Martin Scorsese Compares Marvel Superhero Films to "Theme Park Rides"

First and foremost, corporate or financial elitism is far more relevant in 2019 than the innocuous comments of a solitary auteur. By design or by default, Marvel Studios cultivates a corporate paradigm that vicariously enables an elitist system, wherein only those with a certain amount of money or cache can participate. I get that you're picturing a bunch of stuffy college professors telling the masses what is and is not high art, but this day in age, the very concept of "elitism" is more complicated in scope.

Secondly, Marvel and Disney's actions have far more effect on the CULTURE at large than Scorsese's harmless sentiments ever will. Even if Disney's actions fall under the banner of "corporate strategy," the ramifications play out in the CULTURAL MARKETPLACE. At the end of the day, Scorsese is saying only his vague opinion, which becomes fodder for clickbait articles and forum threads and literally nothing else. And he's not saying Marvel movies aren't movies--he's just saying they don't occupy the same space as say the French New Wave or Italian neorealism. By contrast, Marvel is refraining from making open gestures of any sort, but very much determining what does and does not pass for mainstream content, all while either completely absorbing or completely overpowering competitive perspectives and entities. The central idea that only certain messages can get through in a film is its own form of elitism.

Scorsese's opinions might be antiquated, but that doesn't make them wrong. It's only in this culture of expert-less opinion that people would be so critical of his perspective in the first place. He's earned the right to say that some types of movies qualify as "serious cinema" while others don't, even if all the fanboys out there extract real meaning out of franchise fare.

 

MCU is snobby, Marty is Average Joe. Got it!

 

No, you don't.

In fact, if anyone is "snobby" these days, it's the Marvel fanboys. Does that make you an elitist?

 

Guess not. You've gone onto such a perplexing tangent related to your own peculiar definition of "elitism" that your point went bye-bye a long time ago.

Moving on - no point left to debating anymore, as I've gotten enough discussion about how popular entertainment is the real elitism to last me a lifetime!

 

Google the word "elitism" and read the first definition that pops up. It might help you understand things a little more. Probably not, though.

 

Yes, but recall Ebert's 4-star review of "Temple of Doom":

He's just described the experience of a theme-park ride!

Ebert quite liked plenty of popcorn movies. But he wouldn't compare them to anything on this list: Roger Ebert's Final List of His Top 10 Favorite Films | Open Culture

I think Scorsese is being a bit unfair, but just a bit. There are plenty of comic-book movies that explore emotions; they're not empty. But do they compare to the best of cinema? No, they don't. But that's OK. It's important to remember that Scorsese is quite a film fan himself, with an extremely wide perspective on international cinema and film history. I doubt he's implicitly comparing his own movies to the Avengers, but rather the kind of movie he's liked best as a moviegoer himself.

 

I'll say this on behalf of indie/small town type theatres, DISNEY is a pita to deal with due to their unrealistic demands. The industry has enough problems getting people to come out, they aren't helping with their lack of flexibility towards markets that can't support locked in engagements that are excessively long and their higher than normal % take. In some small towns their movies won't hit the screen until week 4 or beyond, which is surprisingly bad business for a multi billion $$ company.

 

Just don't call them the "elite" because they produce popcorn entertainment. At least that seems to be the sentiment among those who can't get enough comic book movies and live-action remakes.

 

This will probably make a head or two explode, but Ebert's most recent entry, Terrence Malik's Tree of Life, reminded me of nothing so much as a graphic novel.

 

Haven't seen it yet, but I wouldn't regard that as unfair. Many of his shots are beautifully composed stills with just slight movement.

Am looking forward to seeing his latest, "A Hidden Life," a week from today at the Philadelphia Film Festival.

 

And what messages are those? The overarching message through Endgame is to not trust mass murderers, and the more subtle messaging is everything from keeping immigrant families together to acting selfless toward your friends. It seems these ideas were already out there, so what effect on CULTURE do you foresee here?

Scorsese made a fortune commanding huge budgets by bringing in De Caprio to get studios behind his films. Marvel tends to use more compelling actors. For starters. What good is serious if it's a sellout, by your own logic.

 

I'm not referring to the movie's literal themes, I'm referring to the scope of what is and what is not permissible. You are aware that many of these movies are specifically constructed so that they can play in China, right? Did you catch the recent "South Park" episode? Think along those lines.

By the way, the "overarching message through Endgame is not to trust mass murderers" made me laugh out loud. These comic book movies are deeper than I thought! And no, I don't need you to dive into the deeper themes behind The Avengers and their exploits--I'm just making a joke.

I don't know what this even means. Scorsese works with DiCaprio all the time and he wouldn't do so if it meant compromising his vision of the work, regardless of how much financing it brings in.

 

I'm sorry you missed it in the theater.

 

Yeah, me too, thanks. But I've got the Criterion Blu-ray so I'm hoping it will be pretty good.

 

Oh yes. Marvel movies are the key cultural lynchpin in our relations with China. I could understand attacking Google, Apple or other companies that do China's bidding but it seems clear that Avengers is not the problem, and many other movies are edited or censored for China.

Yes, I phrased it in a way that was meant to be pedantic and make you laugh. I'm glad we're able to joke but usually you do so without saying you're making a joke.

Really? Because I liked most of his work before he teamed up with DiCaprio and did not like most his work after that, and I'm not alone.

 

Whoa. This changes everything.

 

Agreed. I saw your "head explode" comment and could not resist. Tons of great graphic novels and comic books for that matter.

Wait...

 

Forgive me, I thought you wanted to have a discussion instead of sarcastic inanity. My mistake. You just might not want to pretend Scorsese is on one side of your imaginary line separating corporate interests from artistic purity, and Marvel is on the other.

 

As I've stated (or at least inferred) many times, Marvel is capable of being both pure and artistic. On the flip side of that coin, Martin Scorsese is plenty capable of being commercial (which isn't even to mention his numerous misfires). But when people start comparing The Hulk and Tommy DeVito in order to make a terrible point, the imaginary line basically draws itself.

 

You do realize that one can enjoy both MCU movies AND Martin Scorsese's films, right? If I had to eat hamburger all the time life would be boring. Same with movies.

 

On the contrary, the MCU films are aimed at a wide audience sometimes, sometimes not as it depends on the project but, generally, that's the focus. Scorsese makes movies he likes and he would like to watch himself (and it's how he defines cinema). Is "Bride of Frankenstein" somehow not a "real" film because it's part of a franchise? Nope. One could argue that point but it's a great film made by a great filmmaker regardless if it is a sequel, franchise film, etc.

Is Marty's "The Color of Money" less a movie because it's a sequel designed to make money and showcase Tom Cruise? One could argue that these aren't cinema either. Scorsese makes the type of movies he would enjoy and what his definition of cinema is. There's a difference between Power Rangers and the MCU films which actually deal with some pretty difficult themes and does a good job of it as well.

 

At least these Marvel films aren’t remakes. They came out at the right time for me to see them with my children. For that, they’ll always hold a place in my heart.

Also, I was very glad Robert Downey Jr’s life and career turned around and turned him into a multi-millionaire.

To me, many of the films gave me the feeling I got when seeing Raiders Of The Lost Ark all those years ago.

Movies mean a lot to me and mine. I respect Martin regardless.

 

Wow.

 

How can an imaginary line draw itself other than in your imagination? I think one of the reasons Pesci stepped away from the industry for so long is because he didn't like seeing the monster he portrayed in Goodfellas and Casino, and that was the type of role he was being offered.

 

Whether or not Pesci hated being typecast after these movies came out has nothing to do with anything. When you start talking about his character in dimensional terms, or bringing up emotional arcs, The Bechdel Test, and other things you might have read about on the Internet or in a cheap screenwriting book, you've already missed the point by a country mile.

Keep in mind I don't necessarily agree with Scorsese. In fact, I find his sentiment to be rather antiquated, given the current cultural climate. But that doesn't mean we need to suddenly reevaluate his merits as a filmmaker or act like Marvel studios aren't formula-bound spectacle-delivery-systems at the end of the day, regardless of their themes and portrayals...not that it will stop you from trying.

You previously mentioned risk. "The Last Temptation of Christ" is risky. A talking tree is a talking tree.