Scorsese explains why he thinks Marvel movies aren't cinema

[Mister Mets]

Scorsese has an op-ed in the New York Times where he elaborates on his comments that Marvel movies are not cinema. He does not back down.

Many franchise films are made by people of considerable talent and artistry. You can see it on the screen. The fact that the films themselves don’t interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament. 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 and maybe even wanted to make one myself. But I grew up when I did and I developed a sense of movies — of what they were and what they could be — that was as far from the Marvel universe as we on Earth are from Alpha Centauri.

For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, cinema was about revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. 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.

It was about confronting the unexpected on the screen and in the life it dramatized and interpreted, and enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form.

Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. 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.

They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.

Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.

So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. 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.

I think his general concern about the lack of opportunities to see a variety of films on the big screen is right, but he's wrong about Marvel films lacking variety or character complexity, at least relative to typical Hollywood blockbusters.

[Kirby101]

I love Scorsese, but he is wrong. In bigger cities there is plenty of variety, smaller towns always only had big blockbusters for the most part.

But his golden era of "true cinema" had multple Tarzan and Universal Monster and Hopalong Cassady and so on. The 50s and 60s didn't have these type of franchises because they moved to TV. Some of his contemporaries like Lucas and Spielberg gave us great franchises.

And of course these are good movies in the very way he describes. I mean did anyone see Tony Stark...you know.

[wjowski]

All I'll say is he's being extremely disrespectful towards his peers in the film industry.

[Theleviathan]

I enjoy Scorsese movies, but it's a bit hypocritical for him to condemn Marvel for relying on similar themes. Rarely do I find much "new" in one of his films at all.

If movies like the ones he wants are being squeezed out of theaters I understand that...but what is squeezing me out as a viewer is the price of seeing a movie. If I'm going to get taken to the cleaners to see a movie on the big screen, I want the style of movie the is best viewed in that format. I can wait a few months to see a Scorsese movie on my home TV and pay a fraction of the cost.

[Totoro Man]

well, Scorsese SHOULD just let it be.... because there's absolutely nothing he can do about it either way.

maybe he walks into a movie theater expecting the film to deliver some sort of lofty pseudo-religious experience. that's not why most people watch films. get over it and move on. films are, at the end of the day, non-essential 'luxury items' anyways. you don't NEED films to survive. if you're a normal person with an average job then you enjoy them in your spare time. you don't try to elevate it to the highest form of artistic expression known to humanity.

cinema is basically just the 'Art' of the motion picture. hooray.

there's always going to be blend of ambitious 'Art Cinema', 'Mainstream Cinema', and 'Exploitation Cinema'. for every "Koyaanisqatsi" you'll have a "Gandhi", "Tootsie", "the Sword in the Stone", "Lampoon's Vacation", "Videodrome", "Plague Dogs", "Scarface", "Microwave Massacre", and "Sleepaway Camp".

he's just experiencing the typical cultural disconnect that happens to pretty much everybody when they get "old" and society keeps evolving. it happens. I saw it with my grandparents when I was young. I saw it with my parents. I'm experiencing it right now. what I don't have patience for is how he can draw that line in the sand and act like him and his peeps are better... blah blah blah. hey, you got to pursue a career as a film maker and are, by all accounts, very good at it. so films you like are getting overlooked in favor of stuff you don't like. that's just part of life.

but his complaint seems ridiculous and elitist at the moment-- because most people have more options for watching films now than they have ever had before. with the advent of digital streaming services, a long tradition of films being available on DVD, it's not like people are forced to only watch MCU-style blockbusters. they don't even have to go visit a theater to watch a film.

besides, the craftsmanship is still there to be seen in MCU films. it's not as bold, or as risky, as some of the stuff that Scorsese has done (and likes)... but the craft can still be seen. even Scorsese admits as much.

this is the guy that worked with Roger Corman, of all people, and gave us "Boxcar Bertha" long before he gave us "the Godfather"! so, maybe he should chill out a little bit. some of these franchise work-horses could end up becoming cinematic thoroughbreds later. and, even if they don't, it's not a problem. some artists will paint the Sistine Chapel and other artists will make really nicely done window curtains. it's okay. they can still show a love for their work, and a dedication to their craft either way.

[jetengine]

Scorsese: These Marvel movies are all the same !
Also Scorsese : Hey wanna see my 500th Gangster movie !

[Kirby101]

this is the guy that worked with Roger Corman, of all people, and gave us "Boxcar Bertha" long before he gave us "the Godfather"! so, maybe he should chill out a little bit. some of these franchise work-horses could end up becoming cinematic thoroughbreds later. and, even if they don't, it's not a problem. some artists will paint the Sistine Chapel and other artists will make really nicely done window curtains. it's okay. they can still show a love for their work, and a dedication to their craft either way.

Hate to nitpick, but Scorcese gave us "Goodfellas" Coppola gave us "The Godfather". He also started with Corman.

[Beaddle]

Scorsese has an op-ed in the New York Times where he elaborates on his comments that Marvel movies are not cinema. He does not back down.





I think his general concern about the lack of opportunities to see a variety of films on the big screen is right, but he's wrong about Marvel films lacking variety or character complexity, at least relative to typical Hollywood blockbusters.

Marvel films do lack variety and character complexity. No need to rehash old thread, I will keep it in short references. Thor, Iron Man and Spiderman are stripped of any character complexity. Most MCU movies because they are light hearted and CGI driven has never offered any complexity with the story or their characters.

That much was transparent last time and it still is now, I mean really you're trying compare the comic book movies that come out today with Batman and Robin?

Except I was saying comic book movies have suffered a lot with their reputation from Superman 1978, Batman and Robin was one of the worst point for comic movies. With all the comic movie and marvel heavy backlash , we are kind of back to the Batman and Robin era when comic films are not even considered a real genre. Arguably it could be worse than the batman and Robin era because not many people like Scorsese never cared enough to talk about Batman and Robin.

[Ozymandias]

So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. 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.

It sounds like a complain made from the filmmaker's perspective.

As audience, I'm more concerned about the difficulty in finding good material, which has increased in the 21st century. But I don't blame any particular genre for that, I blame the industry. Now that computers make FX cheaper, a lot more movies are bringing the technical side to the spotlight. Obviously, content oriented movies can be just as bad, but the abundance of production made it easier to find good films, up to the late 90's.

[Beaddle]

Scorsese started his anti marvel rant a month ago, the aftermath is more interesting than what he saying about marvel. Its not even newsworthy that scorsese said marvel movies are not cinema, many other directors have said it. perhaps sometimes its the messenger that matters.

In one of his first rants, he called marvel theme parks, he was quickly hit with a question about sexism in his movies, which he shut down hard and fast, I think he knew and understood the press was trying to destroy him because of his marvel comments so they tried to paint him as a sexist.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-a9178836.html



What happened next got more transparent, Bob Iger took a dig at him and made it about Ryan Coolger and Black Panther. Of all the 25 Marvel films he could mention Iger chose Black Panther as the example to prove Scorsese wrong. Had scorsese responded to black panther negatively he would be a called racist, the same way they tried to make him a sexist.

https://www.slashfilm.com/bob-iger-defends-marvel/
Scorsese played it wise here not to respond to the CEO of Disney comparing Black Panther to his movies. Again, we are seeing how the press likes to unnecessary start a sexist and racist war based on bs lies because there is no hard evidence out here Scorsese is a racist or a sexist but the media wanted to push that narrative all because he is not a fan of MCU movies.

[Powerboy]

Scorsese has an op-ed in the New York Times where he elaborates on his comments that Marvel movies are not cinema. He does not back down.





I think his general concern about the lack of opportunities to see a variety of films on the big screen is right, but he's wrong about Marvel films lacking variety or character complexity, at least relative to typical Hollywood blockbusters.

I agree with your assessment. But I also wanted to say, "Yaaaawwwwnn". Yet another diatribe about people getting the movies they want to see when those movies are available. And it's not that theaters don't carry those other movies. It's that people don't go to them as much when they have a choice of seeing what they really want.

It is unfortunate in a way but if the movies he preferred could compete, there would be more of them. The problem I have is that the argument often seems to be that the Marvel type movies shouldn't be made because other movies can't compete with them. Yeah, well, I should have been World Heavyweight Boxing Champion but I couldn't beat Ali or any of the contenders. Guess they should have stopped fighting so I could compete.

[Zorintien]

I see where he is coming from. None of the marvel movies that I have seen genuinely challenged the way I view myself, the world, or movies. I never once doubted that the good guys were going to win or who the good guys were in any of them. But saying that they are all the same isn't fair. Tony Stark's emotional journey is not the same as Steve Roger's journey, or Bruce Banner's journey. More importantly, he is viewing cinema's past with rose colored glasses. During the Hollywood golden age, there were ground breaking pictures. But there were also tons of generic westerns and WWII movies. It used to be that the great cinematic franchises were James Bond and then later Indiana Jones and Star Wars. Those were all as formulaic as the Marvel Movies. So by Scorsese's standards they must not be cinema either.