In a controversial opinion piece penned for The New York Times, acclaimed film director Martin Scorcese argued that Marvel movies cannot be classified as cinema. The Onion asked fans of the action movie franchise what they thought of Scorcese’s latest film, Killers Of The Flower Moon, and this is what they said.
Scorcese’s problem with “marvel movies” is the lack of creative control afforded to the filmmakers rather than their derivative nature. These two concepts are often intertwined, but not mutually inclusive.
He was actually in talks to direct Joker a film highly derivative of his own work, but ended up turning it down because he did not want to have to answer to the studios demands for how this existing world and characters should be handled.
Well, he has also been criticizing them in the sense that creating these movies are not done in pursuit of a creative purpose. That there is no emotional risk. I think it is an apt criticism - but where is the great creative risk in making another gangster movie staring Robby and Joey?
Where’s the creative risk? Making another gangster movie? Did you not read/comprehend what I wrote previously? You are doing the exact same thing as Mr Graphic Novel: ignoring a large body of work for
fivefour “gangster” films. And even so, what if Scorsese’s preferred genre was solely gangster films? Why isn’t John Ford being “accused” of making only westerns? John Carpenter making only horror films? David Fincher only psychological thrillers? Where’s the “creative risk” in that?!Are you saying his casting choices are a bit…one-note? Citing your previous example, he’s worked with Bob De Niro ten times out of 27 so, sure, I get the association – although I insist it’s De Niro’s heavy style that’s guilty here; De Niro in any role is always De Niro (Meet the Parents, anyone? How about The Mission?). Scorsese’s worked with Harvey Keitel…wait a minute…only five times! Joe Pesci?..only four times. And Al Pacino? The Irishman was the very first time Scorsese ever had Pacino in front of the cameras.
Compare the works, in story, style, and advancing motion picture arts technology, of the directors I’d listed above with the works based on 1970s wish-fulfillment pulp made for 12-year-old boys (the entire MCU oeuvre) created with pre-existing 3D tech and epilepsy-inducing, advertising-style editing. No creative risk my ass.
Personal taste is one thing and I’m fine with that. You don’t like caviar?, you don’t like caviar. But I’m so done with this myopic, prejudiced tunnelvision regarding one of the directorial greats of the history of motion pictures, especially when comparing Taxi Driver with Thor.
I’m speaking specifically about the Irishman, a movie I love btw. But do I think it is more artistically “valid” than infinity war? No.
It is less creatively “risky” than not doing another gangster film, thats simply a fact. And that’s okay. On some level, it is a “lets get the gang back together for one more ride” movie. On some level, all the players involved have certainly earned the right to do that. But it is odd to criticize studios for essentially taking the exact same approach to film making, especially for movies with massive commercial success - even if you argue that the quality of the art produced isn’t the same.
Pacino’s role is a good example. He practically admitted that he was too old for the role off Jimmy Hoffa after filming, in multiple different interviews. So why was he chosen? You said it yourself - people want to see one of the most beloved Italian American gangster actors get directed by one one most beloved Italian American gangster directors. And you are a fanboy over it. And that is okay. I “forgive” you or whatever. I am too.
It goes to show that formula film making can produce great films, and that the MCU movies that are bad (for many are fine films) aren’t bad because they are based on comic books, or because there is multiple of them. Comic books that were extremely artistic and considered important works of 20th century science fiction in their own right (talking about Jack Kirby specifically). I would argue that eventually the MCU did become a very cynical excercise that is determined more by studio number crunching. That happens for all sorts of reasons in Hollywood.
Where exactly did I say that? Do not put words in my mouth and please do not refer to me as a fanboy as that’s mental laziness on your part.
Speaking of fanboy, I’m well informed regarding Jack Kirby (Machine Man? Devil Dinosaur? Destroyer Duck?)…and Joe Simon…and Jack Cole, Will Eisner, Jim Steranko, Jim Starlin, Alan Moore, etc. Household names, huh? Extremely artistic and important works of 20th century science-fiction, eh? Give me a break. Ask the person in the cubicle next to yours who created Batman and enjoy the blank stare. Stan’s almost a household name because he was a relentless publicity hound.
But now we’re veering off-topic into other territory and, frankly, I’m bored arguing with Philistines. Good night and good luck.
This gives the game away, although I’m sure you were joking.
Marty’s common refrain has been “there is an emotional core to this movie - we had a meeting!”
Look, there is a business to high production films, and we have to accept that. Marty clearly has, has participated in it, and used his well earned artistic reputation to criticize it. Good stuff.
🤝