Directors/Actors Who Dislike New Movies

[Monsieur Verdoux]

The Winter Soldier absolutely does not transcend the genre, and I'm one up on Scorsese in being able to say that because I saw it in the cinema. It's a film where nimble scripting attempts to conceal a lack of depth and a muddled evocation of the surveillance state. It has pretentions to being Alan Pakula with stunts but doesn't even work as pulp. As visual stylists the Russo brothers are not Andre Toth, Delmer Daves or even William Witney, just to pick a few solid and mostly unexceptional genre directors. There is a kind of vulgar artistry in pulp that the the Marvel films, with their focus-grouped identical third acts and eye towards merchandising, simply do not have. The Winter Soldier is, however (and I've been consistent on this) a work of cinema, which is the one point where I see Scorsese as faltering in his reasoning. He does not strike me as particularly insecure man when it comes to this subject, I think the idea that he personally feels threatened is a laughably inept attempt at pathologising something people simply don't agree with in a reflexive way. Scorsese simply sees very little artistry in films where creative people are among the smallest elements of the equation, and that's not a unique point, it has simply been applied in a way that has proved incendiary in the current film culture because of how much culture has changed in the past 40 years overall.

If Westerns are as cynically protracted a genre as superhero films it is necessary to ask where is the John Ford, the Sam Fuller, the Nicolas Ray, the Sam Peckinpah of the superhero film? The answer should be disquieting

[chveik]

The Winter Soldier absolutely does not transcend the genre, and I'm one up on Scorsese in being able to say that because I saw it in the cinema.

me too. god that was hard work.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

I wouldn't even necessarily agree that 'transcending the genre' is a good way of understanding when a movie has achieved excellence. Once Upon a Time in the West doesn't 'transcend' being a western, everything that is great about it is indelibly to do with it being a western right down to its bones. All the iconography and ideas in the film are firmly situated within the genre. Winter Soldier wouldn't have to transcend the genre to be good, it would be simply have to prove that the stylistic traits inherent to the genre are hospitable to artists

[colacentral]

Insecure because his entire argument is transparently in bad faith, singling out one studio's output, films he hasn't seen. If he added the caveat that Hollywood has always operated by churning out a formula that works - one of the reasons westerns are routinely brought up and a point in my post you didn't address - I would still disagree on whether it's art but I'd accept his opinion. He doesn't though. *

Marvel at their most productive were releasing 3 films a year. I'll assume he's lumping DC / Justice League in there too, so 2 extra I think. 5 big budget superhero films a year. So is it just super hero films he's complaining about, or comic book films in general? Because then we can include the Conan films, Tank Girl, Howard the Duck. Then there are films that might as well be comic book adaptations, like Star Wars.

How much artistry is in a Bond film or a Carry On film? Cynical franchises have been the bread and butter of the studio system for decades. The 5 or so slots that superhero films take up would have been dreck like The Shadow or Space Jam in the 90s, so his argument that they are pushing small films out doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

They follow a similar formula, but this isn't unique to Marvel films. Ghostbusters follows the same formula, the concept itself could be a comic book adaptation. Does Scorsese consider that cinema?

Yes, this is just armchair psychology, but: he probably feels he had to sell out by going to Netflix for The Irishman and is trying to lay the blame on something external, that's my feeling. But was it really impossible for him to get that film made and widely released without resorting to streaming? Did it need to cost 159 million? It didn't look like an expensive film. He could have hired lesser known age appropriate actors with lower salaries and saved on the special effects budget at the same time. I find it hard to believe that a director known for his big crime films wouldn't be able to get The Irishman made on a slightly lower budget, a director still popular and relevant as the popularity of TWOWS showed. Maybe in his pride he refused to compromise on his budget and with a bruised ego he's feeling bitter about the huge budget an Avengers film gets, just my opinion.

* I'm rambling a bit and don't want to spend forever tinkering with this post so just clarifying my point here, which is that it should be all or nothing. The point is not how much artistry The Winter Soldier does or doesn't have, the point is that it is a Hollywood blockbuster with a standard template, if you want to boil it down that simplistically, that does not begin in 2008 when Iron Man comes out.

It's not even worth arguing about whether they're pushing out smaller films. Maybe they are, I think the internet is a bigger factor but in any case, it's not the part of his argument that's irksome. It's that they're theme park rides, not cinema, because they follow a formula. Well then Die Hard is a theme park film. If he thinks that, fine, and I wouldn't argue. But that doesn't seem to be what he's saying.

Yes, the Marvel films in general look and feel similar. Well, they are a series, like the Bonds; except the Bonds are quite blatantly copy and paste jobs with next to no innovation within them. The last two Avengers were somewhat meta attempts to deconstruct what a superhero and a superhero film is; does that not pass the test of being emotionally surprising (whether they are good or bad is a different matter)?

[colacentral]

If Westerns are as cynically protracted a genre as superhero films it is necessary to ask where is the John Ford, the Sam Fuller, the Nicolas Ray, the Sam Peckinpah of the superhero film? The answer should be disquieting

You are talking about drops in the ocean of a genre that massively dwarfs superhero films, a genre that is much, much older at that; and yes had the advantage in some ways of having their hey day in a period of time before focus group testing and merchandise and all the rest of it. Nonetheless the artistry of directors is in the eye of the beholder; as I said in my previous post the latest Avengers at least had some meta examination of itself as a film. But are we talking about Marvel specifically or superhero films in general?

Outside of Marvel, I think Watchmen and Deadpool are bad films but they at least show that something else is possible. Joker too I guess, though I didn't watch it. The latter two are fairly recent and I would guess their success will continue to open the door to riskier superhero films.

Within Marvel - well, they are a series as I said, and you might as well ask where is the Sam Peckinpah of Star Wars films. They maybe have a ceiling of achievement they can hit and go no further than that, but when looking at comparable franchises like the Star Wars', the Bonds, the Bourne's, Indiana Jones etc, the middle third of Thor: Ragnarok at least demonstrates that it is a franchise more capable than most of escaping the confines of the series formula.

[greenman]

They follow a similar formula, but this isn't unique to Marvel films. Ghostbusters follows the same formula, the concept itself could be a comic book adaptation. Does Scorsese consider that cinema?

Within the context of modern family blockbusters from the mid/late 70's onwards as well I would argue if something demonstrates an artistic decline its not Marvel but actually that Marty is still pushed as the forefront of cinema despite not having made anything that great for 25 years or more.

At least with Marvel you can point to their pushing the careers of new names but there seems to be much more resistance to giving decent budgets for non family blockbusters to new names in favour of sticking with Marty, Speilberg, Ridley Scott, etc forever. Having the directors name as a brand is potentially more limiting than working within a franchise in which different directors can get work.

[chveik]

At least with Marvel you can point to their pushing the careers of new names

who?

[Sin Agog]

Marvel seems to have stopped a few budding careers dead if anything.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Insecure because his entire argument is transparently in bad faith, singling out one studio's output, films he hasn't seen. If he added the caveat that Hollywood has always operated by churning out a formula that works - one of the reasons westerns are routinely brought up and a point in my post you didn't address

I've addressed it several times in this thread, you have simply rewritten and recapitulated arguments that have already been given and addressed, and I honestly don't think you think I haven't addressed it, just that I should accept that the abundance of formulaic westerns in Hollywood in the 1910s-1960s is some slam dunk point, which it isn't. The Hollywood studio era, for all its many flaws is not the same production context that exists today, and any attempt to erase that distinction is ahistorical, as I have already said. The multinational corporation/global media empire and the Los Angeles film studio have not always been so profoundly intertwined.

They follow a similar formula, but this isn't unique to Marvel films. Ghostbusters follows the same formula, the concept itself could be a comic book adaptation. Does Scorsese consider that cinema?

Who knows or even really cares whether Scorsese has a chuckle at Ghostbusters or not? I'm not tied to Scorsese's conception of 'cinema' as I've said multiple times

[Monsieur Verdoux]

greenman, I think your continued attempts to animate a point about how "actually if you think about it, Scorsese as 'Miramax/Oscar auteur' is more of a harmful 'franchise' than any Disney product" which you've put forward in many variations is obvious drivel and not really supportable. Scorsese is obviously not as great as he once was, but that is a real 'no u' reach!

[colacentral]

I wouldn't even necessarily agree that 'transcending the genre' is a good way of understanding when a movie has achieved excellence. Once Upon a Time in the West doesn't 'transcend' being a western, everything that is great about it is indelibly to do with it being a western right down to its bones. All the iconography and ideas in the film are firmly situated within the genre. Winter Soldier wouldn't have to transcend the genre to be good, it would be simply have to prove that the stylistic traits inherent to the genre are hospitable to artists

I think you know what I mean, but to clarify: yes, I agree with what you've written about OUATITW there and would add that it is made from a foreigner's perspective, a foreigner trying to make American films and in the process making homages that are fun house mirror versions of what they're imitating, almost to the point of parody; and OUAT is those extremes taken to their limit, redefining the genre to the point where when most people today try to think of the western as a genre, they think of the spaghetti western imitations rather than the american original. TGTBATU is the more iconic example but OUAT is that taken up to the line of self-parody. That is what I mean by "transcending the genre," though I accept there is probably a better phrase; but again I think you knew what I meant.

[colacentral]

I've addressed it several times in this thread, you have rewritten arguments that have already been given and addressed, and I honestly don't think you think I haven't addressed it, just that I should accept that the abundance of formulaic westerns in Hollywood in the 1910s-1960s is some slam dunk point, which it isn't. The Hollywood studio era, for all its many flaws is not the same production context that exists today, and any attempt to erase that distinction is ahistorical, as I have already said. The multinational corporation/global media empire and the Los Angeles film studio have not always been so profoundly intertwined.

Who knows or even really cares whether Scorsese has a chuckle at Ghostbusters or not? I'm not tied to Scorsese's conception of 'cinema' as I've said multiple times

For what it's worth, I wrote that before you edited in your response about westerns in your last couple of posts.

It's not that it's a "slam dunk point"; it's that you brought westerns back into it by taking about twitter and dismissing it out of hand. Westerns, and Ghostbusters and all the other examples, are relevant because Scorsese in his confused argument is singling out one series of films that share a continuity and consigning them to the theme park ride film bin and suggesting they're the only films being made now as if this is a new phenomenon.

You dismissed points about westerns by saying other types of film were being made - well my direct response to that was that the ratio of westerns to non-westerns is far, far greater than superhero to non-superhero made today. That is how the discussion works - you make a point, I make a counter point, and you respond again in turn.

[greenman]

greenman, I think your continued attempts to animate a point about how "actually if you think about it, Scorsese as 'Miramax/Oscar auteur' is more of a harmful 'franchise' than any Disney product" which you've put forward in many variations is obvious drivel and not really supportable. Scorsese is obviously not as great as he once was, but that is a real 'no u' reach!

Is it obviously drivel though? the idea of the directors name and his past as a "brand" is I think clearly a reality, the Irishman being a very obvious example of that, along with the casting.

Whats more "harmful" would be hard to say objectively but I would argue that mid budget cinema tending towards attachment to such "brand" directors long after their best years is potentially more damaging because its an area with greater potential than blockbusters.

I mean personally those three names I mentioned, I don't think any of them have made a film as good as the better few Marvel efforts during those years.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

You dismissed points about westerns by saying other types of film were being made - well my direct response to that was that the ratio of westerns to non-westerns is far, far greater than superhero to non-superhero made today. That is how the discussion works - you make a point, I make a counter point, and you respond again in turn.

I think there is is a difference between production ratio and cultural space taken up. The industry since the 80s is different, the blockbuster era means that fewer films take up more space by design due to changes in marketing and distribution. This is why, as I've been keen to stress when prompted that superhero films are characteristic of the slow death of the American cinema over decades that predates even superhero franchises, and that these films represent a nadir in brand-bolstering product rather than a genuinely new development

[Monsieur Verdoux]

This is maybe a side question, open to all, not containing within it an obligation to jump into the main discussion:

Of the various genres that currently make up the American cinema how many can you name that you would describe as currently being in good health in terms of audience reach and freshness of ideas?

[colacentral]

I think there is is a difference between production ratio and cultural space taken up. The industry since the 80s is different, the blockbuster era means that fewer films take up more space by design due to changes in marketing and distribution. This is why, as I've been keen to stress when prompted that superhero films are characteristic of the slow death of the American cinema over decades that predates even superhero franchises, and that these films represent a nadir in brand-bolstering product rather than a genuinely new development

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, I don't believe that since the era of multiplexes came about "fewer films take up more space" as there are (I'm admittedly guessing) a far greater number of screens in more locations than there were decades ago. What has changed is that the internet and big TVs are keeping people at home unless a film is seen as an event. That will happen with or without superhero films.

A more compelling argument for making mid-budget films for adults would have been making The Irishman on half the budget and delivering a profit to the studio. A 159 million budget to de-age Deniro and Pacino is a huge waste of money and I think there is some hypocrisy in Scorsese complaining about where studio money is spent when he could have made at least two films for that.

For context, PT Anderson's last three films were all around 30 million, so you're talking 5 PTA films for the price of The Irishman, and he wonders why he couldn't get it made.

[Sebastian Cobb]

This is maybe a side question, open to all, not containing within it an obligation to jump into the main discussion:

Of the various genres that currently make up the American cinema how many can you name that you would describe as currently being in good health in terms of audience reach and freshness of ideas?

Mumblecore.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, I don't believe that since the era of multiplexes came about "fewer films take up more space" as there are (I'm admittedly guessing) a far greater number of screens in more locations than there were decades ago. What has changed is that the internet and big TVs are keeping people at home unless a film is seen as an event. That will happen with or without superhero films.

Forget the superhero films for a moment, I'm talking about when Jaws changed the pattern by going for a wide release right out of the gate with an expensive marketing campaign designed to make the film culturally unavoidable. That's been the standard since then, film attendance had already dropped off massively by then and the 'blockbuster event film' was specifically designed to combat that. That necessarily means that fewer films take up the wider cultural conversation because it's all about opening wide and talking big, everything else follows on from there and the arid cinema we've got now is the result of it. Who's to blame? Who knows? Maybe Scorsese for spending too much money on The Irishman when he could have made something worthwhile like the Avengers 5 instead, or maybe he shouldn't expect the same budget as a Marvel film to make a crime epic, maybe filmmakers are self-indulgent and should reign it in. Seems like a productive line of thinking!

[colacentral]

Forget the superhero films for a moment, I'm talking about when Jaws changed the pattern by going for a wide release right out of the gate with an expensive marketing campaign designed to make the film culturally unavoidable. That's been the standard since then, film attendance had already dropped off massively by then and the 'blockbuster event film' was specifically designed to combat that. That necessarily means that fewer films take up the wider cultural conversation because it's all about opening wide and talking big, everything else follows on from there and the arid cinema we've got now is the result of it. Who's to blame? Who knows? Maybe Scorsese for spending too much money on The Irishman when he could have made something worthwhile like the Avengers 5 instead, or maybe he shouldn't expect the same budget as a Marvel film to make a crime epic, maybe filmmakers are self-indulgent and should reign it in. Seems like a productive line of thinking!

A crime epic that looked like it cost the same amount to make as 3 episodes of Mindhunter.

Black Klansman cost 18 million. Grand Budapest Hotel cost 25 million. Both look like they had the same budget as The Irishman, if not higher in Grand Budapest's case.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

I don't really care how much money went into The Irishman. What is it to me? You're playing a dangerous game by buying into the conservative narrative of the 'self indulgent profligate artist' being the problem rather than the issue being a structural one. We're very close to the convenient and self-serving official narrative that Coppola ended the New Hollywood with One From the Heart. Cinema is turning money into light, who cares about the cost? Why should we, people who actually like cinema, be obliged to think like studio executives? We're not writing the checks. So it's a 'blah' from me on that one I'm afraid. Who's to say that The Irishman didn't need that much? Cinema is pretty much an objectively wasteful and self-indulgent art form by design, it's one of the least consequential ways of using the massive amount of resources involved. Playing amateur accountant with it from afar is a fool's game because nothing can really be objectively justified

[Sebastian Cobb]

Not entirely relevant, but I wonder if The Irishman and Uncut Gems did quite well because of their limited runs, on an artificially limited supply drumming up demand type thing.

[colacentral]

It matters because it's one of the core tenets of Scorsese's argument. First it's that superhero films are theme park ride films and aren't (can't be?) "Cinema". You've already said you disagree with that part.

The other point he's trying to make is that those sorts of films make it harder for smaller films to be made. But on what planet is he living that he thinks 159 million is a small or even mid budget?

I don't personally think or care about budgets. I'm bringing it up to make this specific point. Yes, it's up to "the artist" to decide that The Irishman must be made on 159 million. But it is not the fault of Disney that he has decided this and that other people aren't willing to pay that much. It is other people's money after all. And the directors he mentions as making films that he does deem worthy of being called cinema are making films for a fifth of the budget that look twice as good. So it's fair to ask in counter to his argument - is it the homogenisation of mainstream cinema keeping your films from being made, or is it you?

[Sebastian Cobb]

Those budgets are likely inflated through hollywood accounting. If 4 films are made with big budgets when 10 could be made with more modest budgets it says more about unwillingness to take risks than anything else.

[chveik]

This is maybe a side question, open to all, not containing within it an obligation to jump into the main discussion:

Of the various genres that currently make up the American cinema how many can you name that you would describe as currently being in good health in terms of audience reach and freshness of ideas?

none. considering the means they have, current american cinema is absurdly boring, and the indie sundance scene is awful. big names are compelled to go to Europe to finance their films, which explains why they make so few of them now (they spend their time eulogising directors like David Lynch but never seem to ask themselves why he's stopped filming). in termes of pure spectacle, I'd rather watch Chinese/HK films, at least they know how to film fight scenes, and even the propaganda is more subtle sometimes.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

It matters because it's one of the core tenets of Scorsese's argument. First it's that superhero films are theme park ride films and aren't (can't be?) "Cinema". You've already said you disagree with that part.

The other point he's trying to make is that those sorts of films make it harder for smaller films to be made. But on what planet is he living that he thinks 159 million is a small or even mid budget?

I don't personally think or care about budgets. I'm bringing it up to make this specific point. Yes, it's up to "the artist" to decide that The Irishman must be made on 159 million. But it is not the fault of Disney that he has decided this and that other people aren't willing to pay that much. It is other people's money after all. And the directors he mentions as making films that he does deem worthy of being called cinema are making films for a fifth of the budget that look twice as good. So it's fair to ask in counter to his argument - is it the homogenisation of mainstream cinema keeping your films from being made, or is it you?

But he's not claiming that his own films are not being made, remember that's your interpretation of his 'insecurity'. His films are being made, and the mindset that PTA, Wes Anderson should be happy with the mid budget (actually really quite low budget compared to the consistent 9 figure budgets of the Marvel films) and not dream too big otherwise it's their own fault when funding falls through accepts too much of the dominant cultural narrative around this stuff and what constitutes 'self indulgence' and 'utility' in moviemaking. Mid to low budgets for the artists, big budgets and exorbitant spending/self indulgence for the obedient hacks only, and if you want a bigger slice of the action, it's your own fault for getting too ambitious and not playing the game properly. Who honestly thinks that this is nothing to complain about? And most importantly, is it producing good cinema? Not very often!

[bgmnts]

Why are any of those things inherently necessary, or even desirable?

I think it's necessary for a good film to have likeable/relatable/interesting characters that undergo some kind of character arc. I also like a decent ending in my films.

Just me personally though, I'm not a huge stickler for structure if the film is visually interesting but its not.