In 2019, director Martin Scorsese kicked up some dust when he claimed that Marvel superhero movies were “not cinema” in the way he understood it. “It’s something else. We shouldn’t be invaded by it. We need cinemas to step up and show films that are narrative films,” he said at a screening of his Netflix film The Irishman. He said something similar at BAFTA’s annual David Lean lecture:
Theaters have become amusement parks. That is all fine and good but don’t invade everything else in that sense. That is fine and good for those who enjoy that type of film and, by the way, knowing what goes into them now, I admire what they do. It’s not my kind of thing, it simply is not. It’s creating another kind of audience that thinks cinema is that.
So Martin Scorsese is concerned about the integrity of modern cinema. And as far as I’m concerned, the guy who made Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Casino, Gangs of New York, The Wolf of Wall Street and many other great movies can say whatever he damn well pleases about the movie business, but he is giving some serious “get off my lawn” energy.
And he’s not done. Writing about the career of legendary director Federico Fellini for Il Maestro, Scorsese claimed that “the art of cinema is being systematically devalued, sidelined, demeaned, and reduced to its lowest common denominator, ‘content.”
As recently as 15 years ago, the term “content” was heard only when people were discussing the cinema on a serious level, and it was contrasted with and measured against “form.” Then, gradually, it was used more and more by the people who took over media companies, most of whom knew nothing about the history of the art form, or even cared enough to think that they should. “Content” became a business term for all moving images: a David Lean movie, a cat video, a Super Bowl commercial, a superhero sequel, a series episode. It was linked, of course, not to the theatrical experience but to home viewing, on the streaming platforms that have come to overtake the moviegoing experience, just as Amazon overtook physical stores. On the one hand, this has been good for filmmakers, myself included. On the other hand, it has created a situation in which everything is presented to the viewer on a level playing field, which sounds democratic but isn’t. If further viewing is “suggested” by algorithms based on what you’ve already seen, and the suggestions are based only on subject matter or genre, then what does that do to the art of cinema?
I would think not much, but Scorsese feels differently. “Curating isn’t undemocratic or ‘elitist,’ a term that is now used so often that it’s become meaningless,” he continued, raging against the algorithm. “It’s an act of generosity — you’re sharing what you love and what has inspired you. (The best streaming platforms, such as the Criterion Channel and MUBI and traditional outlets such as TCM, are based on curating — they’re actually curated.) Algorithms, by definition, are based on calculations that treat the viewer as a consumer and nothing else.”
He concludes with another lament about the changed state of the movie business:
We can’t depend on the movie business, such as it is, to take care of cinema. In the movie business, which is now the mass visual entertainment business, the emphasis is always on the word “business,” and value is always determined by the amount of money to be made from any given property—in that sense, everything from Sunrise to La Strada to 2001 is now pretty much wrung dry and ready for the “Art Film” swim lane on a streaming platform. Those of us who know the cinema and its history have to share our love and our knowledge with as many people as possible. And we have to make it crystal clear to the current legal owners of these films that they amount to much, much more than mere property to be exploited and then locked away. They are among the greatest treasures of our culture, and they must be treated accordingly.
Martin Scorsese is right about cinema changing, but wrong about the danger
Honestly, I agree with Scorsese on a lot of points; I just think he’s making them sound a lot more dire than they are. Yes, the movie business has changed a ton since Scorsese’s heyday in the 1970s, when the studio system of the ’60s had collapsed and filmmakers like him, Steven Spielberg, Robert Altman, and more were given room to experiment with the form. Today, studios are more driven by money-making blockbusters (a trend that started with George Lucas’ Star Wars, FYI, a movie that was part of the creative renaissance Scorsese loves so much), with folk like Marvel’s Kevin Feige pioneering the shared movie universe, which has taken things to new heights of profitability.
But it’s not like there aren’t people innovating and finding success doing it; I’d point to directors like South Korean filmmaker Bong Joon-ho, whose movie Parasite became the first foreign language film ever to win a Best Picture Oscar. And while the movies are in a bit of a holding pattern, there’s been tons of great experimentation on TV, with bold series like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones and The Wire all pushing the boundaries of what’s possible on the small screen.
And yes, the movies are now competing with stuff from YouTube, TikTok, and other sources, all of which is categorized as “content.” But there’s blisteringly creative stuff happening on those platforms, too. It’s a wider world, you adapt and you change and you figure out a way to work with it.
I love classic cinema, but there’s also a lot more on offer out there. As Scorsese says, “I suppose we also have to refine our notions of what cinema is and what it isn’t.” Sounds about right.
To stay up to date on everything fantasy, science fiction, and WiC, follow our all-encompassing Facebook page and sign up for our exclusive newsletter.
Get HBO, Starz, Showtime and MORE for FREE with a no-risk, 7-day free trial of Amazon Channels
