FRANCHISE FILM CULTURE: MARTIN SCORSESE VS MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE

Martin Scorsese, who has directed 24 feature films during his career spanning five decades, wrote an opinion piece titled “I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain.” for the New York Times. The “Let Me Explain” in the headline feels appropriate, as he wrote this to clarify his controversial stance on Marvel films.

In an interview with Empire Magazine, Scorsese said that Marvel films are not for him and that they’re “not cinema”. This sentiment was echoed by veteran filmmakers Alejandro González Iñárritu and Francis Ford Coppola, with the latter calling these films “despicable”, while directors Joe Russo, Anthony Russo, and James Gunn have defended the Marvel franchise and their artistic merit.

Since the release of Iron Man in 2008, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) franchise has transformed into a pop culture behemoth. It made billions of dollars in the box office and merchandise earnings. Every film released became a pop culture event as demonstrated by the amount of memes and reactions trending on social media, think pieces it generated within film circles, and mostly positive reviews from critics.

For a franchise that has an average of 85% on Rotten Tomatoes, it must mean that these films have artistic merit, and that they aren’t just plainly about superheroes beating villains backdropped by explosions in their midst. So why is a legendary filmmaker like Martin Sorcese not convinced that Marvel films are cinema?

It’s important to note that Scorese is aware that a lot of “people with considerable talent and artistry” are involved in many franchises — including the MCU. He is not criticizing the filmmakers and the actors involved. He is criticizing that modern franchise films, formulated by the success of Marvel films, have no “unifying vision of an individual artist” and that they’re “market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.”

In franchise films, producers usually have the final say if those films has met all of these requirements. Kevin Feige, the producer of the entire MCU franchise, oversees the whole process. While directors and actors might clash with producers, they tend to like Feige, and fans trust him in overseeing the franchise given his background as a long-time comic book fan.

However, while Feige has granted directors creative control of their films, he has the responsibility in maintaining the consistency of the franchise’s overall vision. One MCU film cannot completely stand alone from the others; they have to coexist with each other. That alone defeats the whole point of what essentially defines cinema as envisioned by Scorsese — the “unifying vision of an individual artist.”

Scorsese also pointed out that these films lacked “revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger.” This is essentially the problem with the MCU’s story structure as the films are designed to be episodic in nature.

Certain risks involving certain characters cannot be executed yet and when those risks are placed, it’s mostly predictable and sometimes has no impact. When War Machine was severely injured in Captain America: Civil War, he miraculously recovered in Avengers: Infinity War and his major injury was never referenced again. For Scarlet Witch, the death of her brother Quicksilver in Avengers: Age of Ultron should have had a long-lasting impact on her as a character, but it wasn’t even touched on since his death.

For risks that do make an impact, Avengers: Endgame was set as the “finale” of the MCU’s “Infinity Saga” arc. As such, it’s expected that some of the original Avengers had to die. Turns out, half of the original Avengers did die (the third Avenger died after the events of the film). Even with these deaths, we know that the MCU will still go on without them. This is where Scorsese had a point: “Nothing is at risk.”

Scorsese isn’t entirely criticizing Marvel films as the films themselves. MCU films do have artistic merit. Some of them have it more than most people would give credit for.

An example include Black Panther, which portrayed issues concerning black identity and the disparities of perspectives between Africans and African-Americans. In Avengers: Infinity War, Thanos’ quest to snap half of the population from existence in order to save the universe and justifications of his actions could be mirrored in our own world in the context of extrajudicial killings and the mental gymnastics to justify it. Scorsese recognized that “elements that define cinema as I know it are there in [MCU] pictures”. While it’s not clear what elements were present, these elements might be close to Istiak Mahmood’s definition of cinema:

“[Cinema] can help us to better understand our own lives, the lives of those around us and even how our society and culture operate. They can shed light on political and spiritual matters too and can provide catharsis and perspective and may open our eyes to new ways of thinking, feeling and pursuing our lives.”

A huge portion of people who watch the MCU don’t usually seek enlightenment in films. When they see portrayals of sociocultural and socio-political topics in these films, they might understand their world better.

Scorsese’s critique is one directed at franchise films being the “primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen” when other films from brilliant filmmakers like Ari Aster, Wes Anderson, Spike Lee, to name a few, deserve the same opportunity. Scorsese hasn’t met one director who didn’t want their films to be projected on the big screen, even in the streaming age where their films can be seen easily seen on mobile phones.

The fixation of movie studios adapting, rebooting, remaking or reviving films based on intellectual property has created a culture of franchise films, which brought down cinema to a level of mediocrity.

It’s not that MCU films are the enemy. It’s the culture of franchise film created from Marvel’s success that makes it the enemy of cinema. TC