Here are some photos of Martin Scorsese at the Rome Film Festival this week, where he’s premiering The Irishman, his big-budget Netflix movie which will probably win a lot of Oscars. I’ve never seen this before, but doesn’t Marty give off vague Rudy Giuliani vibes? Just in appearance. Marty acts sometimes, so if they ever make a high-quality movie about this political era, they should get Marty to play Rudy. Anyway, while he was in Rome, Marty had to defend his previous comments about Marvel movies. Several weeks ago, he said that Marvel movies are like “theme parks” and he wishes that real movies were still embraced by theater-goers. As I said at the time, “superhero movies and Scorsese’s movies suffer from the exact same problem: the default deification of the white dude’s experience. That only white dudes really *feel* things or have interesting stories or have stories which deserve to be told.” Let’s see if that point crops up during Scorsese’s media in Rome. Some quotes:
On his Marvel comments: “The key that I’m hoping for is for theaters to continue to support narrative cinema of this kind,” said Scorsese, naming off other filmmakers including Noah Baumbach, Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson. He continued to criticize what is now viewed as cinema, and went further in lamenting how young people today experience life and understand (or fail to understand) the consequences of history. His main wish, he clarified, is that “the theaters support the films. But right now the theaters seem to be mainly supporting the theme park, amusement park, comic book films. They’re taking over the theaters. I think they can have those films; it’s fine. It’s just that that shouldn’t become what our young people believe is cinema. It just shouldn’t.”
On kids not knowing history: Scorsese said it’s “quite sad” that the life of Jimmy Hoffa is largely unknown today. “As well known as he was, time just wiped him away,” he said. “This is the world we live in. Our children are, I don’t know what they’re doing with those devices. They perceive reality differently. They perceive even the concept of what history is supposed to be [differently]. How are they going to know about WWII? How are they going to know about Vietnam? What do they think of Afghanistan? What do they think of all of this? They’re perceiving it in bits and pieces. There seems to be no continuity of history.”
On how ‘The Irishman’ is about middle-aged dudes, and no women: “No. That’s not even a valid point. That’s not valid. I can’t…. That goes back to 1970. That’s a question that I’ve had for so many years. Am I supposed to?…If the story doesn’t call for it…. It’s a waste of everybody’s time. If the story calls for a female character lead, why not?”
The last part is longer at THR, but there was cross-talk and the basic point was that Marty doesn’t feel like he’s getting credit for including women in other films (Casino, Age of Innocence, Godfellas). I get what he means about doing what the story demands… but… he does tend to CHOOSE a lot of stories where there are few women, or the women are just in service to the male characters. I mean? It’s true. How many of Scorsese’s films pass a bare-bones Bechdel Test? Uh… not many.
As for what he says about kids today not understanding history… yes, it’s very “old man yells at clouds,” but I also think those same thoughts about Generation Garbage Youth. They don’t know history. They don’t care about history. Their knowledge is so fragmented.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
The generation of kids who are watching everything documented? The generation walking away from cults in all their forms? Get real.
No one gives a damn about the idols of the ancient generations. No one needs to glorify yet another white criminal
Brijitjones, there are upsides, but I also see downsides. Walking away from the idea of cults? Good. Voting to change things? Not so good. Not realizing it’s important that authoritarianism is sweeping world? It’s sweeping the world because the young don’t vote for what the want enough, at least in the United States.
Is that history male-centered? Absolutely. Is there racism? Absolutely. But what Churchill built with the US increased incomes for many people all over the world. If you look at the distribution of wealth of first world countries, incomes haven’t increased, but they have in places where people were once desperately poor like in India and China and Mexico. People in places like the US and England and Germany are angry that gains are now spread. The gains they could have gotten are now kept as profits, and the rest was offshored to brown people. If you google “Elephant chart economics”, you can see the distribution of wealth in the last 30-35 years from first world middle class people to high income people in the first world and to 3rd world countries.
Younger people don’t care to hear about WWII, and I get why, but important shit happened to help keep a lot of people safe who were close to getting slaughtered. The young have a lot to navigate, but every generation does and feels like they understand what prior generations didn’t.
I added this to my other comment by accident, but it was supposed to go here:
Get off my lawn, you young whipper-snappers!!! My apologies to my 18 year-old, all of her friends, and to the generation who will inherit this mess.
“People in places like the US and England and Germany are angry that gains are now spread”.
After having heard Thomas Piketty, I can only agree with him : what is unacceptable is the widening gap between the wealthiest & the poor, within our economy. Wealth has not been not correctly redistributed.
Thus, the concentration of wealth and income in the hands of a few has resurfaced as a central political issue . See the Yellow Vests, in France.
Yes, Val. And, when you look at this globally, you see some of that wealth distributed outside of the United States to people who didn’t have economic opportunity before, which I think is good. What is bad is that the international mega wealthy are getting wealthier rather than regular people seeing improvement in their lives. And the people who have wealth and who control the pervasive, expensive, popular art of film, like Scorsese, don’t care about the stories about anybody but them. In fairness, make art about what you know, but art about women and POC doesn’t get made as much because we have no power. We can make money, but not if we don’t get to make art.
Questions about female representation are a waste of time? Go back to defending child rapists Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, Martin.
Amen
Every. Single. Thing. I agree with everything you said. He makes great movies, but his stories center around the same white men, and kids aren’t learning the hard lessons from history unless the people they are surrounded by explain their version at nauseam. And if those people are listened to, they teach their version. And THAT’S how you get Donald Trump for president.
Get off my lawn, you young whipper-snappers!!! My apologies to my 18 year-old, all of her friends, and to the generation who will inherit this mess.
Gee, Marty, why is it that none of your films call for a strong female lead?
Cause he’s sexist, but we aren’t supposed to point that out.
Age of Innocence had a strong female lead. From a novel written by a woman.
One of his very first movies—Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore—was quite good and had a strong lead performance from Ellen Burstyn.
I agree with him about kids knowing history. But that has nothing to do with cinema and everything to do with how America has always been set up. Most ADULTS aren’t informed about history. Our education system has never given a comprehensive lay out of American history- or any other history for that matter. It’s not just the kids. Adults are just as ignorant.
Yup. Summed up perfectly.
People know history in bits and pieces partly because of narrowly scoped bio pics which whitewash history. You know, like The Irishman, Marty.
Boom. Mic drop. The accuracy of this comment…
So damn true.
LOL yeah. I’m going to see it for Al Pacino, but you can’t ignore that.
The whole women thing is… Sigh. Martin. I don’t know.
I really love him as a director but his movies are never going to pass the Bechdel Test. In his movies, you’re either a mob wife or a side chick, because that’s the way that world works. Even in Goodfellas, Karen was ballsy and present in much of the story, but she was never given the same power/agency as Henry or the rest of the guys. If the story calls for it, he says – so why not make that movie?
So agree. For example, I love Casino. I think Sharon Stone gave the performance of her career and was robbed of an Oscar. But even then, her character had no agency. She basically existed to as an accessory to Robert DeNiro. Her storyline was completely subordinate and reactionary to his. Same with Vera Farmiga in The Departed. She was a frickin’ therapist who counseled police officers with PTSD; her character could have added so much depth and nuance to the story, but Scorsese completely wasted her perspective and relegated her to a role that basically existed to add some element of conflict to Leo and Matt Damon’s characters. This is a trend with Scorsese’s work–he uses/wastes potentially great female characters to add complexity to his tough-talking Irish mobster protagonists.
I think with Ginger, though, you can say that she acted like a male mobster: She drank, she smoked, did drugs, stole whatever she wanted, dressed extravagantly. She’s a lot like Ace but she doesn’t get called a swaggery badass like he does, just a golddigger. That’s more on the audience than Scorsese. But I agree, they’re always second to the male lead.
I love that he references three straight, white, male directors notorious for making movies starring … straight, white, male characters. I don’t agree with the statement that Marvel movies deify the white male experience. Perhaps they did in the beginning back in 2012 but Marvel is setting up the next phase of the MCU to orbit around compelling stories that focus on women (Captain Marvel, Scarlet Witch, Lady!Thor) and POC (Black Panther, Okoye, Valkyrie, Monica Rambeau from Captain Marvel)… That’s more than I can say about any Marty Scorsese movie.
I like Scorsese’s movies but I’ll go ahead and say it. I will remember iconic, empowering, fist-bump moments like Wanda and Carol Danvers single-handedly going toe-to-toe with Thanos, or every female Avenger on the battlefield coming together to hold back an intergalactic army more than I will any scene from Casino or Goodfellas (and I loved Casino and Goodfellas). It’s these scenes in these “theme park movies” that people will remember, that will influence the cultural zeitgeist, and that will continue to shift the pendulum towards true equality in cinema.
Even in the early years of Marvel, those comic book characters, which were white males, still represented those that felt “othered” in some way. So people that may not look like them might still be able to connect with them (except maybe rich Tony Stark LOL).
I honestly felt like that scene at the end of End Game with all the women on the battlefield was too turbo a cheesy and aggressively “LOOK WOMEN TOGETHER” for me. I appreciated the thought, but I just rolled my eyes honestly. I am a progressive liberal. Just too ham-fisted for my tastes.
I can see that. Then again, I feel like the whole movie was full of fan service moments (like when Cap used Mjolnir; Cap vs. Cap, etc.) so to me it didn’t seem more forced than anything else. I grew up reading the comic books so I appreciated it more as a nod to the Lady Liberators. In the comics, all-female superhero teams are nothing new.
Similar thoughts here when all the women came together my first thought was ‘pandering’, my second thought was ‘love it’. I would still like a poster of that very shot.
knowing about history did not mean for the older generation to not vote for a racist demagogue but good luck with that argument
Nickie, you clearly missed the part about people who don’t know history being taught beliefs rather than history by the people around them, but that’s cool. Good luck with your arguments.
Kristen dunst said when she did the Fargo miniseries that when doing smaller films she really believed in she didnt like how small the audience was and saw TV streaming as a way to increase the audience which I agree with a d can see her point. Obviously she did an espisodic show not a film but Ray ramano has jokes that relatives will ask about his current film and at times he’s said ‘hurry if you don’t see it now it’ll be gone from theaters.’ it’s expensive for theaters to play them so expectations for profit are needed fast or they’ll pull the movie whereas streaming is different so I can see her desire to cater to the demographic for their film who are less likely to leave the house unlike younger people without kids and tend
Sorry comment cut off. Younger people in general sem to go to theatres more as a social aspect of life and older people with kids different priorities like saving money more so than younger kids do tend to not go to the theatre as much. I’m more likely to give a movie a chance at home streaming than in a theatre because of convenience and less expense
I think there should be room for all different kinds of stories from all different kinds of people. If a white dude wants to make a story about white dudes, that’s cool, that’s his experience. It just isn’t a film I’m likely to go see.
The problem is that white dude movies and superhero movies (which have arguably become more diverse), are the ones getting the most funding thrown at them, and neither of them are things I care to engage with.
Yep! Scorsese can make films about white men if he wants to. He’s not a director for hire, he makes stories he’s connected to. As an elderly white male he’s drawn to certain stories. That’s ok. The problem isn’t individual directors; the problem is the system. The same opportunities to tell stories are not given to women and poc.
If anything, I’d prefer white, male directors didn’t tell lots of stories about women or poc. It’s damaging when they do because it in reality it reduces the opportunities for women and poc. I don’t want a bunch of esteemed directors making these stories, thereby letting Hollywood off the hook. That would do nothing to change the status quo. I want new voices and new opportunities.
Kids don’t learn history anymore. But it’s not their fault. The history curriculum at most colleges is now entirely geared toward specific faculty research interests, which are typically anywhere from very narrow to completely arcane As an English professor, I spend a huge amount of class time teaching history because my students can’t understand most of canonical literature written in English if they have no idea (for instance) what the Napoleonic Wars were, or what the McCarthy hearings were about, or who Julius Caesar was. But, you know, I enjoy teaching history, so the complaint isn’t really personal.
“Goodfellas” might be my favorite movie. That said, I have no beef with millennials. The one I brought up knows history AND cinema. If I want a great women’s movie, I will seek out and watch something. Maybe it’ll be “The Age of Innocence.” Gawd, I love that grand film. Joanne Woodward’s narration was so lush and evocative. Scorsese is an acquired taste.
I can’t deal with this old dude. A typical American-Sicilian chauvinist. Total indifference to women – he thinks they’re irrelevant non-entities that are just accessories to order around. White men always drive his stories and are the only beings he considers worthwhile.
Kids seeing history in ‘bits and pieces’ – what’s the alternative, having to sit through a near 4-hour Scorsese film about the same old white mob topic with the same old actors? His movies are too long because he can’t move the storyline and get to the point.
He’s just a bitter old white man past his prime complaining about everything the young generation does and likes. If his films don’t interest young people, maybe it’s because today’s generations aren’t interested in romanticizing white male thugs. The world is full of them – there’s one in the White House. We don’t need to glorify them on the silver screen as well.