What's new

JoeStemme

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
144
Real Name
Joseph
With all the discussion of Scorsese's comments about 'Cinema' and streaming, the main point of his article has been greatly overlooked: FEDERICO FELLINI. The entire piece is a wonderful valentine from one master filmmaker to another. The FULL article is here: https://harpers.org/.../il-maestro-federico-fellini.../
Scorsese eloquently examines both how Fellini developed as a filmmaker as well as how the Maestro still influences him to this day. Of particular note is how Scorsese traces his career from Neo-Realism to the more phantasmagorical Director most know him as today.

My great film schools Professors indulged me in my passion for linking Fellini's Neo-Realist screenplays (including Rossellini's PAISAN and ROME OPEN CITY) to his later work. I have always thought that DE-linking his early period (which also included his own film LA STRADA and I VITELLONI) from his more elaborate later films was too neat a break. To me, Fellini was still exploring the human spirit, but, his later work expanded from dreary day to day life to a person's inner dreams, illusions and psyche. Humans are as much about the subconscious as the conscious - the rational and irrational.

It's a great article. Please read it in full. Grazie, Martin.

Photo: Scorsese, Isabella Rossellini, Fellini.
Not sure who the fourth person is - ID anyone?
 

Attachments

  • Martin-Scorsese-Isabella-Rossellini-and-Federico-Fellini-www.cinematheia.com_.png
    Martin-Scorsese-Isabella-Rossellini-and-Federico-Fellini-www.cinematheia.com_.png
    132.9 KB · Views: 7

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
52,409
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
With all the discussion of Scorsese's comments about 'Cinema' and streaming, the main point of his article has been greatly overlooked: FEDERICO FELLINI. The entire piece is a wonderful valentine from one master filmmaker to another. The FULL article is here: https://harpers.org/.../il-maestro-federico-fellini.../
Scorsese eloquently examines both how Fellini developed as a filmmaker as well as how the Maestro still influences him to this day. Of particular note is how Scorsese traces his career from Neo-Realism to the more phantasmagorical Director most know him as today.

My great film schools Professors indulged me in my passion for linking Fellini's Neo-Realist screenplays (including Rossellini's PAISAN and ROME OPEN CITY) to his later work. I have always thought that DE-linking his early period (which also included his own film LA STRADA and I VITELLONI) from his more elaborate later films was too neat a break. To me, Fellini was still exploring the human spirit, but, his later work expanded from dreary day to day life to a person's inner dreams, illusions and psyche. Humans are as much about the subconscious as the conscious - the rational and irrational.

It's a great article. Please read it in full. Grazie, Martin.

Photo: Scorsese, Isabella Rossellini, Fellini.
Not sure who the fourth person is - ID anyone?
Does anybody have any thoughts regarding Scorsese being influenced by Fellini?
 

B-ROLL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
3,478
Real Name
Bryan
Does anybody have any thoughts regarding Scorsese being influenced by Fellini?
I'm sure Mr. S was influenced by Fellini and other directors as well - I haven't quite finished watching all of the Fellini films -I'm trying to supplement the Criterion set with those of other studios and watch in release order.

So far to me - I see the most influence of Mr. F on Mr. S in Mean Streets/I Vitteloni. I can also see the influence of Il Bidoni on Paper Moon, which Mr S didn't direct ...
 

RJ992

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
614
Real Name
Joel
A new Harper's piece by Martin Scorsese about Federico Fellini has stirred up a hornet's nest of controversy over a passage where he writes in part:

"...the art of cinema is being systematically devalued, sidelined, demeaned, and reduced to its lowest common denominator, “content.”...“Content” became a business term for all moving images: a David Lean movie, a cat video, a Super Bowl commercial, a superhero sequel, a series episode."

I come down squarely with Scorsese here. Of course, the social media world exploded with “old man shouting at the clouds!” memes. And, the ole 'He should talk since Irishman was Netflix!!” All too easy and predictable, but few really tried to truly analyze the filmmaker's point. And, no, it wasn't “Streaming is bad, BAD!”
The crux of Scorsese's argument is that when all TV and Movies are reduced to just a small rectangle on an endless queue of choices they become indistinguishable product - or “content” as he describes it. Of course, it's always been the film BUSINESS. Nobody disputes that, but, up until the last few years (and Especially in 2020), there was an eco-system of festivals, theatrical release, critics reviews, awards and physical media that filtered out the wheat from the disposable chaff. That spotlighted what films deserved special attention. The system wasn't perfect, but, it had a meaningful function. And, all of that occurred Before the movie in question hit streaming.

Now, far too often, a new film is just dumped on a service where it may attract eyeballs as a new release for a few days, a week, a month if it's really lucky -- and then off to oblivion buried deeper and deeper into the various lists. As I write this, there isn't a single feature film in the Top 10 on Netflix - but, hey there's the hot new Season 3 episodes of Good Girls at #3!! And, that's IF you happen to subscribe to the ONE service that is carrying a particular film of note. Add to that the unfortunate analytics the streaming services use to suggest films to you. It's insidious. It makes viewers actually NARROW their choices rather than expand it. Liked this? Well, here's more of "this" and only things like "this".

So, make fun of fuddy duddy Scorsese because he doesn't think Marvel is “cinema” in the same way that Kurosawa or Godard or Hitchcock are -- but, he nails it.

The full Scorsese piece is here (and, it's e There is cinema. And there is product. The difference is evident. The Oscars now mandate that a film or movie wont be accepted unless it meets a diversity standard. Putting rules on art? Says it all.
 

Reggie W

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
6,758
Location
Agua Verde
Real Name
Pike Bishop
Does anybody have any thoughts regarding Scorsese being influenced by Fellini?

Well, he was obviously influenced by him and it is always wonderful to hear Scorsese talk about other filmmakers because he has such a deep and abiding love for them and the art form. I do think that Scorsese was deeply moved and influenced by his neorealist pictures. I mean when you watch Mean Streets or Taxi Driver or Raging Bull I think we are watching...well...what I would say was Scorsese's response to Fellini.

I mainly was not addressing that due to what this thread was titled and what was in Joe's opening post. It seemed what he wanted to discuss was Scorsese's comments that open his article. Which I guess caused a stir. Sadly, in this period of time we live in, social media provides an opportunity for a lot of backlash whenever anybody says something. Scorsese I think is not particularly well liked by a segment of the population that really love comic book films. So, now when he makes a statement about something I believe there are people waiting with knives out to attack him.

I don't think that the people that get upset by his comments really read and comprehend them. I never felt that he has ever diminished the people that make comic book pictures, I think he bemoaned the process that now provides many more assets and support to making those pictures over all others.

Fellini was making pictures that commented on our world and our lives and exposing things about how our hearts, souls, and minds function. These ideas combined with how Fellini visualized and told his stories deeply affected Mr. Scorsese. I think he feels it is important that other people, younger generations, are exposed to this form of filmmaking and not just the kids that go to film school now.

I do see a bit of an issue with this. All of the young kids I know, and I know a lot of them, they don't at all take in "visual content" the way I, or many of us over 30, once did. I do think there is an attention deficit there and it comes from technology changing what they see and how they see it.

We watched movies and television shows. We were used to sitting there watching something for a 2 hour or half hour block of time. This did not test the limits of our attention spans. We would put on a record and listen to it all the way through. We were much more used to that period of time being dedicated to a piece of entertainment.

Now I see the kids watching TikTok and youtube and a 2 or 3 minute clip (or less) is what they want to watch. Then they move on to something else. They come back and watch another clip and then again go do something else. They never listen to an album of songs, they listen to a song.

The attention span has been whittled down to the extent that I have doubts about them ever wanting to sit through a 2 hour movie. It's just not how they are programmed to take in that sort of visual entertainment anymore.

I can't picture these kids ever reaching the stage where they could sit through a Fellini picture, or Bergman, or Tarkovsky. I mean, I've had people in their 30s and 40s complain when I tried to show them these films. So, basically while I understand where Scorsese is coming from, and I am younger than him as I am only about to turn 54, I think that these kind of pictures have become a niche more than the sort of cultural event they were to him and some of us.

We've had conversations here in the past about the way the editing style has changed over time and in big blockbuster films it has become rare that they hold a shot more than 5 seconds before cutting to something else. Long flowing languid takes and the floating camera he loves so much seem to bore the living hell out of a lot of people that have been raised on pictures made over the last 20 years.

We all probably know the refrain of "This is slow! This is boring!"

I mean I showed 2001 to a group of younger people probably 10 or 12 years ago and they raked me over the coals for how horribly slow and boring they thought it was. They probably would have had me drawn and quartered had I shown them a Fellini or Tarkovsky picture.

I've always believed that you don't make pictures or music, or any art really because you think it is what other people will like...if that's your approach then it is not art because it is not an artist making something that is about what inspired them. It's not what came from their heart or soul or mind...it's more a product just made to please others. The lowest common denominator that Scorsese mentions.

I do agree that it is wrong to call things made to please as many people as possible art. You can be entertained by this but it is not art. It's just a product then. It becomes like building cars or putting peas in a can. Sure there is some "art" in there as a car cn look beautiful or a can of peas can have pretty colors and a nice design on it. But really, that's not art.

Somewhere along the way this idea that an artist should stay true to themselves has been pushed aside. I think the majority of people want things made for mass consumption. If you are making "art" following your own desires and instincts and what moves you, to much of today's society I think that makes you selfish and self indulgent.

Well, yes, an artist is meant to be self indulgent. Is meant to be selfish staying true to their art. Everybody is not meant to like all art. When you walk through a museum there are many, many paintings...some speak to you, others don't. This is how we find art and connect with it. If there were someone sitting there telling Van Gogh "Use more blue and I'd like you to add a row boat and a big yellow bird in the corner." well, that would not be a Van Gogh painting it would just be an assembly of things someone else dictated.

I think at the heart of what Scorsese is saying about Fellini and filmmaking is that as a society in a lot of ways we have lost interest in and respect for artists. They are too self indulgent for today's rigorous "Make it the way I want it!" standards.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
36,999
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Empire magazine's podcast last month had Edgar Wright and Quentin Tarantino on and one of the things they discussed was Martin Scorsese's list of films from England to watch. The Scorsese section starts around 1:30:00 (the whole podcast is just over 3 hours total) and Wright was able to get in touch with Scorsese and get some more recommendations and then he makes a point of publicly thanking Scorsese for letting him know about these movies. I think that gets to the heart of what Scorsese is talking about that a person and not a computer at Netflix should be the one to recommend more for a viewer to see.

Here's a link to the podcast which I'd recommend to any fans of QT or Edgar:
 

Reggie W

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
6,758
Location
Agua Verde
Real Name
Pike Bishop
Here's Scorsese's list of Brit pics to see...
  • Kind Hearts & Coronets — Robert Hamer (1949)
  • Station Six Sahara — Seth Holt (1962)
  • Brief Ecstasy — Edmond T. Greville (1937)
  • The Halfway House — Basil Dearden (1944)
  • Went The Day Well — Alberto Cavalcanti (1942)
  • Nowhere to Go — Seth Holt (1958)
  • The Nanny — Seth Holt (1965)
  • Madonna of the Seven Moons — Arthur Crabtree (1945)
  • The Man in Grey — Leslie Arliss (1943)
  • So Long at the Fair — Terence Fisher (1950)
  • Stolen Face — Terence Fisher (1952)
  • Four-sided Triangle — Terence Fisher (1953)
  • The Sound Barrier — David Lean (1952)
  • This Happy Breed — David Lean (1944)
  • Guns at Batasi —John Guillermin (1964) Tarantino was a particular fan
  • Green for Danger — Sidney Gilliat (1946)
  • The Mindbenders — Basil Dearden (1963)
  • To the Public Danger — Terence Fisher (1948) It’s on YouTube!
  • It Always Rains on Sunday — Robert Hamer (1947)
  • A High Wind in Jamaica — Alexander Mackendrick (1965)
  • The Queen of Spades — Thorold Dickinson (1949)
  • Hue and Cry — Charles Crichton (1947)
  • Pink String and Sealing Wax — Robert Hamer (1945)
  • The Blue Lamp — Basil Dearden (1950)
  • The Good Die Young — Lewis Gilbert (1954)
  • Mandy — Alexander Mackendrick (1952)
  • Vampyres — José Ramón Larraz (1974)
  • Uncle Silas — Charles Frank (1947)
  • The Legend of Hell House — John Hough (1973)
  • Night of the Eagle (US title: Burn Witch Burn)—Sidney Hayers (1962)
  • The Flesh and the Fiends — John Gilling (1960)
  • The Snorkel — Guy Green (1958)
  • Taste of Fear (US title: Scream of Fear) — Seth Holt (1961)
  • The Damned (US title: These are the Damned) — Joseph Losey (1963)
  • Plague of the Zombies — John Gilling (1966)
  • Quatermass and the Pit (US title: Five Million Years to Earth)— Roy Ward Baker (1967)
  • Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde — Roy Ward Baker (1971)
  • The Devil Rides Out — Terence Fisher (1968)
  • The Asphyx — Peter Newbrook (1972) (“I was so happy to see on the list, one of those movies I thought only me and my brother had seen” — Edgar Wright)
  • Underground — Anthony Asquith (1928)
  • Shooting Stars — Anthony Asquith (1927)
  • Sapphire — Basil Dearden (1959)
  • Whistle and I’ll Come To You — Jonathan Miller (1968)
  • Dead of Night — Alberto Cavalcanti (1945)
  • Enfield Haunting (Sky Living three-part drama from 2015 directed by Kristoffer Nyholm)
  • The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne — Jack Clayton (1987)
  • The Pumpkin Eater — Jack Clayton (1964)
  • The Innocents — Jack Clayton (1961)
  • The Seventh Veil — Compton Bennett (1945)
  • Yield to the Night — J. Lee Thompson (1956) Edgar recommends doubling billing it with Dance with a Stranger — Mike Newell (1985)
 

JoeStemme

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
144
Real Name
Joseph
I mainly was not addressing that due to what this thread was titled and what was in Joe's opening post. It seemed what he wanted to discuss was Scorsese's comments that open his article. Which I guess caused a stir.
I did mention from the outset that the entirety of the article was good. I tried to start a thread solely on Fellini, but, I was told to merge here. If you missed it above, here is the full text of my comments on Scorsese/Fellini: https://www.hometheaterforum.com/co...bout-cinema-and-streaming.371135/post-4966514
 

Joe Wong

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 8, 1999
Messages
613
But, the key difference even then is that the "Good films" got theatrically released, reviewed, went through the Awards process and then often Re-Released. Far different when a movie falls off a streaming service's Top 10 in a week or two and then you have to hunt for them.
We're talking months and even YEARS of release time, not days as is now sometimes the case.

Interesting point re: "Good films", with emphasis on the quote marks.

Back before the onset of TV, I'm guessing films were made with the expectation that they would be released theatrically, since there were no other mediums for distribution (happy to be corrected if I'm wrong). So, whether they were "good" or bad", they were released in a cinema (unless the studio thought it wouldn't make money by doing so, being a business and all).

Then when TV became entrenched, there were TV "movies", followed by the trend during the VHS era of making "straight to video" films. Some TV movies/miniseries had enough of a budget to be an event, but "straight to video" got stuck with the stigma of being cheaply made or made to cash in on a trend or popular original theatrical film (many Disney animated sequels in the '90s come to mind).

But being a business (again), a notable exception was Pixar's Toy Story 2, which was supposed to be straight to video, until the execs realized it was so good they could make more money by releasing it in cinemas.

With regards to a movie falling off a streaming service's Top 10, this sounds similar to a box office chart. By definition, popular movies will stay on for a while, and the less popular will not. I would hope that a viewer would look beyond what's trending/popular or is suggested (based on previous activity) if they're looking for stuff to watch. But, to reiterate, to each his/her/their own.

In a rambling way (apologies!), I guess what I'm saying is (and 1 & 2 may be obvious):

1. to the studios, money is a, if not the, major driver
2. technology, habits & preferences change over time
3. no matter the medium/method of delivery, there will be plenty of mediocre or "bad" product to go along with the good/great
4. choice and variety is good, but ultimately it still depends on the consumer

Thanks for reading my 2c. :cool:
 

B-ROLL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
3,478
Real Name
Bryan
Photo: Scorsese, Isabella Rossellini, Fellini.
Not sure who the fourth person is - ID anyone?
Using google image search and a few other things I have a determined a few things

A) The image was taken on the set of City of Women in 1979.
B) The photo is cropped and claimed by at least two different image services
1613865454044.png

I believe the woman on the left to be Mr. S's mother -picture posted solely for context and discussion under "fair use" ...
C) I believe it is renowned recently passed Cinematographer Giuseppe Rotunno

1613864693502.png
 
Last edited:

Mark Mayes

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Messages
193
Location
West Hollywood
Real Name
Mark Mayes
Close Grace Moretz - appeared in Hugo for Scorsese; also Hit-Girl in Kick-Ass
Asa Butterfield - Hugo for Scorsese; was in the running for MCU Spider-Man before Tom Holland got it
Andrew Garfield - Silence for Scorsese; was Spider-Man
Liam Nesson - Silence for Scorsese; Batman Begins
Cate Blanchett - The Aviator for Scorsese; Thor Ragnarok for Marvel
John C. Riley - The Aviator and Gangs of New York for Scorsese; Guardians of the Galaxy for Marvel
Ana Paquin - The Irishman for Scorsese; Rogue in four X-Men movies
Jon Favreau - acted in The Wolf of Wall Street for Scorsese; directed Iron Man which began the MCU and plays Happy
Robert De Niro - a bunch of things for Scorsese; appeared in Joker for DC
The tedium of working on a green screen with more logistics than art never inspired one of these artists to be in the "business".
He knows that, and they know that.
Why pretend?
 

Jake Lipson

Premium
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
14,812
Real Name
Jake Lipson
The tedium of working on a green screen with more logistics than art never inspired one of these artists to be in the "business".

I don't think it is for us to say what inspires people to be in show business unless we are those people. It is clear to me that many people who work for Marvel are very passionate about what they do there. I was listening to an interview with Elizabeth Olsen the other day about WandaVision where she said she wanted to do big films like the MCU because she was a big fan of Star Wars as a kid, and she was thrilled to join the MCU because she really loved Iron Man. That is as legitimate of a reason for her to want to do these films as any reason Scorsese has ever had for making one of his films.


Why pretend?

Scorsese is under no obligation to pretend anything. But he doesn't have to dunk on work done by his colleagues in the industry either. Like I said before, he could have just said "Those films are not for me" instead of going on a tirade against something he doesn't personally enjoy. The de-aging technology that was so important for him to use in making The Irishman was pioneered in part by Marvel using it in some of their films. Michael Douglas was de-aged in Ant-Man, Robert Downy Jr. was de-aged in Civil War, Kurt Russell was de-aged in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, etc. So Scorsese doesn't have problems using technology that was developed in part for Marvel films, but he dunked on them anyway.

It's an issue of respecting the work of your colleagues. Scorsese knows how hard it is to make a movie, so I felt like it was unnecessary and unfortunate for him to come out swinging against work that even people he has worked with before are doing. Especially because of his legacy as a great filmmaker, he knows his words will be magnified, so I just wouldn't have done what he did as a matter of professional courtesy to others in the industry. That's all. He is allowed to conduct himself as he wishes and I bear him no ill will for his opinion either, but he didn't benefit from the way he phrased those comments.

Again, to be clear this is in regard to his "not cinema" comments from a couple years ago, not the newer ones that are the main topic of this thread.
 
Last edited:

MatthewA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,466
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew
I do agree that it is wrong to call things made to please as many people as possible art. You can be entertained by this but it is not art. It's just a product then. It becomes like building cars or putting peas in a can. Sure there is some "art" in there as a car cn look beautiful or a can of peas can have pretty colors and a nice design on it. But really, that's not art.

Tell that to Andy Warhol.
 

Joe Wong

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 8, 1999
Messages
613
The tedium of working on a green screen with more logistics than art never inspired one of these artists to be in the "business".
He knows that, and they know that.
Why pretend?

I agree with Jake that we don't really know what inspires these artists to make Marvel or superhero films.

Given how difficult an actor's life can be, maybe it's as simple as getting a job/paycheck, and with it the potential for worldwide notice, especially with the current size and continuing growth of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Actors like Chris Hemsworth and Tom Holland have risen from relative obscurity to become Marvel stars, while once-troubled stars like Robert Downey Jr were given a chance and re-established themselves. Also, no less than 20 Oscar-winners for acting (19 if you don't count Jennifer Connelly's voice) have so far appeared or will appear in the MCU, adding a level of "prestige" to the enterprise. Ben Kingsley looked like he had a blast in Iron Man 3, while Cate Blanchett seemed to relish her role as Hela in Thor: Ragnarok.

So, aside from the paycheck...maybe being a part of the MCU is... I don't know... fun? :cool:

Cheers!
 

Blu Eye

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
137
Real Name
Carl
Mr Scorsese's comments seem to be deep frustration on what is a very complex business that is cinema and where it appears to be going.

In my opinion the movie industry is very unique. I will try to elaborate.

Firstly, the industry is kind of monopolized through the Hollywood studios. The movie business globally is a free market. Anyone can make a movie. All you need is a smartphone now and a few actors and you are away.

However, I think most people would agree that like all other industries you need capital to attract the best talent and a lot of it to make a good movie. Just like a basketball team that has the most money will get the best players as they can afford the salaries or a tech company like Google will attract the best tech savvy people in that field etc.

Any person or any business is free to make a movie and Hollywood or anybody else cannot stop you from doing it. The only thing that can prevent you is capital and that is why not many movies outside Hollywood get made.

Hollywood has the capital and therefore they choose what gets put out and that is that. Nobody can compete with them as it is extremely difficult (capital intensive) to make a successful movie and very high risk. Therefore, they have no competition so as they cannot be challenged they are not pressurized or forced to innovate like almost all other industries which is why the movie business is extremely unique and why they churn out comic book movies much to the frustration of Cinema lovers like Mr Scorsese and myself who appreciate the artform that is movie making.

Many people even including Francis Coppola and George Lucas who founded their own movie studio American Zoetrope have tried to take on the major studios and have subsequnetly found the mammoth task of trying to make movies as a profitable business almost impossible.

Why is that?

To make a commercially viable, quality and professional film (generally) you need brilliant actors and cinematrographers and composers etc. This all costs a lot of money and comes with a lot of risk. One big failure and potentially that's the end of the venture just like American Zoetrope with the ambitious project by Mr Coppola called "One From The Heart". A very big budget movie that bombed.

Game over!!

This is why Hollywood when they find a winning formula stick to it and try to minimize their risks. You can't blame them for it. We would all do the same thing. You provide what the consumer wants.

How did Hollywood get to monopolize the movie business?

Europe prior to the 1920s was on the verge of being the epicenter of the movie making business until World War 1 destroyed it economically. The Babelsberg Film Studio based in Germany was the first major movie studio worldwide.
We have many groundbraking, innovative and interesting films from that Pioneering European era with films such as Nosferatu and Dr. Mabuse by Fritz Lang etc.

Without World War 1 the chances are that Europe would have remained a major player in regards to the movie industry.

However, for better or worse we had the war and Hollywood took over because they had the money. America was the richest country in the world at that time and has been for the past 100 years and that is why the industry migrated to the USA. Remember in a free market society without government interference the talent goes where the money is. A perfectly normal and healthy system.

This was why very talented filmakers such as Fritz Lang and many others which I am sure most of you are aware of moved to the USA to make movies as they could not pursue their profession any longer in war torn and cash strapped Europe.

Although I agree with Mr Scorsese's comments and personally think that a lot of Hollywood movies today are garbage and complete trash lacking any artistic merit, the situation is Hollywood is providing a service that people want. If the people did not want to watch the movies Hollywood produced then Hollywood would change their formula. Simple as that.

In the 1940s Hollywood churned out Film Noir genre pictures that I personally like but they only did it because they made money. If they did not make money they would have stopped making them.

The last decade has been comic book movies generally over any other genre. Will it continue?

Who knows?

If it does change then what will be the next type of movie genre?

I have no idea. I do hope like all on here that more movies get made by people who want to try and make original, entertaining films that are generally in good taste and with a high degree of intelligence that does not treat the viewer as an adolescent delinquent with the attention span of a 4 year old and that perhaps the film is done from their heart/s.

One can hope.

I do think that there has been some good films made in the last 10 years and perhaps this gets overlooked somewhat and that the comic book movie thing is a bit overblown and perhaps Mr Scorsese is a bit of a grumpy old man who cannot make the films he wants to and does not get to see new movies that are more akin to his personal tastes.

However, I have not seen a plethora of movies made in the last 10 years so I am no authority on the matter in relation to the general standard of movies on the whole.

I don't think his views are controversial though. That seems an absurd opinion. I think his message on the importance of informing other people about the rich history of cinema and its artform cannot be underestimated if we wish to have any chance of getting new movies put out that are worth watching and experiencing. The more we encourage and educate people to expand their horizons by watching movies they are not knowledgable about and to make them aware of the rich tapestry of cinema both old and new the better it will be for cinema as a whole.

I think companies like Criterion have done a brilliant job of releasing a diverse array of films on physical media over the years that have introduced new audiences to a plethora of interesting artists and they seem to be following that up with the migration to streaming too now and that is to be commended.

Hopefully, companies like Netflix will encourage and educate their subscribers to watch older and more alternative movies (do they do this now?) as opposesd to just pushing what is new and big from Hollywood would be most welcome. Simple things like ads on their website such as "great European films to watch from the 70s" etc.

Whether the majority of streaming businesses adopt this approach I am not so sure. It would be nice.

My ten cents.
 
Last edited:

Blu Eye

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
137
Real Name
Carl
I did mention from the outset that the entirety of the article was good. I tried to start a thread solely on Fellini, but, I was told to merge here. If you missed it above, here is the full text of my comments on Scorsese/Fellini: https://www.hometheaterforum.com/co...bout-cinema-and-streaming.371135/post-4966514

I misinterpreted your intention on the purpose of the thread otherwise I would not have wrote what I did on Hollywood.

I actually thought you was trying to get opinions on Mr Scorsese's "controversial" comments on modern cinema as opposed to Fellini's influence on him and Fellini specifically as a filmaker etc.

Funny enough I watched Fellini's 8 and a half a few days ago for the first time.

I can't really comment on how much of an influence he had on Scorsese's work but I would not be surprised if it was in a profound manner probably both in a conscious and subconscious way.

Mr S. seems to have an encyclopedic knowledge of cinema in general and I suspect many many artists influenced him in one way or another.

I think some great artists soak up anything they can and use whatever inspires or interests them in their own unique way without trying to consciously imitate anyone else.

I think I have seen maybe 2 or 3 Fellini films so can't really comment on his abilities and talent too much. Personally, the movies of his that I have seen did not interest me a great deal but I can see why he is admired by many people both including creative people in the film industry and movie watchers in general especially who grew up or who lived through that era and enjoyed cinema.

I did mention from the outset that the entirety of the article was good. I tried to start a thread solely on Fellini, but, I was told to merge here. If you missed it above, here is the full text of my comments on Scorsese/Fellini: https://www.hometheaterforum.com/co...bout-cinema-and-streaming.371135/post-4966514
 
Last edited:

harync

Grip
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
19
Real Name
Harrison
I have to start by saying I think Scorsese is a brilliant filmmaker, but I find his endless re-visiting of the gangster genre to be tiring. Give me something more like Hugo.

I feel like Scorsese's chief complaint is that people are forgetting about Fellini, who was an incredibly important filmmaker to him. I am not personally the biggest fan of Italian cinema, but in looking through the list of British films recommended in post#67, you can see the problem. We have over 100 years of cinema from countries across the globe. How can someone watch everything, let alone only the best quality films of universal acclaim? Technological advances have democratized filmmaking, so somebody can make an amazing film for very little money. If a streaming service picks it up, it will have a wider audience than it ever would have 20 years ago.

So with this massive amount of films available, people look for recommendations. Rotten tomatoes, metacritic, and other aggregators help make this issue manageable. I find the Netflix algorithm recommendations helpful and have watched many interesting films I would not have seen otherwise

But Scorsese thinks that people aren't being recommended films he finds important. So he writes an article serving as an advertisement for a Criterion box set in Harpers? If he feels passionate about this, he should create his own distribution service to get films into cinemas. Knowing this isn't practical, in my mind the solution is for Scorsese to create a "Scorsese presents..." section of Netflix where he can make recommendations.

The bottom line to me is that Scorsese is frustrated with the direction cinema is headed, and he's taking it out on the obvious targets like MCU or content factories. He shouldn't be surprised at any of this, though. More people went to see Spielberg's and Lucas's and Cameron's movies than his, and the films of today are the grandchildren of the films of the 70s and 80s. If he were to look hard enough, I imagine Scorsese would find many things to recommend, past and present. He should embrace streaming as opportunity to share these films.
 

Blu Eye

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
137
Real Name
Carl
I have to start by saying I think Scorsese is a brilliant filmmaker, but I find his endless re-visiting of the gangster genre to be tiring. Give me something more like Hugo.

I feel like Scorsese's chief complaint is that people are forgetting about Fellini, who was an incredibly important filmmaker to him. I am not personally the biggest fan of Italian cinema, but in looking through the list of British films recommended in post#67, you can see the problem. We have over 100 years of cinema from countries across the globe. How can someone watch everything, let alone only the best quality films of universal acclaim? Technological advances have democratized filmmaking, so somebody can make an amazing film for very little money. If a streaming service picks it up, it will have a wider audience than it ever would have 20 years ago.

So with this massive amount of films available, people look for recommendations. Rotten tomatoes, metacritic, and other aggregators help make this issue manageable. I find the Netflix algorithm recommendations helpful and have watched many interesting films I would not have seen otherwise

But Scorsese thinks that people aren't being recommended films he finds important. So he writes an article serving as an advertisement for a Criterion box set in Harpers? If he feels passionate about this, he should create his own distribution service to get films into cinemas. Knowing this isn't practical, in my mind the solution is for Scorsese to create a "Scorsese presents..." section of Netflix where he can make recommendations.

The bottom line to me is that Scorsese is frustrated with the direction cinema is headed, and he's taking it out on the obvious targets like MCU or content factories. He shouldn't be surprised at any of this, though. More people went to see Spielberg's and Lucas's and Cameron's movies than his, and the films of today are the grandchildren of the films of the 70s and 80s. If he were to look hard enough, I imagine Scorsese would find many things to recommend, past and present. He should embrace streaming as opportunity to share these films.

I think I agree with everything you have said here.

There have been so many movies made of all kinds from all over the world in the last 100 years or so and it is impossible to watch maybe more than a very small percentage of those films even if you have the privilege to have a lot of leisure time available to watch many films on a daily basis.

Unless you have a very keen love of cinema and also know of your own personal tastes it is extremely difficult to decide to choose what to watch from the infinite selections available especially with streaming companies and the choice they have available.

I can't keep up with all the TV shows that get made these days. I don't generally watch many TV shows even though I do enjoy the ones I have seen but It amazes me how many are made at the moment. I would like to watch more but it comes down to time. I devote most of my spare time to watching movies with a little TV here and there but if I was a keen TV show viewer like many younger people are I would not know where to begin.

If Mr S. feels more people should watch the films he recommends then I think you are correct in stating that he should be more aggressive in his actions towards solving that problem he seems to have. He is in a more privileged position than most people to do so both in relation to time and finances to be able to achieve his goal so perhaps less moaning and more doing.

I am pretty much indifferent towards this whole situation. It really does not bother me a great deal about what types of movies are being made and released and of the quality or lack thereof.

There have been so many interesting, entertaining, creative and profound movies made over the years that have yet been watched by me that if no more great movies are ever made I will still have more than enough choice as well as rewatching many great movies in my collection etc.

I can see why some people get very frustrated with it especially if they like going to the cinema every week as a hobbie etc.

I think perhaps people like Mr S. are just a little unhappy and nostalgic about how times have changed since his days growing up and going to his local cinema on a regular basis in NYC and watching the current french new wave film or whatever.

For better or worse that is not the world we live in anymore. People watch movies on their phones or casually at home etc.

The industry has changed. Accept it or try to change it if you are passionate about it.
 

harync

Grip
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
19
Real Name
Harrison
I know that's a common criticism of Scorsese but out of the more than 25 movies he's made over about 50 years, only 4 of them are really mafia movies.
Fair enough. "Endless" is an exaggeration, but since he made Goodfellas in 1990, every third movie is a gangster film (or a something close to it). In particular, he seems to retreat to them after a film is less well-received.

2019The Irishman <-----
2016Silence
2013The Wolf of Wall Street <---- (essentially a white collar gangster film)
2011Hugo
2010Shutter Island
2006The Departed <----
2004The Aviator
2002Gangs of New York <----- (not a traditional gangster film, but basically a history of the NY criminal underworld)
1999Bringing Out the Dead
1997Kundun
1995Casino <----
1993The Age of Innocence
1991Cape Fear
1990Goodfellas <---

That is obviously a filmography of one of the top-working directors. While he doesn't have as many films, Christopher Nolan is one of the top working directors as well and that includes 3 Batman movies that are as good as or better than several of the films in Scorcese's filmography.

The reason I opened with that comment is that I think Scorsese is sometimes in a glass house throwing stones at some of his aversions.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
346,914
Messages
4,794,795
Members
141,936
Latest member
Simkn-Hans
Top