Martin Scorsese: Marvel Films Are "Not Cinema," They're Theme Park Rides

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
12,871
Points
113
Are Marvel films the cinematic equivalent of an amusement ride, rather than anything resembling art? Martin Scorsese seems to think so. The legendary director of Casino and Goodfellas had the following to say about the MCU while promoting his latest film, "The Irishman," which debuts in theaters and Netflix next month:

“I don’t see them. I tried, you know? But that’s not cinema,” Scorsese told Empire magazine about the Marvel movies. “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.”

Scorsese's comments have triggered both Marvel fans and the company's filmmaking talent. Guardian of the Galaxy director James Gunn, for one, took to Twitter to express his disappointment at what one of his "5 favorite living filmmakers" thought of his work. Others, such as Doctor Strange scribe C. Robert Cargill, labeled them "unjust and cynical."
 
Mr. Scorsese is a respected and accomplished film maker. That being said I have major doubts that, out of the many Marvel films made, how he's actually seen to completion to make this statement. They're not for everyone but neither are his films. Ultimately I think these grumpy old men are just mad their films don't draw the crowds like Marvel has and cannot grasp they're now competing with stories that have accumulated for most of a century and been reprinted in most countries on the planet. For a movie about a singular concept or idea to really appeal to large scale audiences these days it really needs to address curiosities multiple generations already have. The Marvel movies do that. They're appealing to 5-10 generations of people who share in wanting to see stories they've read since before Scorsese was born plus contributing writers and artists from around the world adding new stories almost daily. They just can't seem to understand this dynamic and how it's changed the industry.
 
I’m not a movie expert or critic or w/e you want to call it so I couldn’t care less what some old man says, if I like a movie I’ll watch it. I watched tons of “trashy” horror flicks when I was younger with terrible stories and even acting at times but I still loved them. Movies are a form of entertainment for me, not art.
 
Totally agree. Once the camera is running a movie can be anything. It doesn't need to be limited to what someone wants art to be or believe is artistic. We just watched a great re-run ep of Adam ruins everything on Adam ruins art. I believe in a number of ways it can apply to these directors who're now taking pot shots out there. May not completely align but there's definitely some similarities.
 
lostin3d said:
Mr. Scorsese is a respected and accomplished film maker. That being said I have major doubts that, out of the many Marvel films made, how he's actually seen to completion to make this statement.
Click to expand...

Well, he is quoted as saying as much since he tried but couldn't get through them ;)

That said, he is right. They are pure mass market lowest denominator pulp. And, often, not in a good way.
 
Considering I don't particularly care for gangster or mob movies, I'm not sure I could call Scorcese's movies art either. At least based on his definition. He doesn't like Marvel movies and can't get through them. I can't get throw most mob or gangster movies.

For something a little less pedantic. Art isn't determined by someone's like or dislike of it. Art can be many things and it's likely there's way more "art" on this planet that I think is crap than there is "art" that I like. Scorcese's movies are as much art as the Marvel films. Take that statement any which way you care to.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
That said, he is right. They are pure mass market lowest denominator pulp. And, often, not in a good way.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but 'cinema' doesn't always need to be that deep. Plenty of people grew up going to their local bijou for serials to get away from it all. Not long after the 'western' genre was born. I'm not that old but I did know a few who've reminded how black 'n' white wasn't always as clear cut in early cinema.

I'll always respect Mr. Scorsese. I spent some time on IMBD to remind myself of the movies I've seen that he's either directed or produced. Quite a diverse selection of projects that I had not fully realized he's been involved on. I also spent some time looking at both his quotes and trivia while there. I strongly recommend people to go over and read them. Quite enlightening for the person he is and also allowed to gain further respect even though I somewhat disagree with his seemingly dismissal of Marvel. I totally forgot he directed "Hugo", a movie I referenced only last week, and some of the subject matter in that movie was content that others had deemed unworthy of cinema back in the day. Talk about irony.
 
Anything new can be difficult for some. I get the theme park comment, and the Marvel films have not been my favorites. For me, Alita beat them all this year. Beethoven was recognized for being innovative, but also criticized by many. His critics are all but forgotten now. What will stand the test of time?
 
Paul_Johnson said:
Well, he is quoted as saying as much since he tried but couldn't get through them ;)

That said, he is right. They are pure mass market lowest denominator pulp. And, often, not in a good way.
Click to expand...

While I do agree with the theme park comment, every **** one of those movies I've seen entertains me far more than his films typically do. Allot of those so called "deep" and "meaningful" films are pretentious crap.

He has made some good films, don't get me wrong. The bulk of his filmography however, are things I'm not remotely interested in seeing.
 
Dan_D said:
While I do agree with the theme park comment, every **** one of those movies I've seen entertains me far more than his films typically do. Allot of those so called "deep" and "meaningful" films are pretentious crap.

He has made some good films, don't get me wrong. The bulk of his filmography however, are things I'm not remotely interested in seeing.
Click to expand...

Well, it is like this. Who is a better writer. James Joyce/William Faulkner/Charles Dickens or Danielle Steel/JK Rowling/Dean Koontz? Not who is more popular (Steel/Rowling/Koontz) or sold more (Steel/Rowling/Koontz) but when anyone fluent in English looks at the structure, composition, character development, and story development which one clearly has better command of their craft. The subject may not be of interest, but the ability and craftsmanship is on completely different levels.
 
There's a difference between art for the elite and art for the masses. There have been moments over the past few decades where certain movies have appealed to both and I think that is what Scorcese has done a bad job of illustrating. I blame _________.
 
Sounds like a bit of jealousy. If people enjoy the movies who cares. I enjoyed the "ride".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top