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 ā he called them theme parks rather than actual cinema ā Scorsese isnāt shying away from the topic.
āThe danger there is what itās doing to our culture,ā he told GQ. āBecause there are going to be generations now that think ā¦ thatās what movies are.ā
GQās Zach Baron posited that what Scorsese was saying might already be true, and the āKillers of the Flower Moonā filmmaker agreed.
āThey already think that. Which means that we have to then fight back stronger. And itās got to come from the grassroots level. Itās gotta come from the filmmakers themselves,ā Scorsese continued to the outlet. āAnd youāll have, you know, the Safdie brothers, and youāll have Chris Nolan, you know what I mean? And hit āem from all sides. Hit āem from all sides, and donāt give up. ā¦ Go reinvent. Donāt complain about it. But itās true, because weāve got to save cinema.ā
Scorsese referred to movies inspired by comic books as āmanufactured contentā rather than cinema.
āItās almost like AI making a film,ā he said. āAnd that doesnāt mean that you donāt have incredible directors and special effects people doing beautiful artwork. But what does it mean? What do these films, what will it give you?ā
His forthcoming film, āKillers of the Flower Moon,ā had been on Scorseseās wish list for several years; itās based on David Grannās 2017 nonfiction book of the same name. He called the story āa sober look at who we are as a culture.ā
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.
āAfter a certain point,ā the filmmaker told Time, āI realized I was making a movie about all the white guys.ā
The dramatic focus shifted from Whiteās 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.
Right on, those are some very fair points. I guess calling them trash is a bit far.
But out of genuine curiosity, could you expand on how the movies you mentioned are conservative Christian movies? I know Die Hard takes place on Christmas, but thatās all Iām picking up.
I have absolutely no idea what they mean by conservative/progressive movie. I too would like to know, because Iām utterly baffled.
The second back to the future movie even turns the villain into a trump-like megalomaniac
Oh, boy. Should have guessed thatās the bit that would get picked up.
I mean, I didnāt think Guardians was very subtle about this at all. James Gunn doesnāt 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 āthereās the hands that made us and then thereās the hands that guide the handsā, and says that heaven āis beatutiful and it is foreverā. And then the villain yells āthere is no God, thatās why I stepped inā, which is the tipping point for his allies turning on him. The entire diagnosis the movie has on the guy ends up being that āhe didnāt want to make things better, he just hated things the way they areā, which is, for the record, a much, much better take on the equally conformist version of that in The Flash. Itās a very well made, very emotional, very beautiful movie, butā¦ you know, itās not very shy about spiritualism. If I had to sum it up Iād say itāsā¦ ehā¦ Stephen Colbert Catholic? In that wavelength?
As for Back to the Futureā¦ well, Iām not the first to notice that the āgood futureā 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, butā¦ yeah, itās a very 80s franchise with very 80s sensibilities. Zemeckis has pushed back against this slightly, I think, and yeah, itās being a bit jokey about the weirdness of the americana heās clearly nostalgic for, but that doesnāt change the text. I mean, heās also the guy that used āa black family lives here nowā as shorthand for the town going to crap in the sequel. He also made the entirety of Forrest Gump, soā¦ yeah, you donāt have to present a worldview on purpose to have it color your stuff. Once again, the movie isnāt mean about it, and itās certainly not dumb, but itās 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 itās 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 heās the only one with enough common sense and old school skills to fix the situation. Also, the government is fundamentally incompetent unless itās specifically the cops. And Reginald VelJohnsonās 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 āplot point that has aged the absolute worst in movie historyā award. Still love it, though. Super conservative movie. The most political of this bunch, probably. Still good filmmaking.
Look, you donāt have to dislike things just because theyāre built on implicit viewpoints that you donāt 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 wouldnāt be able to enjoy anything made outside this century orā¦ you know, your own culture. Itās fine.
I wasnāt 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 thatās not the point, itās about understanding what youāre hearing and seeing and you can absolutely enjoy things even if theyāre saying things you donāt 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. Iām being a lot less original than you give me credit for. Itās less a reach and more the go-to default read for these.
A good guy with a gun kills bad guys with guns? ĀÆā \ā _ā (ā ćā )ā _ā /ā ĀÆ
Just as Jesus commanded.