I think with age, we all develop similar opinions. I'm not immune to it (especially in videogames – I love them but Fortnite depresses me). But I'm trying to keep in mind how this is mostly just...
I think with age, we all develop similar opinions. I'm not immune to it (especially in videogames – I love them but Fortnite depresses me). But I'm trying to keep in mind how this is mostly just history repeating.
I don't think Scorsese's warning about what is missing from today's popcorn movies is without value, it's worth listening to! It's good to compare perspectives. But it's the same thing that someone might have said about – maybe not his own movies but whatever enjoyable popcorn trash was in cinemas in previous decades. Marvel's CGI-carried spectacles are just the flavor of our time. We'll look back at them with amusement, pick what we like about them, chuckle at what will have become cliche and most importantly, move on.
The reason I'm not worried is that we still have weird shit. New weird shit. He mentions Ari Aster. I just saw Hereditary, which shook me like few other movies and I can't wait to finally see Midsommar. He released his first feature film last year! He's hyped all over the internet, I've heard post-millenials tell me about how Midsommar is just about the greatest thing ever! And Parasite! And Get Out! And The Favourite! We all still have these movies and people swarm to see them and discuss them enthusiastically and they win awards and make headlines and apparently are still profitable enough to exist!
Marvel movies are so enormously successful because people were happy with how far they got without becoming boring. Mainstream boring, not art house "boring". It's an achievement. Look at DC flailing around and dropping flops left and right. People wanted to see the MCU happening, sticked with it till the finale and enjoyed the ride. They'll get bored of it, now. Maybe next year, maybe in 3 years. There'll be a Marvel movie that's advertised like crazy, with a AAA hero and it will flop. People will ask whether it was the movie's fault (it probably won't be), whether cinema is dying (it won't) but actually, it will be people plain getting bored with the formula. It lasted for a while because it was an actually good, enjoyable formula and something that hadn't been done before at that scale, with actual stars and with such quality effects (again – this is actually conceptually new!), but that novelty won't last forever. Meanwhile, weird directors will continue to make weird movies, do surprise hits and critic darlings and life will go on. I'm not worried.
This is an excellent point! Even though I have absolutely no investment in these stories, I really wish that DC would have stuck with the same darker tone of Dark Knight instead of trying to play...
Marvel movies are so enormously successful because people were happy with how far they got without becoming boring. Mainstream boring, not art house "boring". It's an achievement.
This is an excellent point! Even though I have absolutely no investment in these stories, I really wish that DC would have stuck with the same darker tone of Dark Knight instead of trying to play catchup with those city-destroying shitshows (e.g. BvS.)
I really think they would have done well to do a Flashpoint trilogy or larger series so we could see Thomas Wayne -- it would have been an unbelievable early-picture reveal that would definitely shock the folks who aren't familiar with the story.
DC's failings are really frustrating. Their animated offerings have been amazing going back to the 90s Batman TAS, Superman, Batman Beyond, Justice League, etc. and their various direct-to-video...
DC's failings are really frustrating. Their animated offerings have been amazing going back to the 90s Batman TAS, Superman, Batman Beyond, Justice League, etc. and their various direct-to-video films were all incredible. They're the entire reason I'm a fan of DC at all, and they can't offer up anything close in the live action film market. They just rush into things, half-ass it, and then pikachu surprise face when it tanks and Marvel keeps breaking box office records.
DC probably didn't do itself any favors setting up Zack "You wanna know what would be really fucked up?" Snyder in charge of the iconic, larger than life characters of the DCCU, and then pulling...
DC probably didn't do itself any favors setting up Zack "You wanna know what would be really fucked up?" Snyder in charge of the iconic, larger than life characters of the DCCU, and then pulling him half way through his "totes legit" arc so that all of his die hard fans are in an everburn over what could have been.
I feel like their biggest problem is that none of the live action movies have really tried to capture what makes the characters work so well in the comics. Marvel's done a great job of keeping...
I feel like their biggest problem is that none of the live action movies have really tried to capture what makes the characters work so well in the comics. Marvel's done a great job of keeping their live action characters within the same realm of personality as their comic versions. DC, which was always the more character-driven of the big two, always explored with alt versions of their characters. It works fine for comic book one-shots, and for standalone live action movies, but if they want to do a proper Justice League and cinematic universe, they have to get a much tighter rein on the characters they're putting on the screen. The DCAU is basically the best "default" they have.
Not a single one of the live action Batman portrayals have been anything like the DCAU one.
People aren't acting like that at all. People are pointing out how Marvel has redefined what 'comic book movie success' looks like, and DC (who were positively CREAMING Marvel around the time...
People aren't acting like that at all. People are pointing out how Marvel has redefined what 'comic book movie success' looks like, and DC (who were positively CREAMING Marvel around the time Marvel was having to whore out its IPs like X-Men, Spiderman, and Fantastic 4) have completely and utterly failed to even be slightly competitive in that sphere.
Dark Knight was awesome. Wonder Woman and Aquaman were good, and Joker looks decent. The DCU however is a steaming pile of dogshit compared to what could have been.
Except we do know, because ensemble has shown to be workable as the best way to handle comic book IP - just look at CW's method. Which makes a lot of sense, because ensemble is how comics books...
Except we do know, because ensemble has shown to be workable as the best way to handle comic book IP - just look at CW's method. Which makes a lot of sense, because ensemble is how comics books themselves have worked since before any of us were born.
There's nothing stopping DC from using its B and C characters if it wants to, it's just hung up on the Big 3 (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman) like it always is. Meanwhile TV shows like Titans and Doom Patrol are killing it (another ensemble set in the making).
One thing I find funny is that this criticism of superhero movies isn't all that different from some arguments in the comics/graphic novelist community were putting out too. In the early 2000s...
One thing I find funny is that this criticism of superhero movies isn't all that different from some arguments in the comics/graphic novelist community were putting out too. In the early 2000s Warren Ellis wrote a giant rant (which I can't find anymore) about how annoying it is that superhero comics have swallowed up almost all comics with every other kind of story being relegated to the side as underfunded, under supported things. They've just sucked up all the oxygen.
I think that's worth complaining about. Even in the past when the industry was chock-a-block full of romantic comedies and generic action movies, or before that when it was all Westerns all the time, I suspect it didn't feel quite so samey at the Blockbuster level. Right now it seems like Christopher Nolan is the only person anyone trusts to make something that's not derivative of a superhero-based comic. There used to be more of a distribution on types of films that went out. Plenty of generic stuff and a fair bit of experimental stuff that nobody remembers except for the handful of classics and cult hits. Now it's really hard for any of that culty or B movie level stuff to break through.
That's fair enough. I definitely don't want to dismiss the criticism outright, but just looking at history, I don't see movies sticking with one trend for more than a decade. I think the problem...
That's fair enough. I definitely don't want to dismiss the criticism outright, but just looking at history, I don't see movies sticking with one trend for more than a decade. I think the problem is that the current trend is... CGI. CGI is what is most "new" and most "awesome" to the average movie goer. Proper super hero movies simply weren't possible until the early 00s or so. Look at the pitiful attempts back then, you had to rely on the DIY charm of costumes waving awkwardly in a wind machine. There's a reason Spiderman was 100% CGI in Spider-Man (2002). For the first time, movement like described in the comic books was possible to show on screen. And people said, "ohhhh, do Iron Man next!". And apparently, enough people on earth asked "ohhhh, do The Lion King but make it look like a real lion!". That shit can't go on forever.
I honestly don't think people watch these movies for the safe story or characters. They watch them for the special effects but don't want to admit it to themselves. Or, maybe more accurately, they want to finally see a version of that story shown in a way that doesn't distract you by looking dorky and unreal. They want to see a Spiderman movie where you actually pay attention to what Spiderman says instead of how you can kinda see the wires. That's the era we're in. It's the CGI-is-finally-good era. We want to see all the things that are only possible with CGI now. And that list of things is limited.
I originally wanted to make this reply about the comic book comparison because I think that actually is a valid concern since comic books have been dominated by superhero stories since the beginning and show no sign of diversifying (despite the frustrating amount of potential looking at artsy non-superhero comic books which don't seem to make any money whatsoever). The difference is history. Comics never changed. Movies always did.
Good point on CGI. It's also why most of the truly weird Marvel stuff didn't make it to the screen. When they first announced an Infinity War movie part of me wondered how they would ever do...
Good point on CGI. It's also why most of the truly weird Marvel stuff didn't make it to the screen. When they first announced an Infinity War movie part of me wondered how they would ever do justice to a page like this. It turns out, they didn't bother. They replaced Thanos trying to impress the literal personification of Death to make her love him by killing half the universe and fighting against abstract concepts to do so with a "Hurr overpopulation is bad!" hero's journey that doesn't stand up to even 5 seconds of scrutiny.
Very disappointing.
They watch them for the special effects but don't want to admit it to themselves.
I don't think it's 100% special effects though. If it was, "Annihilation" would have done way better. So would Tarsem Singh's whole oeuvre. They want the cool special effects, but only of very basic, action-movie things. Anything that's actually creative or mind-blowing doesn't fly. Not even interesting new takes on characters really seem to get through.
Imagine if they handed Spider-Man to Spike Jonze instead. What a different, interesting movie might we have gotten there? What if they made a Fantastic Four movie, but they had Wes Anderson write it as an actual family drama? You can imagine how fun or interesting that might be, but you know it'll never happen. There is so much fertile ground for interesting stuff to be done with these characters and these properties, but we're never gonna see any of it. Hell, I'd settle for a straight remake of the Fraction/Aja HawkGuyHawkeye series. You don't even need much CGI for that, you just need to not take yourself too seriously and accept that you can't be all things to all people.
(The big exception to all this is their willingness to hand Thor to Taika Waititi.)
I say this as one who couldn't care less about Marvel (etc) movies, but still watches a good portion of them, purely so I know wtf everybody else is on about. I liked most of Thor: Ragnarok and...
Exemplary
I say this as one who couldn't care less about Marvel (etc) movies, but still watches a good portion of them, purely so I know wtf everybody else is on about. I liked most of Thor: Ragnarok and the visuals of Dr Strange.. but couldn't care less about the others in the series that I've seen (most of them.)
These sorts of movies are written and directed for an international audience. Every detail must be clear for every viewer around the globe --- from a knowing glance to the dialog itself. Everything must translate perfectly and further, everything must be acceptable. It's not only Marvel pictures that are going through this process, either.
While they may be technically perfect, or close to it, there's no jazz / feeling / voice / etc. It's a movie... and every piece of the Marvel puzzle is shaped the same [1]. This structure works with all audiences and is just enough movie for people to follow without having to actually pay attention. This isn't a bad thing -- but that voice is typically how we'd define cinema at its core. Having a fairly rigid structure isn't bad -- we see the same basic structures all over TV and film, even with properties (for lack of a better term) that have a unique voice. It's harsh, but I'd say that Marvel films are the NCIS of film. A lot of people LOVE NCIS. It's not for me, but there isn't a wrong answer.
All this being said, it's not like we're hurting for unique voices in film. Sure, major theaters are stuffed with these comic movies, reboots, and a slew of other crap that is unbelievably profitable, but completely diluted... but there are still plenty of other great films out on a regular basis -- and most cities have an indie / smaller theatre that plays a mix of older / foreign / indie film along with newer, unique films like Under the Silver Lake, etc.
In my view, Scorsese is right --- and most people who are into film know this and have known this for quite some time. His remark was blown out of proportion, though. I also think that the distaste for Marvel (in this case) movies is somewhat misguided --- sort of like recognizing that a Big Mac is a decent burger, but the overall method of production, organizational structure / process, etc doesn't allow for a unique vision or voice in its product. You can't really blame the product itself -- there's an entire system behind the product that is creating these sorts of things with profit in mind, not high-art. Just because it lacks character, it doesn't mean that it's not enjoyable -- but there isn't any vision or anything truly remarkable about it outside of its global appeal.
It all boils down to film going extreme-corporate, pushing profit-first further, and putting more focus on the international audience even more than it has in the past. A lot of directors are happy for the work and do their best within the strict guidelines.
[1] Marvel / Superhero Structure -- 1: Introduce a powerful item / 2: The first battle / 3: Inner turmoil / 4: The second battle / 5: The final showdown / 6: Cameo performances, plugs, post-credits.
Not the best site for this breakdown, but its close enough. (link)
I don't think acknowledging the most rational response to his opinion makes that response any less right. Scorsese trying to define cinema such that it excludes Marvel films is like...
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.
I don't think acknowledging the most rational response to his opinion makes that response any less right. Scorsese trying to define cinema such that it excludes Marvel films is like pseudo-science. He wants to say one thing (I don't like these movies. I think they're bad) but needs to legitimize his opinions through a carefully worded definition.
He argues that a film needs to "surprise" the audience in order to qualify as cinema. There were multiple events and plot twists in Endgame that definitely surprised people. Does it not qualify...
He argues that a film needs to "surprise" the audience in order to qualify as cinema. There were multiple events and plot twists in Endgame that definitely surprised people. Does it not qualify under his own definition of cinema?
It's fine for him not to like Marvel movies. Having made many films that are better than any Marvel movie, he's earned the right to criticize them all he wants. But his own definition of "cinema" doesn't actually seem to exclude them.
I get the loose idea of what he's really getting at. Marvel movies are different than the movies he grew up with. There's a much stronger commercial, focus-tested, money driven element to them. But I think it's impossible to really come up with a concise definition of "cinema" that excludes them without ultimately being so narrow as to exclude many of the movies he listed in this article. He himself admits that Hitchcock movies seem to blur that line a bit.
I think he meant more that there was little risk involved with the Marvel movies. Sure there were surprises and plot twists, but none of them were all that risky. The good guys win in the end and...
I think he meant more that there was little risk involved with the Marvel movies. Sure there were surprises and plot twists, but none of them were all that risky. The good guys win in the end and your star earner isn't killed off until the very end of the series. The marvel movies are fun, but they aren't profound. Lightly philosophical, but never in a way that could be considered polarizing. It's like pop music- it has all the elements of more "real" music, but carefully tailored as not to upset anyone. Incredibly polished, but often formulaic. I won't argue that pop music isn't "real" music, but you get my point, right?
I completely agree with your assessment that you can't really define cinema concisely without excluding a great many films that many would consider to be all time greats. Shawshank redemption comes to mind (an adaptation of a novella by a wildly popular and commercially successful author, which in turn was loosely inspired by another story by another acclaimed literary figure).
I can't say that I agree with his definition of cinema, but I do agree with the point he's making about the commercialization of the medium.
I understand (and agree with) what he's getting at. I just think the way Scorsese is trying to change the definition of the word "cinema" comes off like he's playing gatekeeper.
I understand (and agree with) what he's getting at. I just think the way Scorsese is trying to change the definition of the word "cinema" comes off like he's playing gatekeeper.
I don't mind people being snobs like this, to be honest. I think its fine for people to stand up to the dilution of the idea of "art", which I think is what Scorsese is getting at. Especially if...
I don't mind people being snobs like this, to be honest. I think its fine for people to stand up to the dilution of the idea of "art", which I think is what Scorsese is getting at. Especially if they're credentialed. Though, I do think Scorsese is one of the more accessible "auteurs" due to the types of movies he tends to make (gangster films) and the audiences that flock to see 'em (dudes).
Anyway, I understand how the idea of gatekeeping art can have some kinda political implications/arguments/etc. ...but, still... I don't mind the snobbery.
I think with age, we all develop similar opinions. I'm not immune to it (especially in videogames – I love them but Fortnite depresses me). But I'm trying to keep in mind how this is mostly just history repeating.
I don't think Scorsese's warning about what is missing from today's popcorn movies is without value, it's worth listening to! It's good to compare perspectives. But it's the same thing that someone might have said about – maybe not his own movies but whatever enjoyable popcorn trash was in cinemas in previous decades. Marvel's CGI-carried spectacles are just the flavor of our time. We'll look back at them with amusement, pick what we like about them, chuckle at what will have become cliche and most importantly, move on.
The reason I'm not worried is that we still have weird shit. New weird shit. He mentions Ari Aster. I just saw Hereditary, which shook me like few other movies and I can't wait to finally see Midsommar. He released his first feature film last year! He's hyped all over the internet, I've heard post-millenials tell me about how Midsommar is just about the greatest thing ever! And Parasite! And Get Out! And The Favourite! We all still have these movies and people swarm to see them and discuss them enthusiastically and they win awards and make headlines and apparently are still profitable enough to exist!
Marvel movies are so enormously successful because people were happy with how far they got without becoming boring. Mainstream boring, not art house "boring". It's an achievement. Look at DC flailing around and dropping flops left and right. People wanted to see the MCU happening, sticked with it till the finale and enjoyed the ride. They'll get bored of it, now. Maybe next year, maybe in 3 years. There'll be a Marvel movie that's advertised like crazy, with a AAA hero and it will flop. People will ask whether it was the movie's fault (it probably won't be), whether cinema is dying (it won't) but actually, it will be people plain getting bored with the formula. It lasted for a while because it was an actually good, enjoyable formula and something that hadn't been done before at that scale, with actual stars and with such quality effects (again – this is actually conceptually new!), but that novelty won't last forever. Meanwhile, weird directors will continue to make weird movies, do surprise hits and critic darlings and life will go on. I'm not worried.
This is an excellent point! Even though I have absolutely no investment in these stories, I really wish that DC would have stuck with the same darker tone of Dark Knight instead of trying to play catchup with those city-destroying shitshows (e.g. BvS.)
I really think they would have done well to do a Flashpoint trilogy or larger series so we could see Thomas Wayne -- it would have been an unbelievable early-picture reveal that would definitely shock the folks who aren't familiar with the story.
DC's failings are really frustrating. Their animated offerings have been amazing going back to the 90s Batman TAS, Superman, Batman Beyond, Justice League, etc. and their various direct-to-video films were all incredible. They're the entire reason I'm a fan of DC at all, and they can't offer up anything close in the live action film market. They just rush into things, half-ass it, and then pikachu surprise face when it tanks and Marvel keeps breaking box office records.
DC probably didn't do itself any favors setting up Zack "You wanna know what would be really fucked up?" Snyder in charge of the iconic, larger than life characters of the DCCU, and then pulling him half way through his "totes legit" arc so that all of his die hard fans are in an everburn over what could have been.
For me, Batman TAS is the benchmark for an animated series. The dark deco aesthetic is perfect.
I feel like their biggest problem is that none of the live action movies have really tried to capture what makes the characters work so well in the comics. Marvel's done a great job of keeping their live action characters within the same realm of personality as their comic versions. DC, which was always the more character-driven of the big two, always explored with alt versions of their characters. It works fine for comic book one-shots, and for standalone live action movies, but if they want to do a proper Justice League and cinematic universe, they have to get a much tighter rein on the characters they're putting on the screen. The DCAU is basically the best "default" they have.
Not a single one of the live action Batman portrayals have been anything like the DCAU one.
People aren't acting like that at all. People are pointing out how Marvel has redefined what 'comic book movie success' looks like, and DC (who were positively CREAMING Marvel around the time Marvel was having to whore out its IPs like X-Men, Spiderman, and Fantastic 4) have completely and utterly failed to even be slightly competitive in that sphere.
Dark Knight was awesome. Wonder Woman and Aquaman were good, and Joker looks decent. The DCU however is a steaming pile of dogshit compared to what could have been.
Except we do know, because ensemble has shown to be workable as the best way to handle comic book IP - just look at CW's method. Which makes a lot of sense, because ensemble is how comics books themselves have worked since before any of us were born.
There's nothing stopping DC from using its B and C characters if it wants to, it's just hung up on the Big 3 (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman) like it always is. Meanwhile TV shows like Titans and Doom Patrol are killing it (another ensemble set in the making).
One thing I find funny is that this criticism of superhero movies isn't all that different from some arguments in the comics/graphic novelist community were putting out too. In the early 2000s Warren Ellis wrote a giant rant (which I can't find anymore) about how annoying it is that superhero comics have swallowed up almost all comics with every other kind of story being relegated to the side as underfunded, under supported things. They've just sucked up all the oxygen.
I think that's worth complaining about. Even in the past when the industry was chock-a-block full of romantic comedies and generic action movies, or before that when it was all Westerns all the time, I suspect it didn't feel quite so samey at the Blockbuster level. Right now it seems like Christopher Nolan is the only person anyone trusts to make something that's not derivative of a superhero-based comic. There used to be more of a distribution on types of films that went out. Plenty of generic stuff and a fair bit of experimental stuff that nobody remembers except for the handful of classics and cult hits. Now it's really hard for any of that culty or B movie level stuff to break through.
That's fair enough. I definitely don't want to dismiss the criticism outright, but just looking at history, I don't see movies sticking with one trend for more than a decade. I think the problem is that the current trend is... CGI. CGI is what is most "new" and most "awesome" to the average movie goer. Proper super hero movies simply weren't possible until the early 00s or so. Look at the pitiful attempts back then, you had to rely on the DIY charm of costumes waving awkwardly in a wind machine. There's a reason Spiderman was 100% CGI in Spider-Man (2002). For the first time, movement like described in the comic books was possible to show on screen. And people said, "ohhhh, do Iron Man next!". And apparently, enough people on earth asked "ohhhh, do The Lion King but make it look like a real lion!". That shit can't go on forever.
I honestly don't think people watch these movies for the safe story or characters. They watch them for the special effects but don't want to admit it to themselves. Or, maybe more accurately, they want to finally see a version of that story shown in a way that doesn't distract you by looking dorky and unreal. They want to see a Spiderman movie where you actually pay attention to what Spiderman says instead of how you can kinda see the wires. That's the era we're in. It's the CGI-is-finally-good era. We want to see all the things that are only possible with CGI now. And that list of things is limited.
I originally wanted to make this reply about the comic book comparison because I think that actually is a valid concern since comic books have been dominated by superhero stories since the beginning and show no sign of diversifying (despite the frustrating amount of potential looking at artsy non-superhero comic books which don't seem to make any money whatsoever). The difference is history. Comics never changed. Movies always did.
Good point on CGI. It's also why most of the truly weird Marvel stuff didn't make it to the screen. When they first announced an Infinity War movie part of me wondered how they would ever do justice to a page like this. It turns out, they didn't bother. They replaced Thanos trying to impress the literal personification of Death to make her love him by killing half the universe and fighting against abstract concepts to do so with a "Hurr overpopulation is bad!" hero's journey that doesn't stand up to even 5 seconds of scrutiny.
Very disappointing.
I don't think it's 100% special effects though. If it was, "Annihilation" would have done way better. So would Tarsem Singh's whole oeuvre. They want the cool special effects, but only of very basic, action-movie things. Anything that's actually creative or mind-blowing doesn't fly. Not even interesting new takes on characters really seem to get through.
Imagine if they handed Spider-Man to Spike Jonze instead. What a different, interesting movie might we have gotten there? What if they made a Fantastic Four movie, but they had Wes Anderson write it as an actual family drama? You can imagine how fun or interesting that might be, but you know it'll never happen. There is so much fertile ground for interesting stuff to be done with these characters and these properties, but we're never gonna see any of it. Hell, I'd settle for a straight remake of the Fraction/Aja
HawkGuyHawkeye series. You don't even need much CGI for that, you just need to not take yourself too seriously and accept that you can't be all things to all people.(The big exception to all this is their willingness to hand Thor to Taika Waititi.)
I say this as one who couldn't care less about Marvel (etc) movies, but still watches a good portion of them, purely so I know wtf everybody else is on about. I liked most of Thor: Ragnarok and the visuals of Dr Strange.. but couldn't care less about the others in the series that I've seen (most of them.)
These sorts of movies are written and directed for an international audience. Every detail must be clear for every viewer around the globe --- from a knowing glance to the dialog itself. Everything must translate perfectly and further, everything must be acceptable. It's not only Marvel pictures that are going through this process, either.
While they may be technically perfect, or close to it, there's no jazz / feeling / voice / etc. It's a movie... and every piece of the Marvel puzzle is shaped the same [1]. This structure works with all audiences and is just enough movie for people to follow without having to actually pay attention. This isn't a bad thing -- but that voice is typically how we'd define cinema at its core. Having a fairly rigid structure isn't bad -- we see the same basic structures all over TV and film, even with properties (for lack of a better term) that have a unique voice. It's harsh, but I'd say that Marvel films are the NCIS of film. A lot of people LOVE NCIS. It's not for me, but there isn't a wrong answer.
All this being said, it's not like we're hurting for unique voices in film. Sure, major theaters are stuffed with these comic movies, reboots, and a slew of other crap that is unbelievably profitable, but completely diluted... but there are still plenty of other great films out on a regular basis -- and most cities have an indie / smaller theatre that plays a mix of older / foreign / indie film along with newer, unique films like Under the Silver Lake, etc.
In my view, Scorsese is right --- and most people who are into film know this and have known this for quite some time. His remark was blown out of proportion, though. I also think that the distaste for Marvel (in this case) movies is somewhat misguided --- sort of like recognizing that a Big Mac is a decent burger, but the overall method of production, organizational structure / process, etc doesn't allow for a unique vision or voice in its product. You can't really blame the product itself -- there's an entire system behind the product that is creating these sorts of things with profit in mind, not high-art. Just because it lacks character, it doesn't mean that it's not enjoyable -- but there isn't any vision or anything truly remarkable about it outside of its global appeal.
It all boils down to film going extreme-corporate, pushing profit-first further, and putting more focus on the international audience even more than it has in the past. A lot of directors are happy for the work and do their best within the strict guidelines.
[1] Marvel / Superhero Structure -- 1: Introduce a powerful item / 2: The first battle / 3: Inner turmoil / 4: The second battle / 5: The final showdown / 6: Cameo performances, plugs, post-credits.
Not the best site for this breakdown, but its close enough. (link)
I don't think acknowledging the most rational response to his opinion makes that response any less right. Scorsese trying to define cinema such that it excludes Marvel films is like pseudo-science. He wants to say one thing (I don't like these movies. I think they're bad) but needs to legitimize his opinions through a carefully worded definition.
He argues that a film needs to "surprise" the audience in order to qualify as cinema. There were multiple events and plot twists in Endgame that definitely surprised people. Does it not qualify under his own definition of cinema?
It's fine for him not to like Marvel movies. Having made many films that are better than any Marvel movie, he's earned the right to criticize them all he wants. But his own definition of "cinema" doesn't actually seem to exclude them.
I get the loose idea of what he's really getting at. Marvel movies are different than the movies he grew up with. There's a much stronger commercial, focus-tested, money driven element to them. But I think it's impossible to really come up with a concise definition of "cinema" that excludes them without ultimately being so narrow as to exclude many of the movies he listed in this article. He himself admits that Hitchcock movies seem to blur that line a bit.
I think he meant more that there was little risk involved with the Marvel movies. Sure there were surprises and plot twists, but none of them were all that risky. The good guys win in the end and your star earner isn't killed off until the very end of the series. The marvel movies are fun, but they aren't profound. Lightly philosophical, but never in a way that could be considered polarizing. It's like pop music- it has all the elements of more "real" music, but carefully tailored as not to upset anyone. Incredibly polished, but often formulaic. I won't argue that pop music isn't "real" music, but you get my point, right?
I completely agree with your assessment that you can't really define cinema concisely without excluding a great many films that many would consider to be all time greats. Shawshank redemption comes to mind (an adaptation of a novella by a wildly popular and commercially successful author, which in turn was loosely inspired by another story by another acclaimed literary figure).
I can't say that I agree with his definition of cinema, but I do agree with the point he's making about the commercialization of the medium.
I understand (and agree with) what he's getting at. I just think the way Scorsese is trying to change the definition of the word "cinema" comes off like he's playing gatekeeper.
I don't mind people being snobs like this, to be honest. I think its fine for people to stand up to the dilution of the idea of "art", which I think is what Scorsese is getting at. Especially if they're credentialed. Though, I do think Scorsese is one of the more accessible "auteurs" due to the types of movies he tends to make (gangster films) and the audiences that flock to see 'em (dudes).
Anyway, I understand how the idea of gatekeeping art can have some kinda political implications/arguments/etc. ...but, still... I don't mind the snobbery.