Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Gershwin fan

Martin Scorsese says Marvel movies are 'not cinema'

Recommended Posts

On 10/5/2019 at 4:07 PM, Fedya said:

There's no dialog in the chase scene in Bullitt, although I assume Steve McQueen did his own driving.

Actually, no Fedya. In many of the shots you see of the Mustang's high speed pursuit of the Dodge Charger through the streets of San Francisco in this film, the driver of the Mustang was the very same guy who also doubled for McQueen in the famous motorcycle barbed wire border fence jump scene in The Great Escape, Bud Ekins, a close friend and fellow motorcycle racer of McQueen's.

(...and, Ekins was also the guy you see sliding off his BSA motorcycle to avoid being hit by the two cars coming at him during that chase scene)

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

https://news.yahoo.com/coppola-backs-scorsese-row-over-marvel-films-173112180.html

Coppola backs Scorsese in row over Marvel films

Lyon (AFP) - Francis Ford Coppola jumped into a controversy over the Marvel superhero movies Saturday, not just backing fellow director Martin Scorsese's critique of the films but denouncing them as "despicable".

Earlier this month Scorsese, director of classics such as "Taxi Driver" and "Goodfellas", described the Marvel universe films as more theme parks than cinema, even if they were well made.

His remarks made waves across social media for days, as fans of his work and the Marvel hits such as the Avengers films, argued the merits.

So then I take it we won't be soon seeing a Coppola Napa Cabernet being a suggested wine accompaniment with a viewing of any of these superhero flicks then, right?!

(...or for that matter, any of the varietals coming from his vineyard...not even a blend)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dargo said:

So then I take it we won't be soon seeing a Coppola Napa Cabernet being a suggested wine accompaniment with a viewing of any of these superhero flicks then, right?!

(...or for that matter, any of the varietals coming from his vineyard...not even a blend)

Ahem,  no.  I don't even think they'd get so far as Gallo. :P   Vaping, maybe.  Coppola Cabernet, probably not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Bijou was a contender too.

Isn't "Bijou" just the French word for "jewel"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MovieCollectorOH said:

Ahem,  no.  I don't even think they'd get so far as Gallo. :P   Vaping, maybe.  Coppola Cabernet, probably not. 

Maybe some good ole Franzia box wine would do the trick. 

Flavored vapes were just banned in Oregon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

I've seen some of the most ridiculous looking guys (with pot bellies no less) wearing super hero outfits skiing, tights capes, and all. They must pretend they are flying as they come down the mountains. I'll take some pics this season, and post them for all to see. 

Some of these characters are married too with little kids.... 

I imagine they look something like this. :lol: 

nerd-geek-culture-hater-shutdown-fb16-pn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, speedracer5 said:

Maybe some good ole Franzia box wine would do the trick. 

I prefer Peter Vella in the box. Not because it is better, but push button versus knob twisting. My favorite wine, outside the box, is Pino Grigio. No I don't know the difference between Pino Grigio and Pino Gris, but they do in Oregon.

I have not smoked anything since about 1985. Never again.

Welcome back Dargo! Maybe you could start a thread about TCM France, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr. Somnambula said:

I prefer Peter Vella in the box. Not because it is better, but push button versus knob twisting. My favorite wine, outside the box, is Pino Grigio. No I don't know the difference between Pino Grigio and Pino Gris, but they do in Oregon.

I have not smoked anything since about 1985. Never again.

Welcome back Dargo! Maybe you could start a thread about TCM France, etc.

I think Pinot Grigio and Pinot Gris are the same grape.  The names just refer to the areas of the world where the grapes originated. I think Gris is French and Grigio is Italian.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2019 at 5:31 PM, Gershwin fan said:

Scorsese was asked what he thought of those movies and he gave the honest answer that he thought they're dumb and childish and the equivalent of a "rollercoaster ride." He was asked for his opinion and gave it. He can't criticize something you like ever now? Nowhere did he say people can't enjoy Marvel films or that Marvel films should be mass burned and their fans shamed. All he said they were not serious films and were degrading the art of movie making, an opinion shared by many film makers in his same craft.

Matt swalt

@MattOswaltVA

·

4h

if you don't wanna hear great filmmakers criticize comic book movies maybe stop asking them.

 

It's like "Hey Richard Pryor and George Carlin, what's your favorite Dane Cook bit?"

and then losing all respect for them as comics when they can't name one

:rolleyes:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

I imagine they look something like this. :lol: 

Really?  What else does your imagination tell you?  😛

And as for Coppola, I'll take his sterling criticism of the cinematic oblivion of "Captain America: Civil War" (he did see that one, right?) as wise words from the director of Jack and Supernova.

1865702.jpg

("Shooting the messenger"?  Maybe.  But a bit more rewarding when he's unarmed.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rome-martin-scorsese-laments-young-peoples-understanding-cinema-1248997

Martin Scorsese Laments "Young People's" Understanding of Cinema, Shoots Down Question on Lack of Female Characters

"If the story doesn’t call for it…it’s a waste of everybody's time," said 'The Irishman' helmer about the discussion of showcasing roles for women in his films.

Martin Scorsese presented his new film The Irishman at the Rome Film Fest on Monday along with producer Emma Tillinger Koskoff as the festival’s centerpiece event. The film, which details one of the most famous mob hits in history, that of Jimmy Hoffa, stars Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci.

Scorsese described The Irishman as a film about “mortality and the unraveling of a life,” and “the immediate human experience” that he hopes anyone could relate to.

 

The director also continued his tour of widely publicized comments in criticizing theaters for throwing most of their weight behind Marvel and DC films. “The key that I’m hoping for is for theaters to continue to support narrative cinema of this kind,” said Scorsese, naming off other filmmakers including Noah Baumbach, Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson.

He continued to criticize what is now viewed as cinema, and went further in lamenting how young people today experience life and understand (or fail to understand) the consequences of history.

His main wish, he clarified, is that “the theaters support the films. But right now the theaters seem to be mainly supporting the theme park, amusement park, comic book films. They’re taking over the theaters. I think they can have those films; it’s fine. It’s just that that shouldn’t become what our young people believe is cinema. It just shouldn’t.”

Scorsese said it’s “quite sad” that the life of Jimmy Hoffa is largely unknown today. “As well known as he was, time just wiped him away,” he said.

“This is the world we live in. Our children are, I don’t know what they’re doing with those devices. They perceive reality differently. They perceive even the concept of what history is supposed to be [differently],” continued the director.

“How are they going to know about WWII? How are they going to know about Vietnam? What do they think of Afghanistan? What do they think of all of this? They’re perceiving it in bits and pieces. There seems to be no continuity of history.”

A member of the Italian press also asked Scorsese why his films’ protagonists are mainly men, showing few interesting female stories. The Hollywood Reporter’s review of the film called The Irishman “very much a movie about middle-aged men, and you miss the electric female energy of great roles that Scorsese shaped for Lorraine Bracco, Cathy Moriarty and Sharon Stone, among others.”

A somewhat frustrated Scorsese immediately shot down the journalist's question. “No. That’s not even a valid point. That’s not valid. I can't…. That goes back to 1970. That’s a question that I’ve had for so many years. Am I supposed to?”

“No,” chimed in Koskoff.

“If the story doesn’t call for it…. It’s a waste of everybody’s time. If the story calls for a female character lead, why not?”

Alice Doesn’t Live Here,” chimed in Koskoff again.

“Oh, that’s only one film. They don’t count that. Age of Innocence, they don’t count that,” said Scorsese.

Casino,” said Koskoff.

Casino. Sharon Stone’s great in that. They don’t count that. Forget it,” said Scorsese. “‘It’s all these men,’” he continued, implying he was being unfairly targeted, which prompted larger applause from the Italian press.

“Sure, I’d like to do,” said Scorsese. “But you know what, I’m 76 now. How am I going to have the time? I don’t know what’s going to happen. We don't know. I don’t have time anymore.”

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scorsese can also add Goodfellas (Lorraine Bracco's Oscar-nominated turn) to his films that feature strong female characterizations. Cathy Moriarty was also nominated for Raging Bull, as was Jodie Foster for Taxi Driver, and Juliette Lewis for Cape Fear. And Cate Blanchett won an Oscar for The Aviator. Vera Farmiga was very good in The Departed, Liza Minelli had one of her better showcases in New York, New York, and Sandra Bernhard almost stole The King of Comedy

So yeah, that reporter can shove his question up his nose. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gershwin fan said:

The director also continued his tour of widely publicized comments in criticizing theaters for throwing most of their weight behind Marvel and DC films. “The key that I’m hoping for is for theaters to continue to support narrative cinema of this kind,” said Scorsese, naming off other filmmakers including Noah Baumbach, Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson.

Okay, Marty, you officially lost me at "Wes Anderson directs 'real' films".  😓

(And I was even willing to give some benefit of the doubt after "Noah Baumbach".)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2019 at 5:49 AM, EricJ said:

 

Just recently, I'd been going through vintage Siskel & Ebert review clips from '79-'82, and got to relive their entire moral crusade against the golden years of 80's teen-slasher movies--The ones we thought were "evil", and "sexist", and "puritanical", and "fatalistic", and "a depressing view of the teen experience", and not so much in protest of onscreen violence or low budgets, as just that the loudest critic voices were danged sick of having to sit through so many.  (We weren't quite up to that point with found-footage-exorcism movies in the early 10's, but close.)  And then, the big camel's straw that we thought was going to make them all go away for good, when parents groups tried to ban the killer-Santa movie, and after that backed down, we knew we had the evil genre on the run, and we'd chase it out of town for good, so that it would never, ever come back if it knew what was good for it.

 

Mmm. Silent Night Deadly Night. the one pulled from theatres in two weeks by TriStar (who then dumped the movie). I remember that one Siskel and Ebert clip where Siskel was listing the producers of the film so people could protest.

Quote

This seems to have all started when somebody asked Martin Scorsese what he thought about "all the Taxi Driver stuff" in Joker.  If any movie has to go down in history as the One That Killed Them, it couldn't happen to a more deserving film, and certainly not a more deserving studio...At least the Marvels were safe, and were due for retirement anyway.

From all accounts I read, Joker is fuelled not only by taxi Driver but also by The King of Comedy, and to make the reference even more pointed, Robert De Niro is essentially playing the old Jerry Lewis role. I've been quietly musing about Joker's reception. When it played in Venice, it won the grand prize. Here, its much more muted, and despite the box office success, I note a degree of anger at it. It will probably still be up for Best Actor, but I certainly feel that's its "legacy" will be convoluted at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

Scorsese can also add Goodfellas (Lorraine Bracco's Oscar-nominated turn) to his films that feature strong female characterizations. Cathy Moriarty was also nominated for Raging Bull, as was Jodie Foster for Taxi Driver, and Juliette Lewis for Cape Fear. And Cate Blanchett won an Oscar for The Aviator. Vera Farmiga was very good in The Departed, Liza Minelli had one of her better showcases in New York, New York, and Sandra Bernhard almost stole The King of Comedy

So yeah, that reporter can shove his question up his nose. 

I'd also personally say that Patricia Arquette was quite touching in Bringing Out the Dead.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sewhite2000 said:

Personally, I find most of Wes Anderson's films more interesting and enjoyable than most superhero movies.

I'm not a huge fan of either but I agree with you here. That said, I'll still watch Watchmen over Rushmore any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally forgot about the Watchmen premiere last night. I'm not sure if you're referring to the new series or the movie adaptation of the graphic novel from 10 years ago, which I saw and thought was pretty good, even thought the critics hated it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scorsese wrote this op-ed in the New York Times. I am re-posting it here in its entirety, so you can read it without clicking on a link or anything:

Quote

When I was in England in early October, I gave an interview to Empire magazine. I was asked a question about Marvel movies. I answered it. I said that I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me, that they seem to me to be closer to theme parks than they are to movies as I’ve known and loved them throughout my life, and that in the end, I don’t think they’re cinema.

Some people seem to have seized on the last part of my answer as insulting, or as evidence of hatred for Marvel on my part. If anyone is intent on characterizing my words in that light, there’s nothing I can do to stand in the way.

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.

And that was the key for us: it was an art form. There was some debate about that at the time, so we stood up for cinema as an equal to literature or music or dance. And we came to understand that the art could be found in many different places and in just as many forms — in “The Steel Helmet” by Sam Fuller and “Persona” by Ingmar Bergman, in “It’s Always Fair Weather” by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen and “Scorpio Rising” by Kenneth Anger, in “Vivre Sa Vie” by Jean-Luc Godard and “The Killers” by Don Siegel.

Or in the films of Alfred Hitchcock — I suppose you could say that Hitchcock was his own franchise. Or that he was our franchise. Every new Hitchcock picture was an event. To be in a packed house in one of the old theaters watching “Rear Window” was an extraordinary experience: It was an event created by the chemistry between the audience and the picture itself, and it was electrifying.

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.

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.

That includes me, and I’m speaking as someone who just completed a picture for Netflix. It, and it alone, allowed us to make “The Irishman” the way we needed to, and for that I’ll always be thankful. We have a theatrical window, which is great. Would I like the picture to play on more big screens for longer periods of time? Of course I would. But no matter whom you make your movie with, the fact is that the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures.

And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.

But, you might argue, can’t they just go home and watch anything else they want on Netflix or iTunes or Hulu? Sure — anywhere but on the big screen, where the filmmaker intended her or his picture to be seen.

In the past 20 years, as we all know, the movie business has changed on all fronts. But the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night: the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the riskiest factor of all.

I’m certainly not implying that movies should be a subsidized art form, or that they ever were. When the Hollywood studio system was still alive and well, the tension between the artists and the people who ran the business was constant and intense, but it was a productive tension that gave us some of the greatest films ever made — in the words of Bob Dylan, the best of them were “heroic and visionary.”

Today, that tension is gone, and there are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive and proprietary — a lethal combination. The situation, sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but that’s becoming increasingly rare. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other.

For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness.

 

  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s Mr. Scorsese’s opinion which he is completely entitled to.  He was somewhat put in this position because someone specifically asked him about Marvel films.  In this latest article he uses that response as a starting point to explain how he feels about the state of ‘Cinema’ in general which I have no problem with.

The main disagreement I have with the latest text is with respect to Marvel he should have stopped with the reply “I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me.”  So for him to later on give specific comments about Marvel such as “What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk.” would be based on failed attempts at watching a few Marvel films.  I don’t think Mr. Scorsese would appreciate someone making such specific comments about his films based on a few failed attempts at watching them.

Spoiler alert for Avengers: Infinity War - at the end of this film half of humanity is wiped out.  If this is not mystery or emotional danger then I don’t know what is.

But now this controversy is approaching becoming merely click bait so I’m growing weary of it.  Other than becoming sad at a time gone by in 'Cinema', I'm not sure what if anything Mr. Scorsese hopes can change by his comments.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, cmovieviewer said:

It’s Mr. Scorsese’s opinion which he is completely entitled to.  He was somewhat put in this position because someone specifically asked him about Marvel films.  In this latest article he uses that response as a starting point to explain how he feels about the state of ‘Cinema’ in general which I have no problem with.

The main disagreement I have with the latest text is with respect to Marvel he should have stopped with the reply “I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me.”  So for him to later on give specific comments about Marvel such as “What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk.” would be based on failed attempts at watching a few Marvel films.  I don’t think Mr. Scorsese would appreciate someone making such specific comments about his films based on a few failed attempts at watching them.

Spoiler alert for Avengers: Infinity War - at the end of this film half of humanity is wiped out.  If this is not mystery or emotional danger then I don’t know what is.

But now this controversy is approaching becoming merely click bait so I’m growing weary of it.  Other than becoming sad at a time gone by in 'Cinema', I'm not sure what if anything Mr. Scorsese hopes can change by his comments.

I think the problem is bigger than Marvel, it's the whole way people watch things anymore really. Somewhere, a few years ago, it seems, more people started waiting for films to watch on streaming or decided to opt for more "peak" TV, and only went to theatres for the latest spectaculars. As a result, independent film has shrunk considerably, more films are forgoing theatres, and the major studios invested more and more on a smaller number of films. And so its become a bit of a crisis.

I was talking to Lawrence the other day in a thread about how I was even growing nostalgic for movie years 15 years ago (something I never thought I would say). Back then, many were wringing their hands on how poor the major studio films were. But you can list many of their productions in the early 2000s that would not be made in the current major studio climate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2019 at 2:26 PM, cmovieviewer said:

The main disagreement I have with the latest text is with respect to Marvel he should have stopped with the reply “I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me.”  So for him to later on give specific comments about Marvel such as “What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk.” would be based on failed attempts at watching a few Marvel films.  I don’t think Mr. Scorsese would appreciate someone making such specific comments about his films based on a few failed attempts at watching them.

It's Scorsese's point of view, which he is certainly entitled to, and he was there first.

 

On 11/8/2019 at 2:26 PM, cmovieviewer said:

Spoiler alert for Avengers: Infinity War - at the end of this film half of humanity is wiped out.  If this is not mystery or emotional danger then I don’t know what is.

Societal conditioning.  Just follow the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a time when movies were based on genuine novels and plays that had been carefully crafted and parsed by their authors, editors and finally, the public.  Much of cinema used this great source material.  Certainly, the screenwriters and filmmakers managed to muck it up quite a bit from time to time, ("The book is better...") yet it was a deep well of material that, due to its tendency to include a first, second and third act, adapted well to the screen.

Fast forward.  Now the source material is a comic book or "graphic novel."  I'm going to say this straight out;  this stuff is c*ap.  The characters are simplistic, as are the plots.  That's what Marty is responding to.  The infantilization of the media.  Stories that have no narrative heft.  Stories that are pure adrenaline, but leave you with nothing.  Over-caffeinated CGI-fests.  It's dreck and he and Coppola know it.  Current directors aren't going to say that, because they fear the blowback in today's snowflake world.

Flame away, if you must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


© 2019 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...