Scorsese newest controversy about streaming and Cinema

[JoeS Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close JoeS]

A new Harper's piece by Martin Scorsese about Federico Fellini has stirred up a hornet's nest of controversy over a passage where he writes in part:
"...the art of cinema is being systematically devalued, sidelined, demeaned, and reduced to its lowest common denominator, “content.”...“Content” became a business term for all moving images: a David Lean movie, a cat video, a Super Bowl commercial, a superhero sequel, a series episode."

I come down squarely with Scorsese here. Of course, the social media world exploded with “old man shouting at the clouds!” memes. And, the ole 'He should talk since Irishman was Netflix!!” All too easy and predictable, but few really tried to truly analyze the filmmaker's point. And, no, it wasn't “Streaming is bad, BAD!”
The crux of Scorsese's argument is that when all TV and Movies are reduced to just a small rectangle on an endless queue of choices they become indistinguishable product - or “content” as he describes it. Of course, it's always been the film BUSINESS. Nobody disputes that, but, up until the last few years (and Especially in 2020), there was an eco-system of festivals, theatrical release, critics reviews, awards and physical media that filtered out the wheat from the disposable chaff. That spotlighted what films deserved special attention. The system wasn't perfect, but, it had a meaningful function. And, all of that occurred Before the movie in question hit streaming.

Now, far too often, a new film is just dumped on a service where it may attract eyeballs as a new release for a few days, a week, a month if it's really lucky -- and then off to oblivion buried deeper and deeper into the various lists. As I write this, there isn't a single feature film in the Top 10 on Netflix - but, hey there's the hot new Season 3 episodes of Good Girls at #3!! And, that's IF you happen to subscribe to the ONE service that is carrying a particular film of note. Add to that the unfortunate analytics the streaming services use to suggest films to you. It's insidious. It makes viewers actually NARROW their choices rather than expand it. Liked this? Well, here's more of "this" and only things like "this".

So, make fun of fuddy duddy Scorsese because he doesn't think Marvel is “cinema” in the same way that Kurosawa or Godard or Hitchcock are -- but, he nails it.

The full Scorsese piece is here: https://harpers.org/archive/2021/03/...rtin-scorsese/

[Paul L Scholar of Sleaze Find all posts View Profile Close Paul L]

My favourite part of this is all the kids whittering on social media about Scorsese making reductive generalisations (in their eyes) whilst dismissing him as a director of 'mob movies' - as if that's all he's made, or as if his films about criminals are de facto celebrations of that milieu.

Subtlety flies over the head of the gullible, it seems.

And, escalating from this, you've got more shenanigans today with certain factions suggesting all 'old' films (whatever an 'old' film is - who knows?) are 'racist' and 'sexist'.

Add to that the unfortunate analytics the streaming services use to suggest films to you. It's insidious. It makes viewers actually NARROW their choices rather than expand it.

Sadly, this isn't anything new or exclusive to streaming services. They're simply an ante up of a trend that has been snowballing since the advent of multichannel television and narrowcasting.

IMO, the best education for someone wishing to learn about cinema is a curated slot on a core/mainstream television channel.

[Dom D Spoon! Find all posts View Profile Close Dom D]

The article is not hugely about the streaming services though. It's more a love letter to Fellini to demonstrate the point that cinema is not seen as art anymore, with a quick jab at the streaming services before he dances away. I think it's a pretty simple discussion, films are massively more available than they were in my youth. There's barely a single title I wouldn't be able to lay hands on in 15 minutes through fair means or foul. Sadly not the case in my youth. I waited [I]years[I] to see Aguirre Wrath of God. Streaming services are a big part of that availability.

Possibility Netflix isn't for you, it isn't really for me, but it has to be acknowledged that there other tremendous options like, Criterion, that not provide spectacular amounts of content but also give context to that content. Scorcese acknowledges it himself without seemingly putting much store by it as it gets in the way of his point. It's a golden age for consuming past cinema. If you want to study film as an Art then the content is there waiting for you.

By it's algorythyms does Netflix limit the options of those who don't really care what they what they watch? Yup! But then they don't care what they watch so does it matter? Back in the day those people were never leaving the New Release section of the video shop anyway and that operated in basically the same way.

[Scott Intellectual Carrot Find all posts View Profile Close Scott]

If Scorsese never made a single film his point would still be valid and better informed as a fan of cinema over the dullards sitting in the cheap seats.

Once the bug is over theaters will open up again. Kids want to neck and buy candy. You can't buy candy at home. And necking in public is more thrilling. The money is in the soda pop and hot dogs.

But that has nothing to do with the quality. If anything there's a better chance at finding a quality movie, or miniseries or whatever on streaming services these days than in the theaters. And it will probably be that way when they reopen too. I always felt the point of his argument was lost on arguing semantics. It doesn't matter if people think Marvel films are cinema or not the point is they are middle of the road prefab bullshit. I agree that they're built more around the excitement likened to a theme park ride. And that's fine. I want to hug Marty (I call him Marty, we're friends) and tell him we need to accept that it will never be like Fellini or Godard again. His love letter to the past is wasted on an audience of crass dildos. People don't want grace, beauty, invention and wit. They want the Rock punching skyscrapers and they want to eat a hot dog while they do it. Marty is suffering in a world where people no longer value aesthetics, intellect and sensuality. I know because I'm suffering too.

[Scott Intellectual Carrot Find all posts View Profile Close Scott]

He's romanticizing films that only existed in a very specific place and time. I wish cinema stayed in that era too but has he seen these FAST & FURIOUS movies they got now?! Holy shit! They got the Rock punching cars and cars swing from helicopters and all kinds of shit.

As much as I agree with him I feel like the gushing of art cinema tends to ignore the wonders of exploitation cinema and schlock. There will always be art films. Maybe not as sexy or inventive as Italian films from the golden era but the real loss to cinema of late is the complete abandonment of exploitation, of any kind.

[SuperDevilDoctor Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close SuperDevilDoctor]

Netflix simply sucks when it comes to MOVIES (cinema).

Amazon Prime is far superior if one is interested in MOVIES -- especially genre films that were not made in the last 10 years.

[The Silly Swede Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close The Silly Swede]

He isn't entirely wrong. Streaming, or rather Netflix, is really not doing themselves a favor with this very costly idea of flooding the market with "New content". They have said on several occasions that they do not care what people watch, as long as they watch. I think this strategy will backfire and lead to their demise once their competitors get up to full speed. Making lots and lots of cheap garbage to become market leader has never been a viable business plan in the long run. (And I have not heard anyone in media or in private mention Netflix in a positive light for the last several years)

Their algorithms are another story... still very poor despite several attempts at having it revamped. And its not like it can't be done. Our local scandinavian streaming platfrom Viaplay is pretty much outstanding in its algorithm, and gives me at least 9 out of 10 suggestions that are films that I like. (Most of em I have seen before on physical media or such, but still)

Or do like HBO here, with no fucking algorithm. Just a straight Latest Releases/Most Watched/Genres.

Netflix also needs to stop trying to force its own content on users over and over again, like inserting the same film into "Whats new" over and over again.

Anyhow, Im getting sidetracked. I agree with Scott. The lack of exploitation is not good for cinema at all. And I think that this is sort of what Marty might be getting at, despite not being entirely clear on that.

Scorsese talks about the lack of curation in Streaming, and I agree this is the main problem.

Back in the day of Videostores, we the customers were more or less the curators as the titles we rented were the ones that were kept (and restocked if possible), which led to sort of an organic curating of the content at hand. I.E. Sequels to films that were liked, ripoffs of films, whole subgenres emerging etc as companies tried to profit of our tastes.

Now with streaming it is almost entirely the other way around: They are trying to get us, the customers, to watch what they offer instead of trying to offer us what we watch.

The big problem is the whole "Content" idea devaluates the value of said content. If the people making something do not believe in its worth, then it is very unlikely the consumers are going to believe in it either.

I still think Streaming is the future though, but as we are already starting to see in a more tightly niched and curated form. Because what company wants to be talked about as the equivalent of General Motors when it can be Mercedes in peoples minds?

[The Silly Swede Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close The Silly Swede]

That was a bit of a ramling post....

Anyhow, what I also think Marty means, is that the way films are released onto streaming makes them not connect as much emotionally with viewers. Kind of just a wash of content that is soon forgotten. Nothing to relate to for us viewers, no context, no artwork, no hype, no thrill of discovery, no nothing besides the film itself.

[Mark Tolch Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Mark Tolch]

I get what he's saying, but streaming is a business, just like cinema is and was. It's very cool that Scorcese had access to that world, and was part of the studio system at a time when the bosses had to admit that they had no idea what the public wanted, and turned over control for the most part to the creators. But that time is gone.

Personally, I don't pay attention to suggested films or algorithms outside of if I'm watching a music documentary and it suggests 40 other music documentaries, I might go for a scroll stroll to see what's up. But I will absolutely take the option of having a HUGE amount of films readily available. Criterion is a great example; it would cost me a goddam fortune to see all of those classics in the theatre, or to buy the blu-rays. The Criterion Channel costs me less than Netflix does. And yeah, quality of streaming and all of that, but if it's the chance to see 10 films in a week that would cost me over 500 bucks to purchase, I'll take it.

[JoeS Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close JoeS]

By it's algorythyms does Netflix limit the options of those who don't really care what they what they watch? Yup! But then they don't care what they watch so does it matter? Back in the day those people were never leaving the New Release section of the video shop anyway and that operated in basically the same way.

Of course, even the New Release section included films from multiple distributors, not just one (Netflix). What Scorsese and I are talking about is the limiting of choices. Sure, some folks have the deep pockets to subscribe to four, five, six streaming services, but most folks don't.

This really is the first time since VHS tape came out in the late 70s/early 80s where films are hidden behind locked paywalls - you can't rent or buy them in the "outside" world.

[Dom D Spoon! Find all posts View Profile Close Dom D]

Of course, even the New Release section included films from multiple distributors, not just one (Netflix)

I'm not following which makes me think we're talking at cross purposes. It's seems like we're trying really hard to find a problem. Movies are more available now than they've ever been. You can rent or buy whatever you want from the likes of Play and Amazon or dozens of other sources. There's a very small number, infitesimal in the scheme of things, of films that Netflix produces themselves and don't make generally available. So every so often, if you really have to see them, you'll have to fork out a small amount of money to subscribe for a month and catch up on them all. It's a hassle but less so than, say, having to drive to the shops and back to pick up a rental of Navy Seals. It seems like a net win for the culture to me.

I would agree with Scorcese that the content we're consuming as a mass population is narrowing but that started way before the streaming sites. Once Amazon's front page became the world's shopping centre we were doomed to follow this path. Those who want off though, and don't just want what they're promoting, will find other content is inarguably more available than ever.

Films been a dead medium since we'll before the streaming services surfaced.

[JoeS Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close JoeS]

I'm not following which makes me think we're talking at cross purposes. It's seems like we're trying really hard to find a problem. Movies are more available now than they've ever been. You can rent or buy whatever you want from the likes of Play and Amazon or dozens of other sources.

Availability isn't the main issue here. It's the lack of 'curation' as Scorsese puts it. Just because a movie is "available" doesn't bestow it with any value beyond being listed on a screen in a small rectangular box. As I wrote at the outset, without a true distribution system, they are just product (or 'content' in Scorsese's words). Yes, I agree that this isn't a new problem, but, as the window between release and being dumped on streaming gets shorter and shorter (and sometimes no time at all), there is no room for the movie to breathe. To get noticed. Discussed. It's just filler on a New Release list until the clicks subside, and then gets shuttled deeper and deeper down the queue hole

[Mark Tolch Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Mark Tolch]

People who only watch new releases as suggested by their streaming service are only going to watch the newest most trending shit, anyway.

Me? I'll take the availability of tens of thousands of films that I might not get the chance to see, otherwise.

I get what Scorcese is saying, but it's kind of like bitching that there are too many people on the planet. There's fuck all you can do about it, so you adjust and find a way to make things work the best they can for you. Prior to this, it was bigass movie chains that didn't give a fuck about art or independent films unless they created enough of a buzz to turn a dollar. Look at the release listings from your local AMC or Cineplex or whatever for the last 10 years before Netflix and tell me about the wonders of the cinema and film as an art form. Not every town has an Alamo Drafthouse, and not everyone lives in the States or Europe where cult labels are putting out films on blu-ray for a reasonable price. I have the Criterion Channel, Prime, Netflix, Tubi, and Crave, and all of these cost me less than 2 Criterion blu-ray releases a month would. That being said, I do still buy physical media for titles I'll revisit, because of the quality and to support the industry.

[Matt H. Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Matt H.]

I agree with everything Joe has said.

[Matt H. Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Matt H.]

Also wanted to add that I personally think most streaming services are for lazy film fans who settle for what's ever available instead of seeking out the good shit.