Martin Scorsese is urging filmmakers to save cinema, by doubling down on his call to fight comic book movie culture.
The storied filmmaker is revisiting the topic of comic book movies in a new profile for GQ. Despite facing intense blowback from filmmakers, actors and the public for the 2019 comments he made slamming the Marvel Cinematic Universe films — he called them theme parks rather than actual cinema — Scorsese isn’t shying away from the topic.
“The danger there is what it’s doing to our culture,” he told GQ. “Because there are going to be generations now that think ... that’s what movies are.”
GQ’s Zach Baron posited that what Scorsese was saying might already be true, and the “Killers of the Flower Moon” filmmaker agreed.
“They already think that. Which means that we have to then fight back stronger. And it’s got to come from the grassroots level. It’s gotta come from the filmmakers themselves,” Scorsese continued to the outlet. “And you’ll have, you know, the Safdie brothers, and you’ll have Chris Nolan, you know what I mean? And hit ’em from all sides. Hit ’em from all sides, and don’t give up. ... Go reinvent. Don’t complain about it. But it’s true, because we’ve got to save cinema.”
Scorsese referred to movies inspired by comic books as “manufactured content” rather than cinema.
“It’s almost like AI making a film,” he said. “And that doesn’t mean that you don’t have incredible directors and special effects people doing beautiful artwork. But what does it mean? What do these films, what will it give you?”
His forthcoming film, “Killers of the Flower Moon,” had been on Scorsese’s wish list for several years; it’s based on David Grann’s 2017 nonfiction book of the same name. He called the story “a sober look at who we are as a culture.”
The film tells the true story of the murders of Osage Nation members by white settlers in the 1920s. DiCaprio originally was attached to play FBI investigator Tom White, who was sent to the Osage Nation within Oklahoma to probe the killings. The script, however, underwent a significant rewrite.
“After a certain point,” the filmmaker told Time, “I realized I was making a movie about all the white guys.”
The dramatic focus shifted from White’s investigation to the Osage and the circumstances that led to them being systematically killed with no consequences.
The character of White now is played by Jesse Plemons in a supporting role. DiCaprio stars as the husband of a Native American woman, Mollie Kyle (Lily Gladstone), an oil-rich Osage woman, and member of a conspiracy to kill her loved ones in an effort to steal her family fortune.
Scorsese worked closely with Osage Principal Chief Geoffrey Standing Bear and his office from the beginning of production, consulting producer Chad Renfro told Time. On the first day of shooting, the Oscar-winning filmmaker had an elder of the nation come to set to say a prayer for the cast and crew.
I mean, he's not wrong. But there has always been a ton of shitty action movies with the same cut and paste plot. Marvel just tweaked the formula.
And it's not like good movies aren't still being made. The Marvel movies are historically bad at winning awards. There have been a handful of nominations, but not a lot of wins. The wins always go to good movies that deserve them.
Sure, the Marvel movies pull in more money than other movies, but the money makers are usually trash. Marvel is like the McDonald's of movies. It's going to pull in way more money than a fine dining establishment, but not because it's good, because it's the garbage that the public will take out their wallet for. There is space in the market for both of these things.
Not so sure about that, and that might be the problem. Marvel/Disney is both rather monocultural and a ridiculously huge draw and brand that can suck the oxygen out of the marketing ecosystem. It could be true that the comic cinema industry is genuinely taking eyes off of other things and creating a less diverse cinema experience per capita. Even if for most people it's only marginal, a slightly alternative take on an action or hero film with a slightly different angle or message or style is still diversity that might be important and valuable.
It would be interesting to compare this to the action and block buster movies of the past. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that there was a noticeable diversity and I'm going to say thoughtfulness amongst big films of the past compared to today. I'm open to being wrong of course, but it's worth thinking about, just because big-corp monopolisation can easily have these effects.
I'm partly influenced by a recent rewatch of Jurassic Park and noticing how subtly thoughtful it was while also being basically a straight action film (after the set up at least). There's even a moment (when they first see the raptors being fed) that's basically kinda vegan message or at least a critique or contrast between humans and "the monsters" of the film, done entirely but very clearly through editing and directing ... it was really nice actually.
You're wrong.
But to be clear, when you say "the past" you are talking about maybe twenty years. Thirty, tops.
Because people WERE in fact saying this about Star Wars. The notion that the new Hollywood brats were turning it into a commercial dystopia was very much a thing. So the old school action films you're talking about are the blockbusters ranging from 1978 to maybe 2000 when the Blade, X-Men and Spider-Man films start building momentum for comic book movies.
Before then you're in Old Hollywood territory, where the "action" stuff is pulp and exploitation in the margins. The status quo you remember is late 20th century kids bringing the crappy b-list stuff they grew up with into big money blockbuster fare.
Ummm ... wrong about what exactly ... I don't that's clear from your post?
Otherwise, we can both be right. The action blockbuster movie thing, as far as I understand, and as you state, was definitely a creature of the 70s up to now. And it's also probably important and valuable to criticise that too. Danny Boyle, for instance, is on record saying that the great sin of Star Wars is that it transformed the idea of an "Adult film" into a pornographic film when it used to just be a normal drama film about adult and interesting things which have been pushed out of the industry by relatively childish blockbusters. Comic films can easily be seen as just an extension of that. My point was that we might find that it's been a continuous collapse of "Adult films" under the weight of blockbusters to the point that the blockbusters aren't even trying anymore to imitate, at least at times, the more nuanced "adult" films of the past.
All due respect to Boyle's hot take, but I'd argue that US censorship had a whole lot more to do than Star Wars there.
I mean, sure, it created an understanding that family films that don't get a restricted audience due to censorship make more money, but I'm gonna guess people would have figured that out at some point either way. It's also interesting that the other target he gave in that quote was Pixar, but people tend to not mention that part.
I think there's a sense that pre-blockbuster Hollywood wasn't about spectacle or commercialism, which I find a bit confusing in the context of Cleopatra, Gone with the Wind or The Ten Commandments. I think the movies people miss are the pulpy trash they saw as kids, probably. "Serious dramas" or "adult films" were only at the forefront of filmmaking when they were at the forefront of profitability. That's to say, when the so-called "star system" made it so that seeing Cary Grant or Humpfrey Bogart mostly just... hanging out and acting out stage plays could move audiences.
Which is, incidentally, why people are so desperate to praise Nolan or Villeneuve, who are both very competent visual filmmakers that are way less smart than they and the industry seem to think.
Okay, let me put it this way: I like most Rian Johnson movies. I think is worst movie is The Last Jedi. I think that movie was made worse by being a Star Wars film. I don't think that would have been any different in 1982.
In the late-70s/80s it was slasher movies. In the 80s/90s it was Rambo-style action movies, or Lethal Weapon and Fatal Attraction-style thrillers.
There have always been Hollywood bandwagons.
The difference is that back then the major studios made a bunch of films of all scopes and budgets, while today those same studios make fewer, more expensive movies.
If Scorsese was a young man today - or Robert Altman or William Friedkin, whoever - he probably wouldn't get a chance to make a Raging Bull, he'd be steered towards a superhero film with - of course - NO final cut. The one exception is Christopher Nolan. And even he did an entire superhero TRILOGY.
Taking what Marty is saying and putting it another way - major studio content is not driven by a director's creative vision in the current environment, but by producers... the suits and their market research.
I'm by no means an expert but was that ever different? Making movies always was very expensive, so the people in charge obviously had to have money and then try to use that to make more money. That alone leads to rather conservative decisions regarding which movies should be produced and which shouldn't. Artistic merit isn't something I believe ever had much sway in Hollywood unless some directors actually used their previous success to bully the rich cats in charge to trust them or outright finance the movie themself. And that I guess is rather rare. I think the only thing really different today, is that market research today is way more advanced than it was in the 60's or 70's.
Making lower budget films and giving artistic freedom to their directors allowed them to:
This was also in the days when a film could play in theaters for months, breathe and grow.
Now, they want every movie they release to make 200 million in the first weekend, with a marketing carpet-bombing blitz.
In Scorsese's 70s heyday, a "modest success" was seen by the studio suits as a success, they made many of these and were happy about it.
Nowadays, a "modest success" is seen as a fizzle. Half a billion or bust.
There probably are hundreds of weird movies made that cannot be explained by financial interest alone. In fact one was given above which you ignored. Raging Bull.
Look, I didn't love Guardians 3, it's a conservative, Christian movie and I don't agree with most of its premises.
But there wasn't a dry eye in the house by the end of that, and I'm pretty sure most of them know what "it meant", and it certainly wasn't "almost like AI making a film". Ditto for Across the Spider-Verse, whcih is a progressive movie I do agree with.
There's always been this argument that successfull movies are bad, and I've never liked it. It's never been true. There are tons of bad films that make their money back, but for every Air Force One there is a Die Hard or Back to the Future (more conservative movies I don't agree with but are very well made, go figure).
So yeah, I do agree that Oscar bait keeps Oscar baiting, and that superheroes aren't killing cinema, which is a hard take to roll with this year in particular. But no, I actively don't think superhero movies or genre movies are worthless or trash, any more than I think westerns are trash or action movies are trash.
How is Guardians 3 a conservative Christian movie? You know the director, James Gunn, is very outspokenly progressive, right?
I responded to this above, but just to clarify on this point, I mean small c conservative here. Which is absolutely not inconsistent with Gunn being a normal person who is not an actual fascist.
I mean that it's a conservative movie in that it explicitly religious and does take the stance that science and technocratic "let's change the world" science is inherently equal to hubris and negative, while the positive flipside is enduring suffering, embracing spirituality and being rewarded with a happy afterlife. There is absolutely a progressive read of those beliefs, there has been for hundreds of years. Gunn seems to be explicitly aligning with it here, and that's fine, but that's still a (small c) conservative viewpoint.
Hell, I'll go one further: a lot of people on the opposite side of that argument are today, in fact, actual fascists. It's not hard to go find examples of atheist dicks online, or of technocratic tyrants. Turns out your religious beliefs are not connected to whether you're a good person. That doesn't mean the Catholic worldview isn't inherently conservative. I was using the word philosophically, not politically.
That’s a lot of mental gymnastics to make GOTG3 political.
It’s a movie about friendship, family, and a megalomaniac.
How is it mental gymnastics? I'm starting to feel bad for Gunn, because he put all that stuff on the movie super on purpose and apparently people will not just miss it they will actively try to ignore it.
Eh... I may be late to this, but... yeah, these are extreme SPOILERS. This thing really needs a content warning system, a spoiler alert system or both.
Anyway, dude, Rocket goes to actual heaven. They flag it as actual heaven. We see it on screen. Lyla straight up says there is a God and a heaven and Rocket gets to go to it.
Normally you expect this argument to be about some subtextual reinterpretation or an allegory or whatever but... no, man, it's right there. Explicitly.
Hey, don't look now, but besides being pretty explicit about there being a God and an afterlife it's also super not on board with for-profit health care and animal testing. You may have missed how it's like 75% of the running time of the movie. You could argue about it being a religious film, but political? It's the story of a group of people whose friend's organs are hadlocked by a corporation, they go fight the corporation and end up freeing all their animal test subjects.
Every time this "it's not political" stuff comes up in online conversation I swear it's like an optical effect of some sort. It makes you question how subjective perception is and wonder how other people's minds are parsing the world in different ways.
God and Heaven exist in the Marvel universe in the same way that Thor and Zeus exist. You’re reading way too much in to it.
They do, but no, I'm not.
There's a difference between using Christian mythos as mythos and making a spiritual point. You pick what to pull and why, and things have meaning.
Ironically, in this context if they had made this more of an explicit heaven it'd have been less of a conscious choice (see also, Thor: Love & Thunder). The framing of the afterlife, who states the existence of a divine plan, paired with the role that scene plays in the movie are all important context cues.
Again, people worked really hard to not trivialize that scene as a fantasy setup and instead charge it with meaning and a point. It'd be a shame to purposefully ignore it, whether you agree with the implied philosophical take or not.
By that logic the Thor movies are pushing a Nordic mythological agenda. Should I be concerned?
No, that's the opposite of that logic. As... I explicitly say above.
See, people think meaning is a puzzle. "What is actually happening in such and such movie?", but that's not it.
Meaning is communication, it's put together from a lot of shared cues. It's not Picross, it's more like a coloring book. Like I said above, Thor movies, if anything, make an explicit point of explaining how humans confused a race of aliens for gods. They were so worried about that distinction that at some point in Avengers they make Cap say "There is only one God and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that".
Which is also a very Christian statement but not an honest statement of belief because of the way it's presented, when it's presented, who says it and the history of Marvel being very afraid to call Thor a "god" in media. Context cues!
In the Thor movies they explain that Hel and Valhalla are real as well. I don’t see it as any different.
The Thor movies have three different directors and a bunch of writers, they don't "say" the same things. And I just walked through why and how they are different.
The Taika Waititi movies, which I presume are the ones you're referring to, actively mock the gods they depict. Hel is actively a place where Odin is hiding, figuratively, the shame of his colonial past. In the sequel, Valhalla is in fact presented as a physical afterlife, but honestly it's, like the "there is onkly one God", more of a metatextual statement to limit the bummer of an ending. See my post above about why Valhalla being Valhalla and Jane going there physically is the opposite of what Guardians 3 is doing.
But hey, ultimately the TLDR is: nobody involved in Love & Thunder thinks there's a Valhalla, and you can tell. Somebody in Guardians thinks there is a version of the nondescript, nondenominational heavenly afterlife they depict, and you can tell.
I disagree, but I’m enjoying reading how you’re waaaaayyyyy overthinking it.
I'm not overthinking it, I'm overexplaining it after a bunch of people got really antsy about the concept of movies saying things.
The thinking took like ten minutes after I left the movies. It went "huh, hadn't clocked that Gunn is a spiritual/catholic guy before, It's weird how much of a direct response to the very strongly atheist videogame plot this turned out to be. I like the game's take better".
And that was literally it until I mentioned it in passing here and a bunch of people went "wait whaaaa?" and got really agitated.
People are like, “whaaaaaat?” because you’re overthinking it.
They really aren't. I'm not calling out anything that isn't in there on purpose. Like, obviously on purpose.
There's an argument to be had about to what extent criticism can adequately push a read that the author doesn't intend or disagrees with, but on Guardians I'm literally just repeating what the movie says. I'm not even interpreting anything here.
Right on, those are some very fair points. I guess calling them trash is a bit far.
But out of genuine curiosity, could you expand on how the movies you mentioned are conservative Christian movies? I know Die Hard takes place on Christmas, but that's all I'm picking up.
I have absolutely no idea what they mean by conservative/progressive movie. I too would like to know, because I'm utterly baffled.
The second back to the future movie even turns the villain into a trump-like megalomaniac
Oh, boy. Should have guessed that's the bit that would get picked up.
I mean, I didn't think Guardians was very subtle about this at all. James Gunn doesn't seem to be an asshole, but you can be religious and not be a completely reactionary idiot. The movie features actual heaven, where a character tells another "there's the hands that made us and then there's the hands that guide the hands", and says that heaven "is beatutiful and it is forever". And then the villain yells "there is no God, that's why I stepped in", which is the tipping point for his allies turning on him. The entire diagnosis the movie has on the guy ends up being that "he didn't want to make things better, he just hated things the way they are", which is, for the record, a much, much better take on the equally conformist version of that in The Flash. It's a very well made, very emotional, very beautiful movie, but... you know, it's not very shy about spiritualism. If I had to sum it up I'd say it's... eh... Stephen Colbert Catholic? In that wavelength?
As for Back to the Future... well, I'm not the first to notice that the "good future" is a Reaganomics fever dream. Somebody points out the Trumpy bad guy in the sequel, which I guess from the modern day makes it read different, but... yeah, it's a very 80s franchise with very 80s sensibilities. Zemeckis has pushed back against this slightly, I think, and yeah, it's being a bit jokey about the weirdness of the americana he's clearly nostalgic for, but that doesn't change the text. I mean, he's also the guy that used "a black family lives here now" as shorthand for the town going to crap in the sequel. He also made the entirety of Forrest Gump, so... yeah, you don't have to present a worldview on purpose to have it color your stuff. Once again, the movie isn't mean about it, and it's certainly not dumb, but it's coming from a certain worldview and you can absolutely tell.
Die Hard is straight up MRA propaganda, though. Great film, love it to bits, but it's entirely about how the down-to-Earth cop feels emasculated by his wife having a career and rubbing elbows with all the California yuppies only to get himself vindicated when things turn violent and he's the only one with enough common sense and old school skills to fix the situation. Also, the government is fundamentally incompetent unless it's specifically the cops. And Reginald VelJohnson's entire arc is about how he should not stop shooting people just because he once killed a kid when he saw his toy gun, which is up there for "plot point that has aged the absolute worst in movie history" award. Still love it, though. Super conservative movie. The most political of this bunch, probably. Still good filmmaking.
Look, you don't have to dislike things just because they're built on implicit viewpoints that you don't agree with. Art is art, and it carries meaning and implications. You can notice them and still enjoy the result regardless of whether you agree with those viewpoints. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to enjoy anything made outside this century or... you know, your own culture. It's fine.
I wasn't on board with you at first, but this write-up was thought provoking and I appreciated the read.
Cool, thanks!
People sometimes think analysis or interpretation of stuff they like is an attack, especially when it identifies elements they disagree with in things they enjoy.
But that's not the point, it's about understanding what you're hearing and seeing and you can absolutely enjoy things even if they're saying things you don't agree with. If I made that point to one person this entire thread was worth it (and already more interesting than Martin Scorsese not liking superhero movies, honestly).
Wow, just wow. Are your arms sore from all of that reaching?
Oh, hey, shitposting. Maybe this is a legit Reddit alternative after all.
For the record, except for Guardians 3, which is a bit too new to have much in the way of hermeneutics going on around it, none of those takes are new at all. I'm being a lot less original than you give me credit for. It's less a reach and more the go-to default read for these.
A good guy with a gun kills bad guys with guns? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Just as Jesus commanded.
TIL that somehow it makes sense to consider the classic back to the future somehow a fucking conservative movie. LMAO might wanna lay off whatever heavy drug you'd been ingesting
Less conservative and more a product of its time, so let's say centre with a whiff of Reagan.
But yeah, hey, that's a thing. If you learned it today and you're curious about it there are decades of criticism and analysis about it. I am very far from being the first to point that out, among other things because I was a toddler when it came out.
Despite other people pointing it out I'm not really buying it.
There is a line "Ronald Reagan, the actor? President?" Which seems to indicate it's a ridiculous idea.
Then as others have pointed out, Biff in BTTF 2 is basically exactly trump and they couldn't paint that character in a worse light. He's an evil villain.
The reality is probably that the movies have nothing political in them other than the joke about Reagan which likely actually wasn't meant to be a real critique
That's not how meaning works, though.
Look, I get it, not everybody cares or knows how semiotics work, but it's always baffling how much people get invested in the notion of "no politics in art" no matter how often this comes up.
Yes, there are politics in Back to the Future, as in any other film where the worldview of the creators becomes the perspective from which the entire film is put together. Things in movies don't happen by accident, they get carefully written, acted and shot. Everything in a movie is something somebody is saying, and like any other thing you say it has both superficial and subtextual meaning.
So yes, BTTF does spend the entire movie boiling down maturity and success to being financially successful and self-confident. Because it's an American movie from the 80s and that's how young Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale saw being self-fulfilled looking like in 1985.
And yes, they poke good intentioned, light fun at Reagan being president. And they acknowledge some form of past racism in the form of Goldie being president, but also holy crap, the way Goldie is characterized also tells you a lot of how the Bobs saw race working and let's just say that nothing in BTTF2 and Forrest Gump was accidental.
Is it an active piece of propaganda? No, that's not where the bar is for containing a political or even politicized worldview. But it does present a worldview, and that is... a pretty centrist, eminently materialistic take on what was a fairly conservative world.
I promise that's not an insult.
Never ever ever said that because it's untrue as fuck. You lost me completely
You... literally said
It's right there, I'm looking at it.
I am now more curious to know how you think this works. Like, you think there's a political take in some art, but not in all art, so there's a line somewhere between explicit and implicit political stuff, I suppose?
Or is the confusion that you thought I understood you as advocating for no politics in art instead? Because that's not what I'm saying.
I claimed 3 movies likely aren't political. You extrapolated that to all art. I'm done here
I think you're maybe mixing up "being political" with "being propagandistic". Those aren't the same thing.
BTTF or Guardians 3 are political in that they have a built-in political view. They're movies where reality is painted from a specific perspective and lines up with a certain worldview. They're not selling you on that perspective actively, it's built into the narrative as a framing, consicously or subsconsciously (it's probably more subconscious in BTTF, more conscious in G3, I'd say).
Die Hard is a bit of a different beast there. It may not be outright propagandistic or jingoistic, but it sure is flirting with that borderline there.
I absolutely agree that politics can be subtle and unintentional but to classify a movie with the word "political" as a topic unto itself implies an intentionally present political message.
I'd argue it implies a noticeable or identifiable political framing, but I don't think intentionality is the line.
But hey, at that point we're debating what we name it. I'd argue that we want to have a name for it, and if you don't want to call it "political" I'm struggling to think what else to use. It's not simply thematic, because a theme can be different from an implicit political worldview. A movie can be about, say, coming of age, thematically, but that's different from its political framing.