Scorsese is an Artist. Cinema is Art. Comic Books are Fun. That’s It.
Okay so I’ve been reading and watching all these stories about Martin Scorsese and his remarks about comic book films not being real cinema.
Yeah, duh.
If any of you people think Iron Man 1, 2 or 3 was real cinema, you’re giving me bad ideas in my head. Bad ideas.
And while I know the last Avenger movie was the biggest, best-est, most awesome-est of all time box office ever, “Money won is twice as sweet as money earned.”
And that’s what most Marvel and DC movies are, winners. They haven’t really earned their box office, they’ve won it.
Yes there are great computer generated effects. Yes there is a lot of action. Yes there is a lot of editing. And yes there are technically, actors.
Oh and I would be remiss not to mention, yes some, if not all of the comic book movies are entertaining.
But when you consider what cinema is, and when you consider what cinematography is, I don’t see any of the art, much less any of the deep emotional angst or anticipation you have in say, Scorsese’s Taxi Driver.
Basically you know what’s going to happen in all comic book movies. It goes something like this:
First there will be an origin story, of how this particular character got to be what they are.
There’s a good chance the character’s origin will involve some type of epitome. Most likely they were bullied nerds and now they are not. Or their father sold weapons to the bad guys, and now the son won’t. Or their mother was good, but their father was not, so obviously they choose mom.
Over and over and over, that’s the story.
Next they will have a lesser encounter with the big baddie (or his minions), of which they sort of lose, because they weren’t prepared or something.
Then they’ll have a flirtatious romance with the girl(boy) of their dreams.
And finally, they’ll have a big old final showdown with the aforementioned big baddie. And of course, they will emerge victorious.
That’s it, Iron Man 1, Avengers 1, Thor 1, Wonder Woman 1, Superman 1, Spider Man 1, 1 and 1 all have the same general storyline.
The only way cinema is the same as comic book movies, is they both technically have a beginning and an end. All the stuff in between, to varying significant degrees is different!
Look I like comic book movies, because when I was twelve, I liked comic books. I still have some of them stuck in a storage bin somewhere. It was escapism for a kid. It was violent. And the females all wore very form fitting clothing. Perfect storm for a prepubescent.
In comparison The Grapes of Wrath would be a written version of cinema.
There are deep connotations slipped into simple wordplay. There is a sense of unease, dread, hope, sadness, and possible exhilaration with the end of each chapter.
You finish a Steinbeck novel like you finish a Scorsese movie with, if maybe only briefly, an altered perspective of the world around you.
When you finish a comic book movie, you have a desire for ice cream.
Postscript: There are two marginal exceptions to this column and my argument.
First, comic book or graphic novels with a social consciousness beyond good vs. evil. That’s when comic book, turns into science fiction. There is plenty of opportunity for arguable cinema here.
Second, Taika Waititi and James Gunn are not afraid to break the trope of traditional comic movies. They are comedies wrapped in comic book characters. They are true, fun escapism. And certainly, to a closer degree than the rest, cinema.