Xtratime Community banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,268 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
First film thread in the new forum!

He makes some good points, imo.


When I was in England in early October, I gave an interview to Empire magazine. I was asked a question about Marvel movies. I answered it. I said that I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me, that they seem to me to be closer to theme parks than they are to movies as I’ve known and loved them throughout my life, and that in the end, I don’t think they’re cinema.

Some people seem to have seized on the last part of my answer as insulting, or as evidence of hatred for Marvel on my part. If anyone is intent on characterizing my words in that light, there’s nothing I can do to stand in the way.

Many franchise films are made by people of considerable talent and artistry. You can see it on the screen. The fact that the films themselves don’t interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament. I know that if I were younger, if I’d come of age at a later time, I might have been excited by these pictures and maybe even wanted to make one myself. But I grew up when I did and I developed a sense of movies — of what they were and what they could be — that was as far from the Marvel universe as we on Earth are from Alpha Centauri.

For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, cinema was about revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves.

It was about confronting the unexpected on the screen and in the life it dramatized and interpreted, and enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form.

And that was the key for us: it was an art form. There was some debate about that at the time, so we stood up for cinema as an equal to literature or music or dance. And we came to understand that the art could be found in many different places and in just as many forms — in “The Steel Helmet” by Sam Fuller and “Persona” by Ingmar Bergman, in “It’s Always Fair Weather” by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen and “Scorpio Rising” by Kenneth Anger, in “Vivre Sa Vie” by Jean-Luc Godard and “The Killers” by Don Siegel.

Or in the films of Alfred Hitchcock — I suppose you could say that Hitchcock was his own franchise. Or that he was our franchise. Every new Hitchcock picture was an event. To be in a packed house in one of the old theaters watching “Rear Window” was an extraordinary experience: It was an event created by the chemistry between the audience and the picture itself, and it was electrifying.And in a way, certain Hitchcock films were also like theme parks. I’m thinking of “Strangers on a Train,” in which the climax takes place on a merry-go-round at a real amusement park, and “Psycho,” which I saw at a midnight show on its opening day, an experience I will never forget. People went to be surprised and thrilled, and they weren’t disappointed.Sixty or 70 years later, we’re still watching those pictures and marveling at them. But is it the thrills and the shocks that we keep going back to? I don’t think so. The set pieces in “North by Northwest” are stunning, but they would be nothing more than a succession of dynamic and elegant compositions and cuts without the painful emotions at the center of the story or the absolute lostness of Cary Grant’s character.


The climax of “Strangers on a Train” is a feat, but it’s the interplay between the two principal characters and Robert Walker’s profoundly unsettling performance that resonate now.

Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.

They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.

Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.

So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. Still, I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters.

That includes me, and I’m speaking as someone who just completed a picture for Netflix. It, and it alone, allowed us to make “The Irishman” the way we needed to, and for that I’ll always be thankful. We have a theatrical window, which is great. Would I like the picture to play on more big screens for longer periods of time? Of course I would. But no matter whom you make your movie with, the fact is that the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures.
And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.

But, you might argue, can’t they just go home and watch anything else they want on Netflix or iTunes or Hulu? Sure — anywhere but on the big screen, where the filmmaker intended her or his picture to be seen.

In the past 20 years, as we all know, the movie business has changed on all fronts. But the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night: the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the riskiest factor of all.

I’m certainly not implying that movies should be a subsidized art form, or that they ever were. When the Hollywood studio system was still alive and well, the tension between the artists and the people who ran the business was constant and intense, but it was a productive tension that gave us some of the greatest films ever made — in the words of Bob Dylan, the best of them were “heroic and visionary.”

Today, that tension is gone, and there are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive and proprietary — a lethal combination. The situation, sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but that’s becoming increasingly rare. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other.

For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness.
 

·
1st Tier Poster
Joined
·
47,949 Posts
It's obviously true when it comes to franchise movies, that they are essentially a cinematic equivalent of fast food, meant for immediate consumption and with no intellectual/spiritual benefits.

But there still are some directors who keep auteur cinema on the big screen: González Iñárritu and Damien Cazzelle, for example. In fact I'd say that in recent years Hollywood has produced more good movies than before... IMO the first half of the 00s were the dead era of no creativity.

So maybe there's simply more polarization between the absolute lowest common denominator franchise garbage with their endless sequels/reboots/origin stories vs more ambitious and artistic and pretty solid original projects. Although sometimes it indeed seems that there's more and more of the first sort being produced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,551 Posts
more good movies come from smaller countries than out of Hollywood. not that this is anything new, but it became even more obvious in the last 20 years with places like Austria, Iran, Denmark, Mexico, Hungary or Brasil replacing the classics Italy and France. Iñarritu fx may be at Hollywood now, but is a full mexican originally, his best film being the mexi production Amores Perros anyway
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,223 Posts
Indeed: good, simple piece by Scorsese.

I think what he's reacting against is the explosion of the superhero movies in the last decade or so and the way they are taking over distribution networks in a way that does not allow most people to see anything else unless they try very hard.

If you think Netflix is bad in terms of option, try a movie theater in third-world like places. And I mean from my experience in relatively large cities (but not capitals or the second-largest cities) in South America and small-town US -- there is nothing to watch in the theaters if you're not into blockbuster garbage. All-year long. Not a single one.

They have the big chains theaters in shopping malls, but the distribution networks are essentially blackmailed: you get Spiderman only if you buy this massive package of this and this and this, all utter shit commercial crap -- basically the whole billboard, so no space or budget for any other kinds of movies.

In all these places there are people who watch other kinds of films, but they mostly find a way online, through pirate DVDs (in South America), or in minuscule, alternative circuits.

I'd agree that there is more interesting stuff coming from all kinds of places than from Hollywood, and also that this is not necessarily anything new. But I'd add that the U.S itself has a thriving indie/alternative film scene. There's a ton of funding, know-how, infrastructure, specialists (including actors, directors, etc. but also all kinds of technical ones), and also bigger circuits and public than in most places in the world.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
29,388 Posts
It's obviously true when it comes to franchise movies, that they are essentially a cinematic equivalent of fast food, meant for immediate consumption and with no intellectual/spiritual benefits.

But there still are some directors who keep auteur cinema on the big screen: González Iñárritu and Damien Cazzelle, for example. In fact I'd say that in recent years Hollywood has produced more good movies than before... IMO the first half of the 00s were the dead era of no creativity.

So maybe there's simply more polarization between the absolute lowest common denominator franchise garbage with their endless sequels/reboots/origin stories vs more ambitious and artistic and pretty solid original projects. Although sometimes it indeed seems that there's more and more of the first sort being produced.
Are you sure of that? 2000-2005 had stuff like Eternal Sunshine of Spotless mind, both Being John Malkovich/Adaptation, Lost in Translation, Royal Tenebaus, David Lynch Mulholand Drive. O Brother were art thou and even the more comercial side, Pixar came with Finding Nemo and The Incridibles, Nolan Memento, Fincher fight club, and even Tim Burton was able to make something different with Big Fish. Some very dull stuff like Gladiator, Aviator or Lord of the rings movies, but what exactly is different? Around the world we had Hero and The House of Flying daggers and City of God...
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
52,165 Posts
I fully enjoy superhero movies in cinema, but there is not a single word of what he said thats wrong in any level. There should be room for both, not equal perhaps (because its a bussiness first and foremost), but defenitely more even then its now.


But it depends on where you live too. My small-medium sized town has 6 cinema theates, 3 of them are strictly art house type of cinemas (2 student run, one regular tradition arthouse place), and the 3 mainstream franchise like places that dominate the showings will mainly blockbuster stuff, still have smaller character drama movies in their listings every month.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,551 Posts
depends defo on where you are, even in south american cities. in Salvador fx I found every movie theatre seemed to be blockbuster shit in shopping malls, while in Belo Horizonte there were a lot of independent/arthaus places. but that was 1990s, can‘t really talk about what‘s now.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
29,388 Posts
Most of the "street" theatre went out of busines, number of those mall teathre increased. However, there is a culture for small festivals (You should come to Ouro Preto or Tiradentes, they have a movie festival here that is pretty cool), plus, one or another "indie" place (which imply, room for non-english movies) or institutions that have those themed festivals (Such as Palácio das Artes, if you know what is). But Belo Horizonte and Salvador cultural habits > Rest of Brazil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,696 Posts
Can you imagine a film like Once Upon a Time in Anatolia being released nowadays in theaters with Hollywood production? I can't. That's the sad part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,268 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
The one good general film festival in Denmark, Copenhagen Pix, recently announced they'd scaled down and will only show 20 film and focus on up-and-coming filmmakers with a "social conscience" yada yada yada.

It used to be programmed more or less like the others in the international festival circuit, and provide our only chance of watching a broad selection of contemporary arthouse films.

Sure, we'll get Almodovar and the most recent Palms d'or winner and whatever stars Juliette Binoche, for a week or two, but in general, despite a few famous directors and the Zentropa production company, Denmark/Cph has a rather dismal film culture, especially compared to other scenes such as music, fashion, gastronomy (things I happen to not care all that much about) where the country is really at the forefront, punching way above its weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,268 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Indeed: good, simple piece by Scorsese.

I think what he's reacting against is the explosion of the superhero movies in the last decade or so and the way they are taking over distribution networks in a way that does not allow most people to see anything else unless they try very hard.

If you think Netflix is bad in terms of option, try a movie theater in third-world like places. And I mean from my experience in relatively large cities (but not capitals or the second-largest cities) in South America and small-town US -- there is nothing to watch in the theaters if you're not into blockbuster garbage. All-year long. Not a single one.

They have the big chains theaters in shopping malls, but the distribution networks are essentially blackmailed: you get Spiderman only if you buy this massive package of this and this and this, all utter shit commercial crap -- basically the whole billboard, so no space or budget for any other kinds of movies.

In all these places there are people who watch other kinds of films, but they mostly find a way online, through pirate DVDs (in South America), or in minuscule, alternative circuits.
In that sense I shouldn't complain about Cph, of course, since we will get many of the "hits" that aren't just Disney or Fast and Furious... like PTA, Coen brothers, Bong Jun Ho, etc.


I'd agree that there is more interesting stuff coming from all kinds of places than from Hollywood, and also that this is not necessarily anything new. But I'd add that the U.S itself has a thriving indie/alternative film scene. There's a ton of funding, know-how, infrastructure, specialists (including actors, directors, etc. but also all kinds of technical ones), and also bigger circuits and public than in most places in the world.

The recent films from Coens, Scorsese, Safdie bros, S Craig Zahler, Noah Baumbach, though... Netflix, except the odd one-week release.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,268 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I fully enjoy superhero movies in cinema, but there is not a single word of what he said thats wrong in any level. There should be room for both, not equal perhaps (because its a bussiness first and foremost), but defenitely more even then its now.


But it depends on where you live too. My small-medium sized town has 6 cinema theates, 3 of them are strictly art house type of cinemas (2 student run, one regular tradition arthouse place), and the 3 mainstream franchise like places that dominate the showings will mainly blockbuster stuff, still have smaller character drama movies in their listings every month.

Yeah, one can obviously agree that Scorsese has a point or just welcome the fact that he sticks his boomer neck out with a boomer opinion... and at the same time consider Marvel and Star Wars worthwhile and intelligent entertaiment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,268 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
The Irishman is great btw, imo.

But also very geriatric, so probably the Disney kids are right.

The two best movies of the year are cinematic eulogies, one by a Boomer, one by a Gen X'er (Tarantino).

Come to think of it, Clint from the Silent Generation did one last year.
 

·
1st Tier Poster
Joined
·
47,949 Posts
The one good general film festival in Denmark, Copenhagen Pix, recently announced they'd scaled down and will only show 20 film and focus on up-and-coming filmmakers with a "social conscience" yada yada yada.

It used to be programmed more or less like the others in the international festival circuit, and provide our only chance of watching a broad selection of contemporary arthouse films.

Sure, we'll get Almodovar and the most recent Palms d'or winner and whatever stars Juliette Binoche, for a week or two, but in general, despite a few famous directors and the Zentropa production company, Denmark/Cph has a rather dismal film culture, especially compared to other scenes such as music, fashion, gastronomy (things I happen to not care all that much about) where the country is really at the forefront, punching way above its weight.
I guess I'm lucky in Tallinn that we have a great international film festival (which just ended) and also several arthouse cinemas which actually have a pretty good movie selection.
 

·
1st Tier Poster
Joined
·
47,949 Posts
but my surprise of the year was seeing James Franco's Zeroville being on screens for like a week in one of our popcorn multiplex cinemas which usually only shows mainstream big budget Hollywood stuff ... no idea how it got into the program there as it was barely screened in USA

It was actually a really good movie too! criminally underrated on IMDB (where it has only 571 total votes, one of these is mine)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,268 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top