For anyone who hasn't been keeping up, see these links:
From The Guardian: Martin Scorsese says Marvel movies are 'not cinema'
And Francis Ford Coppola: Scorsese was being kind – Marvel movies are despicable
A brief history of Cinema:
The 1930s
The 1940s
The 1950s
The 1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
...and many, many, many more examples, which you could probably think of yourself just as well as I could.
Which is, of course, not to say that Marvel Cinematic Universe Movies are at any way on the same level as Taxi Driver or The Godfather. They're not, and no one should argue that they are. You're improving your mind by watching The Godfather. Marvel Movies are, on the other hand, simply a pleasant waste of time and nothing more.
But the obvious point is that we've always had mindless low-brow trashy movies. Arguably if you look at the history of cinema, this is the medium's default form, and the more intellectual films of Scorsese and Coppola are the exception.
The way to evaluate the Marvel movies is not to compare them to The Godfather. The way to evaluate them is to compare them against other movies in their genre. And for my money, movies like Captain America: Civil War, Thor Ragnarok, and Infinity War are looking pretty good compared to the usual super-hero movies.
(Note: I'm rehashing arguments I've made once before in a previous post HERE).
12 comments:
I wonder if what Coppola and Scorsese aren't reacting to is the public discourse over MCU movies. First of all, what few "pro" critics remain are expected to deal with them seriously -- because the public deals with them seriously. Coppola and Scorsese can afford to fence themselves off from Twitter and other social media, but their financial overlords cannot, so word obviously filters back to them in ways that peeve them deeply.
Part of what bothers me about their umbrage, however, is that both of them frequently reach for the sensational to a degree that would make MCU producers quail. To my eyes the Godfather films are frequently cartoonish -- what Mafia don ever said "no" to drugs? As for Scorsese, try telling me his Cape Fear remake isn't a complete comic book do-over. Or Shutter Island -- even Joker couldn't get away with being that ham-fisted.
I'm as weary of MCU product saturation as the next whiffy aesthete, but these two Italian dudes doth protest.
Also: kids these days.
Whisky thanks for the comment.
My thoughts:
It's unfortunate that Scorsese and Coppola phrased their opinions in such hyperbolic language (particularly Coppola, who called them "despicable"). This seems to have prompted equally polemical responses from people, which fall into the trap of either praising the Marvel movies too much, or demonizing them too much. When in fact, a rationale response should be (IMHO) that the Marvel movies are fine. They're not great art, they're just mindless movies, but we've always had mindless movies.
Although the other part of the issue is the broader influence on culture. I mean, sure, the 1930s had Tarzan and Flash Gordon serials, but did they get as much hype and discussion as the Marvel movies do today?
This one I don't know. My own cultural memory only goes back to the 1980s. (And even for the 1980s, I was was only aware of what was discussed on the school playground). But as far back as I can remember, it's always been the mindless action blockbusters that have been popular in the culture. (I'm told there was a period in the 70s when the cinema culture was different, but I think if you look at the broad history of cinema, that period in the 1970s was the exception).
As for Coppola and Scorsese: Yes, people in glass houses should be careful, huh? I've actually not seen Shutter Island or Cape Fear. But I noticed some people on Facebook making fun of Coppola for having directed "Jack"
As for the Godfather:
I was briefly shocked when I read that link ...
But then I recovered my senses and decided actually it wasn't that shocking after all. Of course kids today find the movie boring. Every generation struggles to enjoy the movies of the generation before. (I remember how shocked I was when I first learned that many kids today find the original "Star Wars" to be boring.)
That, plus any movie that's a critical darling is not going to have mass appeal to Joe Popcorn. And "The Godfather" is usually at the top of the critics favorite films.
I mean, that whole wedding scene is most certainly NOT designed for people with short attention spans. So of course there are tons of people nowadays who prefer Casino.
I notice some of the links are also talking about the Godfather series. Which makes it even more understandable.
I find "The Godfather II" a bit on the slow side myself. And everyone agrees that "The Godfather III" is boring, right?"
Addendum:
If you follow the links in Blowhard's piece, you get some interesting insight into how much attention spans have changed. The reviewer on one of his links tries to compare "The Godfather" to other long and boring films he's seen. Quote:
"I can handle boredom in films no problem. Hell, if I can sit through 'Alien' and 'Jaws' without going mad and having to entertain myself I can sit through anything. "
Jaws (as you already know) was considered the quintessential pop-corn film back in its day. If he thinks its an achievement to sit through that, then of course he's going to hate "The Godfather".
...ugh... kids these days. Now you've got me doing it.
Of course, I remember as a kid my own parents were appalled when I found Errol Flynn's Robin Hood difficult to sit through.
Yeah, most of those links are setting up a generational straw man, I think.
It's curious to me what a generation regards as "boring," though. My kids, the younger in particular, never had trouble sitting through a Miyazaki movie. And though many of them rely on deeply surreal narratives, they all have lengthy stretches that make the Godfather's wedding scene look like The Fast & Furious. I think most viewers can relate. Slow is fine if it is somehow "new."
I commented on Blowhard's post, but probably didn't make it as clear as I could have. A large part of what makes movies like the Godfather(s), Alien, and Jaws boring to kids these days is cultural saturation. The cartoons popular with my girls and most kids during the Aughts -- SpongeBob, Power Puff Girls, Kim Possible, etc -- were dripping with references to these movies and plenty others. By the time a kid becomes old enough to think, Maybe I should check it out they are, unconsciously, intimately familiar with movies they've never seen. My example was Casablanca. I first saw that when I was 20 or so and thought it was a bad joke. After I heard from others what a terrific, layered, and punchy bit of entertainment it was I forced myself to reconsider, and came around on the matter. I'd certainly place among my favourites now.
Re: "dripping with references" -- Shrek 2 has to be the pinnacle of this aesthetic. When I saw it in theatres I wasn't sure if I should be amused or disturbed.
Funny, I had the same reaction to Casablanca. I saw it the first time and wasn't impressed. So it the second time and was amazed at how wonderful it was. I just attributed it to me maturing (I saw it the first time when I was in junior high school, the second time when I was in my 20s.) But maybe there is something to this movie about seeing it a second time
I re-watched Casablanca in 2007, and I actually mentioned it on the blog at the time:
I've actually been on a big Peter Lorre kick recently. With this movie I also rented "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and "Casablanca". Both of these are movies I've seen before as a kid, but I don't think I've seen either since about 7th grade.
"20,000 Leagues" was more or less how I remembered it, although I appreciate it a little more now knowing who all the famous actors are. And it is impressive they could pull off a movie of that scope way back in 1954.
"Casablanca" completely blew me away. The last time I saw that movie I must have been too young to appreciate it, but this time around I was struck by what a wonderfully movie it was, and how well it was scripted. If, like me, you haven't seen that movie for a while, it is definitely worth another viewing.
As for The Godfather:
It probably is a little bit of column A, little bit of column B type scenario.
No doubt pacing in movies has changed a lot since the early 70s, and I suspect that's a huge factor in why some people find it boring. (That phenomenon in-and-of itself I've always found strange. I don't believe at any point in history before stuff got dated so fast. But that's a different discussion altogether.)
But the cultural saturation is probably a problem as well.
I showed "The Godfather to my wife back in February. And she actually enjoyed it believe it or not. And probably at least part of that was that she had grown up in Vietnam, and wasn't saturated with references to it. So all the shocking moments genuinely shocked her.
Peter Lorre -- you know, I've never seen M. I should really correct that oversight.
As for Casablanca I queue it up once every year or two. I've got the DVD with Roger Ebert's commentary on it. He does quite a deep dive into how the film works the way it does.
While I'm at it, here's an odd reaction I had while watching The Godfather last year: I thought the interlude -- Michael's sojourn in Sicily -- was way too short! It plays perfunctorily -- or at least that's how the pacing feels today. The Sopranos would have devoted an entire season to something like that.
M.
--I still haven't seen it yet either. If you do see it, let me know how it is. (I'm given to understand it's a classic film in its own right. One of the film buffs in my office was once talking about how great it was, and he didn't even know who Peter Lorre was.)
Casablanca:
--You're doing better than me if you see it every year. I think I've only seen it 3 times in my whole life. (Still doesn't stop me from putting it on my favorite films of all time list though.)
The DVD I rented back in 2007 had a commentary as well. I forget who it was, but I don't think it was Ebert. One of the points I remember them making is that no one thought this film was going to be anything special at the time. It was just one of the many studio films being cranked out, and although it did moderately well when it was released, nobody thought it would be a classic when it first came out. Does Ebert make that point as well?
I was thinking this is inline with both of our experiences with the film--that it takes a couple viewings before you really appreciate it.
The Godfather
--Oh yeah! That first Godfather movie just burns through plot points so fast. I mean, it's a long movie, but it's amazing how much happens in it. That's why I've never found the 1st Godfather movie boring. It's amazing how much changes between the beginning and the end of it. (The second Godfather movie on the other hand... I admit to being bored by.)
Hmmm... Am I contradicting myself now? Earlier I said the Godfather was slow paced... Maybe you're onto something about the pace of the movie not being the main issue with the younger generation.
Post a Comment