Thanks to MUBI for their support! Get your 30 day free trial of MUBI here: mubi.com/thomasflight
// support my channel on Patreon: / thomasflight
Sources:
1. Scorsese's Harper's Essay: harpers.org/archive/2021/03/i...
2. Matt Zoller Seitz on Content: www.rogerebert.com/mzs/avenge...
3. Why Martin Scorsese is Right About Marvel: • Why Martin Scorsese is...
4. 2020 Hollywood Reporter's Directors Roundtable: • Directors Roundtable: ...
5. Martin Scorsese's Thoughts About Joker: • Martin Scorsese though...
6. How to Pronounce Scorsese: • How to pronounce Scors...
7. Martin Scorsese Calls Marvel "theme park movies" at Irishman press conference: • Martin Scorsese on 'Th... (Courtesy of Getty Images)
8. Martin Scorsese's Speech at 31st Annual Palm Springs International Film Festival courtesy of Getty Images.
Chapters:
00:00 Is Cinema Dying?
05:18 Joker: An Interesting Question
10:30 An Attempt To Define Cinema
11:41 Do I Agree With Scorsese?
14:22 Long Live Content
16:37 Why All This Matters
// WATCH MORE THOMAS FLIGHT
-Ad-Free Videos and Exclusive Content on Nebula: go.nebula.tv/thomasflight
-My Podcast Cinema of Meaning:
Ad-free and early on Nebula: Nebula: nebula.tv/cinemaofmeaning
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4n6zZZQ...
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
-Rent or Buy My Experimental Documentary:
labyrinthion.com
-Read My Newsletter:
thomasflight.substack.com/
// SUPPORT MY WORK
-Support my Channel directly on Patreon: / thomasflight
Patrons get access to a discord community, monthly podcast reviews of everything I watch, and more!
-Sign up for Nebula using my Link: go.nebula.tv/thomasflight
Signing Up for Nebula using my link supports my channel financially.
// FOLLOW ME
-Twitter: / thomasflight
-Website: www.thomasflight.com
-Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/thomasflight/
-TikTok: / thomas.flight
// CONTACT ME
-sponsorship and Business inquiries: thomasflight@standard.tv
-Questions, feedback, other stuff: contact@thomasflight.com
(check out my FAQ as well: www.thomasflight.com/faq)
#ThomasFlight #VideoEssay
I think what Scorsese means is: It's okay to go to the Theme Park, but sometimes it's also right to visit a museum.
No i think it's more about "a theme park is a theme park and museum is a museum , you can enjoy a theme park , it's okay but don't call it cinema- i mean don't call it a museum"
Or an Art Gallery. Perhaps that's a better analogy.
Not a museum, but living art. Like theatre.
And the issue is, what if the museums were turned into theme parks for profit?
there's no public grants for cinema like there are for museums though
Instead of being considered as an "art form", most movies nowadays are perceived merely as "entertainment".
Yeah it kinda sucks. Entertainment is great but l wish it wasnt at the cost of art. Theres still art being made.
Always has been. People went to entertainment films since the dawn of cinema. Tom Gunning even called it The Cinema of Attractions: going to the movies to see exotic places, people and cultures you’d never seen before. And of course at some point there came a wave of filmmakers who started pushing the boundaries, but art and entertainment always coexisted. But also think of Chaplin or Keaton. They really pushed the medium forward, even though they were still very entertaining films for the audience. Did they make art or entertainment?
@@Jesseafca Art can be entertaining and entertainment is fairly subjective. The issue, in my opinion, is that cinema today relies heavily on mass appeal and the illogical entertainment factor, and that has negetively affected the quality of cinema of 21st century.
@@dawson6196 could you define the illogical entertainment factor, I don't understand what you mean by that
@@harrisonw6065 Lack of seriousness and predictability even when it's important.
One of Scorsese's points that gets overshadowed is how films aren't treated like art by studios, distributors, or consumers. They are now treated like content. Something to fill space on Netflix that fits in their algorithmically defined genres to keep subscribers and get clicks. He compares this to the art house theater that plays a curated selection of films that the theater thinks are good and important, where the quality is the appeal. And how that would expose a film goer not just to films they know they will probably like, but to new genres and styles and things that don't fit into a neat box The problem with marvel isn't that they set the bar low, or are unambitious, or have little to say about society. The problem is that marvel movies exist to advertise the marvel brand, which exists to sell marvel movies, which exist to sell the brand, and so on and so forth. There's no artistry in those films because it's just content made to keep bringing people back to future marvel movies
This is beautifully put.
But I think the work of the CGI animators and fight choreographers (especially in films like Winter Soldier) and the camera crew that has to keep up with all that is a form of artistry. I get bothered when people say "MCU isn't REAL film cause green screen" because that diminishes the hard work of so many animators behind the scenes.
@@HylianKilljoy I get what you’re saying but those animators don’t choose the images, it comes down from a boardroom not from their own imagination. Which is Scorsese’s point, is if the only purpose is to make money and creativity isn’t really part of the process, is it still cinema/art?
@Amit P. Bharath maybe, but the movies he produces are entirely corporate driven and lifeless. Each movie does nothing but advertise the brand
@@subjectively_objective creativity obviously is part of the process lmao. pseudointellectuals like yourself really think profit in movies only started 10 years ago lol
This is why we need to support the independent film industry. Go to film festivals, go to non-franchised theatres. I love Marvel, but I completely agree it is something different from cinema.
It's shown in cinema so it's cinema. You can of course differ between franchise films that feel like "theme park rides" and films that move you deeply. But both will always stay cinema. Calling MCU films "theme park rides" because they're generic and serial is like calling deep and complex films "books" because that's what that medium is said to be. But it's wrong. Both are the same medium, appear in the same dispositif, the same institution. They both ARE cinema.
@@Ambar42 yea technically they’re both cinema but marvel isn’t quality cinema. Their movies are incredibly overrated and badly written
@@Ambar42 You can technically eat shit and call it food, too.
@@damiantirado9616 Most of them. There are exceptions. And Marvel is hardly the worst offender. They are just the most popular example
I'm an aspiring filmmaker, and I want to make blockbusters that are also cinema. I've put a lot of study and thought into the fall of the MCU, (And yes, there was a fall from grace, it wasn't full blown Phase 4 from the beginning) to try to analyze what made it successful in the first place and how it lost that. My goal is to make films that are exciting and gripping, but with something to offer
"Cinema is an unhappy art as it depends on money. Not only because a film is very expensive, but it is then also marketed, like cigarettes, etc. A film is good if it sells well. But if cinema is art, such an approach is absurd: it would mean that art is good if it sells well." Andrei Tarkovsky. Ironically I found the quote in an Instagram feed.
Would making short movies on your phone, only for your viewing or your close friends to view be a potential way around this? It seems that while the great cameras in phones do give way to "content" like tiktok, they also allow advanced technology to make the art to be in anyone's hands. If you enjoy making films using the tools you have access to (i.e. phones), you avoid struggling to get money AND making art at the same time and can just do what you want because it brings you joy..even if no-one ever sees it.
@@TheShmuTube Certainly technology and social media created what I would call 'new avenues' for cinematic ventures. Personally I think those are areas that are worth to be explored by art creators and enthusiasts worldwide
Art has to sell as well.
@@bighands69 aRt HaS tO sElL wElL.
Ah, fellow Indonesian art/cinema enjoyer
He's right to some degree about the "fast-food" and "fine dinning" experience comparison
“I am the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries.” ― Stephen King
@@coboarders That’s why he writes so many books. He just pumps em out in factory-fashion. Occasionally he has a great menu item, but the McRibs only come around once a year, tops.
@@SnailHatan Agreed, and my point is that there is nothing wrong with MCU type movies as they are simply the Stephen King of cinema.
When it comes to eating food I prefer fast food any day lmao but when it comes to film I prefer the fine dining films
I think he Is right comma... And Is not only about superhero movies...
“Good art is something that takes risks, challenges the norm, develops the medium”
all which is void of the MCU 💯
good art is good art, lol. it doesnt have to always be something "new" or "risky", thats a cop-out. it just has to be GOOD.
Good art risks not being liked.
They are some of the ways that art is good...@@nikoc8968
It also helps if it's great art and not art people say "it's good but not necessary to blow my money on" that's what no one talks about
The German author Hermann Hesse wrote a good book called "Siddartha". One of the phases of this man's life was indulging in pleasure but after a while, the "gratification treadmill" kicked in and he ended up finding less and less pleasure, so the story goes.
Siddartha was the name of Buddha. He was a prince. Interesting history to look into
@@chrishardy6471 Well the history though interesting is less important than the philosophy to take notice of.
Steppenwolf is a really great novel too by Hermann Hesse! :)
so it goes
@@philturc1217 I love that the two main characters are Harry and Herrmine. I think JK Rowling took those names!
Cinema might die in the mainstream but, as with music, you've gotta dig a bit deeper than top 40 to find the gems.
Amen
and just like music, a bunch of gems are right there in the top 40 but a bunch of snobs are too caught up in there manufactured identities to know what they are.
@@losgryfog shit I haven't made all the way through jazz yet can only remember the chord progressions to a couple hundred songs at a time I mean so I chose very carefully which song is taking up space in my head and it's nothing that I can't personally justify as a good piece of music otherwise I'd go mad. Going through Elton John and Billy Joel's records and learning 20 from each for gigs going forward, good suggestion from my Dad I spent over a decade playing Jazz and Blues only so I needed to widen the types of chord progressions that came naturally toe and certainly 80s was an interesting anomaly of pop chord progressions some that you only heard in the 80s across all of recorded music that I've never heard and seem to be pretty damn unique 😸 so I'm glad I tried a new decade but damn there is so much that more time and effort is spent on producing then there is the writer themselves writing nowadays that the songs come out like Marvel movies come out now
@@losgryfog Any suggestions of gems in the top 40? I've not listened to much commercial music for 15+ years, although I mix music (Think a musical version of essay documentary film)
@@TheMixCurator Jermaine Cole just dropped
My gripe with this is that these theme park movies are blocking the place of original and creative films in theatres. In my country ( India) I can't see so many indie movies in theatres it's unbelievable but when a marvel movie comes out , all the theatres play them. There are big lines, even fights to get tickets. Even a popular director like Paul Thomas Anderson had his recent film getting limited release and I could not see it on the big screen.
I mean, we have tough regulations on showing content that doesn't appeal to the Indian Audience and when it's shown, it's usually limited by location. Thankfully with the age of streaming, we are seeing a Golden Age of Film and TV that is free from scrutiny and allowing artistic content though, in terms of accessibility, it's a bit of paradox.
Yeah, I hate that. It happened to me with Martin Scorsese's Silence, I wanted to watch it but not a single theater near me was playing. Meanwhile they had like 20 showings of whatever Marvel movie was out at the time.
I guess how well we can see a PTA movie when it comes out in the end of the year
@@luismarioguerrerosanchez4747 And even when they showed it, it was limited to IMAX theatres.
@@rickardkaufman3988 It makes me so mad, one of Scorsese's most recent films, Wolf of Wall Street was a financial success and suddenly the studios start the lie that Scorsese isn't bankable anymore and nobody wants to pay to watch his films when they're at fault for Silence's underperformance as they made a poor job at distributing and marketing the film.
This parallels my experience with being a music artist these days….. like, I just want to write, make records and play live, but now there’s so much expectation to make music videos, live stream, and post constantly on social media that it takes away from the actual thing that should be the focus, the music
Its easier than ever to make music and easier than ever to get that music out to the masses. You can focus on music, but if you want people to listen beyond your live gigs you need to market it, thats how its always been
I have seen good music people who just do music and then some other people do all other things for them, but it costs. So what i am saying is that i didnt say a thing
People said the exact same thing about plays when the cinema started to become a thing. Cinemas will still be around for a very long time. But they will get treated like plays were/is treated.
Video killed the radio star. 🥺
Painters told plays were not art
It's funny how anyone who says anything that could be even remotely interpreted as criticizing Marvel movies has to spam 10 disclaimers in a row or else they receive hate and vitriol. Marvel movies aren't bad, but I don't get why Marvel fans treat them like sacred artifacts or mind-blowing masterpieces. They're literally half designed to be advertisements...
They are mcu fans not marvel fans
I wonder how much of it is comic book movies from the 20th century compared to comic book movies in the 21st century. We can all agree that at the end of the day, it's all popcorn movies. These are meant as relatively light hearted entertainment. But comic book movies from the 20th century were a lot sillier and campy than what we have now (anyone remember Batman and Robin (1997)? I do). Marvel at least _tried_ to elevate the comic book movie past silly camp (OK, you can argue that started with Chris Nolan's Dark Knight, but at the time, that felt more like a one off than a true shift in the tone of the genre).
It's also funny that people who don't like the MCU take Martin's words out of context and say "MCU is for a bunch of brain dead idiots watching the same movie" even though he stated he doesn't mind the MCU like movies, the problem is that companies are skewing more into that genre than what Martin prefers.
Marvel movies are for juvenile delinquents and low I.Q. individuals. Oh they're harmless fun. Yeah, sure. But are they harmless when they've taking over the whole industry? Anyone who likes imagination, originality or maturity in big budget filmmaking is pushed aside in favor of catering to these superhero fans who watch the same shit movies over and over.
@@dvforever u have to read marvel comics I agree mcu is for low iq audiences And mcu fans don't even read comics Marvel comics is very much deeper and dark unlike mcu Disney
Even when I was a kid, in my head, I would call some movies "movies" and others "films". It's definitely something you know when you see it.
its like falling in love
rEaL cInEmA iS CaLlEd KiNo
real cinema is based kino
Then, there are flicks.
@@moonverine the Amy Schumers and whatever cringe out at the time, like Cats
"Cinema is dying" That's what everyone says since the 80s
They were not necessarily wrong, either. It is like a doctor giving someone a negative prognosis then prescribing them medication and a recommended diet to recover then claiming that the doctor was wrong when the patient makes a full recovery. Artforms occasionally have to evolve to survive and that has been done that over repeatedly the relatively short time (compared to other non-interactive media)that cinema has existed.
And they were right? Peak of American cinema was 60s to 70s and this is not nostalgia talk I was born in the 80s.
Actually they have been saying it since when they started putting sounds in films…
@@user-dj7zs2ng3c change that to 10s to 70s
Try since the dawn of the artform.
To me honestly "V for Vendetta" and "The Dark Knight" trilogy are what I wish Marvel would aspire to be. Films that felt like a complete narrative arc with emotional depth or attempts at it. Even the old Sam Rami Spiderman movies felt more "cinematic" rather than a cynically made corporate product which is painfully formulaic.
Exactly! the biggest problem is when the movies start becoming safer and safer as they have to appeal to as many people as possible
The thing people should realize even those were cynical products made to sell toys. I love them and I wish there were more of them. But it's a problem that the okay adaptation of V For Vendetta and the giant spectacle blockbuster thriller The Dark Knight is considered "art movies". I would never say V For Vendetta the comic book wasn't art, or that there isn't great and interesting Batman comics that weren't art. But I geniuenly think we should be more critical of movies that sells toylines than we are. It has become so normal now people have forgot it was controversial.
Like Logan too
I think the Guardians films have come close. And don't forget that Phase 1 was made by filmmakers. That's how any successful franchise starts
@@shaid1111 That doesn't make the films automatically "not art" either. The Nolan films are arguably art
Scorsese : Cinema is dying. Covid : Roger that.
@Biggiebaby started with VHS then accelerated with every new technology..........
lol
Spiderman: Nah
I don't think cinema is dying. It's just that blockbusters tend to overshadow better and original works.
Yes
Yes, but big movie and production companies are shifting towards the streaming market and flooding them with blockbuster titles, remakes, and sequels more than “cinema” pieces . Why spend money on a film curated for an niche audience when you could make billions with established and super popular IPs. I think cinema will never truly die, there will always be a community who love and continue the art, but the craft of moviemaking is now overly commercialized and purely for continuing a gigantic stream of revenue. Just look at Avengers End Game, that’s what every company is after
Though it has always been like this. I mean Mission Impossible 2 outgrossed memento if you get me. There will always be really good films and really bad ones.
My evidence that cinema still absolutely has its place is good old A24. They do nothing but really personal cinematic films exactly like what Scorsese is describing. Though I guess even then you can stream most of their movies. I do completely agree with Scorsese that the novelty of going to the theatre is disappearing
@@ImrdIstt.SH. can’t wait for The Green Knight, had to read it as part of a mythology class.
For me it comes down to choice. The multiplex, the relatively affordable cinema, is filled with franchise movies so the only way to watch stand alone cinema, and I don't just mean art house movies but even stand alone genre movies is to go to the independent cinemas which are largely way more expensive. The average movie goer isn't just being fed the same story over and over they're being priced out of their ability to chose.
Yep. I'm broke. I can't afford to spend bus fare to go and see a film I find that I don't enjoy. So I spend ages deliberating with myself, using spoiler-free reviews and ratings on various sites like Rotten tomatoes and KZhead to work out if a film is worth going to see in the cinema. It's fucking exhausting, so most of the time I don't bother. The last film I saw in the cinema was Dune, which I think falls into the same nebulous category as The Joker - a director sneaking an arthouse film into mainstream consciousness by using an established IP. You an see how much care and attention was put into every aspect of Dune. When you watch large blockbusters like that, which respect the source material, it makes it harder to stomach the idea of watching yet another tired rehash of a superhero. I want to see The Batman, but only because I think Robert Pattinson is an interesting actor with the potential to be one of the greats. I feel the same way about Timothee Chalamet, the star of Dune, and a few others. I will not be watching anymore MCU films in the cinema. I'm just tired of the stagnation and relentless pursuit of selling the brand. I just want to watch a film, damn it, I'm not interested in buying merchandise.
Scosese has never directed a sequel to his or any other movie. That says a lot about how he defines cinema. So your attempt to define his version of cinema by saying 'its a unique, individual story thats crafted and presented with special care to film language, tradition, and form' is spot on.
A GREAT distinction from other filmmakers. I think with very rare exceptions. Sequels to me, are a sign of lazing writing.
@@lancegoodthrust546 why? Sequels can expand on a story and add even more depth to the first one. Are you saying the Godfather 2 and Empire Strikes Back are “lazy writing”
@@lancegoodthrust546 damn right. Kill Bill volume 2 was just lazy by Tarantino.
Just because movies like Top Gun Maverick and Terminator 2 are sequels doesn’t mean they aren’t cinema or can’t be considered as original movies.
@@kadiriolanipekun6486 to be fair, I think Coppola and Lucas had the sequels in mind even before releasing the first movie. I think he’s referring specifically to sequels that are made just because the first movie was popular and it’s what fans/studios want.
if you take joker and replace the character with someone else and keep the same story , it would hardly have any box office success . the name of a comic book character increases the brand value of a movie .
Literally if they had just called it "The Clown" and not had DC characters or been set in like New York or Chicago instead of Gotham I bet it would've not been nearly as successful at all and would've been shown for a shorter time and also only in limited theaters.
I think this Joker movie stands out among the comic-derived franchises
@@jaik195701 yes
Yep it’s sad isnt it. All this comic book trash has destroyed cinema.
@@southlondon86 I don't think it's so much destoyed it. Cause every year there are still many fantastic and unique films made. I think it has just pushed the majority of true cinema into the background.
One of the things I find very interesting about Scorsese's comments is that they reflect very similar and equally valid comments made by someone who parallels his status in a different medium: comic books. Alan Moore has consistently shunned adaptations of his works. That's often misinterpreted as pretension, but the reality is, and Moore has said versions of this himself, his comics were created with the medium not only in mind, but as a vital part of the story. Art forms rely on their mediums and when transferred or translated, then lose integral parts of that storytelling process. His complaints were often derided until Watchmen released. Most people enjoyed it but comic fans tended to feel it was hollow. Many people had a hard time putting their finger on the problem, until eventually hitting on the fact that, without the medium itself supporting the narrative, you've effectively gutted much, if not all, of the context that makes the story compelling, expressive and genuine. Scorsese is effectively saying the same thing from the other side. I think they are both correct.
I'm not sure I agree here: In principle the jump from literature to film is even more significant, and yet I find it hard to believe anybody would view all films adapted from literature as somehow fundamentally different - that would exclude things like the Shawshank Redemption and Schindler's List from being 'cinema'. Adaptation requires changes to suit the medium, and it's valid for a creator to object to those changes, but the end-product can stand on its own.
You know, I'm much of an MCU fan as anybody else and still like watching those movies. However, I do tend to feel a tad overburdened by the constant avalanche of Marvel movies and franchise movies. Sometimes, I feel like watching something different. Something other than a superhero movie or a franchise movie . A movie that doesn't rely solely on visual effects and fight scenes. A movie that has great cinematography, great story, great acting. A movie that offers a completely new perspective on life. Those kinds of movies are hard to find in a market monopolized by Disney. Let's admit it. Everybody knows how many Marvel movies are gonna appear the next year. No one gives attention to the independent filmmakers who genuinely care about cinema. In fact, people think, franchise movies are the only movies in the world. Movies have become more of an entertainment rather than art, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that sometimes, it just feels a bit overbearing and people don't think of movies as art anymore and even if, someone makes a successful independent movie on their own, they wanna milk the hell out of it. Take Saw for example. A good horror movie with a great story and a great motive behind the villain. A great twist ending. Over time, however, they milked it too much to the point that the new movies are just terrible. All I'm saying is, people don't give movies without superheroes a chance. Part of that is due to the marketing. A genuine movie filled with emotion is overshadowed while the latest Marvel film takes the spotlight. I think that's the exact point that Marty is trying to make. He basically says that there's nothing wrong with liking a Marvel movie and it's fine to be a fan of it. However , it wouldn't kill to take a break from them and watch actual cinema made by a passionate filmmaker who needs support and encouragement to tell their story the way they want it.
I'd rather watch No Country For Old Men, or Silence of the Lambs, then subject myself to a dozen Marvel movies that all feel the same from MCU. I jumped off the Marvel bandwagon almost a decade ago.
There's a reason why the Batman is more impactful than all of Phase 4. It was made by an actual artist who wouldn't give an inch of ground to WB
It's the difference between Fine Art and Commercial Art. That's really it.
Some of the best old movies were definitely made for profit though
But then the thing is.. where do you draw the line exactly? I mean, sure, it’s easy to distinguish a huge Marvel blockbuster from a small art house film. But what about Nolan’s work? Or Spielberg for that matter. Their work has a lot of overlap with the huge blockbusters. Or Denis Villeneuve; even though I admire his work from a technical point of view, I would probably put him in the ‘commercial art’ category (and many will probably disagree). Totally different ballpark than, say, Lucrecia Martell or Pedro Costa..
@@Jesseafca Commercial art = "art" that is designed solely to cater to the widest audience possible for $$$, and seems to lack the artists' personal intents; good examples are the live-action adaptations of Disney's classic animated films. They're sanitized to the point where they become inoffensive and are often forgettable, and rarely produce anything more than a surface-level reaction from the viewer. Fine art is the opposite - profit is not the main motive behind it getting made. It is not made to cater to the widest audience, because the artist is intent on creating the work to express one's own vision regardless if others are willing to see it. If it turns out that a lot of people love it, that's great - but the original intent of the artist is still there. It's not afraid to take risks, be messy, and challenge what people expect. It's not made to cater to what you as a viewer is hoping for, necessarily. Most importantly, fine art leaves a much deeper impression on those who end up enjoying it - something that commercial art rarely does.
@@Jesseafca Not hard to define tbh. This is one of many takes on the current film industry out there that follow the exact same logic kzhead.info/sun/os5xeq9ummeuZoU/bejne.html&ab_channel=RedCarpetNewsTVRedCarpetNewsTV Mackie is the perfect example aswell because he has worked on both commercial AND regular movies ( i.e.; not aids level of demographic sniping, pandering, relevancy focus groups etc)
Who gives a shit.
In it's essence his problem is The Corporatization of Art .How it becomes a cold money making machine only appealing to the first layer of the human psyche. Just deep enough to please most, shallow for all other intense and purposes
Wonderfully put. I dont think I can explain it a better way.
Once cinema stopped Revolutionizing that’s when it became a money focused market just like most. The true first “film” could be characterized as the play, the next step from that would be the transition to film and then we have the silent movie which includes footage, the introduction of color has been the last step we’ve revolutionized. Everything after that has been refining the art making it graphically impressive and making the film immersive. You didn’t see many franchises back in the early ages of film at least not franchises as big as the ones today. Film has almost always been about making money but the difference is you could progress while making them, so things like the early Universal monster movies were for money but they also made progress in how life like costumes could look. While filming the original Wizard of Oz the actors were put through the wringer and treated terribly but it made cash and again made progress in how good costumes could look.
Intents* and purposes
It has nothing to do with money. People are not going to the cinema because there is such a poor showing of films. People are not interested in watching some leftwing art fest telling them they are evil.
Well put
I think part of the problem of why people go out to the theaters to see Marvel films rather than art-house films actually resides in the exorbitant prices that theaters are charging for tickets... it is harder for families to convince each other to go out and see a drama film in the theaters... emotionally dramatic films that are based in real life and do not have any sci-fi or fantasy elements are, yes, valuable films... however it is hard to justify spending the huge money w kids to go see these drama films in a theater when you would be paying the same amount of money to see a massive spectacle on-screen of action and special effects, like The Avengers films... please don't misunderstand, I definitely remember seeing the movie Stand and Deliver in the theaters as well as seeing movies in the theaters like Monster's Ball and (as a kid) Terms of Endearment... but I think it's more and more becoming that with the massive ticket costs to take a family to the movies the choice of families is going to be to want to see superhero or science-fiction action Adventure films, On Screen rather than smaller stories... maybe if the theaters can find a way to lower ticket prices, it may even out the playing field more?
People keep saying that, but when factoring in inflation, ticket prices are about the same. I used to pay $5-6 to buy a movie ticket in the mid 90s. Today, that’s about $10-11, which is about what tickets are now.
Thomas, none of this is boring or nerdy at all. These conversations are necessary if we are to understand what is happening in media today and the unparalleled speed with which it is changing.
There was an extremely lengthy article in one of the popular magazines back in the 80's that predicted in detail that movies and television would eventually become indistinguishable. I wish I could find my copy of that article, as it was chillingly prophetic. I absolutely agree that cinema is dying in the same sense that Scorsese laments. Arthouse cinema is dying a very slow death, but most quickly in Hollywood. There will always be auteur filmmakers, but their opportunity for exposure keeps shrinking. Thank you for making such excellent videos about cinema.
I think you might be think of this: www.nypress.com/news/the-death-of-filmthe-decay-of-cinema-DFNP1019991230312309999 "The Death of Film/The Decay of Cinema" by Godfrey Cheshire
@@ThomasFlight Thanks for the link. The article I'm referring to is much more ancient; it published in print long before the internet even existed. I think your video today is one of the most important ones you've made. I hope you will continue to elaborate on it. I love your point about how we don't teach film grammar or even acknowledge it as a valuable subject given how much of the content we consume is video. I think you could delve very successfully into illustrating the subject of film grammar with simple eye-opening examples.
@@ThomasFlight BLASPHEMOUS!!!!! (not referred to films)
@@saem369 agreed, and with the Internet there’s really endless potential for what could be a great mainstream “film” website for aspiring film makers.
@@saem369 Here's the thing though. Look at the films of the 70s. Look at the pacing, the shot selection - even with the "big budget" films. I always argue the 70s was the high water mark of art/expression within cinema. Wasn't it the 1973 Oscars that was so stacked with incredible films some classics weren't even nominated? I've definitely seen a leaning these days that films are now movies. And I find the cutting and editing to be unsettlingly quick - obvious example of this is one of the scenes in Bohemian Rhapsody were they cut 20 something times in a scene thats under 50 seconds long. And its a conversation, not a music segment. Another issue is flogging a film franchise until its dead, just to make more money from it. Think Pirates of the Caribbean, The Matrix (was intended as a one off film) not to mention the slew of films playing on nostalgia (Marvel/DC films included) just to get people to watch it. I think film has gone the way of music - think about the bands from the 60s/70s and see the musicians of the last 10 years - a lot of it seems to be throwaways now, or collaborations - very accessible, but you won't be going back to it in 5, 10 years to listen again.
what scares me about the future of cinema is the amount of real deal "movie snobs" not watching anything pre 1980s. Some of the biggest critics on youtube proudly say movies before star wars just dont count or too dated to watch. some of the best films ever are just erased from a larger niche group.
I had mega reservations when starting to watch Joker because I despise franchise films. However I was blown away by the sheer visuals and the psychologic relations to my own morbid fantasies. I couldn't care less If there were any strategic references to Batman. The film many times made me hold my breath, kept me at the edge of my seat, and left me delirious after. No wonder this was a hard sell to the studios.
This is why i love production houses like A24, directors like Harmony Korine, Robert Eggers, because theyre keeping the candle burning
This is why I appreciate the work from A24 and Sony Pictures Classics or others similar. Independent film companies really can propel a voice to the public, such as films like Whiplash, The Lighthouse, or Uncut Gems. Really neat stuff
A24 is everything what's wrong with cinema now. Artsy snoozefest movies, Lighthouse was the ONLY good film from A24. Whiplash is pretty amazing also.
@@Disconnect350 please explain
@@Disconnect350 Uncut Gems?
@@Disconnect350 terrible take
@@Disconnect350 Lighthouse can literally be described as an artsy snoozefest. If you like it, you'll probably like the rest from A24. Kinda strange...
people salty about scorsese's stance on fast-food entertainment seem largely uninterested in the films made by cinema folk like him, which is probably why they can't see what his point is. this is also oddly deeply about culture and not merely about taste in movies.
Movies were always Theme Park. There were many "Chewing Gum Movies" and some "Pop Corn Movies". Yes, always. Funny that some Facebook groups love to display the MCU movies as the "Apocalypse of the film industry" because of Scorsese.
@@Qaosbringer it's already happened. you hardly see old school cinematic films these days as far as mainstream goes. movies like the godfather used to be actually mainstream, but now you will probably get accused of being pretentious for finding movies of that caliber, because poppy trash really sells. like it or not, the mcu / cgi-heavy popcorn summer flicks have already made good art fewer and fewer while big budget cheap thrills are what now dominate the blockbuster. apart from making the superhero multiverse an ever growing franchise, you'd be hard-pressed to find actually deep stories in those movies. the joker with joaquin phoenix is a rare exception, but its focus is not actually the comic book worldbuilding or the action-packed stories. the joker is actually closer to a psychological thriller than the actual batman universe. as much fun as i had watching the x men franchise, those films are still far from great art in cinema.
If you go look at any streaming service, you'll find plenty of films made by "cinema folk", as you call them. A lot of them, in fact. More and more made every year. What people like Scorsese don't get is that the world moves on. There was popcorn trash in the theaters when Godfather* came out, and there are good, cinematic movies in theaters right now. A lot of those "good" movies are influenced by Scorsese, and I wish that trend would die. I, for one, am sick of art house movies that are four to ten white men, all dressed alike, arguing about their hubris for three hours. What ever happened to the influence of people like Bergman? Now THERE was a director... *I'm letting that one slide, because I know it's your people's standard, but The Godfather is one of the most boring films I've ever seen, and that's coming from someone who watches Citizen Kane at least once a year.
@@haileybalmer9722 LOL the godfather wasn't about 10 men and their pointless hubris. maybe you didn't pay attention at all. also, you seem to have a very narrow understanding of what arthouse cinema is. there are almost 200 countries in the world and i assure you that arthouse is not about "10 men and their hubris". maybe next time you make an argument about movies, make sure you know what you're talking about instead of just listing movies you either like or hate. that's actually what i'd consider a bland opinion. edit: also, the point that scorsese is making is largely about what's mainstream these days vs what used to be mainstream. so you making a point that there are still obscure cinema folk out there isn't really a case against his main argument.
@@Qaosbringer yes, but his point is that the popcorn is becoming far far more prominent. A film like Jacob's Ladder or even The Godfather wouldn't be greenlit for theaters today. If it wasn't for A24, there practically wouldn't be any original films in the theaters.
I've always questioned how "being immersive" seems to have become the highest honor films and video games can get nowadays. Very inspiring and insightful video, thank you.
Very well articulated Thomas. I went to see Dune the other day in the cinema and experiencing such a beautifully made movie on all levels (cinematically, music wise, and story wise) and watching it together with a bunch of other people was something I greatly missed and I do not want it to disappear. Like you say, cinema is an art form that should not be consumed like content. We need to be given a chance to reflect and understand the meaning of the way the movie was crafted and about the story it is trying to tell. Everything has become so shallow that I think it is more important than ever that we keep cinemas alive and allow masterpieces of movies to be shown there, kind of like a museum.
Lol the fact that you think dune is somehow better than marvel just shows how low expectations people have this days
If you didn't know the source material, Dune wasn't good storytelling...
Oh damn, this video made Scorsese's stance finally click with me. I think I get it, and now that I do I actually agree with him. Fantastic work!
Feel sad for actors like Jake Gyllenhaal, Joaquin Phoenix, etc didn't get enough appreciation just because they make pure & real cinema & all indie movies
Especially Joaquin Phoenix, he's been one of my favourite actors since The Master and I was surprised how many only got to know of him after Joker.
@@amsheel9921 yeah Joaquin Phoenix always had been there but never got recognition he deserves. Glad he is getting now. I just wish it's happen true to jake Gyllenhaal also he so fine Probably acting at it's finest but underrated as hell. Feel so sad for him. You should give an try to his movies & filmography you won't regret he is master at indie films
@@maazcineedits I'm a big fan Jake Gyllenhaal as well. He was snubbed by the awards big time for Nightcrawler.
@@amsheel9921 yeah pretty sad huh even for others too
@@saxglend9439 they aren't multi millionaires like jerks Leo, brad, Tom. Jake & Joaquin They are just way to a lot underrated actors who did mostly movie's for art not for money you understand that idiot.
Cinema isn't dying, Hollywood is.
We just need to tear Hollywood down and build a new Entertainment industry this supporting minorities and people of color.
Dude, you’re a freakin LEGEND! I’m a huge cinema fan, especially of Scorsese, so it’s awesome seeing an academic breakdown video on this specific topic. Awesome vid bro 🙌🙏🔥
Thor Ragnarok and Blade Runner 2049 came out at about the same time, and I think it's such a pity many people didn't see both, in the cinema at the time.
Bladde runner 2049 is one of my top 5 favorite movies ( aside from The Witch, Pans Labyrinth, The three Lord of the Rings movies, Interstellar )
@@RNAxRibose I think you need to watch a few hundred more films
Why? The Blade Runner film was nothing compared to the original
Blade Runner 2049 came across as another way to sell Pop figures imo
@@jimnewcombe7584 Probably helped that it didn’t have a rape scene in it.
Imagine a, situation where, in a city mc Donald's, kfc, burger kings and every big fast food joints, eliminate every chain of restaraunts and make it almost impossible for a any restaurant to run one in that city. They'll be forced only to provide takeaways (streaming platforms) to the customers. Though the customers are happy eating fast food all the time wouldn't it worry those who have associated in fine dining restaurants that, the customers are no more getting that "fine dining" experience in the restaurants...or able to serve them their local flavours IN a restaurant. And wouldn't a MasterChef who's dedicated all his life in this field worry about this......and raise his voice against this??? as simple as that.
Is that a future you want to live in though?
@@dubuyajay9964 Definitely NOT
This was one of the most eye-opening pieces of 'content' I have viewed in a while, and as ironic as it may be considering the topic of this video, I really think that hihg quality video and art online will always be its own strange form of cinema, and I know that moving fowards there will always be inspiring people on the internet such as yourself that will continue to move the art of film fowards. Seriously though, this was a great video and I think very highly of your content even if I have some differing opinions. Great job, keep doing what you're doing.
Scorsese is simply stating Superhero/Blockbuster cinema is fine but it shouldn’t be the only thing people should be watching. Superhero films are not reality, they primarily take place in a fantasy world or exaggerated reality. Traditional Cinematic movies are representations of reality, they have connections to the real world and tell human stories that are relatable to our core human emotions and psyche.
Not even this. Because the classic Superman or even the Tim burton Batman movies tried to be original and aware of the art form. It’s about scoring, how it’s shot and just the overall style. Superhero movies just so happen to be the most overdone. But this has to do with F&F, almost any modern war movie and anything else that thinks a minor twist, and explosions will make a movie worth watching. Anything that doesn’t try to be human. Marvel in particular is almost entirely cgi with all sorts of after effects and fake camera movements so it gets a lot of this hate directed at it.
there is nothing else but super hero crap! is there?
I believe that the setting of the movie is not the problem. You can 100% set a story in a fantasy world and still tell human and thematically resonant stories. The problem is that many modern superhero movies are more about the spectacle than the art
@@marcocameriere1728 You are not wrong, thematic and human stories can indeed be told in a fantasy setting. However the setting is most certainly important, because the human stories in the ‘real’ world are not exactly the same as in the fantasy world. Also there are rules in the real world which don’t apply in a fantasy setting where almost anything goes, unless of course the film sets up its own rules and then needs to abide by them. Otherwise you’ll have too many contradictions. In the end, the quality of the writing is also important. As you stated a lot of superhero/blockbuster movies today focus on spectacle rather than story.
@@CRITTERBUSTERS Oh, you are correct! Setting is very important! I tend to use the word setting to differentiate between stories set in the real world and those in an imaginary one, and that causes confusion (I'm also not mothertongue), my apologies. It's just that I believe that there's a tendency to write off any fantasy story as mere escapism (not that it would be wrong! Escapism is definitely good), while I think that, ultimately, they can do both things at the same time, being good for the mind and the eyes, so to speak. The "anything goes" type of setting that you mentioned is part of the problem. Because good fantasy, if it wants to be taken seriously and has a focus on worldbuilding, should definitely create rules to respect at all costs. Otherwise we get unpredictable stories in a bad way. Imagine if Frodo started to fly at the end of The Return of the Ring just because "it's fantasy, dude!". It would be stupid and eye-rolling. At the end of the day, they should just be good, and try to engage with ideas intelligently, instead of having the "status quo defenders" that we got in most superhero movies.
I almost choked on my water when you said Bohemian Rhapsody was a top 50 grossing movie this decade lol
@Francis Serra Bohemian Rhapsody was a good film that the public liked. It did not have any big boring political statements, it did not attack the audience nor did it lecture the audience. They came and were entertained by it which is what 99% of cinema is. The golden Era and new Hollywood at their heart entertained people but they were all born from a position of entertainment.
Just reacting to the title here for now but it feels as though the rise of recognition of foreign films is very encouraging. Parasite, Burning and Minari are three of the best films I’ve seen in my life and they’ve come out in the space of four years.
I definitely agree on this! Touch on this a bit later in the video.
Have you watched The Handmaiden yet?
reacting to the title is connected more to this topic than i think you realize when you posted this.
Not to mention Bollywood and Hong Kong cinema
Not a big fan of Burning but i agree
I've noticed this too and I feel kinda sad about it. I feel like this art form may vanish and I really hope there will be more who view cinematography the same way as you and Scorsese. I hope the endagerment gives influence to the new players that will keep it alive.
I don't think cinema will vanish, but in the coming years I think it will be harder to access unfortunately (more than it already is) ☹
I’m 53 years old and I adore cinema (as in films and as in the actual cinema as a place). And although it’s true that tons of crappy/shallow/pretentious films are made every month, every year people who love good cinema can enjoy a lot of awesome films that keep cinema as an art form that is healthy and exciting. It just takes a lot of patience because the background noise of bad cinema is quite overwhelming. I also don’t think streaming is killing the art. It’s just the zeitgeist, but things evolve fast and who knows how is it gonna be in 20 years. When I’m sure about - call me an optimist - great cinema (the one Scorsese, and all us, loves) isn’t going to die. And Joker is a masterpiece
Recently I’ve actually found myself being very optimistic about the future of film. Some of my now favorite films have come out in recent years, and there are many upcoming films I’m looking forward to, Killers of the Flower Moon, The French Dispatch, Don’t Look Up. Cinema isn’t dead, it’s just evolving.
2020/2019 were incredible years for film. parasite, the lighthouse, portrait of a lady on fire, uncut gems, jojo rabbit, the farewell, apparently the irishman although im yet to see it. theres probably even more greats im forgetting about.
It’s only getting better. Whole heartedly agree
Or devolving.
You are right Tyrion Lannister
Lol
For anyone who hasn't watched the Hollywood Reporter roundtable that's in the video, totally go check it out. It's a fantastic group of directors, and the moderator is less annoying than usual. I listen to it all the time like a podcast because each time I listen I hear something new, it's great.
It's a great watch.
Link?
@@blackdynamite3288 Sure kzhead.info/sun/Z82FpM6Frp2Fn58/bejne.html
As a designer for theatre who has also worked in film, it seems to me your definition of cinema is basically all the qualities of live theatre. The necessity of being there, of not being able to pause or rewind, the event of leaving your house, the attention paid to the performers, the intent of the creators to tell a story to those people in that room, together.
Also, thankfully, theatre hasn't been turned into a branded corporate monstrosity yet. I mean there are Disney musicals like the Lion King on stage, but I actually consider that to be something of a theatrical masterpiece with real artistic integrity. The puppetry in the Lion King broadway musical was genuinely visionary. That just goes to prove how the kind of lazy corporate mediocrity acceptable in movies just does not work on stage. If theatre isn't brilliant then it is terrible, there's very little in between because there's less room for error. Audiences can't be distracted by flashy CGI or big explosions and action sequences, they they have to be entertained by purer forms of expression like pure acting and dialogue and set design. Just pure storytelling basically. Most plays are not part of any corporate brand, they're individual stand-alone works of art written by a playwright who actually has something to SAY about the world.
But the Irishman is something you could pause so that doesn't work, unless he simulcast it (that would be brilliant!). Also classically, both cinema and theater have an intermission so I don't think your metaphor fully works. :p
And yet HBO dramas or a24 movies are incredibly successful which I believe shows that people still crave artful “entertainment” . I believe the issue here is that while technically harder, block buster movies are creatively easier to make. It’s the exact same argument you can make about music. It’s laziness that’s rewarded with a quick influx of cash.
When movies started to be rebranded as "content," that's when you know cinema is dead.
Technically, movies have always been content. It feels crass to some sensibilities to lead the identification of a movie with the cold label of ‘content’ but the fact of it being ‘content’ has always been the case.
Because we no longer have costumers, guest, we have consumers, that like that guy said, dont question product, just shut up and consume product and be happy for new product, and worst, the worst, is that the lowest common denominator consumers, consume whatever is put in theyre plate, no matter how bad it is
except there is much better content that people are invested in, boomers who subscribe to netflix are the only ones keeping this old medium alive
My favorite kind of movies are the ones that blend art and entertainment. Like Spielberg’s best movies: blockbusters with depth and complexity
Spielberg is hugely over-rated.
@@jnagarya519 cool
@@brown22sugar25 I'm happy you enjoy his work and I like some of his stuff too, but yeah overall I have to agree with j nagara. Spielberg made two great films in saving private Ryan and Schindler's list. everything else is pretty banal. but hey I'm just some guy working in a restaurant so what the fuck do I know
@@jacobbrewer6402 No I think he's over rated too.
@@jacobbrewer6402 you hit it on the head! You work at a restaurant. Most likely not burning to work as a filmmaker etc. The people who truly have a burning desire to create moving images and tell stories visually. Idolize him, because he is the master of that! You might miss those small beautiful moments between the lines if you are not interested in that. In that case I understand why you might think he is overrated. But I can assure you as a aspiring filmmaker and life long film fanatic! Spielberg is a GOD!
As a deeply religious man, I don’t like making comparisons between the spiritual and the secular. But for what it’s worth, I think cinema (in all the ways you have tried to define it here) has given me some of the most profound truths about life, beauty, and relationships, which I could not have been able to access otherwise. There’s a whole mountain of crap (both aesthetically and morally) that you have to sift through in order to find those pearls, but once you have you can string them together into a collection worth examining again and again.
Really good. So far, I've only seen creators discuss the content of films, but virtually none about the political economy of cinema and media in general, and how that infiltrates, informs, or even decides the content. Now I'm mulling being a patron on Patreon.
Every director has an opinion on modern cinema: "'The Godfather' was the glorification of a bunch of bums who never existed." - Orson Wells
Man, did Orson Wells miss the point of those movies...
Wells hated basically every director though lol
@@ThomasFlight that’s why he was awesome lmao
@@ThomasFlight Gangsters and Superheros are both exaggerated expressions of fictional paradigms built upon an established cinematic universe with the audience. If there is a gangster cinema (Johnny Dangerously to Goodfellas), then there is a Superhero cinema (Daredevil to Joker).
He also hated Hitchcock's Vertigo and Rear Window, so there you go.
I'm from India, and from my perspective, independent arthouse films are dying in India because of this separation created between Bollywood and Art films. It is also compounded by multiplex chains now. Only big entertaining movies get released in theatres, which is why most of the time, people don't even hear about independent arthouse films in India. Rohena Gera's Sir for example. It deserved to be released widely in theatres, but no one bought the distribution rights except Netflix Theatres and distribution companies don't want to take risks and support good art. And even though Netflix made the movie more accessible for people everywhere, the big screen experience is the big screen experience. Powerful images in film feel powerful because of their massive size in the theatre. And arthouse films deserve that big screen just as much as franchise movies and blockbusters.
One thing I hate about streaming is people will watch a masterpiece on a tiny phone screen.
@Dylan Sharp imagine seeing Lord of the rings or Endgame or a big movie on a tiny phone screen as their first time. You can’t experience the detail, that will go, if cinema dies.
Dude, your videos are so great. You are very intelligent and studied, and these vids are greatly produced also. Very satisfying to watch. Thank you
Whatever Martin Scorsese says, people usually misunderstand. I feel like what he was saying about Marvel is that it is cinema, but it's overtaking other genres of film that many might be interested in exploring, not that they suck
Some of my favorite movies were released in the past few years and I'm looking forward to many that have yet to be released. I think cinema is changing, and that's a good thing. Things have to change in order to remain the same, and cinema has always changed.
I agree, and I think (spoilers for the video) Martin Scorsese also agrees- I don't include some of the clips where he talks about this, but he seems genuinely excited for the future of film.
Totally true. The Lighthouse, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, First Reformed, Burning, I'm Thinking of Ending Things, etc. were all released very recently and are all on the level of a modern masterpiece. Brilliantly original, emotionally searing, full of craft and vision. These movies are going to continue to be made as long as there are people who love movies.
You can't fight change
Exactly. If you dont like the things that are coming out in films, simply stop watching them and enjoy the ones you remember loving.
He does make a quality judgement while being nice, and I agree with him.
I agree. Of course it's a quality judgement. Even categorization is a qualitative. Quantification defies the aesthetic. I believe that's what Thomas and Martin mean. There - another quality judgement.
Some people appreciate art, some don't. It's always been the case. Maybe there's been a shift in how we consume media, but the phrase "cinema is dying" is absurd in my opinion
Cinema is dying. You best believe it.
I always am curious about more "classically" trained directors perspective on adaptation. I think it's one hurdle to come up with an original, one off narrative. And a whole other to adapt a character of a pre-existing work and try and fit your own twist on the characters and world while also being artistically interesting. Like Spielberg doing Jurassic Park or Jackson with LOTR. There's a way I think to balance high artistry with entertainment. But i appreciate the clarity on his perspective.
The vast majority of films were entertainment even in the classical era of Hollywood but they were entertainment born out of human expression. What we have today is film corporations trying to entertain with shallow films and then on the other hand release films that are nihilistic and attack peoples culture and way of life. People simply do not want to watch nihilistic films make political statements that attack the audience.
@@bighands69 cool
@@bighands69 can you give examples of nihilistic films that attack other cultures. I definitely have a problem with forcing political agenda but art should take risks and be expressive so people expressing moral, philosophical and political views through art shouldn't be discouraged
you know cinema is dying when one of the greatest director of all time(martin scorcese) couldnt get initial funding for IRISHMAN
I so wanted to show him how much people appreciate his film when The Irishman showed in my country's cinematheque to sold out ticket sales. He thought, because studio executives are idiots, that no one wants to watch his films in theaters anymore when that is far from the truth.
I was waiting for the film to come out, but my country never released The Irishman :( I had to get Netflix just to watch it on my tv.
In his essay he says that the same thing happened to Fellini, no one wanted to distribute his new projects.... The industry was not better then it’s not better now, but if it evolves in the right way maybe we’ll get the industry that we want
@@aidafuentesv problem is they aren't funding any film that doesn't have a comic book character or a remake of something popular these days.
@@august6389 that is the problem when they give billions to pre established franchises gives few millions to original filmmakers
I appreciate your dissertation and exposure of this topic. Thanks!
He is an absolutely brilliant director and story teller his work has defined every decade and I completely agree. This doesn't mean the who pre canon marketing Hollywood is so desperate for is always going to be around and they really are saturating the pool but cinema will never die too many of us appreciate this art way too much you unfortunately can't see them or find them as easy. Some of us will always check out what Coffee And Cigarettes is about before another Star Wars adaptation.
This video was pure. No crazy editing, no music : just words, thoughts and definitely not CONTENT!
What we need is a section of filmmaking that doesn't rely on having to make back its money. Grants for filmmakers will allow directors to take risks on new stories, original scripts, and even experimental storytelling techniques.
Or instead of spending 100 plus million dollars to just make a movie spend 1 to 5 million. As Roger Corman loves to brag that he is the only producer in Hollywood that never lost money.
@@harrisd1983 I would love to see the old school Corman model brought back to life for filmmakers with a lot of talent.
@@harrisd1983 Yes I completely agree with you. Directors nowadays get so much money that they have to worry about making it back for the studios, which impacts the quality of these films.
It would have to be countries outside of the U.S., like Canada, which has a great funding system for new art (music to film) which foster innovative talent. The U.S. is too capitalistic to make risky films anymore
I am Scorsese's age, agree with him (and you) about cinema, and am inspired to find that such an intelligent, well followed young video essayist exists. When you speak of cinema as a language, full of complexity and power, you perfectly articulate why some films permanently imprint their beauty and genius on me. In my case, I had the good fortune to see masterpieces by Truffaut, Fellini, Bergman, Kubrick et al as a teenager. You have clearly come by your artistic intelligence via your own deep sensitivity. Please continue your work; you are on the right track!
Sooooo...Cinema = Art House? I don't think Cinema will ever die. But I do believe it'll become a "niche" sort of thing.
Loved that jump cut from the taxi driver to the Irishman.
No. Cinema isn't dying. There are still a lot of arthouse, indie, and absolutely slappers of a film that get made every year. But the ones that get media attention DO change.
It lost its place as the culturally dominant art form, but it will be around forever, in the same way, symphony orchestras still perform.
But those films are getting less and less success each and every year. In a year of streaming why was none of these arthouse/indie films successful in any notable way. Joker is a great example of tricking general audiences to watch a slightly "arthouse" film by putting a big commercial label on it.
This is why I push so many people I know to watch A24. And not every A24 movie is a crazy arthouse feature like Under The Skin or Lighthouse or Under the Silver Lake! They got great, more grounded films like Lady Bird, Eighth Grade, Moonlight too!
Its dying as a business. If the main bodies are trash and in decline, then its dying
Movie attendance has been going down for at least the last 3 decades, so it has been dying slowly. No original stories combined with the $$$ being the only thing that matters assures the death of film.
Thank you. You have added to my appreciation of films and the evolving nature of cinema. Well done.
Weird, 2y ago it says - but you showed up only today in my 'purview'. I very much like this kind of philosophical talk. You do it with clear speech and evident passion for this topic.
This channel continues to give me hope about the future of cinema. Your passion for film is in it of itself inspiring.
Even Art House Films today are so forgettable and Shallow. It's not that commercial films are objectively bad or inferior to Art films. It's just that they have to be smart and original(which the superhero flicks obviously aren't). Commercial Movies like Diehard, Total Recall, T2, speed, etc are remembered as classics is because how Creative and Original they were at story telling.
"Even Art House Films today are so forgettable and Shallow" Hasty generalization? Or do you have particular films on mind?
I don't know what art films are you talking about. Could you give an example. Because most of modern art films, I've seen, are great. They aren't Tarkovsky or Fellini or Kubrick, but they are very well made movies.
@@richardgamrat1944 I have. This year's Best Picture winner for example.
@@kdscool1536 I haven't seen it yet, is that bad?
@@norm-bb3bb personally I didn't like it at all and I'm sure it wouldn't have been anywhere near main nominations, let alone winning Best Picture, in any normal year.
I think we're losing the natural art of portraying life and its nuances, the art form that was prevalent in old cinemas, without any additional elements attached to make the cinema more binge-worthy. All those Marvel movies or any movie heavy in VFX and special effects are more exciting to the general audience because they are seeing stuff that is not generally seen. They are like additional sweeteners. It's like how you used to like cloying candies when you are a kid but when you grow up you realize flavors are more nuanced and far bigger of a concept than just bitter and sweet. Just because everyone likes it doesn't make it a masterpiece. Active participation in the process of appreciating a masterpiece and understanding the artist's thoughts, curves and crevasses of an artistic idea has always been a minority occupation.
Just found this channel and I love these vids. Thank you for you work. It’s really inspiring
I never really understood the controversy, Scorsese basically said "McDonalds is not Gourmet", by cinema he is not referring to movies in general, but interesting story telling and artistic expression over tasty people pleasing, the hero with the powers win movies
Whether you agree or disagree with Thomas or Scorsese here. I think we all can still appreciate the fact that Thomas is at least trying to have a more nuanced discussion on the subject than those people who have basically turned all of this into a stupid meme about "Oh Scorsese would consider this CINEMA". Thanks, Thomas for doing this. 👍
Exceptional video! Keeping real cinema alive is so important, it is just taking a dip right now but it will thrive again
Art is something that provoke your thought process , and gives you an another point of view to see life. I think Taxi driver, joker,The Master shutter island ,Her , raging bull , Dark Knight, Arrival , Nightcrawler ,No country for old men, Gone girl , God father 1, interstellar ,Memento are some real masterpieces of modern 21 St century movies.
Not movies, but David Simon shows like the Wire and Treme have allowed me to feel what you described. It is both interesting and sad to see the lives of people living in the streets of Baltimore or try to make a living in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
I do think there is a ton of change happening in Hollywood right now. And just because one part of that might be on its way out doesn’t make it bad. It’s just being redefined, and part of that is happening by a tremendous new generation of younger, more independent filmmakers. Which excites me at least.
love how scorsese starts bashing consumerism while standing in front of an american express advertisement
😂Underrated Comment
Yep. The hypocrisy in Hollywood is unlike anywhere else on Earth. They preach while catered and protected as though they are us
Golden comment 😂
I'm positive it wasn't him who put up the American express ad lmao he can critique american consumerism just because there's an ad in front of him doesn't mean he can't
I think the Ad perfectly illustrates Scorsese's point. He is saying that film is bound by consumerism, as he is forced to be an American Express Ad in order to speak. It's an example of exactly what he's trying to protest.
I think the idea that in light of our era with its focus on content and the amount moving images we see, that we need to understand "visual literacy" which further highlights the need for the preservation of cinema to be better at that, is brilliant.
That image of Joker in the thumbnail accurately presents the entertainment industry.
When I think of the films I’ve enjoyed the most in the last three years or so, they’ve all been watched at home - rather than being shown at my local cinema…which is shame (and not through lack of trying).
That was part of my argument on why Nolan totally missed the mark with Tenet and his film elitism. I got to watch Interstellar and Memento for the first time in my home on TV and without a 4K IMAX screen and super tech sound I enjoyed them because the films where good, the one Nolan film I watched was Dark Knight Rises and I hated it.
Cinema will never die, it will always be a great artform even in rough moments when the industry (read mainstream Hollywood) might be creatively struggling. But great films will always be made.
It is already dead. People have stopped going and they will not return unless something special happens.
@Matheus Bezerra I agree. Sometimes we will get crappy films but the world will never stop creating gems.
@@sacredhamburger6309 Also, I think that the current problem with super-hero movies is not the concept of super-heroes itself (it's as valid a fantasy concept as any other, there is nothing inherently wrong with it, I think the vast majority of good super-hero media is in comics and animation, specially TV animation), and the movies being made now aren't worse than the average blockbuster. It's a issue of Hollywood wanting to soullessly cash in on anything that is succesfull. It existed before the MCU began, and will continue so after it ends. Then, another hot thing will be milked to death. And it's that milking to death of anything successful, leaving little space to anything else, that has been Hollywood's problem for decades. I think many of the best super-hero movies will actually be made after this super-hero craze is over and the genre is no longer guaranteed box office success for studios to soullessly milk. Maybe minor characters could be adapted, we have too many Batman, Superman and Spider-Man movies being cranked out.
Hollywood isn't creatively struggling, they are scared not wanting to offend strangles creativity
@@jamesrustles8670 Exactly! People are still going and they are still making money. Why stop now, going with art, and risk losing money
Really good insights Thomas. Thanks for the useful information
How many times you needed to defend yourself about Marvel films is sadly a reflection of our divided society. "You have to like everything I like or you suck!" I agree with your point. Movies are dead because producers only want sure money making bets so they will only green-light projects that already have merchandise tie ins or name recognition. So we are doomed to Fast and Furious 25 and remakes of every graphic novel, cartoon, or sandwich that's already made money. Cinema died when they started making movies based on board games.
Honestly I think the formula is getting a little worn out. I did enjoy the first marvel films like Iron Man (the first one) and some of the latest ones (like Ant Man), but in my opinion they're becoming insufferable. People grow old and tired of the same stuff.
@@deprecor1 hopefully. Back then it was a full era full of westerns, or that 90s military shooter era But having 9 films in a franchise is a bit too much
Honestly I'd pose a different take, I think It isn't the genre of superheroes that I don't like, it's the stories that they're making out of them, marvel makes such generic stories when they have such a plethora of source material to pull from to make unique stories.
Okay I understand but how do you hate the movies based on the sandwich like whyyy
@@deprecor1 I don't happen like many Marvel movies, only Ant-man and the first Guardians of the Galaxy. But I love the superhero theme in films, it's just the way they deliver the movies nowadays that I can't stand. I liked Hancock although we all now it could've been much better, Chronicle was amazing and can't understand why it wasn't a bigger hit when it first came out, maybe if they polished the dialogues a little bit more, idk. Hellboy was a total surprise to me, and The Dark Knight well, might be the best Batman film ever made... All I'm saying is, we have decent superhero movies, and a lot more could be done about that in the future.
The irony of pushing a product at the end
I’ve always seen it as product versus art. The MCU movies, as much as I love them, were designed to do so. Specifically made to appeal to a mass audience. With a film like Good Fellas or anything Scorsese has had a hand in, I’ve always felt that they were made to make a statement. To express something, and my enjoyment is a byproduct of their craftsmanship.
I think these are two separate ideas: the relevance of the… theatrical experience to a film, and the rise of the serialized franchise. I think the idea that being in the theatre is essential to the “proper” experience of a film just isn’t true any more, and that’s basically being demonstrated by the way people are choosing to take the movie in. As for giant franchises, well- When you talk about a list of the top grossing movies, I think something that immediately gets lost in that point is the fact that a movie doesn’t have to make $100 million to be successful or meaningful. These franchise films don’t seem that categorically different from what blockbusters have always been. As tempting as it is to have a kind of apocalyptic mindset about artistic filmmaking, it should be tempered with the simple observation that most people who really don’t like these endless reboots, sequels, & giant franchises will probably still name many if not most of their all-time favourite films as those that have been made in the last two decades.
Hi Thomas, I am really amazed by your video. On your point of teaching visual literacy: I feel incredibly blessed because we had an art teacher in school, that sat down with us and really taught us all about the art in movies, he showed us classics and shot and developed film with us and showed us the roots of cinema. And my school by far wasn’t elitist, just a European public high school. Now I feel like I am only able to appreciate cinema fully, because I was taught the art language it is written in. I think there is hope to keep cinema alive. I am Gen Z and only now discovering how much good movies can change the way I see life, and I am sure following generations will appreciate that too at some point, as long as we don’t stop making art, no matter how tough it gets. :)
Movies were a huge deal in the 80’s and 90’s and 00’s. I’d say it’s slowly declined since 2010. Movies used to be about movie stars and directors. Now it’s about getting a hit streaming series. Are there movie stars anymore? Sure there are great actors but they don’t “open a movie” anymore. It’s really about Marvel and horror movies.
The death of the "movie star" is in large part to how social media has made celebrities much more accessible to the average person. They're not cool and glamorous anymore, they're just dorks or sometimes jerks who are stuck in their houses like all the rest of us. We know too much about them - the mystique is gone.
@@KW-vy1rf Which is actually a good thing. Time has shown that Hollywood is a horrible place and most celebrities really have no identity or values of their own, instead they are known to be paid by corporate suits to manipulate the masses with political agendas and shady behind closed doors stuff.
@@kevinfromsales9445 Time has show nothing of the sort. There are degenerates in Hollywood but guess what every sect of society has them.
@@KW-vy1rf There are no movies stars because there simply are no movies that people are willing to go to the cinema and watch. Those that do go like the franchises because they are sure of what they will get. Outside of that it is a flip of the coin as to what you will get. Will it be some political propaganda piece that makes people feel bad or will it be some art house trash about some inner emotion that the director is burst to flash the world with. There is the odd diamond among the cow dirt but most people are not willing to look for them.
@@KW-vy1rf Which has always been a thing. Michael Jackson is one glaring example as someone who was at times a jerk, despite his immense talent and universal appeal back in the 1980s. I still love his music, always have, but I'd be lying if I said he wasn't full of himself from time to time.
This exact problem has consumed the video game industry even more. However, even safe bets fail with sales sometimes, so not all hope is lost for good high budget stuff
I honestly think video games have been hit worse in this regard
Could you elaborate? Imo games have never been better. This last generation had a ton of great stuff release
@@dally1398 Oh sure the graphics have improved, open worlds are bigger, the medium has expanded to immense possibilities...but theres still this "been there done that" point of stasis I feel with newer games. The core mechanics of games 15 years and before haven't really changed much IMO To draw parallels to Scorsese, I feel the "contentization" of modern games has risen. Back then, there was a sense of ownership when you bought them physically with CD and manual booklets. Now I can buy and download as many games as I can. Hell I can even watch people stream on KZhead and Twitch these days. And of course endless DLCs and microtransactions that are completely counter to the very reward system games were about - I don't have to work hard for an armour anymore, I can just buy it. I realize I sound like a boomer, but it's just my reality. Everyone has their idea of when games felt special to them and that's fair.
@@michaelotis223 I see where you’re coming from. Some AAA titles are gigantic and beautiful but they’re very stale. Ubisoft reuses the same open world formula over and over. What kind of games do you enjoy? I’m a big videogame nerd maybe I could recommend something good you don’t know about.
@@michaelotis223 i am not really sure i would agree with you on that. Imo, we are living in the golden age of videogames where we can have big AAA games that are a bit stale being completely overshadowed by some random indi game. Look at among us for example. Fnaf, undertale, etc. Also, AAA games have def not all gone stale unless you stick only to EA and Ubisoft. Beautiful games and different games like BOTW, GG strive, it takes two, bugsnax, and many others. There are games for everyone. Like br? You have fortnite and apex which neither look or play similar. Like tactical shooters? Valorant and Csgo which also have dome major differences. Also, lets not forget how accessible games have become like jrpgs that would have only been available in japan now can be played everywhere. So, yeah video games are as fresh and alive and diverse as ever. Only thing is that trends have changed to what used to be played in 90s. There was a definite shift from single player experience to pvp but even then that is highly debatable.
I think this creates a great conversation for non-film enthusiasts to critically think and recognize, is a film good based on quality, perspective or just because of its income. Is there replay value? Will it cause an ongoing conversation on its substance? Edit: Gave you a sub
To sum it up, Hollywood's greed destroyed its ability to make good movies.
It has nothing to do with greed. If it was greed they would be making films that attract audiences not repel them.
@@bighands69 you're a fool if you think it has nothing to do with greed.
Audiences are repelled because its not just greed that compels enormous film studios to produce the content that they do: Nowadays it's also the desire for to seem socially acceptable like with Disney's remake of Snow White or The Little Mermaid.
Channels and essays like yours prove to me that the shared cinema experience is not dead. Cinema always brings worthwhile discussion to the table - it could be a virtual table, doesn't matter. I somehow believe that serialized superhero content is just a trend, and it is already mutating into something else. "Joker" was the first sign of this. It was like the kids who grew up sausages to tasted the real stake for the first time. It was delivered in the form of sausage, but something else was put inside. Their eye opened wide and now they want more of that different taste.