Siebbi, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
By Geoff Carter
In his recent Harper’s article “Il Maestro”, Martin Scorsese laments that today’s film industry has become so centered on profiteering that—in the world of marketing algorhythms and streaming platforms—cinematic art has been relegated to the same level as any type of streaming content, be it a commercial, a music video, or a TikTok recording. Raging Bull might be included in the same tier as a Frosted Flakes commercial, and Parasite might be compared to a Kim Kardashian YouTube—it all depends on the number of hits, because that and profitability are the only criteria that seem to matter these days. Artistic value, social importance, and thematic content—the very essence of the art of cinema—have become very nearly irrelevant.
In an industry that has become top-heavy with superhero and action films, Scorsese has in the past compared films from the Marvel Universe to being theme parks, stating, “Honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.” (Variety)
Like the comic books that spawned them, these films are predictable, formulaic, and rarely a moment seems to go by without a pitched battle or a plethora of exploding cars or falling buildings occurring. But, as the algorhythms predicted, people want to see more and more of this stuff. To date, twenty-seven movies grossing over twenty-five billion dollars have been produced by Marvel Studios. Not counting the ill-fated Broadway musical production, there have been a total of eight different Spiderman movies, dating back from 2002, and starring, respectively as the titular hero—Tobey McGuire, Andrew Garfield, and Tom Holland. And this portion of the Marvel universe is only one of many such franchises.
It’s funny—and more than slightly ironic—that one of the more lucrative film franchises, Pirates of the Caribbean, was originally a Disneyland ride. A number of other films, including Assassin’s Creed and Super Mario Bros., were originally video games. Cinema has become indeed, as Mr. Scorsese averred, a theme park ride.
While Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Ring trilogy was incredibly well-produced and remained true to Tolkien’s original work, Jackson’s rendition of The Hobbit, however, seemed to cater to the same audience sensibilities that produced the Avengers series. In the book, the scene in which the dwarves escape the Elves’ stronghold has them floating quietly away in barrels down the river. In Jackson’s film, however, their escape is punctuated by a six-minute long completely gratuitous battle with the nefarious Orcs. The battle sequence is unnecessary and, along with a dozen other sequences like it, no doubt contributed to The Hobbit expanding into a film trilogy.
In his article, Scorsese focuses mostly on one of his idols, Federico Fellini, and his contribution to the art of cinema, as well as other giants of the screen like Hitchcock, Kubrick, Godard, Renoir, and Ford. Their work stretched the boundaries and possibilities of the cinematic art form. Hitchcock’s use of off-screen space, Renoir’s adept use of depth of field in his layered mise-en-scene, and Kubrick’s innovative use of framing (see Barry Lyndon) and composition were only a few of the contributions these auteurs gave to present-day filmmakers. We see these same techniques—as well as Fellini’s—used today by the likes of Wes Anderson, Spike Lee, Paul Michael Anderson, and Quentin Tarantino.
In “Il Maestro”, Scorsese states, “We can’t depend on the movie business, such as it is, to take care of cinema. In the movie business, which is now the mass visual entertainment business, the emphasis is always on the word “business,” and value is always determined by the amount of money to be made from any given property.” To the powers that be in the film industry, a Wreck-It Ralph is just as important, if not more so, than Jordan Peele’s Us—depending on which piece grossed more. And there is a lot to protect.
For all of Scorsese’s hand wringing, today’s filmmaking community boasts a large and prolific array of cinematic auteurs. From old-timers like Woody Allen, David Lynch, Spike Lee, the Coen Brothers, Martin Scorsese, and (just squeezing into this category) Quentin Tarantino to younger visionaries like Jordan Peele, David O. Russell, Wes Anderson, Paul Thomas Anderson, Bong-Joon ho, Chloe Zao, Barry Jenkins, and Adam McKay, world cinema is now more diverse and—in some senses—and less constrained than ever before. Films like Moonlight, Nomadland, Get Out, The French Dispatch, and Parasite are stretching the limits of cinema as never before.
Mr. Scorsese is right, though. In a business—an entire culture—which is basely motivated by profit margins and streaming algorhythms, the works of our cutting-edge filmmakers must be safeguarded—and curated. In no world, capitalist or not, should a YouTube be valued on the same plane as Vertigo or The Grapes of Wrath.
More power to those who are enthralled by Ironman, The Hulk, and the rest of the Marvel marvels. After all, how different are their favorites from the B-movies of the boomer generation? (Although personally, I would much prefer to watch Them or The Incredible Shrinking Man over Ironman any day of the week.)
While Coda or Drive My Car may not be summer blockbusters, they cannot be forgotten and should not be overshadowed by the formulaic, predictable, and repetitive pablum America has been spoon-fed for years. We have to remember that movies should be fun but cinema is invaluable.
Amen brother! I am curious however that in reference to Quentin Tarantino “just squeezing into this category”, whether you are referring to his age (old timers) or to his status as an artistic auteur. I’m going to say the former. He aspires to be considered among the great auteurs but I’m afraid he doesn’t make the cut. He certainly has all the technical chops necessary but doesn’t have a narrative imagination to match it. His films are repetitive and predictable IMHO.
Thanks, Mark. I appreciate it. I had meant that QT should be in the elder tier but even though I love his snappy dialogue, I do think he gets old—but, for all that, he does things no one else does, the kind of fantasy fulfillment revenge shtick.
If I’m in the mood for a revenge fantasy flick I would opt for one of the Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns. At least they are visually stunning and have fantastic music scores. One would not watch one of those for the dialogue, there hardly is any, but the vibe pushes the narrative without a need for dialogue.
I’m with you on the western revenge flicks. My favorite is Nevada Smith with Steve McQueen. I think though that Tarantino has this revisionist history fantasy angle that–while sometimes strained–is unique to him. Jewish revenge on Nazis, Black revenge on slaveowners, the abandoned bride revenge, and everybody’s vengeance in The Hateful Eight. It is contrived sometimes, but it’s his own.