Marvel and Martin Scorsese: A Look into the Eternal Battle between the Popular and the Artistic
Harry Penwell
The newest enemy of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) charges out of the smoke and rubble, like a raging bull. “I don’t even know who you are” he says to the assembled Avengers. But it’s not Thor or Captain America who face down this newest threat, but the CEO of Disney, Bob Iger; the directors of the two most recent Avengers films, the Russo Brothers; the Chief Creative Officer of Marvel Studios, Kevin Feige; and Iron Man actor, Robert Downey Jr. who I’ve termed as the Popular Art Avengers. And replacing Thanos as the new big bad? The venerable director of Taxi Driver, himself, Martin Scorsese.
Theatrics aside, I am of course referencing Martin Scorsese’s remarks to Empire magazine in early October, during which he claimed that the MCU ‘isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being’. This is a debate that’s been running since the beginning of art, although in many different forms. Be it whether The Lord of the Rings deserves to be in the canon of literature even as a piece of speculative fiction, or whether video games can be considered an artform, there has always been an argument for putting one piece of art or entertainment above another, due to a perceived elitist ranking. This is merely the latest in the eternal battle between the popular and the artistic.
Probably one of the best and most recent examples of this division would be the proposed introduction of the Best Popular Picture category into the 2019 Oscars. This was theorised to be an attempt to stop the critically lauded Marvel superhero film Black Panther from being nominated for Best Picture. However, the new category was quickly shot down and Black Panther received its rightful praise from the Academy in the form of a Best Picture nomination, along with six other Oscar nominations and three wins. Before this, the superhero genre had been kept squarely in the technical achievement section of the awards, besides Heath Ledger’s historic Best Supporting Actor win for his portrayal of Batman villain The Joker in 2008’s The Dark Knight. It’s not just the superhero film genre that’s been snubbed of course, but also sci-fi (which has never had a film that’s won Best Picture), fantasy (only winning with The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King in 2003) and horror (only winning with 1991’s The Silence of the Lambs). So you’d be forgiven for thinking Scorsese has a point.
And I, along with the Popular Art Avengers that I’ve mentioned above, don’t disagree completely. Scorsese isn’t completely wrong that the MCU probably doesn’t have a film in it that equals Taxi Driver for artistic brilliance, but he is wrong to suggest that they have no artistic merit, and even worse to propose that they aren’t ‘cinema’ at all. Scorsese has said that he can only think of the MCU films, ‘as well made as they are’, as ‘theme parks’, and this is the point of contention. Just because the characters are wearing colourful costumes, and the screen contains an explosion every few scenes should not detract from the emotional weight that the films convey. And it certainly shouldn’t reduce them to a level below cinema.
There are two recent examples that instantly come to mind. First is the Scorsese influenced DC film Joker, director by Todd Phillips, which deals with issues of mental illness and poverty in a society that doesn’t care, while also referencing the wider Batman mythos that comic book fans will know and appreciate. In fact, this film is so influenced by Scorsese, and specifically Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, that Scorsese was originally expected to direct the film, and was meant to produce or executive produce the film until scheduling conflicts forced him to turn down the project.
Or, if it is truly just the MCU that Scorsese has a problem with, instead of all superhero films, then I’d champion Avengers: Endgame against his opinion. This film, the fourth Avengers film, and the 22nd MCU film in total, wraps up ten years of storytelling focusing on dozens of characters and a complicated look at the nature of power and responsibility, good and evil, and heroism and selfishness. As for ‘emotional, psychological experiences’ conveyed to another human being, the crisis point of Tony Stark’s/Iron Man’s sacrificial death after we’ve watched him develop from a selfish and sarcastic arms dealer, to a selfless and sarcastic hero, had an immense emotional impact on the audience. My point is that, even though the sacrifice came from Tony snapping his fingers to control the six main attributes of the cosmos, so as to defeat the big bad Thanos, who was actually a time travelling younger version of himself, in order to stop him from literally obliterating all life in the universe, the film is simply a larger scale, and fantastical version of any sacrificial hero’s journey story.
For example, the final scene of Taxi Driver, where Travis Bickle saves Iris, is similar to the Endgame scene mentioned above, although I don’t think that the anti-hero protagonist is as moral as Tony Stark, even if he is arguably as heroic. Let’s check the facts of Endgame vs Taxi Driver:
High Stakes? End of the universe or the continued exploitation of a young girl. Check.
Danger to the protagonist? Cosmic burnout or a bullet the back of the head. Check.
A complex morality? The morality of sacrificing oneself for the good of others or the morality of killing others to protect the innocent. Check.
Build up? Ten years of gradual character development and seven years of building the relationship between the villain and the hero or a tightly structured film looking at the life of one man for almost two hours. Check.
The only true difference? A few million pounds of visual effects and a sense of elitism. Check.
And I’m not the only one to think this. It’s time to return to my Popular Art Avengers. First up is the Captain America of the group, Bob Iger. In a BBC Radio interview, he commented that he doesn’t ‘think he [Scorsese] has ever seen a Marvel film’, remarking that Marvel films ‘are movies’ and ‘that’s what Martin Scorsese makes’. His beliefs are echoed by our Thor and Hulk, Joe and Anthony Russo, who state that they ‘define cinema as a film that can bring people together for a shared, emotional experience’. They then point to the financial results of Avengers: Endgame (with a box office of $2.798 billion, making it the highest grossing film of all time) as ‘a signifier of emotional success’. This follows the idea that because it is popular, and therefore impacts a lot of people, it must be considered art.
Now, while this argument makes sense, backs up my corner, and certainly has a lot of merit, it can be problematic. First if you believe that if a film doesn’t make $2 billion at the box office then it’s not art, then most films will never be considered art. Secondly there’s the other problem that Scorsese picked up on when talking about the MCU in his opinion piece for The New York Times, following his comments in Empire. This is the idea that ‘for anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art’, because of the steady elimination of risk in filmmaking as everything becomes market researched and designed to a formula. Now, Kevin Feige, our Captain Marvel, has said that the ‘unified vision’ of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is risky enough to create great, but different art, while Scorsese says that these ‘franchise pictures’ are crowding the cinemas and not allowing non-commercial films to make an impact.
He points out his own film, The Irishman, which he had to have produced and distributed by Netflix because other, traditional production companies and cinema chains were refusing to make it. And it’s at this point that I have to suggest the obvious; that the venerable director is simply jealous that his film was thrown onto the smaller screen in the face of the might of Marvel. Now, I’m not going to say that this is true because, as Robert Downey Jr. (both our and the MCU’s Iron Man) says, ‘he’s Martin Scorsese’, ‘of course [he’s] not’ jealous. In addition, this concern is a legitimate one, even if Scorsese himself doesn’t feel it. Downey Jr. goes on to say that ‘when you eliminate the competition in such a demonstrative way, it’s phenomenal’. Despite all this, I’m not against proposing that Scorsese bringing this argument up at this time is simply a way of bringing in free marketing in for his new film. I mean, I’m a big cinema fan, but this is by far the most I’ve looked at Scorsese for some time. And arguably the MCU (although I’m generally better at keeping up with that). And do you know what it’s made me want to do? Watch/re-watch both The Irishman and Avengers: Endgame. Now I just need to find the time.
Therefore, the question isn’t ‘are the MCU and other franchise, commercial or genre movies, cinematic art?’ but, rather ‘are they diluting the competition and preventing the survival and growth of traditional cinematic art?’ and, ultimately ‘does it matter? And can anything be done about it?’ I’d argue that answer to all these questions is ‘yes’, although they’re certainly up for debate as we’ve already seen. And I’d suggest that the main thing to do is simply to keep pushing forwards and keep creating and experimenting. And, crucially, to respect both sides of the arguments. You can be sure that this debate will continue to rage on for all eternity and, as Kevin Feige said, ‘in the meantime, we’re going to keep making movies’.