Scor-says-you!*

So...is it possible that maybe Martin Scorsese has a point when he trashes the Marvel movies as "not cinema"?

Exhibit A.

"If it's going to be anyone..."

-James Lipton, calling dibs

I mean, by broadly damning all three hundred or whatever Marvel movies as not cinema he's being reductive and rude and more than a little snobby especially since by his own admission he's not seen all of them, but still, I'm not sure he's wrong. And look, Martin Scorsese isn't the Supreme Arbiter of the Cinema, partly because film, like any art is super-subjective and partly because Supreme Arbiter of the Cinema isn't a thing. I just think that he's just saying that in his view they don't rise to the level of art.

In his defense, there is a literal theme park.

In an interview with Empire Magazine he said:

"But that's not cinema. Honestly the closest I can think of them, as well made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks."

-Martin Scorsese,

not being entirely wrong

To the consternation of James Gunn, Samuel L. Jackson and fans of the twenty-three interconnected super-hero CGI'splosion-fests that is are the MCU, Scorcese went on:

"It isn't the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being."

-Scorsese verbally finger snapping 

Pictured: Joe Pesci in Goodfellas, seen here conveying some
  emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.

What? I'm not saying he isn't great,
I'm just not sure he's from our planet.

Not wrong, right? And I don't just mean that half of the characters in Marvel movies are thunder gods or CG monsters or Benedict Cumberbatch and are therefore not really human to begin with. I mean that sometimes when the challenges they face are Josh Brolin's magic wish glove, it can be kind of hard to relate. But does that in itself mean that they're not art? I don't know. I think it does. Like, I like a lot of them, but I don't know that they have a lot of artistic merit, but you know, it's subjective.

My subjective opinion is that they're more craft than art, but then that comes with them being a product. Each one is carefully designed scene by scene to hit all of the beats necessary to stroke whichever gland releases nerd endorphins. Nerdorfins if you will (don't though).

The gland is perilously close to the part of the brain
responsible for decision making, which is how movie
theaters sucker people into paying extra for D-Box seats.

Instead he just drinks heavily through like
twelve movies and no one calls him out.
Of course, he's rich so I guess that tracks...

None of them are ever bad, right? Like Thor 2 was kind of forgettable and I thought Infinity War was about an hour too long, but they all work. And some of them are really good and feel fresh like Ragnarok and Black Panther. But they are ultimately productions that take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make, so yeah, Disney or Marvel Studios or whomever aren't going to take a lot of risks with a quiet character study about say, Hulk's anger issues or Tony Stark's alcoholism. It's just broad strokes so we can get back to the explosions and clever quips.

Yup, in the end it's a business first, art second. Which, I mean, Scorsese made his comments in an interview he did to support his upcoming film The Irishman. And I'm sure it's the best film ever made and is three and a half hours of-huh? Yeah, three and a half hours. Anyway, I'm sure it's pure artistic merit, but what it isn't is free so...

Don't look at me like that. You should get paid for your
work. I'm just saying it's not not about the money, right?

*Sorry...