In a controversial opinion piece penned for The New York Times, acclaimed film director Martin Scorcese argued that Marvel movies cannot be classified as cinema. The Onion asked fans of the action movie franchise what they thought of Scorcese’s latest film, Killers Of The Flower Moon, and this is what they said.
Is this the best you can do?
First off, it’s The Onion. It’s satire. Would your reaction have been as crybaby-ish and prejudiced if it came from, say, Mad Magazine?
Secondly, I’m not even going to get into defending Scorsese’s body of work nor his achievements in the motion picture arts. I’m going to talk slow and use small words so you can follow along, Mr Comic Book Man.
1967 - Who’s That Knocking at My Door
1972 - Boxcar Bertha
1974 - Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore
1977 - New York, New York
1982 - The King of Comedy
1985 - After Hours
1986 - The Color of Money 1988 - The Last Temptation of Christ
1989 - New York Stories: Life Lessons
1991 - Cape Fear
1993 - The Age of Innocence
1997 - Kundun
1999 - Bringing Out the Dead
2002 - Gangs of New York
2004 - The Aviator
2010 - Shutter Island
2011 - Hugo
2013 - The Wolf of Wall Street
2016 - Silence
2023 - Killers of the Flower Moon
I’ve left out exactly five movies of Scorsese’s oeuvre…oops…filmography. The unwashed masses, you included, tend to remember only those. I’ll admit De Niro’s presence definitely “colors” a film regardless of his role and I’d go as far as to accuse De Niro more than what with you charge Scorsese. So, Mr. “the world is full of great graphic novels” – which is how fully-grown, emotionally-stunted adults call (and justify) comic books – go jump in the East River.
I always find the criticism of his use of particular great actors hilarious and bewildering. How is the cultivation and use of creative partnerships a bad thing?
🤝
is being able to smell you through my phone part of a bit or do you actually talk like this
Yes, I do actually talk like this. The odor from your phone is most likely your accumulated breath, spittle and other grime. Consider 1) wiping down your phone (at least) daily with a disinfectant wipe, 2) washing your hands occasionally and 3) using a toothbrush and toothpaste more often.
sometimes i worry about how i come across to other people
then i see someone responding like this because someone else doesnt care enough about watching the correct pictures on a screen, and i actually feel pretty good about myself and the amount of self awareness i do manage
Judging by your original post, you say you worry but ultimately don’t give a damn. The important thing to you is to insert themselves into conversations that you were not part of and then seeing your own words on your cellphone. Congratulations.
there is nothing worse than inserting yourself into conversations you werent a part of with little regard, if any, for whether youre being a cunt over meaningless bullshit that doesnt remotely warrant it
on an entirely unrelated note, good luck with your business, expertly dodging self awareness for the rest of your life is going to be a toughie
And there we have it, folks. Thank you, Mr Ethics. I’ll certainly take your warm advice to heart.
To be fair, everything after 1999 is a DiCaprio movie. Hehe. But he’s one of the most talented actors in Hollywood, of course a legendary director is going to prefer him.
I won’t be as crude as the guy you are responding to and deny Scorcese’s achievements. But we can all admit that he was taking the piss a little bit with the Irishman. Its a movie in the MCU - the martin cinematic universe. He gathers his avengers (De Niro, Pesci, Keitel) for an ensemble film within the Gangster oeuvre. He defends this by insisting that he went through the motions of “establishing” an “emotional core” or whatever. But at the end of the day, it’s De Niro saying “c’mere, whassamatta” again. Brought to you by special effects.
I personally think that there is nothing wrong with this, and Scorcese is a very saavy movie promoter to juxtapose how he makes films against the marvel method. But I do think that Marty is taking the piss just a little, even if it is in a pretty fun way.
Scorcese’s problem with “marvel movies” is the lack of creative control afforded to the filmmakers rather than their derivative nature. These two concepts are often intertwined, but not mutually inclusive.
He was actually in talks to direct Joker a film highly derivative of his own work, but ended up turning it down because he did not want to have to answer to the studios demands for how this existing world and characters should be handled.
Well, he has also been criticizing them in the sense that creating these movies are not done in pursuit of a creative purpose. That there is no emotional risk. I think it is an apt criticism - but where is the great creative risk in making another gangster movie staring Robby and Joey?
Where’s the creative risk? Making another gangster movie? Did you not read/comprehend what I wrote previously? You are doing the exact same thing as Mr Graphic Novel: ignoring a large body of work for
fivefour “gangster” films. And even so, what if Scorsese’s preferred genre was solely gangster films? Why isn’t John Ford being “accused” of making only westerns? John Carpenter making only horror films? David Fincher only psychological thrillers? Where’s the “creative risk” in that?!Are you saying his casting choices are a bit…one-note? Citing your previous example, he’s worked with Bob De Niro ten times out of 27 so, sure, I get the association – although I insist it’s De Niro’s heavy style that’s guilty here; De Niro in any role is always De Niro (Meet the Parents, anyone? How about The Mission?). Scorsese’s worked with Harvey Keitel…wait a minute…only five times! Joe Pesci?..only four times. And Al Pacino? The Irishman was the very first time Scorsese ever had Pacino in front of the cameras.
Compare the works, in story, style, and advancing motion picture arts technology, of the directors I’d listed above with the works based on 1970s wish-fulfillment pulp made for 12-year-old boys (the entire MCU oeuvre) created with pre-existing 3D tech and epilepsy-inducing, advertising-style editing. No creative risk my ass.
Personal taste is one thing and I’m fine with that. You don’t like caviar?, you don’t like caviar. But I’m so done with this myopic, prejudiced tunnelvision regarding one of the directorial greats of the history of motion pictures, especially when comparing Taxi Driver with Thor.
I’m speaking specifically about the Irishman, a movie I love btw. But do I think it is more artistically “valid” than infinity war? No.
It is less creatively “risky” than not doing another gangster film, thats simply a fact. And that’s okay. On some level, it is a “lets get the gang back together for one more ride” movie. On some level, all the players involved have certainly earned the right to do that. But it is odd to criticize studios for essentially taking the exact same approach to film making, especially for movies with massive commercial success - even if you argue that the quality of the art produced isn’t the same.
Pacino’s role is a good example. He practically admitted that he was too old for the role off Jimmy Hoffa after filming, in multiple different interviews. So why was he chosen? You said it yourself - people want to see one of the most beloved Italian American gangster actors get directed by one one most beloved Italian American gangster directors. And you are a fanboy over it. And that is okay. I “forgive” you or whatever. I am too.
It goes to show that formula film making can produce great films, and that the MCU movies that are bad (for many are fine films) aren’t bad because they are based on comic books, or because there is multiple of them. Comic books that were extremely artistic and considered important works of 20th century science fiction in their own right (talking about Jack Kirby specifically). I would argue that eventually the MCU did become a very cynical excercise that is determined more by studio number crunching. That happens for all sorts of reasons in Hollywood.
Where exactly did I say that? Do not put words in my mouth and please do not refer to me as a fanboy as that’s mental laziness on your part.
Speaking of fanboy, I’m well informed regarding Jack Kirby (Machine Man? Devil Dinosaur? Destroyer Duck?)…and Joe Simon…and Jack Cole, Will Eisner, Jim Steranko, Jim Starlin, Alan Moore, etc. Household names, huh? Extremely artistic and important works of 20th century science-fiction, eh? Give me a break. Ask the person in the cubicle next to yours who created Batman and enjoy the blank stare. Stan’s almost a household name because he was a relentless publicity hound.
But now we’re veering off-topic into other territory and, frankly, I’m bored arguing with Philistines. Good night and good luck.
This gives the game away, although I’m sure you were joking.
Marty’s common refrain has been “there is an emotional core to this movie - we had a meeting!”
Look, there is a business to high production films, and we have to accept that. Marty clearly has, has participated in it, and used his well earned artistic reputation to criticize it. Good stuff.
🤝