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

Silence?

 

Given the age of the typical Hoffman Forum member, most of us have lost one, or both, of our parents. Some of us may have experienced the loss of a sibling, like @Deuce66. And, tragically, some may have lost a child. But I think almost all of us have lost someone close to us.

It seems like you just proved my point.

 

How so?

 

That in the end Henry Hill had learned exactly zip.

 

There ya go: Marty makes comic book movies!

 

Quite right. Still, it's all about the story for me.

 

Ask your wife - I'm sure she saw it!

Surprised you didn't see it:

Silence [Blu-Ray] (2016)

 

My apologies. I accidentally deleted it when I was getting rid of all the TV shows. I really wish IMDb had the option to filter out TV shows and shorts.

Reading your review I realize I did in fact see it... and it had no impact on me one way or the other. The self-sacrifice in this film struck me as the act of a madman.

 

Oh, no doubt it's a great story. But it's not a particularly deep one, and not one that one could use as a counterexample if you were claiming that superhero movies are lacking emotional depth.

If this were Marty's friend Coppola saying this, I might be more receptive - but he wouldn't, because he's had plenty of his films dismissed as amusement park rides.

 

It's all subjective. Personally, I find and am much more emotionally invested in Henry Hill trying to balance his mob and home lives, drug habit, and womanizing, and his resulting state of mind than I can be watching a green monster punch through walls.

Takes all kinds and I don't begrudge those films existing. I just find them to be flashy vapid vehicles which won't emotionally connect with an audience as it's such a revolving door of the same material that I am assuming none of them will be gushed over 30 years from now as being a classic.

 

Sure you’re probably right, (I don’t follow what exactly is out there at any given time). There’s still a lot of superhero movies playing at any given time at a theatre. Just a bit much IMO. Same thing started to happen with Star Wars and they’ve backed off. I’m not saying they shouldn’t make super hero movies. I don’t want movies to be just catered to myself. We need variety, but it’s been dominating the box office and they just keep spewing them out.

 

yeah I know....he was supposed to get it for the Verdict but Sir Ben got swept in the Gandhi (still good but...) …

wow cant agree with this. taxi driver alone has quite a wallop

 

I’ve seen enough of them.

 

Again, his story was interesting, but not emotionally compelling. Unlike you, I wasn't particularly invested in his life, or indeed of the lives of these fundamentally terrible (though entertaining) people. Do I like watching Joe Pesci's character? Yes. Do I empathize with him? No. Would I want to have any contact with a person like this in my life? Hell no.

And the Hulk, which you disparage, is a brilliant scientist who, through an accident, occasionally turns into an uncontrollable rage monster. He's constantly trying to control it, but the world needs him to be an uncontrollable rage monster on occasion.

He's a rage monster for good as opposed to Pesci's character, who is just a chaotic force of evil.

 

The state of film analysis in 2019, ladies and gentlemen. Truffaut is rolling in his grave.

 

I love comic book movies, at least good ones. But I hear Scorsese on this, even if I think he could have chosen less critical words.

Yes there can be very emotional and moving moments in comic book films, but this is often the result of a sort of cinematic archetype-based shorthand; it's like making the violins swell as the kitten dies. I think that's actually valid as a cinematic experience, there's a catharsis on many levels for the audience and it's at the same time very escapist and fantasy-based, which clearly many people these days are looking for.

But, though I may be half Scorsese's age, I was born in NYC with a Catholic background, and there has been a ton of ideas in his films that I've related to on a deeply personal level that the shorthand techniques in Marvel movies cannot touch. So many of Scorsese's main characters are, yes, men who struggle as they search for some kind of personal redemption, and often they don't quite reach it, or it simply doesn't turn out as hoped. To me, that's reality, far more reality than the far more simple idea of Tony-Stark-goes-from-selfish-to-selfless. Again, I loved End Game, and I am very moved by aspects of it, and Downey Jr's charisma basically sold the whole franchise from the start. But while "theme park" is too simplistic, these movies generally run along escapist fantasy lines.

Generally Marvel films tend to lack subtlety, let alone ambiguity. And that's OK. I've watched them all with my kids and we always have a great time. There may be a well-played moment, or several, in them. But it's impossible to insert the same kind of character depth in a film which generally ends when the main character uses super powers to stop the bad guy while making everything explode. I'm thinking of a film like "Mean Streets", which I re-watched recently. It's the story of a conflicted man, someone struggling internally with guilt yet unable to act on his conscience. So many Scorsese films have themes around machismo, or around a fear of mediocrity. These kinds of ideas a Marvel film can never, and probably should never, attempt to tackle. I think these two kinds of films can be appreciated for their differences. I'm not sure why Scorsese felt compelled to publicly criticize them.

It's interesting that this discussion comes up right when we seem to have a comic book inspired film in Joker that does indeed seem to explore complex character problems in a possibly Scorsese-influenced way that no other has previously. The film seems to disturb or excite people because it feels real. Marvel movies do not, and I think that's fine, it doesn't negate our enjoyment of them.

 

Is there any answer to this that isn't, fundamentally, "bite me"?

 

I wasn't asking you anything.

 

Scorsese films are largely about honor, loyalty and morality and so are MCU films. They are just done very differently. Generally, the directors involved in MCU need to have a skillset in large sets, CGI and tremendous numbers of extras, which Scorsese would prefer to avoid (of course he has tackled this with good results).

Regarding Joker, what I am hearing about it is almost exactly what was previously said about Heath Ledger's performance in Dark Knight, although I'm sure Phoenix makes his own mark and I prefer him as an actor--all due respect to Ledger.

 

sorry. legit thread crapping. carry on.

 

Actually Hulk was handled in very interesting ways in successive Avengers films. I get that you want to belittle it as a serious film character, but consider that this harkens back to Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by RL Stevenson, so there is some literary precedent there and elsewhere (and in music, e.g., Nick Lowe's The Beast in Me). Previous incarnations had a very clear delineation between David Banner and the Hulk. There was a moment of metamorphosis and then the viewer would be left with either one character or the other. I found it interesting that MCU sought to do away with that demarcation. Starting in Ragnarok, Banner was stuck being Hulk. He couldn't resume his human form. Then in Infinity War, he had the opposite issue when he was stuck being Banner and was unable to change into Hulk. Then in Endgame he was stuck with the physical appearance of Hulk but none of the anger and all of Banner's intellect and voiceover. This was of funny on the surface but there were other issues going on, not the least of which was the threat and destruction to humanity. Do these films stand up to critical analysis? I think they do.

 

There is the opportunity for a truly amazing Hulk film in the five year gap, where Dr. Banner integrates these two sides of himself.