Scorsese explains why he thinks Marvel movies aren't cinema

[Username taken]

Well said. It's the job of anyone trying for fame or fortune to reach their audience, not the audiences job to reach them. No one is owed a place on the big screen.

Exactly my point earlier (before i was interrupted by some weirdness).

No one is "owed" a place on the big screen. Everyone needs to earn it.

[Username taken]

John Woo probably dissapointed the MCU doesn't have Doves.

Slow motion doves to be exact.

[Beaddle]

"Hugo"? The movie Scorcese made as a ode to George Melies, the film maker whose movies where all spectacle with little or no storytelling and character development. That "Hugo"?
Maybe he should rethink his definition of what "cinema" is?

Hugo is still better made than all the MCU movies.I can watch the film muted because its so beautiful to look at. There is story telling there MCU wished it had, sad because their comics do have it.

[Lee Stone]

He HAS done that countless times across his career, he has repeatedly made movies that overturned narrative conventions, challenged traditional ideas, and featured complicated moral questions. Time and time again.

If he doesn't like what's out there, he can just do his part to push what he'd like to see back into the mainstream.
It may not be what people want right now, and it may not sell, but it may inspire someone else.
Everything cycles, and the superhero genre won't be the big thing forever.

Of course, if Scorsese wants to do another mobster film and dress the protagonist in a costume, it would probably come out looking like Bendis era Daredevil. And it definitely could work.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If he doesn't like what's out there, he can just do his part to push what he'd like to see back into the mainstream.

Again, he has done that multiple times.

It may not be what people want right now, and it may not sell, but it may inspire someone else.

He's done that throughout his career.

Everything cycles, and the superhero genre won't be the big thing forever.

Yeah but by then it would have enough of a hold on distribution to make it the only thing. That's what happened in comics. Comics for instance haven't sold as well as they did after superheroes became the only game in town and the Comics Code which shut out the original plural market has faded away, but by that time the Big Two had enough control on the market that everybody else had to wait in line.

Of course, if Scorsese wants to do another mobster film and dress the protagonist in a costume, it would probably come out looking like Bendis era Daredevil. And it definitely could work.

No it won't. A dude in a costume beating up bad guys and being considered a hero is too unrealistic for Scorsese (who again, grew up in an actual mob neighborhood so for him gangsters aren't really stock characters).

[thwhtGuardian]

Again, he has done that multiple times.



He's done that throughout his career.



Yeah but by then it would have enough of a hold on distribution to make it the only thing. That's what happened in comics. Comics for instance haven't sold as well as they did after superheroes became the only game in town and the Comics Code which shut out the original plural market has faded away, but by that time the Big Two had enough control on the market that everybody else had to wait in line.



No it won't. A dude in a costume beating up bad guys and being considered a hero is too unrealistic for Scorsese (who again, grew up in an actual mob neighborhood so for him gangsters aren't really stock characters).

Comics were already becoming a niche product when the superheroes came to town, they just staved off the end of the medium but that's not the current trend of film so to try and pretend that the same thing will happen with film is like chicken little crying that the sky is falling.

[DT Winslow]

I’m still trying to decide which was my favorite movie of 2019. Toy Story 4 or Avengers Endgame. There’s still Star Wars to go but I doubt RoS will be better than The Last Jedi so I’m not holding out hope. It will end well RJ made such a perfect movie there’s only down to go. Downton Abbey was amazing. Ooh, it’s hard. I’ve got a small list of movies left to watch from 2019 so maybe I can’t make a real determination yet, but the movie that gave me the most of an emotional ride was definitely Avengers. Sure, I cried during Toy Story 4 but I wept during Avengers.

Next year at least has The French Dispatch to look forward to. Don’t know when though, so that’s frustrating. And a couple years away from a Coen Brothers movie which is really too long for me.

We should all strive to be well rounded in what we consume. Moderation is key to not just a healthy diet but a healthy mind as well.

[Kirby101]

Hugo is still better made than all the MCU movies.I can watch the film muted because its so beautiful to look at. There is story telling there MCU wished it had, sad because their comics do have it.

Not talking about "Hugo". I am talking about the films of Melies, which were just the type of "non-cinema" he is talking about. All spectacle, no character.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I am talking about the films of Melies, which were just the type of "non-cinema" he is talking about. All spectacle, no character.

That's not the large critical opinion on Melies. Unless you can talk about specific movies and so on, this makes no sense.

Scorsese never knocked the MCU for being "spectacle". In fact the word "spectacle" never shows up once in his op-ed. What he said specifically, "What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk."
(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/o...se-marvel.html)

Scorsese doesn't have anything against fantasy or action or so on. In fact that's what he says about Hitchcock:

And in a way, certain Hitchcock films were also like theme parks. I’m thinking of “Strangers on a Train,” in which the climax takes place on a merry-go-round at a real amusement park, and “Psycho,” which I saw at a midnight show on its opening day, an experience I will never forget. People went to be surprised and thrilled, and they weren’t disappointed.

Sixty or 70 years later, we’re still watching those pictures and marveling at them. But is it the thrills and the shocks that we keep going back to? I don’t think so. The set pieces in “North by Northwest” are stunning, but they would be nothing more than a succession of dynamic and elegant compositions and cuts without the painful emotions at the center of the story or the absolute lostness of Cary Grant’s character. The climax of “Strangers on a Train” is a feat, but it’s the interplay between the two principal characters and Robert Walker’s profoundly unsettling performance that resonate now.

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.

Scorsese isn't saying that using VFX, action scenes or "set pieces" are bad or wrong as he discussed with Hitchcock. He's simply asking for a little more.

[Kirby101]

I would say the vast majority of people who watched the MCU did feel an emotional connection to the characters. Some of us cried at the end of Endgame.
So his arguments for "non-cinema" are questionable to say the least.

[Ozymandias]

Melies was already finished when DWG started out and well before birth of a nation made him renowned. Stroheim didn’t make it until 1919.

Melies contemporaries were the Lumieres, Louis Feuillade, Edwin S. Porter and other filmmakers whose works have been lost.

You beat me to it.

[Ozymandias]

I would say the vast majority of people who watched the MCU did feel an emotional connection to the characters. Some of us cried at the end of Endgame.
So his arguments for "non-cinema" are questionable to say the least.

If a main character who's been with you for more than 10 years (in as many movies) self-sacrifices, you're going to have an emotional response. That's not to say that character development and psychological depth are driving the franchise; quips, action and tons of CGI are.

But all that's par of cinema too, saying that it isn't was probably a comment made with controversy in mind, fuelled by a genuine concern about the future of the industry.

[Scott Taylor]

His Hitchcock comparison is really interesting. Its true that there is a kind of sameness reflected in most of his films, probably just due to his directorial style and sense of framing a shot and getting certain performances out of his actors. Many people hated to work with Hitch, because he could be such a hardass on the actors. Heck he even got Jimmy Stewart, the Tom Hanks of his day, to act quite a bit differently from the everyman we know and love. But where the movies differ from each other is at the emotional heart and the relationships. Vertigo is about many things, for instance, from unrequited love to abuse. Its not just a murder story with a bunch of great set pieces and paint by numbers plot points.

Strangers on a Train is a masterpiece, by the way, and people really should see it if they can.

[The Cool Thatguy]

So rather than stereotypes about professions that are nonetheless grounded in a reality about dealing with violence semi-regularly, we want movies that don't make any attempts to say anything about violence? I mean that's one of the main problems with superheroes in terms of genre...as stories all of them glorify violence. Stories one after another present punching and beating people as the main and best solution to problems and the stories don't really deal with this.

Okay Iron Man has PTSD after dealing with the Chitauri in The Avengers. Okay, why didn't he have PTSD in Iron Man 1, and obviously he's been active betwen IM-1 and IM-2 where he privatized world peace so how come he doesn't have PTSD then? Stark being exposed to the Chitauri makes sense in a Lovecraftian, normal rational man exposed to the cosmos and insignificance of earth sciences and ideas in the face of that...but it's not a believable look at PTSD. Someone like Thor who is a god doesn't have PTSD about violence. He has issues of guilt, worrying about his brother and other family issues, but violence isn't a problem with him at all. That's true of most MCU characters. .

Couple things...

First, I don't recall it being the job of superhero movies to reinvent movies. They're action movies with amazing actors and acting. And because we actually care about the protagonists, the action is that much more exciting.

I don't recall anyone saying that MCU movies are the new Citizen Kane, or even Gattaca. It seems to be, more often than not, people want to be pissed about a franchise that can deliver a quality product on a reliable basis.

Whatever 'sins' against cinema the MCU has committed, movies like Fast and the Furious have done a hundred times worse.

Second, what triggers PTSD is different for everyone. In high stress situations, not everyone is affected the same. And regardless, what happened in Avengers 1 was far different from his prior movies, rendering your point moot.

More than that, it wasn't the exposure to a lovecraft creature that caused his PTSD, it was the fact that there was an army out there, headed to earth, that they barely stopped. We see Stark's fear about that in later movies, in Avengers 2, Civil War and discussed in Endgame.

Fear of an unknown enemy is something that's defined the modern era. So even if for some reason Tony's PTSD is required to be grounded in reality, well, there ya go.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

First, I don't recall it being the job of superhero movies to reinvent movies.

It's the job of any movie to be as good as it can be. If you are trying to create a new genre, the bar is a little higher. I mean look at videogames where demand and burden of expectations by gamers have pushed companies and developers to bring in new content, new forms and innovations. It happens whenever a genre or style sticks around for a little time. The last 10 years have seen the superhero genre become the biggest genre in Hollywood which they probably weren't in the 2000-2009 decade (where the biggest franchises were LOTR and Harry Potter -- Fantasy, or literary fantasy was the biggest genre, which led to the YA craze and Game of Thrones that came later).

And if the movies cost a lot of money and are making big claims and getting airs, i.e. Oscar campaigns, then that invites scrutiny.

Whatever 'sins' against cinema the MCU has committed, movies like Fast and the Furious have done a hundred times worse.

Are Fast and the Furious campaigning for Oscars and so on? At least when Mad Max Fury Road did it (and got 6 Oscars) it was because it was the most beloved action movie of that year (and the decade).

More than that, it wasn't the exposure to a lovecraft creature that caused his PTSD, it was the fact that there was an army out there, headed to earth, that they barely stopped. We see Stark's fear about that in later movies, in Avengers 2, Civil War and discussed in Endgame.

PTSD happens to any exposure of violence, and it certainly should for a 40 year old playboy who failed upwards into that cave with a box-of-scraps.

The MCU don't have a serious and realistic attitude to violence, this is true for most superhero movies regardless of franchise and company. So that precludes it from the thematic heft that other great movies do...such as Godfather and Goodfellas which are about how terrible violence is and how it makes people who deal with it dehumanized more and more.