Why not both? Many film fans will be asking this question after Martin Scorsese has commented on the state of modern cinema. The director is calling for fans to 'fight back' against blockbuster franchises and instead support people like Christopher Nolan.
It's an odd comment given that many who would listen to Scorsese are likely fans of cinema generally and would opt to watch both the latest Marvel blockbuster, as well as films like Oppenheimer. It's unlikely that a die-hard Marvel fan who only watches the latest release would even lend ears to Scorsese's latest remark.
Speaking of superhero films, The Marvels lands this November.
Latest, because this isn't the first time he has made comments aimed at comic book adaptations. In an Empire magazine interview in 2019, Scorsese claimed that the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) wasn't real 'cinema'.
This seems to come from a place where the director believes that younger cinema goers will "think movies are only those - that's what movies are." Of course, many have rallied against the comments reminding Scorsese of Nolan's own back catalogue featuring DC Comics' Batman, while also noting that millions went out to watch through the 3-hour Oppenheimer.
Advert
While urging fans of cinema to 'fight back', the Goodfellas director also stated that 'manufactured content' wasn't cinema. While he might have a point in use of the term 'content' to suggest that superhero films are an act of checking off a list of tropes, all film in some way is manufactured. Unless you go right down to true indie cinema made on minuscule budgets.
The comments don't leave much space in the sphere of cinema if we're to follow Scorsese's ideas. He states, "It's gotta come from the filmmakers themselves... and you'll have, you know, the Safdie brothers, and you'll have Chris Nolan, you know what I mean? And hit 'em from all sides... because we've got to save cinema."
Again... why not both?
Topics: TV And Film