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 â he called them theme parks rather than actual cinema â Scorsese isnât shying away from the topic.
âThe danger there is what itâs doing to our culture,â he told GQ. âBecause there are going to be generations now that think ⊠thatâs what movies are.â
GQâs Zach Baron posited that what Scorsese was saying might already be true, and the âKillers of the Flower Moonâ filmmaker agreed.
âThey already think that. Which means that we have to then fight back stronger. And itâs got to come from the grassroots level. Itâs gotta come from the filmmakers themselves,â Scorsese continued to the outlet. âAnd youâll have, you know, the Safdie brothers, and youâll have Chris Nolan, you know what I mean? And hit âem from all sides. Hit âem from all sides, and donât give up. ⊠Go reinvent. Donât complain about it. But itâs true, because weâve got to save cinema.â
Scorsese referred to movies inspired by comic books as âmanufactured contentâ rather than cinema.
âItâs almost like AI making a film,â he said. âAnd that doesnât mean that you donât have incredible directors and special effects people doing beautiful artwork. But what does it mean? What do these films, what will it give you?â
His forthcoming film, âKillers of the Flower Moon,â had been on Scorseseâs wish list for several years; itâs based on David Grannâs 2017 nonfiction book of the same name. He called the story âa sober look at who we are as a culture.â
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.
âAfter a certain point,â the filmmaker told Time, âI realized I was making a movie about all the white guys.â
The dramatic focus shifted from Whiteâs 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.
I have absolutely no idea what they mean by conservative/progressive movie. I too would like to know, because Iâm utterly baffled.
The second back to the future movie even turns the villain into a trump-like megalomaniac
Oh, boy. Should have guessed thatâs the bit that would get picked up.
I mean, I didnât think Guardians was very subtle about this at all. James Gunn doesnât seem to be an asshole, but you can be religious and not be a completely reactionary idiot. The movie features actual heaven, where a character tells another âthereâs the hands that made us and then thereâs the hands that guide the handsâ, and says that heaven âis beatutiful and it is foreverâ. And then the villain yells âthere is no God, thatâs why I stepped inâ, which is the tipping point for his allies turning on him. The entire diagnosis the movie has on the guy ends up being that âhe didnât want to make things better, he just hated things the way they areâ, which is, for the record, a much, much better take on the equally conformist version of that in The Flash. Itâs a very well made, very emotional, very beautiful movie, but⊠you know, itâs not very shy about spiritualism. If I had to sum it up Iâd say itâs⊠eh⊠Stephen Colbert Catholic? In that wavelength?
As for Back to the Future⊠well, Iâm not the first to notice that the âgood futureâ is a Reaganomics fever dream. Somebody points out the Trumpy bad guy in the sequel, which I guess from the modern day makes it read different, but⊠yeah, itâs a very 80s franchise with very 80s sensibilities. Zemeckis has pushed back against this slightly, I think, and yeah, itâs being a bit jokey about the weirdness of the americana heâs clearly nostalgic for, but that doesnât change the text. I mean, heâs also the guy that used âa black family lives here nowâ as shorthand for the town going to crap in the sequel. He also made the entirety of Forrest Gump, so⊠yeah, you donât have to present a worldview on purpose to have it color your stuff. Once again, the movie isnât mean about it, and itâs certainly not dumb, but itâs coming from a certain worldview and you can absolutely tell.
Die Hard is straight up MRA propaganda, though. Great film, love it to bits, but itâs entirely about how the down-to-Earth cop feels emasculated by his wife having a career and rubbing elbows with all the California yuppies only to get himself vindicated when things turn violent and heâs the only one with enough common sense and old school skills to fix the situation. Also, the government is fundamentally incompetent unless itâs specifically the cops. And Reginald VelJohnsonâs entire arc is about how he should not stop shooting people just because he once killed a kid when he saw his toy gun, which is up there for âplot point that has aged the absolute worst in movie historyâ award. Still love it, though. Super conservative movie. The most political of this bunch, probably. Still good filmmaking.
Look, you donât have to dislike things just because theyâre built on implicit viewpoints that you donât agree with. Art is art, and it carries meaning and implications. You can notice them and still enjoy the result regardless of whether you agree with those viewpoints. Otherwise you wouldnât be able to enjoy anything made outside this century or⊠you know, your own culture. Itâs fine.
I wasnât on board with you at first, but this write-up was thought provoking and I appreciated the read.
Cool, thanks!
People sometimes think analysis or interpretation of stuff they like is an attack, especially when it identifies elements they disagree with in things they enjoy.
But thatâs not the point, itâs about understanding what youâre hearing and seeing and you can absolutely enjoy things even if theyâre saying things you donât agree with. If I made that point to one person this entire thread was worth it (and already more interesting than Martin Scorsese not liking superhero movies, honestly).
Wow, just wow. Are your arms sore from all of that reaching?
Oh, hey, shitposting. Maybe this is a legit Reddit alternative after all.
For the record, except for Guardians 3, which is a bit too new to have much in the way of hermeneutics going on around it, none of those takes are new at all. Iâm being a lot less original than you give me credit for. Itâs less a reach and more the go-to default read for these.