Scorsese explains why he thinks Marvel movies aren't cinema

[Farealmer]

The purpose of criticism is always "do better". When a critic or someone expressing a critical opinion says something, the intent isn't that the figure being criticized will always do bad stuff forever, the hope is that maybe they will do better.

Not always. And better in this case is a subjective term. A better MCU for Scorsese doesn't mean a better MCU for others. Who gets priority?
Also

When Scorsese was young, he had mentors talk smack about projects he did. John Cassavetes called one of his movies a "piece of s--t" and Scorsese said that Kazan often expressed disappointment about his stuff, and his film school teacher asked him why was he bothering making movies about low-lives. Scorsese didn't throw hissy fits about it like Bob Iger did (which was really childish in his response and made him look like a fool), he took it in stride

Was this criticism done to have him do better? And did he change his vision and methods to appeal to those critics?

In practice, that's not how things have ever worked. Aesthetic arguments and ideas have nothing to do with the marketplace. The idea of "nobody should be shames for financial success just because some people don't like what they sell" has never been followed universally. If I say that Michael Bay is as good as MCU based on commercial success will MCU fans agree? The fact that Venom 2018 by Sony made a lot of money but is widely seen as a bad movie and by MCU fans especially, is another one. Joker 2019 is the biggest superhero movie ever in profit margin but a lot of people, fans of MCU and outside, don't consider it an especially good movie. Star Wars prequels being commercial successes and juggernauts, as well as The Last Jedi hasn't shut down criticism of it. Nor has Game of Thrones Season 8.

People often fail to live up to things they perhaps should. Doesn't mean they couldn't strive to be better.

The American Dream is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" which all people who are "created equal" are entitled to.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/the_american_dream

It would be one thing for a movie to be allowed screenings and then failing to get an audience for all kinds of reasons. That happens to all kinds of movies, good and bad and film-makers in that situation might feel miffed but at least they lost fair and square. It's quite another when a movie with a high profile cast and subject as Irishman, doesn't get funding from any big studio simply because they won't fund non-franchise movies (when essentially Irishman is a sure-fire Oscar movie) forcing him to go hat-in-hand to Netflix and be stuck with a short release schedule in specialty theaters before going streaming only. In this case the marketplace didn't vote out Scorsese, the system enclosed him from the get-go. And that happens to Martin Scorsese a film-maker active for sixty years who's most recent films such as The Departed, Shutter Island, Wolf of Wall Street were huge hits across the world. What would happen to smaller film-makers who don't even get that far?

That's economics. I won't fault theaters or studios for working in their best interests. Unlike Scorsese they can't survive off "artistic integrity".

Not Scorsese himself in other words. Scorsese would never call for any movie ever to be banned. He has championed film-makers who are oppressed and persecuted like the Iranian film-maker Jafar Panahi among others.

I am not the one that needs to understand that if this thread is any indication.

[Scott Taylor]

B&TEA was infinately more deep than Breakfast Club. Breakfast Club was pure teen cliche with little originality.

Lol! Whaaaaaat?

I love B&TEA more than Breakfast Club. But what in the world did it say about anything deep?

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

And you're entire argument seems to suggest that people shouldn't be allowed to defend their work or product if someone of supposed 'high importance' criticises it (and you have another user here saying said people are "delusional" for doing so). It's almost like you people don't even know how to paint Scorsese in this situation. One moment he's a victim of internet and fanboy outrage. The next he is the unbothered maestro who's speaking truths. Which one is it?

Regardless of how you want to attempt to spin it, the people at Marvel are the victims here (if there's such a thing in this situation). They were the ones that were (and always have been) criticised repeatedly by someone with a platform. And every single one of them has a right to defend their work, even if they didn't pull the best defense. Because frankly, a lot of Scorsese's points are bullshit too. Saying theatres should refuse to play big budget films is nonsense. How else do you want them to survive? How else do you think they're surviving in this post-streaming, post-piracy environment? And saying something isn't cinema or a form of art and then having to define what that art is supposed to be makes you a gatekeeping elitist.

Scorsese's initial comment was that Marvel movies aren't cinema because they don't communicate emotional and psychological experiences. That's a definitive, objective statement for something that is highly subjective. What is an emotional experience for someone might not be for another person. It's why different genres exist and why people have different tastes. Someone may have a genuine emotional or psychological experiences to heavy metal and I can just think it's loud noise. Now if I were to say that about heavy metal without even bothering to listen to it, I should be rightfully called out. That's what is happening here, and that's why it became a big deal in the first place. Because Scorsese attempted to pass off a subjective opinion as an objective fact, and then started lamenting about how theatres should not support certain movies, kept repeating this sentiment and then wrote an entire op-ed. If anything, he wrote that piece because he knew he fucked up (because almost all of that rhetoric was gone from it).

And yes, Scorsese didn't need to repeat himself. The first time he made this comment he also said the actors of the films did a good job ("given the circumstances"), so he didn't add anything new. It was the same remark over and over again, and we all got it. Saying he needed to clarify himself is bunk when he didn't do that at all. What's funny is that he can shut down questions. When asked about why almost why almost none of his films feature strong female characters he said it was irrelevant. Please tell me how a Marvel movie is relevant to The Irishman? He can refuse to answer questions about his own films, but he can go on and on about other people's films he has barely seen.

Nobody said they can’t defend themselves. That’s a false point. The content and context matters. Scorsese gave his opinion and then explained it while putting everyone involved in a good light. Gunn whined because a director he liked didn’t care for his films. He basically said “this makes me sad guyz”. Igor acted like a dick going on his little tirade and yeah he did try to invoke the one film he knew would start a race issue if it was criticized (because it notably has many times). And Feige made ridiculous arguments that make him look childish. Notice I didn’t criticize RDJ and Cumberbatch. And yeah just this thread is an example of how insane the fan response is. **** like Scorsese is jealous and all his movies are the same and that he’s secretly some sell out.

So yeah you are vastly minimizing it and ignoring the content of everyone’s behavior to make it seem more docile. Only one person here spinning.

Marvel aren’t victims lol. That is preposterous and childish. They make films, people are allowed to say they don’t like that and give their criticism. If that makes them victims they should stop making films. Preposterous.

He’ll if anyone is a victim here it’s Scorsese, you’re flat out lying about him. He never once said theaters should refuse to play them. That’s something you made up. But apparently I’m the one overstating things lol.

This is pointless

[Farealmer]

He’ll if anyone is a victim here it’s Scorsese, you’re flat out lying about him. He never once said theaters should refuse to play them. That’s something you made up.

Not just him

I think he has a vendetta towards marvel. I have seen directors slam marvel in the past but Scorsese cannot just seem to shut up. It's been a month and he has talked about how he dislikes marvel like 4 times, even going as far as to do an OP-ED this week. If he has his way, he will ban marvel movies.

Why so silent about this?

[Scott Taylor]

See I hate when People say that. Two easiest example from the MCU of Deeper themes is Guardians of the Galaxy and Black Panther. Both have run of the mill surface themes Gotg has family and Friendship etc.. and Black Panther Opression and Isloationism. But none of those are the core of those movies . Guardians is about Abuse and Trauma and how it shapes us. Groots the only one exempt because we dont know his childhood but even supporting chatacters like Yondu and Mantis even apply. Drax also was an adult when his trauma happened so hes an outlier since its childhood trauma for most every other character. Black panther at its core is about Killmonger and Tchalla. Killmonger being a stand in for the African Ameican experience and Tchalla for Black excellence. Ive mentioned this mutiple times on this thread so I wont waste anyones time elaborating further without cause.

Defiently plenty of the MCU movies arent made with deep philosophic themes underlining the narratives but even the ones that dont Work because instead of getting you invested in the Plot they get you infested in the Hero. Which is smart cause now they know if they make a reasonably well made movie your willing to take that ride becuase you love Thor or Ironman or Antman... whoever you name it. Which in of itself is Art and not easy. But painting the entire MCU with a broad brush is silly. Also Hallmark movies are cheap and poorly acted. Even Scorsese admitted these movies are well Made. That comparison isnt fair.

Thing is it is very easy to have the rose-colored glasses on about the MCU because its so well-crafted and the movies have such great construction, great actors and wonderful lines and action sequences. But deep? Just about every moment that has even the potential to be a little bit serious has a gag or one-liner or joke. The epitomy of this is Yondu walking through the huge ship of Ravagers murdering every last one of them with his arrow. Every. One. While we hear a nice soundtrack of "Come a Little Bit Closer" plays jauntily in the foreground. Are all of those guys really guilty of anything? Taser Face was their leader. But let the murdering commence because it looks cool or something.

And saying those movies are about abuse and trauma seems quite the stretch to me. What exactly do they say about it? That seems more like Rocket's barely there character arc, than the movie's main theme. Quill doesn't care about being abducted by aliens as a kid, he only brings it up in a jokey way to win arguments with Yondu. Does he have brothers or sisters or other family? We'll never know because he doesn't care about earth. His natural family could be really cool, but he'll never know. We're asked to accept that now Yondu is his forever family because - we're never really told. We know Yondu used Quill to do burglary stuff and, like Dread Pirate Roberts with Wesley, developed a sort of semi-abusive relationship with Quill. And we know that Yondu knew about Quill's dad and yet failed to tell Quill about his dad kidnapping and killing kids. Don't you think that might be a good bit of information for Quill to have had, if Yondu really cared about him? Good Will Hunting did a way better job at all of those themes, and its not even all that great of a movie!

These movies aren't meant to handle deep topics or say something truly meaningful. They use tons of shortcuts to provide an illusion that they do, but there is really nothing to learn that could be applied to one's own life.

Black Panther, you have a point about with the racial undertones but it is a definite outlier. Plus it has some undercutting of its own themes as well. Its never satifcatorily explained by T'Chaka killed his own brother rather than ... almost any other option. That scene was there solely because of the plot the movie had to have, it didn't evolve organically from the characters.

Plus I think the MCU should be considered to be art, and the movies are well made, but those concepts aren't the thrust of Scorcese's arguments here.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Not just him



Why so silent about this?

I can’t go down this rabbit hole

[Blind Wedjat]

If this pernicious logic were enforced universally, then no one would be allowed to express any criticism or opinion or point of view in public ever again. That's now how this has ever worked any time before. If someone criticizes you in public, you take it, roll-with-the-punches and if you give enough of a s--t and are not content with making cash and so on, you go out and make a better work of art, you set out to prove them wrong. People have a right, especially in a Democratic society, to express points of view about anything. Painting people who respond to criticism as "victims" is real corporate drone mentality there. Dystopian stuff.

Look at George Lucas. That guy is a famous good sport, he helped with the VFX of Spaceballs, thought Hardware Wars was hilarious and neither he nor Lucasfilm ever made a move against those awful RLM videos about the prequels even if the stuff in that was kind of libelous. Brian DePalma has publicly mocked Star Wars and yet Lucas doesn't go out and do a hissy fit about how DePalma's movies are Hitchcock ripoffs and have been consistent low performers at box-office and so on.



No they don't. Benedict Cumberbatch handled things deftly. And if they are compelled to defend that work it's probably because of what happened to James Gunn during his firing/rehiring and a need to protect their salaries and so on.



He's not saying that. He's saying they should allow to play all kinds of films. He's also alluding to something the Walt Disney company does, which is muscle out the competition, or any competition as this article pointed out:
https://www.vulture.com/2019/10/disn...its-vault.html

Disney is using a lot of hard and soft power to make sure that multiplexes only screen the kinds of movies they prefer/favor/make-money-for-them. It's actively monopolistic. Which is to say that it's trying to be, aspiring to be, a monopoly while outwardly appearing as an organic or earned monopoly i.e. we earned being the only game in town.



Or it's simply daring them to do better. Scorsese is offering an opinion and saying where he comes from. And instead people just want to paint that in the blackest of terms.

Honestly what the hell are you even talking about? Absolutely no one from the Marvel defense has attacked Scorsese or his work. All of them have pointed out how great of a filmmaker he is while respectfully disagree. You're seriously overstating their reaction as if all of them went around discrediting everything he's done which they didn't. Show me multiple examples of this thing you claim. Feige in his most recent response literally said Scorsese is entitled to his opinion and they're just gonna keep making movies. Gunn said he was hurt by his comments but he didn't start saying Scorsese's films were bad or anything. Every single one of them have given him the respect he deserves.

The only ones that have outright dismissed his films are fanboys but I don't see why that isn't fair game. Scorsese is most known for directing mobster, gangster and crime films. That's a fact, and if someone is ignorant enough to say that's all he does and gets called out for it, I don't see why Scorsese is allowed to do the same thing for a franchise he admits he has barely watched. And proving people wrong is something Marvel has been doing since they became popular. Spielberg said they'd die out like the westerns and they've only gotten more popular. Insiders have been going on about comic book movie fatigue for years and there's been no sign of it. Weird Snyder fans have been proclaiming the end of Marvel since 2013 and it never came. Several directors and actors have said they weren't good movies and now they've had multiple Oscar nominations including Best Picture and three of those Awards. Feige has always addressed whatever criticism came his way and proved otherwise. This is just the loudest one and it will be no different.

Why Marvel choosing to defend their work is something you cannot say definitely without making things up, but to say they neither have a right to defend their work or arw only doing it for public relations reasons just makes you sound delusional. You do realise that you're using the exact train of thought of those that say Scorsese is only do this for press, right? The hypocrisy in this thread knows no bounds. And Cumberbatch's opinion is his alone. I doubt he wants to speak for everybody, and you shouldn't be asserting that he isn't. Not only does he have less of a stake as he has only starred in one film as opposed to Feige who has produced all of those films and has been his source of employment for years, or Gunn who wrote and directed two of those films and that's how he got his big break, but he's only one man amongst hundreds that are involved in these films.

Furthermore, Scorsese repeatedly said theatres were being "invaded" and taken over by Marvel movies and they should "stand up to it". Not only is that a ridiculous thing to ask of them, but it's also directing his frustration at the wrong people. It is the studios that determine how a film is distributed to save costs or maximise profits. And Marvel Studios was literally created to make superhero blockbusters, and Disney has been working with IP driven content for decades. Both are hardly the right people to even direct this complaint towards. Rather it is Warner Brothers, Paramount, Sony and the like that have been chasing IPs very recently and leaving low and mid budget film directors in the dust. Likewise, Disney's shady practices has nothing to with whether Marvel movies are cinema or not.

[luprki]

Is anyone really surprised that a filmmaker like Scorsese doesn’t like the MCU?

[Blind Wedjat]

And let's not act as if those that hate Marvel movies don't let them have anything. You say they're successful because of their box office and they throw up the "money doesn't equal quality" card and use movies they know weren't acclaimed to counter. You say Marvel movies are good by bringing up their overall positive reception from critics and they say review aggregators are skewed in their favour, don't matter or the more extreme say there was bribery involved. You bring up their accolades and they say that the movie that was nominated and won the most prestigious of them all didn't deserve it.

For some Marvel movies have to do the impossible of personally pleasing them and only them, and since that can't be done there's no credit to give them.

[Blind Wedjat]

Is anyone really surprised that a filmmaker like Scorsese doesn’t like the MCU?

No one is surprised by it. Nobody even needs Scorsese to say they're good movies or that he likes. Nobody needs or wants that validation. But to say they aren't cinema and admit to ignorance is just being elitist.

[Farealmer]

No one is surprised by it. Nobody even needs Scorsese to say they're good movies or that he likes. Nobody needs or wants that validation. But to say they aren't cinema and admit to ignorance is just being elitist.

For me this is it exactly. I've never been a fan of artistic gatekeeping/elitism. Not in page, picture, tabletop, video games, or film. Like stuff or don't, it's your choice, but saying something isn't art or film or whatever because you don't like it is a step too far. And one in a bad direction that, IMO, modern society shouldn't be going.

[Scott Taylor]

I wonder is Scorcese feels the same about his own movie, After Hours? Its pretty much an MCU movie, by his definition. Twisted one, but still.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I wonder is Scorcese feels the same about his own movie, After Hours? Its pretty much an MCU movie, by his definition. Twisted one, but still.

Scorsese has said that The Departed is not a movie of his that he likes and he's amazed/bemused that it won him an Oscar. All he says about it is that the Oscar win made it easier for him to make movies after that, at least until Irishman. When he won the Oscar he said, "It's the first movie of mine with a plot". So yeah, Scorsese can be pretty critical of his own stuff. And he's never been thin skinned about criticism. A good number of his movies you know got critical beatings before being considered classics. That happened to The King of Comedy. On the DVD commentary, Scorsese talks about seeing a report on variety going, "The bomb of the year, King of Comedy".

You're seriously overstating their reaction as if all of them went around discrediting everything he's done which they didn't. Show me multiple examples of this thing you claim.

Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, said Scorsese was "bitching about his movie". Leaving aside that it's pretty inappropriate for the CEO of a family-friendly corporation like Disney which is also image conscious to use the word "bitch" as a verb...that's still a pretty childish response from the leader of a corporation.

Feige in his most recent response literally said Scorsese is entitled to his opinion and they're just gonna keep making movies.

He also said that they take risks by citing the obviously gonna be undone deaths of Infinity War. That's a weak-ass defense.

Why Marvel choosing to defend their work is something you cannot say definitely without making things up, but to say they neither have a right to defend their work or arw only doing it for public relations reasons just makes you sound delusional. You do realise that you're using the exact train of thought of those that say Scorsese is only do this for press, right? The hypocrisy in this thread knows no bounds. And Cumberbatch's opinion is his alone. I doubt he wants to speak for everybody, and you shouldn't be asserting that he isn't. Not only does he have less of a stake as he has only starred in one film as opposed to Feige who has produced all of those films and has been his source of employment for years, or Gunn who wrote and directed two of those films and that's how he got his big break, but he's only one man amongst hundreds that are involved in these films.

Let me see:
Poster says that theory that Marvel actors are defending it out of corporate loyalty and fear of salaries are delusional. Then offers arguments saying Cumberbatch has less at stake than other people thereby admitting that some amount of corporate influence does exist.

[luprki]

No one is surprised by it. Nobody even needs Scorsese to say they're good movies or that he likes. Nobody needs or wants that validation. But to say they aren't cinema and admit to ignorance is just being elitist.

Even still, It’s his opinion. Why do people care so much about his opinion?
Everybody is not going to like the MCU. Why people can’t accept that fact is beyond me.

[CliffHanger2]

Because one refects life and one doesn't. Chinatown was an introspection of a flawed and jaded man trying to serve a higher purpose when a cause he believed in presented itself in his life and then the the systemic hierarchy that made him the way he was completely undermined and reinforced the original point he started at and he was forced to accept the tragedy of it. The Godfather was the examination of a man who was actively trying to escape the destiny his natural family had provided for him and ultimately found that he was actually well suited to that and lost himself to it. And that's just base line main character takes on the film. They are about human reflection and an insight into the structures of life.

A superhero film can never be that because the ultimate conceit is that you make something about the hero inately above humanity and that gives them their strength. Yes you can make the case that Tony Stark had a character journey as a jaded man to selfless hero. However his journey was the result of him being unrelatably intelligent to the point where he found himself in a savior position where he was able to realize that he alone had special abilities that could save the world and it was more of a matter of if he would choose that path. Superman has the same issue. Some of his best stories deal with his isolationism, but ultimately nobody can relate to that because higher calling is being Superman and that's what propells and resolves any conflict. Ultimately when the answer to every final conflict is "this is the hero, there's some power or desire him that will make him checkmate the conflict of the film (and even if you pull an Infinity Wars or Death of Superman, you are just delaying it). It's why the first Rocky is the best one. He flatout tells you he's not good enough to beat Creed (because in reality he shouldn't be) and all he really wants is to survive the beating and take the punishment at any cost because if he can do that he can at least justify that he's not a total bum. All the other films he's a superhero who is going to find the will to win no matter what because he has heart (his superpower). It just really doesn't say anything about life when the hero by virtue of being the hero is special enough to resolve the conflict. There's nothing someone you can take from that.

That's not to say they can't be well crafted films or be entertaining. But that's all they can every really be under that guise. It's why the stories that surpass the genre have tended to be things that suverted the tropes or used them in a different way. Watchmen made the heroes humans and made being a hero not very unique and ultimately the real heroes of the story were out manuevered by the smartest man in the world who had the backing of the most powerful man in the world and they had to find solace knowing that some things were just above them even if they weren't entirely ethical and the one guy who tried to fight the power paid a price. It's relateable and it says something about the human experience. Sometimes terrible things hold up massive institutions and ultimately that is bigger and more important than the individual. Or even something like DKR where ultimately Batman loses because he's not as powerful as the government and Superman but he does continue to fight and learns that he can find fulfillment in continuing his own little private war and leaving a legacy even if nothing comes of it in the end (which is more optimistic). **** even the Infitity Gauntlet storyline worked because it was about a guy who gained ultimate power but realized he wasn't worthy of it and ultimately sabotaged himself and found his own inner peace knowing he didn't deserve nor want to be chained with that burden. And that's not even an all time great story, but it's a good way to keep the trope of amazing powers but also have a real protagonist (antagonist) who can make an introspection that is worth thinking about.

Very well written post but I still have to disagree. What about all those time-honored classics that are about hope,redemption and the highest human ideals? They don't necessarily reflect "reality" neither do some of the greatest works of art that have survived for hundreds or even thousands of years. Art doesn't have to be about the way things are it can/should be about the way things should be. Not necessarily reality but truth.

Granted it can be a slippery slope because ppl can have twisted views on the way things should be or truth. The whole white savior trope is a good example of that. But art that just reflects on the worst in humanity or human weakness is not inherently better. In fact I'd say art like that is almost always worse. People want to be inspired and yeah they wanna see movies about ppl who might be better and stronger than they are. True artists know how to escape the mundane not be slaves to it.

Symbolism,virtue high ideals are all things ppl can be introspective about characters don't need to fail or be corrupted to be thought provoking or even relatable. I mean these movies are hugely successful because ppl find these characters relatable. If they didn't they wouldn't be going to see them in droves.