In un articolo sul New York Times ha chiarito e spiegato il giudizio che aveva già espresso sbrigativamente («Non sono cinema»)
In un’intervista rilasciata lo scorso ottobre al magazine Empire Martin Scorsese affermò che i film del Marvel Cinematic Universe non sono cinema, e che gli ricordavano un parco a tema:
I don’t see them. I tried, you know? But that’s not cinema,” Scorsese told Empire. “Honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being
Ora, in un pezzo sul New York Times (link alternativo), Scorsese elabora più a fondo il suo pensiero andando oltre i film Marvel e criticando una porzione molto più ampia dell’industria cinematografica. Scorsese prima di tutto chiarisce che le sue affermazioni nell’intervista precedente non volevano insultare nessuno, né erano prova del suo odio nei confronti della Marvel:
Some people seem to have seized on the last part of my answer as insulting, or as evidence of hatred for Marvel on my part. If anyone is intent on characterizing my words in that light, there’s nothing I can do to stand in the way.
Many franchise films are made by people of considerable talent and artistry. You can see it on the screen. The fact that the films themselves don’t interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament. I know that if I were younger, if I’d come of age at a later time, I might have been excited by these pictures and maybe even wanted to make one myself. But I grew up when I did and I developed a sense of movies — of what they were and what they could be — that was as far from the Marvel universe as we on Earth are from Alpha Centauri.
Scorsese poi chiarisce la sua idea di cinema, come una scoperta a livello estetico, emotivo e spirituale. Il cinema è in sostanza una forma d’arte:
[…] cinema was about revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves.
It was about confronting the unexpected on the screen and in the life it dramatized and interpreted, and enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form.
Scorsese usa poi i film di Hitchcock como esempio di film comoe forma d’arte, e spiega cosa secondo lui ci fa continuare a guardare quei film a distanza di più di 60 anni. Dopo questa analisi confronta questi film con le mega-produzioni di questi anni:
[…] In the past 20 years, as we all know, the movie business has changed on all fronts. But the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night: the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the riskiest factor of all. […] Today, that tension is gone, and there are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive and proprietary — a lethal combination. The situation, sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but that’s becoming increasingly rare. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other. For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness.
Immagine da Wikimedia.