that he would feel himself in a position to disparage other directors / actors efforts through his own subjective opinion on what makes a "movie", whilst being a professional in the industry using cash grabbing tactics himself.
Putting quotes around Actor was the very definition of disparagement. Don't you know that? Same as if I put quotes around your username while discussing the peculiarity of usernames that people choose. It's a tacit insult.
And make up your mind. Your purpose was to draw out a fan, or your purpose was to ridicule Scorcese? Which is it? You've deliberately misspelled DiCaprio's name twice already, so it seems your target is DiCaprio. But then, by your own admission, you're trying to use sneaky verbal devices to reinforce your mockery of Scorcese. I don't think you know what you want.
By the way, argumentum ad populum never works.
I'm quite happy with my understanding of the meaning of disparagement. I'm just not particularly convinced of your understanding of the meaning of oblique.
I'm not going to continue to re-say the same thing over and over again but for a final time I wasn't mocking Scorsese per se, I was laughing at the irony of his comment. He cast what he obviously considers to be his superior opinion on something which is subjective, despite doing crowd pleasing of his own with casting choices in his own movies.
Sorry if you cannot see that but then your opinion as a DiCaprio fan is as far from being subjective as the opinion of MCU fan's might be with regard to Scorsese's comments.
You offered your insult of DiCaprio by framing it in the context of a wry comment ostensibly about Martin Scorcese. Obliquely. Get it now?
The rest of your last post reeks of contempt for Scorcese, DiCaprio, and myself. If you don't see that, it's futile to continue discussing this topic with you. I always think that, if a person is going to offer an opinion, particularly a vigorous opinion, he should do it openly and honestly, and not try to disguise it as something else.
Your post history is literally only superhero and Star Wars films. Just admit that you don't know shit about movies, just a few select geek franchises
I have never heard a single person describe DiCaprio as a joke. The only people who I can think might feel this way are nutjob climate change deniers
Dearie me 😂 The irony... Quality post!
shareSo they only way you can know about film is unless you watch pretentious Scorsese films. Because there no other Directors than your god Scorsese. And when DiCaprio started. He was a joke.
shareDiCaprio has been nominated for 5 Oscars. Not sure why you're putting "actor" in quotes. DiCaprio isn't in The Irishman, Hugo or Silence. That's three in 8 years that he wasn't in so I wouldn't say "particularly every film he makes ".
share