Movies Superheroes and Star Wars--Art versus Entertainment?

prinCZess

Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
Spurred-on by an opinion-piece by Martin Scorsese, some choice bits quoted herein below:
When I was in England in early October, I gave an interview to Empire magazine. I was asked a question about Marvel movies. I answered it. I said that I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me, that they seem to me to be closer to theme parks than they are to movies as I’ve known and loved them throughout my life, and that in the end, I don’t think they’re cinema.
...
...
They (Franchise/superhero films) 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.
...
...
For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness.
While Scorsese referenced the Marvel movies directly, Star Wars and others also seem relevant in the realm of being franchises that have to follow some strict guidelines, and generally trend towards being very much audience-approval directed (though how much any of them succeed in that varies).

Speaking generally, I don't know if I could disagree with the guy more--I've long had an objection to the kind of ivory-towered 'these entertaining things aren't real art' snobbishness this perspective tends to come off as in my reading, and always been much more of the mind that 'plebeian' or 'genre' entertainment, be it in movies or other art/media forms, is fully capable of being 'artistic'--either thanks to the piece excelling in performance or messaging itself, or because of individual subjective responses making it do so for certain subsets of people.

The original trilogy of Star Wars is perhaps an easy example of a commonly-agreed on film fulfilling the first of those. It's a pretty typical sci-fi/fantasy story with full-on swords-and-sorcery cliches contained, but does a good job presenting those that it would seem to be commonly attributed an 'artistic merit' (at least by my amateur read). As to the latter...Well, tastes in 'art' themselves vary, and even films derided as hackneyed or bad can be enjoyed by some people because of their differing tastes (or because of it being less commonly-accepted as good or artistic, such as with 'cult classics').

At the same time...I can see the man's point--perhaps in particular with the influence large movie houses or companies (Disney as an easy hit) have in shaping broad swathes of the 'media landscape' that produces any of these films and how the very same propensity for 'audience-testing' and catering to the largest market can suck some degree of the...genuineness (and we could get into how catering to specific media release areas--China as the major example--can put some problems into that arena, which is one perhaps exemplified in the recent hooplah over Tarantino's 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood', and attempts by Disney to appeal to audiences there).

So, boiling down I suppose...Does anyone else have thoughts on the particulars here? Are Marvel Movies and franchise-films formulaic and rote bores that are popular thanks to massive media campaigns and ability for SFX, are they all art of some kind/form, is there a personal standard you use for them that includes some and excludes others based on some kind of reasoning?
Or, if more generality is of interest to you...Where does 'entertainment' and 'art' sit in regards to one another?

I will now restrain myself here from going on an even longer-winded diatribe about how my particular favorite pieces of media are most-definitely the height of artistic expression while yours are shit, and instead open the floor for folks to point out their own standards.

Edit: Oopsie! I juggled Scorsese and Tarantino being the ones behind Once Upon A Time in Hollywood...Because while I enjoy watching films, I'm so-so on paying much attention to directors and the like.
 
Last edited:

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Eh I might be more offended by snobbishness earlier in my life but, without having read the full piece since it's tragically behind a New York Times paywall, I'd say him not these kind of movies as "cinema" is certainly a bit elitist, but he seems to support it as comparing them to theme park rides. I'm guessing he's obviously not conflating cinema with 'movies' in his opinion and the distinction seems silly to me but whatever, he can call whatever he wants cinema. Like theme parks, at the very least these kind of films have to be recognized as impressive technical achievements especially considering not just the level of technology, special effects and other wizardry that has to be marshalled to bring visions to life, but I can only imagine the sheer amount of creativity and direction needed to transform green screen acting with stunt doubles in motion capture suits and making it become epic space battles or impressive massive superpowered battles. On some level, considering your coordinating this with actors, stuntmen, a wide variety of technical on site personnel, editors and a small army of graphic artists, it is an epic collaboration of effort bringing every Marvel movie to life.

As for it being cinematic art... ehhh… I guess. I mean I've truly enjoyed every Marvel movie I've seen so far I think and some of them just had brilliant stories... but I guess I don't know if even if qualitatively I think they're just as good as other movies that I find to be quite 'artistic' or 'high brow' I can see something like a Marvel movie being made for high quality entertainment as opposed to something more artsy fartsy.

Like... I thought Winters Bone and Silver Linings Playbook were quite possibly the best movies I saw in the respective years they came out and probably thought so for the reasons Scorsese likes movies, but I saw those movies twice and once respectively. I'm sure I've seen several of these Marvel movies numerous times by now. Entertainment might not be cinematic art to some people, but it's definitely quality stuff.

Plus I think there is still lots of space for 'arthouse' or 'indie' films to come out. Honestly, I don't think it's been damaged at all to be honest. There's been a strong industry I feel in low budget movies (beyond horror movies) that get a semi large release and rack in amounts of money that far outstrips their single or low double digit budgets. It's still small compared to a blockbuster in cost and profits but still a lucrative success for studios. Like look at random Oscar bait films like Green Book or Whiplash. They made several times their budget even if their total take was a fraction of that of your typical Marvel Studios release.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
@prinCZess I would say that the exploration of the Campbellian mythical arc in Star Wars is what gave it redemptive aspects as art. Its values were essentially timeless. What are the values that are reflected in Marvel movies and DC movies which make them art? I think they might actually teach moral lessons about manhood and doing right and so on, but is that sufficient to make them art? Different people would give you a different answer. To me, they can be a form of popular art if they teach values which are morally positive and reflective of truth. I have heard arguments that they do.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top