• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Scorsese slams MCU
0

221 posts in this topic

On 10/14/2019 at 11:58 AM, Hollywood1892 said:

It's true dialogue and message is being replaced by violence and action.

There’s enough message in the world. Especially Hollywood type of message. I’ll take the entertainment and leave the message to someone else. Someone might want to remind Marty, that these films are based on comic books  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dale Roberts said:

There’s enough message in the world. Especially Hollywood type of message. I’ll take the entertainment and leave the message to someone else. Someone might want to remind Marty, that these films are based on comic books  

 

 

Exxxxxactly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He exaggerated, but he's not wrong.  There is a bit of similarity between theme park rides and almost any serial drama like superheroes, or Star Trek, or Indiana Jones, or Star Wars.  First, they're primarily entertainment, not art, and Scorsese and Coppolla aspire to art.  Second, he's right in that directors and actors are HUGELY limited in what they can do.  Rian Johnson was allowed to break the formula a bit and fans violently reacted, so Scorsese is right that much of what draws him and directors like him to cinema necessarily makes him dislike--or in the case of Coppolla, despise--film series that have fans who expect directors to keep the universe consistent.

Christopher Nolan proved you can innovate even within the limitations, but most of Scorsese's comments apply even to the constraints Nolan worked under to make Batman films.  It's far more difficult to do what Scorsese wants to do working under something like Marvel universe constraints, and for an art-centric director like him the end result would always be worse.  So yea, his or Coppolla's comments are no surprise at all.  Scorsese's comments were more restrained, Coppolla's ventured into hyperbole though.

Edited by fantastic_four
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, paperheart said:

Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain.

Cinema is an art form that brings you the unexpected. In superhero movies, nothing is at risk, a director says.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html

Scorsese may be a great film-maker, but I think this is a poorly-written essay.

He doesn't go into any specifics about Marvel movies. He doesn't make it clear which ones he's seen, or whether he's even watched one in its entirety. He conflates Marvel movies, streaming movies, and "franchise films" so broadly, it suggests a limited understanding of the overall topic.  He also suggest for him it is largely a matter of personal preference, yet he continues to imply Marvel movies are not "art".

His overriding point seems to be that, for a film to be "cinema", it must be the vision of an individual creator.  I would take issue with this. He also logs some complaints about commercialization, but these could apply to the majority of movies produced in the last 30 years -- not just Marvel. He acknowledges the tension between creativity and commerce in film production, and laments that the creators seem to be losing this struggle.  This is a great point I could get on board with, if the rest of the essay were argued more coherently.

But in the end, all I'm left with is: It's only art if I say it is

Edited by adampasz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, adampasz said:

He also suggest for him it is largely a matter of personal preference, yet he continues to imply Marvel movies are not "art".

 

But in the end, all I'm left with is: It's only art if I say it is. 

They're NOT art, they're entertainment.  This isn't a concept he's creating here, he learned it the same way millions of others did--by studying the history of literature and film.  This is the same reason you're not seeing superhero films winning Oscars; Oscar voters vote for films that aspire to be art the VAST majority of the time, with a few notable exceptions.  The goal of art is to present social or individual themes and ideas intended to advance humanity.  That's not what Marvel movies are trying to do, and if they did try it I wouldn't like them as much.

I'm not sure why he even felt the need to write the article.  I knew what he was saying the first time he said it, and 98% of the people who didn't get it the first time aren't likely to ever agree with his perspective, anyway.

Edited by fantastic_four
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can say that a piece of poo is "art" - but it isn't.

The comic books that the MCU derives from is art. They're original concepts that sometimes told meaningful stories.

As much as I love the MCU, most of it is not art. It's great escapism entertainment.

The acting by some MCU actors is definitely performance art. You could consider some of the cinematography art, as well, for sure. The films themselves are a culmination/inclusion of some artworks. The overall product isn't, though.

It's a weird, fine, line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, adampasz said:

Scorsese may be a great film-maker, but I think this is a poorly-written essay.

He doesn't go into any specifics about Marvel movies. He doesn't make it clear which ones he's seen, or whether he's even watched one in its entirety. He conflates Marvel movies, streaming movies, and "franchise films" so broadly, it suggests a limited understanding of the overall topic.  He also suggest for him it is largely a matter of personal preference, yet he continues to imply Marvel movies are not "art".

His overriding point seems to be that, for a film to be "cinema", it must be the vision of an individual creator.  I would take issue with this. He also logs some complaints about commercialization, but these could apply to the majority of movies produced in the last 30 years -- not just Marvel. He acknowledges the tension between creativity and commerce in film production, and laments that the creators seem to be losing this struggle.  This is a great point I could get on board with, if the rest of the essay were argued more coherently.

But in the end, all I'm left with is: It's only art if I say it is

Yeah, but few films are the complete "vision of an individual creator." Even Martin Scorsese films, to a degree. Yes, Scorsese gets final cut of his movies (something very few filmmakers in the industry get), but many of his films are themselves based on books or are written by a separate screenwriter. And just because a particular film is the sole vision of one creator doesn't make it high art. The classic example of that is the "cinema" of Ed Wood.

On the other hand, ever since the Creative Committee was removed from the MCU moviemaking process beginning with Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, I've noticed the MCU films make a subtle shift towards more visionary films. While some folks prefer GOTG Vol 1, for me, GOTG Vol 2 had more of an artistic cinematic flair to it. Exhibit A of that argument is the Yondu Rocket Groot escape scene set to the song "Come a Little Bit Closer." Though a tad violent, that scene was one of the most artistic in the MCU to date. GOTG could only have been made by James Gunn. Thor Ragnarok is inarguably the sole creative vision of Taika Waititi. Black Panther, with its more brooding themes, was definitely a Ryan Coogler film. The same could be said of the Russo Brothers films.

Martin Scorsese says film art must be the vision of an individual creator. He says film art must reflect the emotional and psychological experiences of people. MCU films offer those things. That just drives home the point that Mr Scorsese has probably seen very few if any Marvel movies (maybe he saw the first Avengers movie and just didn't get it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Yeah, but few films are the complete "vision of an individual creator." Even Martin Scorsese films, to a degree. Yes, Scorsese gets final cut of his movies (something very few filmmakers in the industry get), but many of his films are themselves based on books or are written by a separate screenwriter. And just because a particular film is the sole vision of one creator doesn't make it high art. The classic example of that is the "cinema" of Ed Wood.

On the other hand, ever since the Creative Committee was removed from the MCU moviemaking process beginning with Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, I've noticed the MCU films make a subtle shift towards more visionary films. While some folks prefer GOTG Vol 1, for me, GOTG Vol 2 had more of an artistic cinematic flair to it. Exhibit A of that argument is the Yondu Rocket Groot escape scene set to the song "Come a Little Bit Closer." Though a tad violent, that scene was one of the most artistic in the MCU to date. GOTG could only have been made by James Gunn. Thor Ragnarok is inarguably the sole creative vision of Taika Waititi. Black Panther, with its more brooding themes, was definitely a Ryan Coogler film. The same could be said of the Russo Brothers films.

Martin Scorsese says film art must be the vision of an individual creator. He says film art must reflect the emotional and psychological experiences of people. MCU films offer those things. That just drives home the point that Mr Scorsese has probably seen very few if any Marvel movies (maybe he saw the first Avengers movie and just didn't get it).

:roflmao:

Also, you don't know that a majority of Ragnarok was improvised...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

:roflmao:

Also, you don't know that a majority of Ragnarok was improvised...?

"Improvised" in filmmaking doesn't mean the cinematographer just turns on the camera and the director lets the actors do whatever they want while he/she goes away for coffee and doughnuts. Many filmmakers get more energy and spontaneity in their scenes by "improvising," that is, collaborating with the actors in the moment to achieve a better scene than what's written on paper. That's art. You know who else improvises with his actors a lot on set? Martin Scorsese.

Edited by @therealsilvermane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, @therealsilvermane said:

"Improvised" in filmmaking doesn't mean the cinematographer just turns on the camera and the director lets the actors do whatever they want while he/she goes away for coffee and doughnuts. Many filmmakers get more energy and spontaneity in their scenes by "improvising," that is, collaborating with the actors in the moment to achieve a better scene than what's written on paper. That's art. You know who else improvises with his actors a lot on set? Martin Scorsese.

Oh, so the actors performing art is the director's art? Okay.

:eyeroll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Oh, so the actors performing art is the director's art? Okay.

:eyeroll:

Film is a collaborative art. It's the writer, the cinematographer, the director, the actors, set designers, editor, music composer, etc. working together to create something meaningful. The difference is the director is the guiding hand of the whole process. The "Are you talking to me?" scene from Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver was improvised by Robert DeNiro. Joe Pesci improvised the  "You think I'm funny?" scene from Goodfellas. Martin Scorsese was the director. Martin Scorsese gets visionary credit for both of those films. But both films are a collaborative art. Without screenwriters Paul Schrader or Nicholas Pileggi or the acting of Robert Deniro or the editing of Thelma Schoonmaker, those movies wouldn't exist as is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Yeah, but few films are the complete "vision of an individual creator." Even Martin Scorsese films, to a degree. Yes, Scorsese gets final cut of his movies (something very few filmmakers in the industry get), but many of his films are themselves based on books or are written by a separate screenwriter.

Most films don't have anywhere near the same constraints as serial dramas though.  If you're making a Marvel movie, or a Harry Potter movie, or a "Fifty Shades" movie, your characters are set, and your entertainment-based expectations from the audience are set, too.

There are ways to create artistic superhero films, but those types of artists aren't drawn to the genre, so we don't see it much.  And the great majority of the time it's more likely than not to end up in disaster with the fans hating what you've done, which is the other reason it's not happening.  It's also very difficult to fit a universal theme with relevance to society within a science fiction context.  The most significant recent example of this that comes to mind is Black Panther.  When Erik Killmonger took the throne of Wakanda for the express purpose of reversing the subjugation of Africa by other nations that has gone on for several millennia now it tapped into a a vibrant social idea that resonated with anyone in the audience who can sympathize with that plight.  Yet the entire mechanism of it happening at all within the film is based upon vibranium, and that's just pure fantasy, so it's not an idea that translates well to the real world.  So while the social theme of Killmonger's intent is compelling, it has limited explicit real-world significance.  The social significance it does carry is similar to that carried by the Black Panther comic--it's a heroic myth for anyone who identifies or sympathizes with African culture and society, and that does carry some social significance, albeit an amount limited by the nature of fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Film is a collaborative art. It's the writer, the cinematographer, the director, the actors, set designers, editor, music composer, etc. working together to create something meaningful. The difference is the director is the guiding hand of the whole process. The "Are you talking to me?" scene from Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver was improvised by Robert DeNiro. Joe Pesci improvised the  "You think I'm funny?" scene from Goodfellas. Martin Scorsese was the director. Martin Scorsese gets visionary credit for both of those films. But both films are a collaborative art. Without screenwriters Paul Schrader or Nicholas Pileggi or the acting of Robert Deniro or the editing of Thelma Schoonmaker, those movies wouldn't exist as is.

Okay.

:eyeroll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lightninglad said:

Tell me Captain America: Winter Soldier isn't art. I dare you. :sumo:

Was Warhol's Campbell Soup Cans not a "work of art" simply because he didn't create Campbell's soup?

As much as I love The Winter Soldier movie - it isn't art. I would argue that there are some cinematographic pieces of art, and the music/writing is artistic, but that's about it. There aren't any particularly outstanding performances by individual characters. 2c

It's a great movie, though. On its own, you don't really know what's happening. Who is Captain America? Who is Bucky? Who is Nick Fury and SHIELD? Etc etc etc.

I also think Warhol's soup painting isn't art. Screw that derivative :censored:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0