Film Martin Scorsese - Marvel movies are 'not cinema'

[Vidyoyo]

Not sure that's snobby tbh? I think any one arguing they are high culture is pushing it, but what cinema is high culture? You get the occasional movie I suppose, and there is always a chance of a superhero flick being one of them but as a genre they aren't.

And I say that as a massive fan of them. High culture? No. Do they give me enjoyment watching them? Yes.

Yeah, probably best to steer clear of the 'high culture' debate. Cinema is, after all, quite a simple medium.

I guess it's best considered as relative. One of the best recent films I watched is called Burning - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_(film).

I wouldn't describe it as 'high culture' but man, you couldn't compare it to a superhero film. The whole thing has so much going on, so many metaphors and layers.

It's largely why I get what Scorsese is saying. The further down the rabbit hole one goes, the easier it is to see why mainstream movies, while great as entertainment, are different.

 

[berbatrick]

It’s not as if Hollywood has a history of pumping out extravagant productions of the same ilk over and over again in quick succession, think of the swords-and-sandals, knights-and-dragons medieval fantasies, space operas etc...

They are not exactly high brow, but superheroes films are hardly a departure from the established cinematic tradition.

You take that back

 

[ivaldo]

Conveniently leaving out the posts I was replying to in order to try and make yourself look good.

You know why you quoted Rado, and why I replied in that manner. No point engaging with fanboys!

What? You're literally saying he agrees with Scorsese about the very point I'm referencing, hence why I quoted Rado. You know everyone else can see this thread, right?

You're losing it. I'm a fanboy now? Why cant people just accept that, on occasion, they're wrong, and not just stream roll into a offensive to try and cover up?

 

[MadDogg]

Some of them are good. Some are not. It really is as simple as that. Just like any other movies, except these are all set in the same universe and have plenty of tie-ins to each other.

 

[Eboue]

typical bill steamrolling other posters

 

[Dirty Schwein]

He has a point . I do wonder at adults going crazy over superhero films

I'm not a huge fan of them although I have enjoyed a few but it's not difficult to see their appeal. Millions of people grew up reading comics and it must be great seeing these characters they love on the big screen.

 

[Bole Top]

"back in my days" indeed, also a bit rich coming from the guy that made Wolf of the Wall Street. I enjoyed majority of movies from Kurosawa, Bergman and Tarkovsky, but I also enjoy certain Marvel movies. they're fun and that's their main purpose, I guess. I never understood why people complain about them like they don't have a choice, like those movies are the only ones they can watch.

I have couple of friends that bash movies likes that and act likey they're fed up with modern Hollywood, yet, when I recommend them something older or obscure, they "aren't really into that". it's too old/it's from Russia/it's this, it's that, well guess what, you aren't really better than those Marvel fanboys. I have over 2500 movies rated on imdb and there's still plenty of those I didn't watch yet. not a single new movie could be directed in next 5 years and I'd still find something good and interesting to watch. I've never watched any of the Transformers or Fast and Furious movies, for example. there's so many of them, but I don't complain because I couldn't care less about them. I'll just watch something that suits my taste instead. it's not like someone is forcing me to watch them.

 

[HTG]

"back in my days" indeed, also a bit rich coming from the guy that made Wolf of the Wall Street. I enjoyed majority of movies from Kurosawa, Bergman and Tarkovsky, but I also enjoy certain Marvel movies. they're fun and that's their main purpose, I guess. I never understood why people complain about them like they don't have a choice, like those movies are the only ones they can watch.

I have couple of friends that bash movies likes that and act likey they're fed up with modern Hollywood, yet, when I recommend them something older or obscure, they "aren't really into that". it's too old/it's from Russia/it's this, it's that, well guess what, you aren't really better than those Marvel fanboys. I have over 2500 movies rated on imdb and there's still plenty of those I didn't watch yet. not a single new movie could be directed in next 5 years and I'd still find something good and interesting to watch. I've never watched any of the Transformers or Fast and Furious movies, for example. there's so many of them, but I don't complain because I couldn't care less about them. I'll just watch something that suits my taste instead. it's not like someone is forcing me to watch them.

It's alright to like those movies, Scorsese never said otherwise. But there is something deeply unsettling about those movies, their immense success, the company behind it and the nearly complete lack of reflection around those movies. There is nothing wrong with escapism, it's human nature. But that people fail to understand these movies as quite problematique in regards to what is actually happening, how it's completely and in the most superficial way brought down to the smallest common denominator and most of all, as Scorsese hinted at, when he talked about theme parks (I mean it's Disney, come on), is more of an extended commercial for its own characters than an actual movie. The characters serve no other purpose but to be sold. If Iron Man is on the screen, there is nothing happening with this figure, other than an image being sold.
These movies are basically no more than extended commercials, that are really well done. And if I understood Scorsese correctly, he thinks the same. And in his opinion, that's not what cinema should be about. Nobody has to share this opinion, but it's as valid as it is subjective. To get mad about such a statement, feels really odd to me. If you enjoy it, I don't know why you would be bothered as much by such a statement. It's just someones opinion.

 

[Vidyoyo]

"back in my days" indeed, also a bit rich coming from the guy that made Wolf of the Wall Street. I enjoyed majority of movies from Kurosawa, Bergman and Tarkovsky, but I also enjoy certain Marvel movies. they're fun and that's their main purpose, I guess. I never understood why people complain about them like they don't have a choice, like those movies are the only ones they can watch.

I have couple of friends that bash movies likes that and act likey they're fed up with modern Hollywood, yet, when I recommend them something older or obscure, they "aren't really into that". it's too old/it's from Russia/it's this, it's that, well guess what, you aren't really better than those Marvel fanboys. I have over 2500 movies rated on imdb and there's still plenty of those I didn't watch yet. not a single new movie could be directed in next 5 years and I'd still find something good and interesting to watch. I've never watched any of the Transformers or Fast and Furious movies, for example. there's so many of them, but I don't complain because I couldn't care less about them. I'll just watch something that suits my taste instead. it's not like someone is forcing me to watch them.

In fairness, I think it could be argued that the appeal of Marvel decreases massively if you're not knowledgeable about comic books and the whole Marvel universe itself.

I watched that detective pikachu movie recently and it was all good fun, obviously shit but inoffensive and easy-going. Fast and Furious films are similar - hi-octane silly fun.

Last time I watched a superhero film, I genuinely struggled. It was on a date so I went in with zero intention of being snobby but I was so bored 20 minutes in. Felt like the whole thing had been set up for people who already think the characters are awesome and great. The actual plot, pacing and character development were non-existent. Was Guardian of the Galaxy 2 btw.

 

[Sylar]

Tbf, this place isn't the best place to ask about opinions. I mean everything is a whole bunch of negativity for the most where nearly every movie, TV show or entertainment medium is dissed and then it leads to people being dissed for enjoying them. And thus insulted for discussing said entertainment

People getting bothered that others enjoy it is quite funny though

 

[Sky1981]

If you call this cinema?

 

[Eboue]

If you call this cinema?

 

[Rado_N]

lol

 

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

He’s right they are shite.

 

[dumbo]

It's the type of stuff I often say and I totally get what he is saying, but I don't think it really holds up under scrutiny.

Marvel are really only doing what most other genres have often attempted to do, which is to put out easy, low grade, formulaic produce in an attempt to cash in. Silent melodramas, 30s dance musicals, 90s action, American indie, rom-com, noir, giallo - Exploitation cinema.

The big difference is that Marvel-Disney are such a disgustingly huge capitalist behemoth and their cynical production line approach so refined, that there is the risk that they swamp everything else in their garbage.

Still cinema/film/movies has to encompass everything from Citizen Kane to Barbie: A Fairy Secret, it's very tricky trying to draw a line between art and commerce

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

You take that back

Star Wars/Trek are shit.

 

[duffer]

Of course they are "cinema". He's a pretentious old fart.

It's like saying The Sun is not a newspaper. It's a shit one but still.

 

[Fortitude]

Superhero comic movies are dogshit and as forgettable as it gets. I'll never forget Taxi Driver. I'll forget Thor and Hulk in a minute though.

But will you forget The Dark Knight?

 

[HTG]

Of course they are "cinema". He's a pretentious old fart.

It's like saying The Sun is not a newspaper. It's a shit one but still.

I think he is well aware of that technicality.

 

[Smores]

Some of them are good. Some are not. It really is as simple as that. Just like any other movies, except these are all set in the same universe and have plenty of tie-ins to each other.

Pretty much. I honestly find people who don't like any element of fantasy or sci-fi because it's silly the worst, it just speaks of their very limited imagination. Playing with gangster guns good, caped crime fighter bad apparently.

Most of the marvel/dc stuff are just feel good flicks (still better than most crap released) but there's a good few which have genuine emotion to them.

 

[Suedesi]

Scorsese is right. Worse, these movies are taking over the world, which is utterly depressing.

 

[Prometheus]

He's right. I can't stand any of these films. They are all incredibly stupid.

 

[duffer]

He's right. I can't stand any of these films. They are all incredibly stupid.

Have you seen them all?

 

[Prometheus]

Have you seen them all?

Unfortunately, yes - most of them anyway. The younger ones in my family have more or less forced me to see or to take them to see so many of these stupid, brain-dead, shower of shit films.

 

[Handré1990]

Yeah but they'll be wrong. Popular doesn't = good.

This. I find them entertaining, but I couldn’t tell one apart from the others if I tried.

 

[duffer]

Unfortunately, yes - most of them anyway. The younger ones in my family have more or less forced me to see or to take them to see so many of these stupid, brain-dead, shower of shit films.

Oh dear. Can't imagine watching 30 odd films I hate that much. Theres probably more than 39 superhero films actually.

I lasted about halfway through the first Twilight, the thought of sitting through 29 more is absurd.

You should've dropped your kids off at the cinema and picked them up afterwards.

 

[Casanova85]

He's wrong, right off the bat. Cinema is cinema. Harry Potter might be monstruosly dull to "serious" fans of literature, but it's still literature. Marvel's 22 film arc bleeds and breathes cinema. "It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being", his words, makes no fecking sense tbw and reeks of pseudo-intellectualism, and you know it.

Sounds snobbish to me. Like a jazz fan dissing the Beatles. Or a Zeppelin band telling you that Kiss is garbage. Or an Scorsese fan telling you that Spielberg is crap. Or the clueless old geezer who still thinks videogames are "about bleeping machines that kill aliens". Or an uptight cnut dismissing actual comics to begin with (Stan Lee faced that kind of rejection in "intellectual" circles).

I admit a superhero film can be incredibly lazy with multiple plot holes and indifferent-mediocre acting (at worst), but at its best it can be this grand spectacle of "Homeric good vs evil story" with genuine primal human emotions. And let's admit that the (sub)genre has perfected the technical aspects of cinema as a whole, just as the "action genre" perfected editing, sound design and bold cinematography (especially the camera angles) back in the '80s and '90s.

Disappointed with Scorsese (who jumped on the CGI bandwagon after the '90s, anyway, ehem, The Aviator, anyone?). Imagination and fantasy are a huge part of human art. Not all films can be dramas based on grim reality. Or (yet) another crime film with good old De Niro and Pesci. Or a derivative Hollywood remake of an asian cop thriller that finally grants you an Oscar for Best Director, right? I expected a great filmmaker like him to just point out that "modern superhero films are technical achievements but some lack proper dramatic gravitas while being too dependant on CGI for the geography of the sequences, and certainly there are too many of them". There. It sounds intellectual, but fair, and not snobbish.

 

[Suedesi]

In other news World Wrestling Entertainment Smackdown is not real wrestling.

 

[Josep Dowling]

The sheer number of Marvel films has gone beyond ridiculous now. Each one slightly intertwined into each other’s story.

I can literally tell you what will happen in each one. Good versus evil, with about 10 moments of basic humour to make the cinema audience laugh, and some cheesy soundtrack of tracks forgotten about in the 70s and 80s. The formula worked great in the first Avengers movie and they have just copied it since.

I think that’s the point Scorsese is making. There is no thought process to making the films anymore, they just keep churning them out.

 

[Mockney]

I'm not a huge fan of Superhero films, and also a big critic of the homogenization of cinema... However, yeah, Marty is clearly being a big old fogey here..

Every generation has a popular genre that overshadows the "real stuff" and eventually gets played the feck out... In Marty's own youth it was the Western and the Musical - both largely fecking awful, but occasionally deconstructed and elevated by the likes of Leone, or Shane, or Fosse, etc... then later the trashy Sci-Fi flick took over - only for the likes of 2001 and Alien to make art from it ...and even Marty himself helped to popularise the gangster film as mainstream entertainment. Which begat a whole stream of shitty genre films...with only Goodfellas and the Godfather standing out as "real cinema" amongst all the bad knock offs, and straight to DVD Danny Dyer films it begat for literally decades!...

And right now there's a lot of Superhero shit... but it's also lead to the Chris Nolan Batmans, or the preceding Tim Burton Batmans... and the Sam Raimi Spidermans, or the Guillemo Del Torro Hellboys. Are they not real films? By real film makers? Is Logan not basically a dour high brow Western? Obviously they are/it is... Marty's just not with it anymore, and what's it seems weird and scary to him ... It'll happen to you!!

 

[mu4c_20le]

I agree and think they shouldn't be anywhere near academy awards other than costume design and special effects.

 

[Mockney]

I agree and think they shouldn't be anywhere near academy awards other than costume design and special effects.

I mean, putting aside how ridiculous and unrepresentative things like the "Academy Awards" are...Do you feel the same way about Musicals?

Does someone bursting into song halfway through a feeling seem intrinsically more "real" and "cinematic" than a guy in cape?... And if so, how about people in Cowboy get up, or silly big period hats? Or anyone playing a spaceman in the future? What's the line? Can you only be genuine and award worthy if you're being realistic and earnest in a grounded piece of contemporary drama? And if so, why? Is Cinema only worthy if it's realistic? Does blockbuster cinema, or comedy for that matter, have no value? Even if it's objectively harder? (comic actors always nail dramatic rolls easier than dramatic ones do comedy) It's all fecking pretending anyway, isn't it? Why does one type of more earnest pretending matter more than another type of flippant pretending?

And this is from someone who doesn't care much for Superhero shit... But still, I can't think of any good reason why it should be classified as lesser cinema.

 

[ArjenIsM3]

I mean, putting aside how ridiculous and unrepresentative things like the "Academy Awards" are...Do you feel the same way about Musicals?

Does someone bursting into song halfway through a feeling seem intrinsically more "real" and "cinematic" than a guy in cape?... And if so, how about people in Cowboy get up, or silly big period hats? Or anyone playing a spaceman in the future? What's the line? Can you only be genuine and award worthy if you're being realistic and earnest in a grounded piece of contemporary drama? And if so, why? Is Cinema only worthy if it's realistic? Does blockbuster cinema, or comedy for that matter, have no value? Even if it's objectively harder? (comic actors always nail dramatic rolls easier than dramatic ones do comedy) It's all fecking pretending anyway, isn't it? Why does one type of more earnest pretending matter more than another type of flippant pretending?

And this is from someone who doesn't care much for Superhero shit... But still, I can't think of any good reason why it should be classified as lesser cinema.

Can't handle all these questions

 

[Mockney]

Can't handle all these questions

TL;DR: It’s all basically just wankers pretending to be other wankers for more money than your house, isn’t it?.... does it really matter if one of them is wearing a big rubber helmet?

Al Pacino in Scarface is a much sillier performance than 85% of the Marvel film leads... and 100% more browned up.

 

[Casanova85]

I mean, putting aside how ridiculous and unrepresentative things like the "Academy Awards" are...Do you feel the same way about Musicals?

Does someone bursting into song halfway through a feeling seem intrinsically more "real" and "cinematic" than a guy in cape?... And if so, how about people in Cowboy get up, or silly big period hats? Or anyone playing a spaceman in the future? What's the line? Can you only be genuine and award worthy if you're being realistic and earnest in a grounded piece of contemporary drama? And if so, why? Is Cinema only worthy if it's realistic? Does blockbuster cinema, or comedy for that matter, have no value? Even if it's objectively harder? (comic actors always nail dramatic rolls easier than dramatic ones do comedy) It's all fecking pretending anyway, isn't it? Why does one type of more earnest pretending matter more than another type of flippant pretending?

And this is from someone who doesn't care much for Superhero shit... But still, I can't think of any good reason why it should be classified as lesser cinema.

Great post.

 

[Man of Leisure]

Of course he has a point. But he's talking to people that think Lip Peep will be held in higher regard than The Beatles so you know...

Fecking hell, just googled Lil Peep...

 

[amolbhatia50k]

He's right.

And I've never understood the Marvel hype. Such generic and formulaic films.

 

[dumbo]

"It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being", his words, makes no fecking sense tbw and reeks of pseudo-intellectualism, and you know it.

These ideas have been suggested as the basis of art since at least Aristotle. We can disagree about definitions of art/cinema and about whether or not Marvel qualify, as people do, but it's a consistent line of thought throughout the study of aesthetics. It's what I subscribe to generally, but also I'm a pompous windbag.

And let's admit that the (sub)genre has perfected the technical aspects of cinema as a whole, just as the "action genre" perfected editing, sound design and bold cinematography (especially the camera angles) back in the '80s and '90s.

I would have to strongly disagree here. I can't think of any significant innovations that Marvel has made on a technical level (as compared to Jackson and WETA or James Cameron for example) and they have failed to master what came before. Feel free to correct me though. And in terms of their contribution to film grammar (@R.N7) I can't think of anything of artistic worth and a lot that is retrograde - notably the conditioning of audiences to accept poor digital effects in lieu of story. This is moving into personal opinions but basically I think these films often look dreadful today, dreadful when compared to early Lucas, dreadful when compared to (some) Roger Corman, dreadful when compared to Metropolis and dreadful when compared to Melies.

Disappointed with Scorsese (who jumped on the CGI bandwagon after the '90s, anyway, ehem, The Aviator, anyone?). Imagination and fantasy are a huge part of human art. Not all films can be dramas based on grim reality. Or (yet) another crime film with good old De Niro and Pesci. Or a derivative Hollywood remake of an asian cop thriller that finally grants you an Oscar for Best Director, right? I expected a great filmmaker like him to just point out that "modern superhero films are technical achievements but some lack proper dramatic gravitas while being too dependant on CGI for the geography of the sequences, and certainly there are too many of them". There. It sounds intellectual, but fair, and not snobbish.

In Scorsese's defense, he was posed the question in a loose discussion and was fairly diplomatic in his answer.

Essentially the value of Marvel as cinema and what cinema means to the individual is what Scorsese is clearly talking about and I think it's a worthy discussion. Yeah it's lightly dismissive but I don't see much wrong in that. Olds gonna old sometimes.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I mean, putting aside how ridiculous and unrepresentative things like the "Academy Awards" are...Do you feel the same way about Musicals?

Does someone bursting into song halfway through a feeling seem intrinsically more "real" and "cinematic" than a guy in cape?... And if so, how about people in Cowboy get up, or silly big period hats? Or anyone playing a spaceman in the future? What's the line? Can you only be genuine and award worthy if you're being realistic and earnest in a grounded piece of contemporary drama? And if so, why? Is Cinema only worthy if it's realistic? Does blockbuster cinema, or comedy for that matter, have no value? Even if it's objectively harder? (comic actors always nail dramatic rolls easier than dramatic ones do comedy) It's all fecking pretending anyway, isn't it? Why does one type of more earnest pretending matter more than another type of flippant pretending?

And this is from someone who doesn't care much for Superhero shit... But still, I can't think of any good reason why it should be classified as lesser cinema.

It's lesser cinema because it tends to be lesser cinema. I doubt Scorcesee would say this if a good portion of superhero films tried to do what The Dark Knight did, for example. Also, I don't think people should take him as literally as they are. I'm guessing he also believes Dude, where's my car isn't 'proper cinema'? Is it cinema, yes. But it's not cinema cinema in the way that Scorcesee is looking at it. Just like Marvel movies really arent. They're generic popcorn flicks and I imagine be doesn't really feel those are proper films in his eyes.

 

[kouroux]

They are largely crap. The pop music of film.

Sometimes, you do dish some real truth. I couldn't agree more, they're perfect movies if you wanna disconnected your brain for a few hours