Martin Scorsese Urges Young Filmmakers to Reinvent Cinema in Streaming Age: ‘Content Is Something You Eat and Throw Away’
Martin Scorsese Urges Young Filmmakers to Reinvent Cinema in Streaming Age: ‘Content Is Something You Eat and Throw Away’
variety.com
Martin Scorsese Urges Young Filmmakers to Reinvent Cinema in Streaming Age: ‘Content Is Something You Eat and Throw Away’
#Scorsese #content #cinema
" Recalling his love of going to movie theaters as a child, Scorsese also wants these more “serious” films to make a comeback at theaters.
“I’m afraid the franchise films will be taking over the theaters,” he said. “I always ask the theater owners to create a space where younger people would say they want to see this new film, which is not a franchise film, in a theater and share that with everybody around them. So that they want to go to the theater, that it’s something inviting that doesn’t get them to say they could see it at home. Because the experience of seeing a film with a lot of people is really still the key, I think. But I’m not sure that can be easily achieved at this point.”"So, a couple of things... I said this in a different "Scorsese hates comic book movies" thread and it bears repeating here.
Film needs to compete with what's happening at home if they want people to leave their homes and go to the theater.
Back in the 1950s when film was threatened by television, they responded by widening the screen with Cinemascope, and brightening the color with technicolor.
Now film has to compete with binge watching and home theaters like mine with an 8K screen and 7.1 Dolby Atmos.
It takes A LOT to get me out of the house, especially when 2 adults plus snacks can be $50 or more.
Plus I have to deal with "other people", seeing a film with a giant crowd and their inevitable idiocy is not the flex Scorsese seems to think it is, and I can't just buy a ticket, walk in and sit down, I have to go through this whole process of assigned seating.
I love Scorsese dearly, After Hours is one of my favorite films, but it doesn't demand to be seen in a theater.
Same for Wes Anderson, I went to see Asteroid City and it's a very small film.
When I go to a theater, I want spectacle. I want the 2 hour thrill ride experience. I want to see something I've never seen before.
If all someone wants to make is a tight knit human drama with people talking in a series of rooms, Downton Abbey and Bridgerton are -> over there somewhere.
I don’t disagree with any of your reasons for not wanting to go to the theater and you’re not incorrect that the competition is more fierce. But I think what Marty is mourning is the loss of ‘the movies’ as an attraction in and of themselves. And while the theater going experience is awful, it isn’t really awful because of any non price related changes on behalf of the theaters at least in any way I wasnt at one point willing to overlook. Studios don’t back small non tentpole projects anymore because they can’t make money back on DVD sales after streaming killed that market(which isn’t necessary bad environmentally) but it does kill the random “let’s go see a movie” that did exist in like 2009. I enjoy lot of the franchise films the quantity of quality films in theaters today is killing the draw of that uniting 95 minutes where you and 50 strangers go on an emotional experience together. Comedy and horror film especially benefit from that sort of viewing
This is a great point to make. And maybe he should be celebrating home theatres. It’s my home theatre where I watch the serious drama. It’s the big screen where I watch the explosions.
You could argue that modern audiences with their cell phones and talking and general idiocy makes a serious drama in a theater unworkable.
Tbf it absolutely can be, you just need the right movie and the right audience.
Holy shit, there's two of us!
Babylon really captures this
Felt the same way about Greatest Showman.