[Oliver_W]

Martin Scorsese, one of cinema’s most venerated current directors, has decried superhero movies – the dominant force in today’s industry. The director of films such as Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas told Empire magazine that his attempts to get up to speed with contemporary superhero films had failed.

“I tried, you know?” the director said when asked if he had seen Marvel’s movies. “But that’s not cinema.”

He continued: “Honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.”

Earlier this year, Avengers: Endgame became the highest grossing film in history after topping $2.8bn at the global box office (fifth highest after adjusting for inflation). Eight other titles from the same studio feature in the Top 30 (when factored without inflation).

Marvel head Kevin Feige last year defended his films against the kind of criticism levelled by Scorsese, saying that the series’s lack of major awards was no indication of a lack of quality or ambition.

“Maybe it’s easy to dismiss VFX or flying people or spaceships or billion dollar grosses,” Feige said. “I think it is easy to say that you have already been awarded in a certain way. [Alfred] Hitchcock never won best director, so it’s very nice, but it doesn’t mean everything. I would much rather be in a room full of engaged fans.”

Scorsese’s latest film, The Irishman, won rave reviews from its premiere at the New York film festival last weekend, with critics praising the use of “de-ageing” technology.

Hmm. I'd say he's not entirely wrong - while I think the MCU as a whole will go "down in the books" as the first successfully executed cinematic universe, I don't think any of the movies are earth-shattering in their own right, out of the MCU context. Like sure, Infinity War + Endgame successfully tied up about a million threads and brought the current incarnation of the MCU to a close, but I can't imagine watching it without having seen the previous films!

I'd say a better comparison than themeparks might be comparing cinema as a whole to food; MCU and (most) other superhero movies are McDonalds - enjoyed by most people, tasty enough, but ultimately disposable and lacking substance.

And I'm saying all this as someone who really enjoys most superhero movies!

[Niamh.]

What is his definition of "cinema" though. In my mind "cinema" is exactly these kinds of movies, ones that you don't want to watch at home because the action needs to be on a big screen etc They're entertainment pure and simple. Superhero movies are never going to really be that deep or earth shattering but so what, you need a balance aswell

[James]

I'm not the biggest fan of the MCU films, but there's a few I like quite a lot. I find with a lot of blockbusters in the 2010s, including many from the MCU, they don't have a story that works from beginning to end like the best films.

They are a lot like theme park rides but I would say that they are still cinema - big spectacle has always a reason people like films - films don't need to say anything about humanity.

One of the earliest ever films was of a steam train arriving at a station, and apparently people lost their minds at that.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

What is his definition of "cinema" though. In my mind "cinema" is exactly these kinds of movies, ones that you don't want to watch at home because the action needs to be on a big screen etc They're entertainment pure and simple. Superhero movies are never going to really be that deep or earth shattering but so what, you need a balance aswell

I agree with all of this tbh. I'd say Scorsese maybe should have used a different word, but I'm not even sure what that word could be! Movies? Well obviously they are literal movies, because they're moving pictures. hmmmm

[Alf]

Well he's got a point.

A great film should give you a feeling in your heart or your stomach. It should give you an emotional feeling of wow. It should speak to you. It should make you come away from the viewing asking questions of it and be in your mind for the rest of the day and days to come.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I agree with all of this tbh. I'd say Scorsese maybe should have used a different word, but I'm not even sure what that word could be! Movies? Well obviously they are literal movies, because they're moving pictures. hmmmm

Yeah, I mean, from reading the interview, he could just have said, I don't really like Marvel movies

[Oliver_W]

He could easily have come off as "old man yells at cloud", but he's Martin Fucking Scorsese. He looked at Leonardo DiCaprio and thought "I'm gonna turn him into a legitimate actor" ... and he succeeded!

Cinema itself is pretty stagnant at the moment tbh. Like, all horror is these days is "quiet scene, then we're made jump". I enjoyed both IT movies but the recent one had about four instances of "benign person or object suddenly gets huge and runs at character"

All we get from the mainstream these days is franchise movies, remakes, and cheap horror

tbh I'd be happy for Hollywood to burn to the ground, leaving only Big Name Directors like Scorsese, Speilberg, etc, and leave the rest to indie directors.

Okay, I'm under 30 but I'm the old man yelling at clouds

[Tom4784]

Gatekeeping prick.

Cinema is cinema, his pretentious three+ hour oscar bait is cinema, Marvel films are cinema, even **** like Adam Sandler's filmography is cinema.

If this was a few years ago when Marvel was in a creative rut with the films and every one (Bar the Captain America sequels) felt like it was made from the same blueprint then he might have had a point but I think Black Panther in particular has inspired Marvel to do more, it's only Captain Marvel that's been underwhelming recently.

[Alf]

Scorsese's work will be sought after in a century's time. This super hero fad more than likely won't be.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Alf

Scorsese's work will be sought after in a century's time. This super hero fad more than likely won't be.

Can you really call something a fad when it's been going since the late 1990's? The craze started with X-Men and Sam Raimi's Spiderman films after all and then you had Nolan's Batman films that really elevated everything and now you've got the likes of Black Panther and inevitably Joker (which, ironically, Scorsese was attached to for a very long time) that are and will make waves at the oscars.

I don't think super hero films will ever die down now, the comics never have and the films are an evolution of that. Disney and Marvel have created a machine that can keep going and going now.

Scorsese's comments aren't much different to the old guard's disdain for Netflix and the like, Scorsese nor his counterparts can get with the times.

[Cherie]

I agree with him in that some of these movies are not standalone classics so you have to watch 5 or 6 movies to get the full drift

[Alf]

I don't think future film makers will be studying and taking inspiration from these Marvel films as much as they will be studying Scorsese. They're just really a quick fix, where what Scorsese does is greatness in the art of moving pictures.

Most people can draw a picture, but not everybody is Da Vinci or Rembrandt.

Scorsese has earned the right to criticise in this subject, I'd think he has a good idea what he's talking about.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Alf

I don't think future film makers will be studying and taking inspiration from these Marvel films as much as they will be studying Scorsese. They're just really a quick fix, where what Scorsese does is greatness in the art of moving pictures.

Most people can draw a picture, but not everybody is Da Vinci or Rembrandt.

Scorsese has earned the right to criticise in this subject, I'd think he has a good idea what he's talking about.

Everyone has the right to criticise but his standing doesn't mean his opinion is beyond reproach.

I also think that Marvel films could end up being studied because, after all, they are technical feats and Thanos alone will probably be a benchmark for people learning about CGI in cinema. The social relevance of Black Panther could also lead to it being a film that's highly valued down the line, especially from a historic point of view.

His criticisms of Marvel films are not much different then the criticisms he got when he was a young director in the 'brat pack'. Every generation is bemoaned by the one that came before it.

[Alf]

And to be fair to Scorsese, it's very rare you see him criticising films, in fact I can't recall him doing so before, he's usually very positive and enthusiastic when he's talking about cinema, and he's a huge fan of it. So something's got up his nose.

[Alf]

I should probably stop defending him anyway. You never know what's gonna come out in the future with these Hollywood types.

[arista]

Clockwork Orange
a Great Cinema film.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by arista

Clockwork Orange
a Great Cinema film.

it most certainly is. Kubrick is a God

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by arista

Clockwork Orange
a Great Cinema film.

Yeah, but it's no muppets christmas carol.

[Tom4784]

Stanley Kubrick was an auteur but he will forever be an absolute prick for what he did to Shelley Duvall.

I find it difficult to appreciate his work when he essentially drove someone in his care to madness.

[James]

I kind of feel his generation were more creative film-makers than the people making films now.

The current films are made by Gen-X'rs and older Millennials that grew up in the 80s with all the great popular culture that came out of that decade, and for whom Star Wars in 1977 was year zero for films - they kind of want to copy all of that, and the earlier films of the seventies that they admire.

Obviously the way the Internet hypes up the big superhero films and recognisable IP, at the expense of everything else, contributes also.

[James]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Stanley Kubrick was an auteur but he will forever be an absolute prick for what he did to Shelley Duvall.

I find it difficult to appreciate his work when he essentially drove someone in his care to madness.

Where's the evidence for that?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Stanley Kubrick was an auteur but he will forever be an absolute prick for what he did to Shelley Duvall.

I find it difficult to appreciate his work when he essentially drove someone in his care to madness.

what was that about?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by James

Where's the evidence for that?

A lot of the cast have acknowledged Stanley Kubrick's behaviour during the filming of The Shining and there's plenty of pieces that go into the history of that film.

Originally Posted by Niamh.

what was that about?

Basically during the (very long) shoot for The Shining, Stanley Kubrick bullied Shelley Duvall relentlessly and isolated her from the cast and crew to make sure no one could comfort her or help her. He belittled her talents repeatedly, forced her to do over a hundred takes for shots for no good reason and was generally a sociopathic piece of **** towards her. A lot of her acting in that film isn't believed to be acting but her literally having breakdowns under the stress Kubrick heaped on her. She legitimately had to keep bottles of water close by at all times because her tears left her dehydrated because she was forced to cry for twelve hours a day. I'm pretty sure there's other stuff that I'm forgetting but he was generally evil towards her which is strange because he chose to cast her against Jack Nicholson's advice who wanted Jessica Lange to be cast instead. I believe it was because Kubrick probably knew he couldn't have done to Lange what he did to Duvall.

She never really acted much after that film was done and the experience has been attributed to driving her off the edge as she suffers from mental issues now.

I can't really appreciate his talent in the light of what he did to Shelley Duvall.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

A lot of the cast have acknowledged Stanley Kubrick's behaviour during the filming of The Shining and there's plenty of pieces that go into the history of that film.



Basically during the (very long) shoot for The Shining, Stanley Kubrick bullied Shelley Duvall relentlessly and isolated her from the cast and crew to make sure no one could comfort her or help her. He belittled her talents repeatedly, forced her to do over a hundred takes for shots for no good reason and was generally a sociopathic piece of **** towards her. A lot of her acting in that film isn't believed to be acting but her literally having breakdowns under the stress Kubrick heaped on her. She legitimately had to keep bottles of water close by at all times because her tears left her dehydrated because she was forced to cry for twelve hours a day. I'm pretty sure there's other stuff that I'm forgetting but he was generally evil towards her which is strange because he chose to cast her against Jack Nicholson's advice who wanted Jessica Lange to be cast instead. I believe it was because Kubrick probably knew he couldn't have done to Lange what he did to Duvall.

She never really acted much after that film was done and the experience has been attributed to driving her off the edge as she suffers from mental issues now.

I can't really appreciate his talent in the light of what he did to Shelley Duvall.

I never heard that before, how awful if true. I must do a bit of reading up on it

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I never heard that before, how awful if true. I must do a bit of reading up on it

It is fascinating although difficult to read at some points, from what I read he pretty much manipulated the crew into having no sympathy for her and blaming her for the film's problems during the shoot. Quite typical behaviour for an abuser.