From "Martin Scorsese says Marvel movies ‘aren’t cinema,’ they’re ‘theme parks.'"
Of course, literally, these things are cinema. Scorsese is making a witticism in the tradition of Truman Capote's "That’s not writing, that’s typing" (disrespecting Jack Kerouac's "On the Road").
Did Capote actually say that? Here's Quote Investigator on the subject. Truman Capote used various versions of the witticism — against Kerouac and others:
The earliest evidence known to QI appeared in an interview with Capote published in the Spring-Summer 1957 issue of “The Paris Review”. The topic was writing style...It goes on. Capote was chatty in person, yet he looked down on other writers who were chatty through their fingertips.
But yes, there is such an animal as a nonstylist. Only they’re not writers. They’re typists. Sweaty typists blacking up pounds of Bond with formless, eyeless, earless messages....The next evidence located by QI appeared in January 1959....
Truman Capote agreed to appear on David Susskind’s “Open End” show, with Norman Mailer — who kept praising the Beat-Generation writers. Capote thought their product worthless. “It’s nothing,” he said. “That’s not writing; that’s just typewriting.”In February 1959 an article by Janet Winn in “The New Republic” noted that Susskind’s talk show panel consisted of Dorothy Parker, Norman Mailer, and Truman Capote....
[Capote] commented on the difficulty he had reading the Beat novels. He had tried but he had been unable to finish any one of them. None of these people have anything interesting to say,” he observed, “and none of them can write, not even Mr. Kerouac.” What they do, he added, “isn’t writing at all—it’s typing.”
By the way, isn't it amazing to think there was a time when there were only 4 channels on your TV but you might find Dorothy Parker, Norman Mailer, and Truman Capote having a conversation about what writing is?
And what's with capitalizing "Bond" in "Sweaty typists blacking up pounds of Bond with formless, eyeless, earless messages"? The "Bond" in question isn't somebody's name — James Bond?! — it's just paper. "Blacking up pounds of Bond" sounds truly absurd if you picture a person.
Anyway, Scorsese backed off from his "that’s not cinema," switching soon enough to "the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being." He's mostly just expressing a preference for a type of cinema, the stories about realistic human relationships. And yet are his mob characters that different from superhero characters? It's myth — a different realm from the place inhabited by us the movie-goers.
Posts
73 comments:
I've always kind of agreed- I've called that genre of movies 'rides'. People enjoy rides. People enjoy theme parks. It's okay...
Though don't try to tell me walking into the Copa is not a theme park ride...
I have a DVD collection of old movies, the kind that had real stories.
I've always called those Super Hero-type movies (if that's what he's talking about) are repeated "rock-paper-scissors" contests of super powers with no governing rules of physics.
One can smell Theme Parks, for good or bad. Fresh popcorn, stale sweat -- and these are part of the movie theater experience, too. The grease of the machinery propelling the roller coaster and the chlorine from the water sluice rides -- these and a thousand others are part of a real life experience neither cinema nor "Marvel Movies" replicate.
The more valid comparison is Video Games. And that's more visibly true for DC's movies than Marvel's. Sadly so, since DC's myths are older and better developed. (With the possible exception of Captain America.) The CGI scenes in a movie now are little better than in a game's "cut scenes". The PLOTS in a video game are more complex and engaging than a movie's.
That said, the most "cinematic" of the super-hero movies was Bird's original The Incredibles . Which established its own myth, rather than trying to translate those of the press.
A few years ago George Lucas said movies “aren’t a photographic medium anymore”. He was making a similar point, and again it would have been more interesting if he made good movies. He hasn’t made a good movie in a very long time. He referring to either Lucas or Scorsese.
The thing is,I agree with him,but about a larger class of films.
"That’s not writing, that’s typing"
Mel Brooks on 1970s TV: "It's radio with pictures."
I don't rent or watch the 'Avengers' stuff (except the first movie, it was good). If it takes 99999 superheros to conquer a bad guy... what a bore.
I'm more of a Tom Cruise or Liam Nelson guy.
Bond paper literally takes its name from the fact that old government bonds were printed on it- fun fact that I never knew until this morning. The funny thing is that I haven't heard the term in 35 years- about the last time I used an actual typewriter.
Not every story has to be War and Peace. Not every song has to be Mozart. Most culture is there for entertainment and is soon forgotten. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Well, golly gosh!! I thought the purpose of movies was entertainment. If I want to be screeched at and insulted I can watch the CriminalLiberalNewsMedia for free.
Typical snob gate-keeping "Real" art, as if the masses have no experiences worth having through the fantasies they enjoy.
I liked the aviator, I even liked the departed, but not everything has to be pathos and despair, btw the Irishman, is a bunch of bollocks, by persons in the know,
At least they’re not a ride through a rat-infested shithole like Taxi Driver. Oh, and the rat symbolizes obviousness.
I'm now listening to Kerouac - and I'm really enjoying it. I can understand why Capote disliked him though. there are no "Great sentences" & no great style. Unlike Capote who was all style and no substance. Its Jack London vs Henry James.
If you want stories, watch TV or stream online. No need to go to a movie theater. Besides given the SJW/Liberal stranglehold on the Culture, what kind of "movies about the human condition" are you going to get? You'll just get SJW/left-wing crap. And What did Scorcese ever give us but gangsters?
Taxi Driver - tried to re-watch and turned if off. Just don't care anymore. Dated. Too 70's. Like "Five easy Pieces" or "Kramer v. Kramer".
living in john Lindsay's new York, that's what guiliani cleaned up, now mayor bane has brought it back worse than ever,
Recently I watched the movie that won theOscar for Best Animated Film in 2019. It's Spider Man: Into the Sp;ider-Verse, and it's available on Netflix.
I love that movie. The central characters are engaging and well developed. It's thrilling and insightful into the human condition. And it has a kinetic plotline hustled along by intense visuals. It's almost a drug dream.
And it highlights the unique strength of animation: You can show things that are impossible to show in live action. Its angles and settings had an authentic New York City feel, populated with lots of people. Can you imagine trying to get releases from pedestrians in a live NYC street shoot? Basically, you can't. That's why films set in NYC are collections of very tight or very broad shots, either too granular or not granular enough to get a feel for what the city is really like.
Scorsese ought to appreciate the potential of using technology to tell stories. He's no Luddite; he has used CGI extensively to enhance reality in movies like Aviator and The Irishman. Even so, his method of storytelling is organic and relies on actors doing what they do. You know, acting. Contrast this with animation, which is by its nature highly engineered. Every moment, every frame has a purpose that starts with a storyboard and ends with carefully constructed images and sounds. There is no serendipity in animation. Even its rough edges (like fake lens flare and jerky "camera" motions) are intentional.
I can sympathize with Scorsese's sense of alienation when seeing an animation like the 2019 Oscar winner. There are few moments to savor. Most is torrent of image and emotion. But it's cinema, no question. Cinema for a different world than he lives in.
[corrected version]
Marty is, of course, right. The Marvel movies are a joke. They are live comic books with special effects.
I saw “Joker” last night. Did not like it. Weird. Creepy.
And, of course, “Frankenstein, Part 2” is better than all those Marvel movies and “Joker.” I just got to get Marty to direct it.
The superhero comics never really grabbed me-- Superman some, but I was much more the Johnny Cloud/Sgt. Rock/Haunted Tank kind of kid, and still am though the books have more words and maps now.
The big-budget superhero movies are literally unwatchable for me: I get nauseated by the movements and quick-cuts. I have to stop watching trailers sometimes, for the epics. And don't get me started on the deafening sounds. I used to see a lot of movies with great anticipation, now I see few, and usually not expecting much.
Scorsese never loomed that large for me.
Vidal said about Capote that "to hear him tell it, men come tumbling out of their closets in masse when he walks into a room."
Narr
Who remembers "Leather Thighs"?
The superhero comics never really grabbed me-- Superman some, but I was much more the Johnny Cloud/Sgt. Rock/Haunted Tank kind of kid, and still am though the books have more words and maps now.
The big-budget superhero movies are literally unwatchable for me: I get nauseated by the movements and quick-cuts. I have to stop watching trailers sometimes, for the epics. And don't get me started on the deafening sounds. I used to see a lot of movies with great anticipation, now I see few, and usually not expecting much.
Scorsese never loomed that large for me.
Vidal said about Capote that "to hear him tell it, men come tumbling out of their closets in masse when he walks into a room."
Narr
Who remembers "Leather Thighs"?
Interesting observation about only 4 channels yet one with such a discussion. I wonder if there is a connection? When TV was scarce books mattered more.
When you watch interviews from the 70s it is remarkable the difference. I saw Milton Friedman interviewed. No shouting, no accusations. The interviewer was skeptical but asked questions meant to elucidate.
rcocean said...
Taxi Driver - tried to re-watch and turned if off. Just don't care anymore. Dated. Too 70's.
Give De Blasio another term, it'll be back.
Shakespeare burned down the Globe Theater through the use of special effects. He shot off a cannon in his production of Henry VIII, and it set fire to the thatched roof. Bye, bye Globe......That's kind of a metaphor for the pernicious effects of special effects, unless, of course, it was some kind of Shakespearean scheme to collect on the insurance money prior to retiring......The Globe Theater had to compete with the brothels and the bear baiting arenas in the same neighborhood. I don't know if you can do that with only great poetry......The titled folk used to spend a lot of money on clothes. Due to the sumptuary laws, those clothes were not allowed to be passed down to servants. The only people who were allowed to wear them second hand were actors. A lot of people wanted to see and admire those aristocratic garments up close. Win win for artistocrats, actors and audiences. They came for the costumes and stayed for the poetry.....A lot of people turn out for the special effects in Marvel Movies, but that doesn't keep those special effects from being their own kind of poetry.
I'm so old I remember hearing about when typists were called typewriters.
Marvel movies
Is Batman Marvel? We watched a "Gotham" and there was a kid who's obviously going to "Cat Woman", but what should they call her now? "Cat Girl"? "Kitten Woman?"
FWIW, this was a fun article.
no dc, that show and pennyworth, is by Bruno heller, an exnypd detective behind the mentalist, hence a little of the Scorsese grit,
There are a lot of Marvel properties I detest. Iron Man in particular. Every movie in that series is a love letter to Fascism. Spider Man is an underdog story, though, and that's not inherently evil to tell.
Nick said...
Typical snob gate-keeping "Real" art, as if the masses have no experiences worth having through the fantasies they enjoy.
Like they say: There's Two types of music: Popular; and Unpopular
The same is probably true for most art
Fern asked...
Is Batman Marvel? We watched a "Gotham" and there was a kid who's obviously going to "Cat Woman", but what should they call her now? "Cat Girl"? "Kitten Woman?"
Well, it's The Boy Robin.... So, Cat Girl sounds good
I think berlanti's arrow, set in another noir landscape. did as good a representation, in seven years on the wb, yes it has to signal sjw a bit, can't be helped, but it tried to ground some sense of reality with the inclusion of the bratva, one player who became a villain was a former Australian sas,
I thought Scorsese was a great admirer of Georges Méliès. Remember? Cinema's original master of in-camera magic tricks and thrill rides?
By the way, isn't it amazing to think there was a time when there were only 4 channels on your TV but you might find Dorothy Parker, Norman Mailer, and Truman Capote having a conversation about what writing is?
Yes- it is amazing. But today we have Joy Behar interviews.
I don't remember the exact date, but at some point we went from a full offering of adult movies with adult screenplays and 1 or 2 movies based on comic book characters, to a full offering of comic book characters, and an occasional adult movie with an adult screenplay. Yes, I know- I've just pissed off the entirety of the readership here.
Moreover, we now not only have a full slate of comic book 'movies' foisted on us, but we have the new Woke versions of these movies starring...made up heroes who better diversify the comic book world because, well....you have to have a more diverse fictional world. And we also get sequels 2, 3, and 4 to round out our selections.
I went from a huge movie buff years ago, to rarely, if ever, going to a movie now. And of the hundreds of films offered to me via cable and streaming services, I spend more time flicking through the choices, than I do actually watching any of them. Hollywood has sucked for years. Scorsese is correct.
By the way, isn't it amazing to think there was a time when there were only 4 channels on your TV but you might find Dorothy Parker, Norman Mailer, and Truman Capote having a conversation about what writing is?
Yes, I think the networks felt some obligation to have some "high culture" then. Perhaps FCC oversight, a public sense of duty or thinking some gravitas would give them more credibility.
There was also a market for "intellectual" conversation. ABC had 11 debates between William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal in 1968. I think they got a lot of attention at the time.
now lets consider the theme of the joker, which mainstreams nihilism of a very nasty sort, which ends where you think it's going to end, if you know the batman origin story, also the McGuffin at the beginning of Strieber's wolfen,
no objectivism maybe in fact, we see quite clearly in winter soldier, the problem with trusting large state apparats, it had a strong snowden whistleblower vibe, which they acknowledged the excesses in civil war.
Furthermore, I think Capote was also correct. I never quite got the Kerouac thing. Or the Alan Ginsberg thing.
among other offerings, is an attempt to make sense of the crazy astronaut in the diaper, a supposed mystery that targets deplorables and leavers, and other fare,
I love Scorsese's films- I can watch Taxi Driver and Goodfellas over and over. However, his films have become less enjoyable with each succeeding one since Goodfellas. He still makes good films, and I make a point to watch everything, but he has lost something as he has aged.
When you watch interviews from the 70s it is remarkable the difference. I saw Milton Friedman interviewed. No shouting, no accusations. The interviewer was skeptical but asked questions meant to elucidate.
It’s remarkable how fair mainstream talk shows like Donahue and Oprah were to their guests. Would never happen today...
well he went into narration overdrive, with casino, the aviator because it's a throw back film, was interesting, look I found Robert downey insufferable probably from the time of weird science through the air America era, and perhaps a little past that,
well they needed to mainstream the insanity, that we see now,
narciso:
Yes, but Downey was brilliant in "Tropic Thunder" -- one of the best comedy movies ever made.
The Dark Night is one of the best films ever made. I hope the bias against it prevents it being viewed by the biased: you're just putting yourself in mind-chains.
Ginsburg and Kerouac were both "Beats" but they were entirely different writers. Ginsburg was a poet who wrote one good poem "Howl". Kerouac was the much bigger talent. Sadly, he was also drunk, and alcohol killed him. Ginsburg like Burroughs was a drug user and lived to a ripe old age. I guess Heroin is safer than Scotch.
When people talk about 4 channels, they forget that PBS made a conscious effort to be "High Brow". The networks would show the occasional classy artsy thing, just to show they weren't completely money-mad scum using the Public airways to get rich. Now, the idea is that anyone who wants "culture" can get in on the internet or on the 400 cable TV shows.
Gore Vidal reported that at a party he sat on what he thought was a tuffet but it turned out to be Truman.
YOutube still has the infamous Mailer-Dick Cavett-Vidal fight up. It gives "High Culture" a bad name.
Ref the Capote quote, one of the best putdowns I ever saw was in an Amazon review of one of David Weber's later-day doorstop books:
When you have writer's block, you should stop typing.
Ann's on it: "blacking up pounds of Bond" can only be a gratuitous shot by Capote at Ian Fleming's body of work. Which brings us by circuitous route back to the starting point of the blog item, the auteur-director's view of blockbuster films.
we go to the movies mostly to escape, not to be lectured to, the world may have always been 'nasty brutish and short' as depicted in gangs of new York, but there is a limit to how much we want to see of it,
The movies today are unoriginal, deafening foghorns with tasteless pictures.
Although I have enjoyed recent documentaries about Pavarotti and Linda Ronstadt.
Proper film nerds grow up watching old gangster movies, not looking at comic books.
The most Martin Scorsese thing I've seen in years, more Scorsese even than some of his recent films, is Birmingham gangster family drama Peaky Blinders.
"living in john Lindsay's new York, that's what guiliani cleaned up, now mayor bane has brought it back worse than ever"
Not true in the least. New York of today bears no resemblance to the New York of the 70s and 80s, and is in no way as bad as, much less worse than it was in those years...in terms of crime, dirt, subway service, etc. It is worse in that it is a less affordable city for working people to live in.
"Ginsburg like Burroughs was a drug user and lived to a ripe old age. I guess Heroin is safer than Scotch."
I don't think Ginsberg was a heroin user. He smoked pot and used psychedelics, and it's possible he tried heroin, but he was not a junkie.
Scorsese has worked to highlight the work of early filmmaker Georges Méliès, who filled his movies with archetypal, even stereotypical characters, and familiar plot formulas. He made sequels, and shot remakes of his and others' movies. He was famous for his special effects, including explosions and chase and fight scenes.
Funny that Scorsese doesn't see that the lamented theme park movies are direct descendants of Méliès' (and other pioneers') films.
yes I enjoyed till season 3, we know the character is somewhat invented, he found the overworld even more tricky than the underworld,
robother said...
Ann's on it: "blacking up pounds of Bond" can only be a gratuitous shot by Capote at Ian Fleming's body of work.
Oh, well then I need to go back in time and shoot him in the face. Somebody had a busted time machine here?
He's not wrong.
In what way is Scorsese's REMAKE of "Cape Fear" cinema but "Iron Man" is not?
Mike
his films have become less enjoyable with each succeeding one since Goodfellas
Scorsese's films have become less enjoyable -- and him too -- with each succeeding one since Last Temptation of Christ.
Rebel Without a Cause starting now on TCM.
Tough to see past The Chief and Mr. Howell/Magoo though in the scenes they are in.
Looking up Edward Platt right now on IMDb, there is a banner at the top -- reminding me to re-remember what happened in Mr. Robot last season. New one starts tomorrow.
Yes, I lost interest after season 3 but man that show packed a punch. I'm sorry that Scorsese tv show about DIY/punk music scene in NYC didn't get more of a chance.
Speaking of movies -- next Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday there will be 40th anniversary showings of Alien.
I remember its first-run, back when no one knew what was coming or what to expect -- and it packed quite a punch. It showed at the State Theater at State and Liberty if I remember correctly, back when they still had the big screen.
I'm a fan of the Marvel movies, for the most part. They combine action and humor and just enough drama to root for the characters. They're uplifting in a way that 70s crops of auteurs seemed to have despised. Movies can be enjoyable and they're intended to affect emotions and draw a person out of their experience of life, what all good stories do. In this way, it's cinema at its best, a nice experience that uses superheroes to evoke very human ambitions, challenges, and setbacks. The same thing that the epic poems used to do. Those who want the depressing "art" films always seem to me to be emotionally starved for real life within their context of privilege and control. Most of us have enough challenges in our life to not want to pay money to have some miserable family yelling at us or yet another tale of despair and emptiness thrown at us. Sometimes we need reminders that very bad situations can be overcome and we need to be inspired there's a need to fight for what is good and noble.
Cinema is about escape, among other things it can do, and the Marvel movies do that well for our era.
Somewhat related, I happened to watch a really interesting documentary about Jerry Lewis on Amazon Prime yesterday, showing in part why the French like him. They noted that the French actually had a sense of the artistry and intentionality behind Lewis's apparent silliness. While, as they put it, Americans dismissed him as being for children, the French saw him in a continuing line of comic artists such as Charlie Chaplin and Stan Laurel, and celebrated how he used technology and avante garde techniques to put together his seeming simplicity.
"I don't remember the exact date, but at some point we went from a full offering of adult movies with adult screenplays and 1 or 2 movies based on comic book characters, to a full offering of comic book characters, and an occasional adult movie with an adult screenplay. Yes, I know- I've just pissed off the entirety of the readership here."
Not me. I agree.
I guess the Firesigners have checked out . . . or been BLOCKED OUT! "Heartless brute of a killerwithoutaconscience"? Bueller?
Alien! 40 years, and a great movie. Ridley Scott is spotty.
Narr
The Duelists is good with the sound off
Speaking of movies -- Just finished watching The Professor and the Madman, about the creation of the Oxford English Dictionary, which AA should appreciate.
Before I saw it, when I first read the synopsis of the film, I thought that it was Mel Gibson who would play the Madman and Sean Penn the Professor, but it was the other way around.
Interesting take on Joker ... ?Refutes Scorsese?
https://ricochet.com/684004/whos-the-joker-now/
I go to movies always at discount theater for cheap tourism - earthly and intergalactic.
Post a Comment