Analysing Martin Scorsese’s opinions of Marvel: Separating art from business
Martin Scorsese has reached the pinnacle of auteur filmmaking, having won multiple prestigious accolades throughout his illustrious career. In addition to the widespread celebration of his iconic characters, Scorsese has also developed a reputation as a visual pioneer. His unique style is characterised by extensive use of techniques such as slow motion and freeze frames, graphic depictions of extreme violence, and rampant profanity.
As an extension of Scorsese’s influence, many acclaimed filmmakers and actors have praised him and cited him as a source of inspiration. Director Sam Mendes stated: “There’s not one director in this room, not one director in the world, that is not in the shadow of Martin Scorsese… I just have to say that,” during his Golden Globe Award acceptance speech for 1917. Similarly, Oscar-winning director Bong Joon-ho said of Scorsese: “When I was young and studying cinema, there was a saying that I carved deep into my heart, which is, the most personal is the most creative”. He then shared how this quote was from Scorsese and had the crowd give the director a standing ovation.
Taking this into consideration, it’s apparent that Scorsese is a figure who understands his craft and has the qualifications to articulate his artistic sensibilities. One of the director’s most notable and heated opinions is about the damaging impact of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the multi-million dollar media franchise based on Marvel Comics. The MCU currently consists of 30 feature films and over 12 television series, all categorised into distinct ‘phases’ – like the roll-out plans for a product. With consistent releases every year that dominate the box office and film culture discussions, film buffs cannot deny that the MCU is one of the film industry’s gold mines. However, only a few think that it’s a good thing.
In 2019, Scorsese was asked by Empire if he had been keeping up to date with the MCU, which was thriving in the success of Avengers: Endgame as the conclusion to the Avengers saga. The director replied: “I tried, you know?” before adding the statement that has impacted film discourse like nothing before: “But that’s not real cinema”. This categorisation of Marvel films as non-cinematic sparked a divide in the film community, with Marvel fans scathing taking Scorsese’s comments as a personal attack.
MCU star Tom Holland, known for playing Spider-Man, was personally victimised by this comment. “You can ask [Martin] Scorsese, ‘Would you want to make a Marvel movie?’ But he doesn’t know what it’s like because he’s never made one,” Holland told The Hollywood Reporter. “I’ve made Marvel movies, and I’ve also made movies that have been in the conversation in the world of the Oscars, and the only difference is one is much more expensive than the other. But the way I break down the character, the way the director etches out the story’s arc and characters – it’s all the same, just done on a different scale. So I do think they’re real art.”
Scorsese later elaborated on his views in a lengthy essay published in the NY Times. In the article, the director stated: “Cinema is an art form that brings you the unexpected. In superhero movies, nothing is at risk”. He then acknowledged the Marvel filmmakers and emphasised matters of opinion: “People make many franchise films of considerable talent and artistry. You can see it on the screen. The fact that the films themselves don’t interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament”. Scorsese outlines his definition of film, sharing that in the early days of his career: “Cinema was about revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation.” He employs an important yet polarising term used in film scholarship and analysis to summarise what filmmaking was pre-Marvel: “It was an art form.”
The director also stresses that his main issue with Marvel movies is the detrimental impact of the franchise, claiming they have kick-started “a perilous time in film exhibition” because “there are fewer independent theatres than ever”. This statement implies that lower-budget productions don’t stand a chance of attracting similar audiences and obtaining comparable facilities.
So is Scorsese, despite being one of film’s most significant, acclaimed and genius contributors, justified in giving this opinion on the modern film industry? Well, he is…simply because he isn’t wrong, especially when you take a moment to step back and process what Scorsese is saying and how he’s saying it from the vantage point of esteemed experience.
Drawing back to Scorsese’s comments, binary oppositions situate and highlight this debate’s two sides. One binary exemplifies Scorsese’s approach and vision of filmmaking, and the other does the same for Marvel. Let’s cut to the chase: Marvel films are not an art form. They’re a business. The MCU films aren’t inherent artworks; there’s nothing distinct and innovative in how they are directed and played out. You don’t watch an Avengers or a Guardians of the Galaxy film for the director, as you do with Scorsese or Federico Fellini. You can’t identify the defining characteristics of an auteur when watching a Marvel movie.
Marvel is a company, a business. Not an artist. The studio decides what the film looks like, not a passionate artistic director. Marvel isn’t concerned with style or breaking any rules as art does to stand the test of time. It rehashes the same plot outlines, the same visuals, and the same themes each time. It does so because it’s a conservative and methodical approach guaranteed to make money. The studio invests heavily in expensive visual effects and CGI and highlights the signature characters as employees of the brand. Audiences are enticed into watching these on the big screen to experience this carnivalesque thrill and excitement or stream at home. They then purchase the latest merchandise with Marvel imagery branded onto them, and thus, the company succeeds. Marvel filmmaking and exposition isn’t an artistic expression; it’s a systematic procedure to market products.
Scorsese is correct when you consider that cinema should be considered an artistic medium, not a capitalistic enterprise.
This outlook is only elevated when you consider who Marvel is now owned by and what that means. On August 31st, 2009, a year after the MCU began with Iron Man, the mass media company Disney bought Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion. In the 13 years that have followed, Marvel has grossed a total of $26 billion at the box office, obtained $10 billion in merchandise revenue, and generated $40 billion in streaming through Disney+. According to Forbes, Marvel is worth $53 billion as of 2021. These sources of income for the company outline what it is and what its motives are. Marvel wants to make money. Marvel is a brand, and a brand, whilst having artistic potential if utilised appropriately, isn’t concerned about artistic innovation.
However, this doesn’t mean to say they are bad films, not inherently. If you separate the creator’s intentions from the audience’s interpretation, Marvel films deserve some credit. They build fanbases that can experience the visual spectacles together. This unified audience experience may not be the primary objective of the studio, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be acknowledged. Although, one can’t compare a business-driven film to an art-driven film. As previously mentioned, you know when you’re watching a Scorsese picture. Scorsese delves into the medium’s physical DNA, experimenting with camera shots, movement and other visual elements to accentuate his well-written stories. He employs suited soundtracks to showcase an overall cultural understanding of art and society – using ‘Be My Little Baby’ at the opening of Mean Streets is the perfect example. He situates historical and cultural issues against his characters and plots, such as Taxi Driver‘s Travis Bickle being a Vietnam veteran.
Scorsese has never been concerned about building a brand empire to obtain the most money at the box office or through revenue. If he were, we would see Travis Bickle or Henry Hill action figures and other forms of Scorsese merch. Scorsese makes films because he is passionate about visual storytelling and what film can achieve without big-budget green screens. The director regularly talks about other films with this artistic devotion. He cites his sources of inspiration for other aspiring artists, frequently singling out Michael Powell’s The Red Shoes, which he called “one of the most beautiful Technicolor films ever made; it has such an extraordinary sense of magic”. Scorsese also established another binary opposition during a BBC interview: “I come from a time where movies were also films”. Essentially, Scorsese makes films, whereas Marvel makes movies. Films are personal, and movies are products.
Scorsese has not made any comments about Marvel since the one he did in 2019. Yet, he is still dragged into the discussion by Marvel’s stars, such as Simu Liu, which isn’t fair. He stated his view and has left it alone since then. Anyone who needs help understanding his statements only needs to acknowledge the different types of cinematic contributions alongside their processes and intentions. Marvel movies aren’t cinema; they are business endeavours. It’s OK to watch them, don’t oversell them.
