Non-issues, Shibboleths, and Windmills to tilt at; pseudo controversies to clutch pearls at

One thing I don’t spend too much time on is how many dust-ups there are in film circles about stuff that really doesn’t matter. 

Topics like how sequels to well-loved movies fall short and “ruin childhoods”, sound bites from directors weighing in on how comic book movies aren’t cinema, and the old, shopworn “Hollywood is out of ideas” trope all come up repeatedly over time.

I don’t think the ruination of one’s childhood is really a thing. If you’re writing that, it means you survived childhood (though perhaps not adolescence). Memories are for going back to and if the thing you liked is reinterpreted or reimagined in the present, that’s fine. You didn’t like it? That’s fine, too. You thought that they could have done something more/better/else with the material? Great. Swell. Move along or write fan fiction or pitch a better idea to a producer and see if you can get your vision made. But Christ, your ruined childhood is tedious to hear about. My guess is that it was either a great childhood that you can’t forget or that you’re so stunted, you can’t grow out of.

Last year, Martin Scorsese mentioned that he didn’t consider the recent spate of a decade plus of comic book films to be cinema (and he’s got more to say here.) This got a lot of people’s knickers in a twist/undies in a bunch. I really couldn’t see why and I can’t still. More recently, Jean-Luc Godard weighed in with a similar judgement and frankly, both luminaries are correct. The MCU, the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises, the limitless Bond films, etc. are not Cinema. They’re not meant to be. They are movies. They are entertainments and genre films that at their best, transcend the genres but for the most part, exist as purely fantasy/wish-fulfillment. 

I tend to think of the space franchises and the MCU as operas; big on emotion, sweep, and catharsis. That some are thematically richer than others, and some very much so beyond the bounds of what one typically expects, should come as no surprise. The talent involved is remarkable and while I agree with Marty that none of these are Fellini or Bergman level works of art, that’s not what they’re trying to do (although, to be sure, some sequences have been rich enough to point to something more than merely popcorn pleasing). 

I realize that another of Scorsese’s concerns is that the amount of funding it takes to get these films to market and how they edge smaller, more genuinely artistic statements out of that market is disconcerting, but I think even he would have to admit that thanks to Netflix, “The Irishman” was seen by many more people than might have been otherwise. And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that watching a film of that nature and scope on a smaller than theater-size screen lessens the impact, not to mention the absence of an audience to share it with (although, thankfully, I did get to see it on the big screen), but distribution methods have had to change since the beginning of cable. The biggest issue is that there are comparatively few repertory theaters left. To be sure, some cities have more robust markets than others, but I think it has always been this way.

For example, take an anecdotal survey of your friends. Ask them how many Bergman or Fellini films they’ve seen. The answers will vary according to your demographic, of course. Chances are that you and your cohort share similar tastes and have seen more films than most of the general public. However, I can almost guarantee you that if you’re my age and you go back thirty or forty or more years, the ratio of movie-goers who turn out to see big tent movies is always going to be vastly greater than those who show up religiously for - I dion’t know - the most recent Claire Denis film. Do I wish that weren’t the case? Not necessarily; though, for sure, I’d like to see great directors and great art get more widespread love. 

I think Marty’s also right that film literacy isn’t that great, but again, literacy literacy isn’t so hot right now. (That may not be true; more people are reading than ever, but the quality of what they’re reading might not be as, um, elevated, as one might think.)

Lastly, The Playlist had a December post about “prestige IPs”; these are remakes of great films that somehow upset people. The most recent example is an upcoming production of a remake of Bergman’s “Scenes from a Marriage.” This ties in with the “ruination of childhood” idea; pearls are clutched by what a botch the film is going to be and how dare anyone remake a Bergman film and all the rest which is really boring to go over. Great films have been remade plenty of times and will continue to be. Hell’s bells; “M”, “Wings of Desire”, “Yojimbo”, the freakin’ “The 39 Steps” have all been remade. Most of the time, the remakes are inferior but so what? 

The additional observation in both the The Playlist post and the article it pointed to is what an extreme paucity of ideas there is in Hollywood. Golly, I”m shocked. 

Hollywood - whatever that term means - has never been a fountain of originality nor has it been only destitute of ideas. Yes, yes, yes. “Everything’s a sequel, blah blah blah.” Well no. Not everything. And so what (again)? I hate to sound like someone’s bad version of a marketing wonk, but products are only produced for a market that proves them profitable. It’s not hard to figure out. That said, there have been surprising trends throughout cinematic history. Smaller, independent films have led to waves of independent filmmaking; rom-coms, westerns, and musicals have come and gone as predominant genres over the past century, and yes, spectacle has always been with us. From “Birth of a Nation” to “Avengers: Endgame”, we have turned out for massive canvases packed with more characters and plots than two or three hours should be reasonably expected to hold. 

Yeah, there are a lot of sequels. Go figure. 

I’ve devoted this space to non-issues (as I see them) because they come up in conversation often enough when people snobbishly decry the taste of the movie-going hoi polloi or when the more conservative audience of flicks is frustrated about what’s being offered at the local multiplex (or these days, streaming service or online).  Plus, they provide an insight to what some people in the industry think matters. What Scorsese thinks about film is worthwhile because he is a major creative force in cinema and also for his work on preserving film. His opinion carries some weight. Mine does not. I may disagree with him (and agree with him); but the only person that matters to is me.

I happen to love very much the Scorseses, the Hitchcocks, the Ozus, and the Bressons of the cinematic world. I also happen to derive a tremendous amount of pleasure from the Russos, the Duffers, and others who produce exemplary pop confectionary. There’s room for everyone. And yes, markets shift; but because they shift and tastes change (and distribution channels alter and evolve), I find less reason to be glum and more to be positive.