Martin Scorsese's Artistic Concern is Valid and Marvel Fans Should Absolutely Care

About a month ago there was a large outburst within the film world when director Martin Scorsese expressed his distaste for Marvel movies and the incoming culture that they are bringing to the film world. A couple of weeks later an Op-Ed written by Scorsese clarifying what he meant emerged in the New York Times. At the time that most of the major discussion and debate was happening I had tried to avoid any kind of consumption of the story because I love both parties immensely—Scorsese is my favorite director, I have seen all of his fictional movies, and I have a special place in my heart for Marvel, both the cinematic universe and the comic books. In fact, I am so heavily biased in both directions that I may even turn out to be completely neutral. With that in mind, I think it is probably important for me to clarify that this is not meant to convince anyone that Marvel is trash or Scorsese is a curmudgeon (I actually don’t think either of those things are true) nor is it meant to keep the peace between two heavily overlapping fandoms. I am wholly uninterested in either of the debates and I would rather narrow down the focus to something that Scorsese pointed out in his Op-Ed: the death of cinema, specifically the “big screen.” This is still a relevant launching point, also, with the recent inauguration of Disney+ Streaming because it points to the real problem: artistic representation and the impending, unrestrained corporate control.

Marvel alone is not going to kill the creation of artistic movies. They make a cinematic universe that people choose to see in the same way studio franchises have been seen for decades; they are, however, a symptom of the problem. Scorsese levels his critique straight at The Avengers and everything that they have began to represent on the literal giant screens in physical theaters. Honestly, it is a perfectly valid place to start when trying to articulate the growing problem of shrinking artistic representation: the bigger the movies, the bigger the profit goal, the more screens that Disney—who owns Marvel—is going to try to buy. Consider, also, that Disney owns, in part or in whole, an absolutely egregious amount of properties that they did not initially create. Of those properties, you are probably most familiar with these: Fox (excluding Fox News and Sports), ESPN, Marvel, Lifetime, Vice Media, A&E, and LucasFilm. Each of those companies have their own subsidiaries as well. A few years ago, for example, Fox acquired National Geographic—both the magazine and the TV Station. Another programming company that Disney scooped up with this Fox deal? Hulu. That’s right, even Hulu. Interestingly one of the chief arguments directed at Scorsese was that creators could go to places like Netflix or Hulu to pitch their spunky little indie films, which is true. However even at Hulu, there is a ladder with rungs that lead straight to Mickey Mouse himself, and, on some level, that influences key decisions.

Certainly, it is true that Netflix, among other streaming services, have lent their money and bandwidth to indie filmmakers and given them an audience. As Scorsese addresses though, filmmakers want their movies to be shown on a large screen, connecting with a group audience, projected in all the technical detail they meticulously shot it in; and that chance is shrinking. Before jumping ahead too far, however, I want to take a few sentences to evaluate earlier parts of the filmmaking process taking into consideration the consequences of a company growing into a ravenous blob within the industry. If you watch this video of the creators of South Park explaining the MPAA and studio relationship in regards to the rating that a movie receives the concerns begin to come into focus. Independent filmmakers, from the beginning, face an uphill battle to have their movie seen. When major studios are tipped off onto the changes that movies need to make to widdle an N-17 down to an R because they can pay for that privilege, they are effectively setting the tone for which movies get to be most successful. And lest you think that a movie’s rating is highly irrelevant, remember that most major movie theaters will not even screen a movie with an above R rating. This matters because much like Disney and its waterfall of studios, movie theaters on average, are large companies owned by larger companies. The films that are unfairly rated and screened more readily are then going to skew heavy on the large studio side. If you’re an independent filmmaker you’re being beaten, then, by both ends. That means beyond the novelty of having your film shown traditionally you are also going to have to fight hard to find a way to convince a streaming service to buy it.

Consider how many movies you have never heard of that you continue to scroll past every time you turn on an online platform; it’s probably more than a few. New movies that have never seen a big screen are even less likely to be played and are more or less forced to compete with easy to binge television shows. There is a possibility for a wider audience and looser restrictions. There is also a possibility for that wider audience to just skip over it. To bring Mr. Scorsese back into the fold for a moment here, especially while on the subject of streaming services vs conglomerates, it’s important to mention FilmStruck. This was a streaming service ran by Turner Classic Movies (a company owned by Warner Brothers) that was shut down for being too niche and not enough of a profit generator. This service streamed classic films, art house films, and The Criterion Collection (which later launched its own streaming service). Despite the cries and petitions of influential filmmakers (Scorsese included) and actors the streaming service was never revived and many of these classic and lost-to-time films are once again impossible to find. If it ever stops becoming profitable for Netflix or Amazon, now considered large studios, to stream and release specific content it would be pulled and replaced with the surefire money-makers. Even streaming services, it would appear, are at the mercy of their conglomerates.

I am not convinced that Marvel films are the glaring problem and I cannot propose a solution outside of stepping in and regulating an industry that is slowly becoming monopolized. But I find it constructive as a Marvel fan to look at the content not as a series of bland remakes, but rather as a safe calculation of cash. These movies are the symptom of a major unchecked problem and it is okay to still enjoy them while acknowledging the bleakness of the Sony vs Marvel battle over everyone’s favorite human spider. As a Marvel fan, it may be tempting to ask why you should care what happens to the smaller studios and independent filmmakers without considering the ripple effects of producing for profit over artistic freedom for creators (see number two in this article). Even consider the “adpocolypse” controversy with YouTube (ahem, GOOGLE) and their relationship to advertisers and mainstream press above the creators whose content earns those companies their money. Eventually, even Marvel will run up against the money or just play it safe. We live in an era of bursting creativity with production at a high value that should make it easier than ever for independent and self-employed filmmakers to break out onto the scene. And certainly, there’s always going to be at least a little trickle of films like Her Smell or The Lighthouse competing for Oscars; furthermore, we are being treated to quality films like Roma and Scorsese’s masterpiece The Irishman because of a streaming service which had the freedom to do so. I have faith that just like in the late 60s when studios began to bore audiences and Scorsese’s generation came in and revolutionized their medium, artists will find a way to break through the sameness and put their creativity on display. You don’t even have to carry a distaste for superhero content to wish for that. Back then though, there were more studios in a position to take higher risks with a limit to their overall industry power. There was variety and no one owned too much of anything. But today, Disney does. As Mickey knocks on the door of Monopoly buying up intellectual property left and right and forcing itself onto the sets of studios with a lower net worth we are reminded that money buys influence. Influence that will always make itself an obstacle for art.