+“Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain.” | The New York Times
“Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.”
–>If you think Martin Scorsese is wrong about superhero movies, you won’t win that argument by countering Alfred Hitchcock’s “Strangers On A Train” with Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight.” (Scorsese’s arguments are sophisticated and are as much about the process of producing superhero movies as they are about the product.) Nor will you win with the claim that Scorsese’s out of touch and his opinion is therefore irrelevant. (His voice on this topic is one of the most relevant.) Rather, you’ll win by acknowledging he’s more right than wrong, but then pointing out that superhero stories are our modern myths. Should the human race survive a few more centuries, future Scorseses will understand The Justice League as we understand the Greek pantheon. In the way that the BBC drama Doctor Foster is based on Medea (written in 431 BC) some future playwright will produce an epic for the ages based on Batman: The Killing Joke. Or, better yet, The Invisibles. Take that Taxi Driver, which (when I think about it) SIMPLY IS Scorsese’s Joker movie.