This Scorcese op-ed is an elegant expression of a philosophy of aesthetics that is, I believe, ultimately indefensible https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html …
-
Show this thread
-
Scorcese's argument is that there's some mind-independent, objective standard that defines what makes a movie "cinema" (that is, art with some kind of extra layer of value) when no such thing exists.
11 replies 0 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zackbeauchamp
He's not saying it's mind-independent & objective -- he specifically says its a product of his coming of age when he did & that other people have a different experience of the genrepic.twitter.com/0cyYz3DKhj
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
It's an explanation for where his views come from, not a concession of non-cognitivism. Were he to concede that, then the conceptual architecture of the piece would completely fall apart. That's particularly clear in the conclusion, which rests on arguments about value.pic.twitter.com/dOvGihRCcJ
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zackbeauchamp
I think this argument is not about values but economic structures. He's saying that there was once a structure that allowed for personal art within the context of mass entertainment (i.e. 1940s film noir) but now structure separates mass entertainment & personal art.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
That's definitely in there. I think there are two arguments: 1) Current film economics are crowding out non-franchise films 2) That's bad because non-franchise films are better art than franchise 1) seems undeniable, and there are reasons why it's bad beyond 2)
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @zackbeauchamp
On point #2 I think the interesting question is why he thinks it was possible for earlier studio-made highly restrictive genre movies (noir, westerns) to be top-notch art but not possible for current franchise movies to be. He might be right but it needs to be spelled out
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @zackbeauchamp
I think he alludes to the material factors of how films are made. You could shoot a western in a few weeks and release dozens a year, a film studio can only do so many mega blockbusters and so have to be very risk averse
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
He talks about this a lot in the (excellent) film history documentary he did (A Personal Journey through American films). Directors working on small budgets got away with a lot of art -- Val Lewton produced horror movies being the classic example.
-
-
Not a coincidence the last bastion of innovative marketable non-franchise movies right now is horror. Blumhouse can crank out tons of low budget releases and then just a few them turn out to be transcendent.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.