Martin Scorsese is urging filmmakers to save cinema, by doubling down on his call to fight comic book movie culture.
The storied filmmaker is revisiting the topic of comic book movies in a new profile for GQ. Despite facing intense blowback from filmmakers, actors and the public for the 2019 comments he made slamming the Marvel Cinematic Universe films — he called them theme parks rather than actual cinema — Scorsese isn’t shying away from the topic.
“The danger there is what it’s doing to our culture,” he told GQ. “Because there are going to be generations now that think ... that’s what movies are.”
GQ’s Zach Baron posited that what Scorsese was saying might already be true, and the “Killers of the Flower Moon” filmmaker agreed.
“They already think that. Which means that we have to then fight back stronger. And it’s got to come from the grassroots level. It’s gotta come from the filmmakers themselves,” Scorsese continued to the outlet. “And you’ll have, you know, the Safdie brothers, and you’ll have Chris Nolan, you know what I mean? And hit ’em from all sides. Hit ’em from all sides, and don’t give up. ... Go reinvent. Don’t complain about it. But it’s true, because we’ve got to save cinema.”
Scorsese referred to movies inspired by comic books as “manufactured content” rather than cinema.
“It’s almost like AI making a film,” he said. “And that doesn’t mean that you don’t have incredible directors and special effects people doing beautiful artwork. But what does it mean? What do these films, what will it give you?”
His forthcoming film, “Killers of the Flower Moon,” had been on Scorsese’s wish list for several years; it’s based on David Grann’s 2017 nonfiction book of the same name. He called the story “a sober look at who we are as a culture.”
The film tells the true story of the murders of Osage Nation members by white settlers in the 1920s. DiCaprio originally was attached to play FBI investigator Tom White, who was sent to the Osage Nation within Oklahoma to probe the killings. The script, however, underwent a significant rewrite.
“After a certain point,” the filmmaker told Time, “I realized I was making a movie about all the white guys.”
The dramatic focus shifted from White’s investigation to the Osage and the circumstances that led to them being systematically killed with no consequences.
The character of White now is played by Jesse Plemons in a supporting role. DiCaprio stars as the husband of a Native American woman, Mollie Kyle (Lily Gladstone), an oil-rich Osage woman, and member of a conspiracy to kill her loved ones in an effort to steal her family fortune.
Scorsese worked closely with Osage Principal Chief Geoffrey Standing Bear and his office from the beginning of production, consulting producer Chad Renfro told Time. On the first day of shooting, the Oscar-winning filmmaker had an elder of the nation come to set to say a prayer for the cast and crew.
He's forgetting movie history...
Back when television got big, cinema had to evolve to survive. The aspect ratio went wide.
This Is Cinerama was more of a tech demo than anything else in 1952, but it was followed by widescreen movie, movies in 1953 with "The Robe" being shot and shown in Cinemascope.
Technicolor too gave a more vibrant color scheme even than previous color film processing that actually came a generation prior, in 1932.
But the widescreen/Technicolor combination provided a must see experience that were the event films of the era and they couldn't be duplicated at home.
Roll forward 50 years... home theater technology has evolved to a point where theater has to compete with 65" 4K television displays and 7.1 Dolby Atmos surround sound. People need a reason to leave their homes and deal with noisy, disease infected, crowds, high concession prices, expensive tickets, and annoyances like having to pre-pick your own seats instead of just walking in and sitting down.
Streaming is keeping people at home, being able to binge long form content, pausing when necessary. Cinema can't provide that experirnce.
So it's going the other way, the "theme park ride experience". It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the first Pirates of the Carribean movie hit in 2003, pre-dating the wave of comic book movies by, what? 5 or 6 years? 50 years after the first Cinerama movies?
But even that has roots going back to Jurassic Park (1993), Star Wars (1977), and Jaws (1975).
Now, don't get me wrong, I dearly love "small" films like Scorsese's After Hours, or even modern stuff like Wes Anderson's Asteroid City, but there is ZERO compelling reason to see them in a theater. I can get the same experience viewing them on my home theater setup without, you know, blowing $50 to sit in a noisy, uncomfortable theater.
To do THAT, I NEED a spectacle. I need to see something that demands I see it right away, in a theatrical environment. It needs to be a theme park ride.
If your end goal is to make a tight knit drama full of people in rooms talking to each other, well, Downton Abbey and Bridgerton are over there ->
Pre-picking seats isn't annoying. You actually get your seats then, and if somebody's sat in them, you have discourse to get them out of them.
I have a generous sized TV and Atmos at home, but I still find myself going to the cinema at least once a week, someone 3 times a week depending on the release schedule. My cinema is even a shitty one with some screens having a bit shit audio (no longer as bad as it used to be though), but I still find myself going weekly. There's just something about the cinema, along with seeing them during release times that can't be replicated at home.
Then again, I'm also the kind of person who just doesn't like to binge anymore, it's too much in one go. And with the cinema I have a card that allows me to only part the price of about 2 tickets a month to then see as many films I want in that month that I keep on subscription. It's much better than any streaming service option in my opinion. And occasionally when I'm out of town I can also see a new film or one I've previously seen in a better cinema than my own line in IMAX or something.
I'd be very sad for cinema to die out, moreso because I don't want to just consume everything on my couch. That feels like a lonely life to me.
Wow this is the first "pro-marvel" response that actually put some thought into it, and while I don't personally agree you've made the only compelling argument in this entire thread as to why these marvel movies being constantly regurgitated makes any sense.
Now, when it comes to "Marvel regurgitation", yeah, they could, and should, be doing better. They essentially re-use the same basic plot over and over again and will keep doing it until they hit one that doesn't make a billion dollars.
I'm a lifelong comic book fan and I love that nerd culture is finally taking over, but I swear to god, I don't need another superhero movie where the hero and villain have a joined origin story and the villain is just a bigger, badder version of the hero.
Seriously.
Iron Man - Iron Monger
Incredible Hulk - Abomination
Iron Man 2 - Whiplash
Thor - Loki (both sons of Odin)
Captain America - Red Skull
Avengers - Loki + Alien Invasion
Iron Man 3 - Extremis
Thor: Dark World - Dark Elf invasion
Captain America: Winter Soldier - Bucky
Guardians of the Galaxy - Ronan - First one to break formula.
Avengers: Age of Ultron - Ultron joined origin with Vision.
Ant-Man - Yellow Jacket
Captain America: Civil War - Avengers vs. Avengers
Doctor Strange - Kaecilius
Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 - Pete's Dad
Spider-Man: Homecoming - Vulture, Pete's girlfriend's dad.
Thor: Ragnarok - Hela, evil firstborn sister.
Black Panther - Killmonger
Avengers: Infinity War - Tying it all together.
Ant-Man and the Wasp - Ghost, a victim of Pym tech.
Captain Marvel - Yon-Rogg
Avengers: Endgame - Tying it all together.
Spider-Man: Far From Home - Mysterio (Stark Tech villain vs. Stark Tech hero)
2 people + snacks, I'm lucky if it's ONLY $50.