|
Post by countjohn on Oct 27, 2019 18:01:28 GMT
......answers "Am I supposed to?" He's on fire lately. www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rome-martin-scorsese-laments-young-peoples-understanding-cinema-1248997?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referralThought about posting this in the Scorsese/Marvel thread but this really seems like a separate thing. He also pointed out that a wide range of his movies have had great parts for women (Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Taxi Driver, Age of Innocence, Casino) which people just choose to ignore when they make this criticism of him. But the "am I supposed to" answer really says it all to me. No, he's not "supposed" to, anymore than someone is "supposed" to have men in their movie. You want to make movies about women, fine, you want to make movies about men, fine. And as noted earlier it's not like Scorsese never has good roles for women (two women have even won Oscars in his movies) so this is just not a legitimate criticism. He also talked about a great many other things including at one point saying, presumably about phone and tablets, "I don't know what they're doing with those devices. They perceive reality differently."
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Oct 27, 2019 18:08:45 GMT
I think this line of criticism is among the most ridiculous inflicted upon storytellers. Neither Scorsese nor anybody else has an obligation to tell stories people want them to tell. We don't invite filmmakers to do stuff we want - WE are invited to their cinema, to their viewpoint, to their art and to their expression of it. If somebody doesn't like the subjects and characters Scorsese chooses to focus on, the right thing is not to demand him to change his picks. The right thing is to just look elsewhere for movies that will appeal to you. Lord knows there're plenty of options. The perpetuation of this stupid myth about the lack of good female roles is a whole other subject for discussion but Scorsese is absolutely right on this topic - he's not supposed to do shit. And he indeed has done films with amazing roles for women. It's the same thing with that stupid question Tarantino got during the "OUATIH" Cannes press conference, and his answer was fantastic too.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Oct 27, 2019 18:10:10 GMT
Scorsese for Wonder Woman III confirmed.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 27, 2019 18:15:32 GMT
This is probably not the last we'll hear about it - no one wants to be told they're wrong about anything (heck on this board even ) and a lot of people are going to try to find things "wrong" with a 3 and 1/2 hour sausage-fest with its 3 stars at a combined age of 230+ (!) on Netflix for Godsakes. That's kind of too f'n bad because like a lot of things in life that are inevitable and his film is inevitable, those people will get over it.......but not quietly.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Oct 27, 2019 18:18:23 GMT
to be fair to the person who asked this question: scorsese making the same movies about the same types of dudes over and over is why im not big into him at all and i can see that being true for others
but also not super on board with saying someone needs to create films with more female representation especially when it's juxtaposed with capeshit, not to mention scorsese's efforts to restore films by and about women
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Oct 27, 2019 18:19:39 GMT
The press is just hitting him with the questions guaranteed to get Twitter in a frenzy, aren't they? Oh and he's right that people for some reason don't talk about the Age of Innocence having important female characters.
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
|
Post by chris3 on Oct 27, 2019 18:29:40 GMT
This reminds me of how Woody Allen got flak for decades for not writing African American characters in his films. He then wrote a part that went to Chiwetel Ejiofor in Melinda and Melinda and the character rang utterly false. Some writers have certain gifts, others should write what they know. Tarantino is great at writing female characters, but Reservoir Dogs isn't a worse film just because it stars all men. Same thing with PTA re: There Will Be Blood. Now this also doesn't mean there hasn't been a century long problem with race and gender representation on and offscreen in film, and I'm down with Hollywood finally working to fix this (allowing studios to fund projects like Moonlight that probably wouldn't have gotten financed in the nineties), but ultimately the writer should always be free to write what they want to write, and people have the option to go see it or not. It's also why it baffles me when people complain about Sofia Coppola only writing about over-privileged people, or Tarantino only writing movies about movies instead of life, or Jordan Peele stating he only wants to write films with black leads, or David Lynch writing films obsessed with females in danger, or Scorsese and the troubled male, etc. People write what they write and it's up to all of us to analyze or criticize or engage.
The argument on the flipside, though, is determining if an artist's limited nature negatively affects their work. For example, as I said before Reservoir Dogs is not a worse film per se than any other Tarantino film just because it's all men. However, if his entire decades long filmography ONLY starred male roles, I do think it would prove he was a limited writer incapable of much range. And even though I may not agree with that regarding Scorsese's career, I could definitely understand the argument that for a woman his body of work may not be as broad and varied as it might seem to a man.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Oct 27, 2019 18:43:41 GMT
This reminds me of how Woody Allen got flak for decades for not writing African American characters in his films. He then wrote a part that went to Chiwetel Ejiofor in Melinda and Melinda and the character rang utterly false. Some writers have certain gifts, others should write what they know. Tarantino is great at writing female characters, but Reservoir Dogs isn't a worse film just because it stars all men. Same thing with PTA re: There Will Be Blood. Now this also doesn't mean there hasn't been a century long problem with race and gender representation on and offscreen in film, and I'm down with Hollywood finally working to fix this (allowing studios to fund projects like Moonlight that probably wouldn't have gotten financed in the nineties), but ultimately the writer should always be free to write what they want to write, and people have the option to go see it or not. It's also why it baffles me when people complain about Sofia Coppola only writing about over-privileged people, or Tarantino only writing movies about movies instead of life, or Jordan Peele stating he only wants to write films with black leads, or David Lynch writing films obsessed with females in danger, or Scorsese and the troubled male, etc. People write what they write and it's up to all of us to analyze or criticize or engage. The argument on the flipside, though, is determining if an artist's limited nature negatively affects their work. For example, as I said before Reservoir Dogs is not a worse film per se than any other Tarantino film just because it's all men. However, if his entire decades long filmography ONLY starred male roles, I do think it would prove he was a limited writer incapable of much range. And even though I may not agree with that regarding Scorsese's career, I could definitely understand the argument that for a woman his body of work may not be as broad and varied as it might seem to a man. this is pretty much what i wanted to say, yeah
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Oct 27, 2019 19:20:43 GMT
The press is just hitting him with the questions guaranteed to get Twitter in a frenzy, aren't they? Oh and he's right that people for some reason don't talk about the Age of Innocence having important female characters. Age of Innocence is my favorite Scorsese and one of my favorite movies period. I used to think I didn't like him that much because his particular brand of gangster movie isn't really my thing but when you look at his whole filmography he's done a wide variety of things. Some people act like his whole filmography is just movies like GoodFellas and The Departed. This reminds me of how Woody Allen got flak for decades for not writing African American characters in his films. He then wrote a part that went to Chiwetel Ejiofor in Melinda and Melinda and the character rang utterly false. Some writers have certain gifts, others should write what they know. Tarantino is great at writing female characters, but Reservoir Dogs isn't a worse film just because it stars all men. Same thing with PTA re: There Will Be Blood. Now this also doesn't mean there hasn't been a century long problem with race and gender representation on and offscreen in film, and I'm down with Hollywood finally working to fix this (allowing studios to fund projects like Moonlight that probably wouldn't have gotten financed in the nineties), but ultimately the writer should always be free to write what they want to write, and people have the option to go see it or not. It's also why it baffles me when people complain about Sofia Coppola only writing about over-privileged people, or Tarantino only writing movies about movies instead of life, or Jordan Peele stating he only wants to write films with black leads, or David Lynch writing films obsessed with females in danger, or Scorsese and the troubled male, etc. People write what they write and it's up to all of us to analyze or criticize or engage. That's like how you have people criticizing Spielberg for not having enough black people in his movies but then also saying he shouldn't have directed The Color Purple.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Oct 27, 2019 19:21:19 GMT
People asking this question is essentially reinforcing the whole argument he was making that people got so bent out of shape over. Structures designed to thrill and pander to the masses. Like you have a checklist of things you need to include in your movie or TV show in this day and age for it not to be labelled problematic.
It also, whenever people make this argument (I believe Meryl friggin' Streep even made it a couple of years ago) just further lays bear the ignorance of the individual. Similar to all the idiots all over the internet these past couple of weeks who have been all "dur hur, he only makes movies about gangsters".
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Oct 30, 2019 2:58:33 GMT
Definitely understand where this criticism is coming from because I've noticed those patterns in his filmography, but for me it's a matter of taste. There's certainly nothing wrong with a filmmaker sticking to what he/she knows or simply prefers, and there's also nothing wrong with a viewer not vibing with it.
Scorsese creates the kinds of characters he understands, and he does it in his own style and his own voice. Credit for credit's due, he's a monumental figure in cinema history, but I feel like I can say confidently say that no one, no one seeks out his films for their complex female characters. That's not the appeal of his decidedly macho aesthetic and it never has been, and that's fine, but let's not pretend that his films don't demonstrate a pattern of sidelined or underdeveloped madonna/whore archetypes because they do.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Oct 30, 2019 3:11:39 GMT
Not enough fried rice and pad thai representation at McDonald's.
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Nov 1, 2019 7:30:49 GMT
God damn I love Mr. Scorsese and his response was PERFECT. I would have told that person asking the question "Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Really looking forward to The Irishman!
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 1, 2019 8:07:10 GMT
I don't remember him having any trouble with the female characters in Age of Innocence or Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore...
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Nov 1, 2019 13:47:07 GMT
Oh honeys, he doesn't know what he's missing... (although they say he can barely move his hips these days).
Oh Marty, we could have done Raging Bitch together!
I'm taking him off my Christmas Card list.
Bye Marty, call me if you change your mind...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2019 14:12:23 GMT
Semi-autobiographical filmographies only became a problem once Sofia Coppola picked up a camera. Because, you know, ovaries.
At least others are now getting a taste of the heat she's felt since her career's inception.
And New York, New York definitely deserves mention when considering Scorsese's roles for women.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 1, 2019 15:26:33 GMT
Semi-autobiographical filmographies only became a problem once Sofia Coppola picked up a camera. Because, you know, ovaries. To be fair, I don't think Coppola copped quite as much shit until she straight-up removed a person of color from the source material of The Beguiled and then tried to excuse it by saying that she didn't want to treat slavery as a side-plot, but decided that completely removing it from the era was a worthy compromise. She threw blame on the original author for writing what Coppola considered a stereotypical treatment of a woman of color (a fair criticism), but rather than trying to fix the issue, she just decided to ignore the trope entirely despite it being thematically relevant to the story and period at hand.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 1, 2019 15:32:11 GMT
Oh honeys, he doesn't know what he's missing... (although they say he can barely move his hips these days). Oh Marty, we could have done Raging Bitch together! I'm taking him off my Christmas Card list. Bye Marty, call me if you change your mind... A Scorsese picture starring MS Movie Star... That would be a classic!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2019 15:56:18 GMT
Semi-autobiographical filmographies only became a problem once Sofia Coppola picked up a camera. Because, you know, ovaries. To be fair, I don't think Coppola copped quite as much shit until she straight-up removed a person of color from the source material of The Beguiled and then tried to excuse it by saying that she didn't want to treat slavery as a side-plot, but decided that completely removing it from the era was a worthy compromise. She threw blame on the original author for writing what Coppola considered a stereotypical treatment of a woman of color (a fair criticism), but rather than trying to fix the issue, she just decided to ignore the trope entirely despite it being thematically relevant to the story and period at hand. She also said she knew the audience for her films was primarily young girls and women, and that wasn't the representation of a woman of color she wanted to show impressionable minds. I think choosing Rashida Jones to headline her next film was a way to remedy the hurt she caused. I'm not excusing the decision to remove the enslaved character - it was a very strange one to make - I'm simply saying that a white director having mostly white casts shouldn't be some kind of metric for film quality. It never was for Woody Allen or Scorsese, despite most of their films being set in one of the most ethnically diverse places on earth.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 1, 2019 16:06:05 GMT
To be fair, I don't think Coppola copped quite as much shit until she straight-up removed a person of color from the source material of The Beguiled and then tried to excuse it by saying that she didn't want to treat slavery as a side-plot, but decided that completely removing it from the era was a worthy compromise. She threw blame on the original author for writing what Coppola considered a stereotypical treatment of a woman of color (a fair criticism), but rather than trying to fix the issue, she just decided to ignore the trope entirely despite it being thematically relevant to the story and period at hand. She also said she knew the audience for her films was primarily young girls and women, and that wasn't the representation of a woman of color she wanted to show impressionable minds. I think choosing Rashida Jones to headline her next film was a way to remedy the hurt she caused. I'm not excusing the decision to remove the enslaved character - it was a very strange one to make - I'm simply saying that a white director having mostly white casts shouldn't be some kind of metric for film quality. It never was for Woody Allen or Scorsese, despite most of their films being set in one of the most ethnically diverse places on earth. In a perfect world, it shouldn't be a metric for the quality of filmmaking, but when you're an auteur with casting control (as all of these people are), you have to be aware of the optics of casting. Yes, there are certain stories and eras that play to a certain type; you couldn't necessarily make There Will Be Blood with Denzel Washington and have it be period-appropriate. But it's when you remove roles for people of color and try to handwave it away that umbrage can and should be taken. What Coppola should've done was kept the character, but not make her sound like an 1860s-era stereotype. There's nothing that Kirsten Dunst brought to the role that an actress of color couldn't have done with the exact same dialogue. For what it's worth, Woody Allen was always dogged for his monochrome casting choices as well, but I think he got somewhat of a pass because of the way he could write great roles for women. It should also be noted that Scorsese is not a writer-director, so putting him in the same breath as someone like Coppola or Allen kind of feels unbalanced, because at least Sofia and Woody write the scripts and the roles, whereas Marty just picks the projects that interests him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2019 16:13:58 GMT
She also said she knew the audience for her films was primarily young girls and women, and that wasn't the representation of a woman of color she wanted to show impressionable minds. I think choosing Rashida Jones to headline her next film was a way to remedy the hurt she caused. I'm not excusing the decision to remove the enslaved character - it was a very strange one to make - I'm simply saying that a white director having mostly white casts shouldn't be some kind of metric for film quality. It never was for Woody Allen or Scorsese, despite most of their films being set in one of the most ethnically diverse places on earth. In a perfect world, it shouldn't be a metric for the quality of filmmaking, but when you're an auteur with casting control (as all of these people are), you have to be aware of the optics of casting. Yes, there are certain stories and eras that play to a certain type; you couldn't necessarily make There Will Be Blood with Denzel Washington and have it be period-appropriate. But it's when you remove roles for people of color and try to handwave it away that umbrage can and should be taken. What Coppola should've done was kept the character, but not make her sound like an 1860s-era stereotype. There's nothing that Kirsten Dunst brought to the role that an actress of color couldn't have done with the exact same dialogue. For what it's worth, Woody Allen was always dogged for his monochrome casting choices as well, but I think he got somewhat of a pass because of the way he could write great roles for women. It should also be noted that Scorsese is not a writer-director, so putting him in the same breath as someone like Coppola or Allen kind of feels unbalanced, because at least Sofia and Woody write the scripts and the roles, whereas Marty just picks the projects that interests him. Dunst's character and the character Coppola removed are two separate people - in the novel, it's speculated that Dunst's character is biracial, but never known for certain. I don't disagree with what you're saying (re. keeping the enslaved character), and I think it will be great to see a woman of color lead Coppola's next film. I just can't help but think that sexism plays into the criticisms of her work - especially the criticisms she received prior to The Beguiled. Things deemed "feminine" have always been deemed "lesser."
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 1, 2019 16:55:01 GMT
In a perfect world, it shouldn't be a metric for the quality of filmmaking, but when you're an auteur with casting control (as all of these people are), you have to be aware of the optics of casting. Yes, there are certain stories and eras that play to a certain type; you couldn't necessarily make There Will Be Blood with Denzel Washington and have it be period-appropriate. But it's when you remove roles for people of color and try to handwave it away that umbrage can and should be taken. What Coppola should've done was kept the character, but not make her sound like an 1860s-era stereotype. There's nothing that Kirsten Dunst brought to the role that an actress of color couldn't have done with the exact same dialogue. For what it's worth, Woody Allen was always dogged for his monochrome casting choices as well, but I think he got somewhat of a pass because of the way he could write great roles for women. It should also be noted that Scorsese is not a writer-director, so putting him in the same breath as someone like Coppola or Allen kind of feels unbalanced, because at least Sofia and Woody write the scripts and the roles, whereas Marty just picks the projects that interests him. Dunst's character and the character Coppola removed are two separate people - in the novel, it's speculated that Dunst's character is biracial, but never known for certain. I don't disagree with what you're saying (re. keeping the enslaved character), and I think it will be great to see a woman of color lead Coppola's next film. I just can't help but think that sexism plays into the criticisms of her work - especially the criticisms she received prior to The Beguiled. Things deemed "feminine" have always been deemed "lesser." There's a lot of truth to that (although in Coppola's case specifically, I think a lot of it might also still have to do with lingering views of nepotism), but I think that it all comes down to how she responds in the future with the films she makes. Words are wind; it's actions that matter.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Nov 1, 2019 16:55:25 GMT
This reminds me of how Woody Allen got flak for decades for not writing African American characters in his films. He then wrote a part that went to Chiwetel Ejiofor in Melinda and Melinda and the character rang utterly false. Some writers have certain gifts, others should write what they know. Tarantino is great at writing female characters, but Reservoir Dogs isn't a worse film just because it stars all men. Same thing with PTA re: There Will Be Blood. Now this also doesn't mean there hasn't been a century long problem with race and gender representation on and offscreen in film, and I'm down with Hollywood finally working to fix this (allowing studios to fund projects like Moonlight that probably wouldn't have gotten financed in the nineties), but ultimately the writer should always be free to write what they want to write, and people have the option to go see it or not. It's also why it baffles me when people complain about Sofia Coppola only writing about over-privileged people, or Tarantino only writing movies about movies instead of life, or Jordan Peele stating he only wants to write films with black leads, or David Lynch writing films obsessed with females in danger, or Scorsese and the troubled male, etc. People write what they write and it's up to all of us to analyze or criticize or engage. The argument on the flipside, though, is determining if an artist's limited nature negatively affects their work. For example, as I said before Reservoir Dogs is not a worse film per se than any other Tarantino film just because it's all men. However, if his entire decades long filmography ONLY starred male roles, I do think it would prove he was a limited writer incapable of much range. And even though I may not agree with that regarding Scorsese's career, I could definitely understand the argument that for a woman his body of work may not be as broad and varied as it might seem to a man. To your lips to God's ears. As I consider this a much more interesting conversation than that whole Scorsese vs Marvel debacle, I think I'm gonna add my 2 cents. Regarding to "is it problematic or not?", I think it's perfectly acceptable that Scorsese's flicks are usually about angry white men. His white men aren't generically white, their whiteness and italian/irish/whatever heritage is crucial to their character building. Scorsese is interested in the immigration of italian people to America and its consequences. That's okay. Art is a form of expression, and it shouldn't be expected that an artist works with something he isn't interested. Also, it's not Scorsese's job to alone right the world's wrongs. And he's doing more than most, as a champion of world cinema who always uses his publicity to talk about more obscure, foreign movies. What's problematic is that 99% of the cinema canon is made of white men who make movies about things white men are interested (i.e. other white men). What's problematic is that the only women who broke out in this "olympus" are Sofia Coppola (and still is pretty vilified) and Jane Campion. That Lynne Ramsay, Chloe Zhao, Dee Rees and Debra Granik are overlooked by the industry despite making near-masterpieces/very good movies in the past years and have to all compete for the same spot for being women, while Peter Farrelly gets a golden star for trying. That Agnes Varda only got recognized as a major name in the Nouvelle Vague recently, and still is considered too niche compared to Godard and Truffaut - film buffs will make the effort to try out the latters' experimentalism, while writing Varda off as "too complex". That Coppola and Gerwig are called "white girl filmmakers" while Scorsese and Coppola senior are allowed to make movies about white men. And there's also the fact that, despite being a curious film buff myself, the only POC women I could recall without going on Google are Zhao, Rees and Mati Diop. So, when people complain about not having a wide range of female representation (in the matter of characters, but also of female-oriented subjects), it's easier to single out a few people and say "hey, so and so, why aren't you doing that?". Of course, I don't feel sorry for them - Scorsese, Spielberg and cia. are grown men, they can take a bit of criticism. I just wish people would make the same effort to talk as if anyone's obliged to write/shoot about something to actually watch the movies that are already out there and champion those filmmakers. On a sidenote, as a Scorsese bitch fan, I think it's a waste that he doesn't make more movies centered on/with bigger participation of women on screen. I love what he did with Sharon Stone, Ryder, Pfeiffer and Burstyn. He has the sensibility, and they all praised him after their collaborations. And he has Meryl fucking Streep of all people going on record to talk about how much working with him is her dream, and still he lets the chance go. It's not his job to write/direct starring roles for women, but it's something he's so good at! And in the same way the artist is naturally drawn to certain themes, it's not all they can do!
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Nov 1, 2019 17:13:00 GMT
This reminds me of how Woody Allen got flak for decades for not writing African American characters in his films. He then wrote a part that went to Chiwetel Ejiofor in Melinda and Melinda and the character rang utterly false. Some writers have certain gifts, others should write what they know. Tarantino is great at writing female characters, but Reservoir Dogs isn't a worse film just because it stars all men. Same thing with PTA re: There Will Be Blood. Now this also doesn't mean there hasn't been a century long problem with race and gender representation on and offscreen in film, and I'm down with Hollywood finally working to fix this (allowing studios to fund projects like Moonlight that probably wouldn't have gotten financed in the nineties), but ultimately the writer should always be free to write what they want to write, and people have the option to go see it or not. It's also why it baffles me when people complain about Sofia Coppola only writing about over-privileged people, or Tarantino only writing movies about movies instead of life, or Jordan Peele stating he only wants to write films with black leads, or David Lynch writing films obsessed with females in danger, or Scorsese and the troubled male, etc. People write what they write and it's up to all of us to analyze or criticize or engage. The argument on the flipside, though, is determining if an artist's limited nature negatively affects their work. For example, as I said before Reservoir Dogs is not a worse film per se than any other Tarantino film just because it's all men. However, if his entire decades long filmography ONLY starred male roles, I do think it would prove he was a limited writer incapable of much range. And even though I may not agree with that regarding Scorsese's career, I could definitely understand the argument that for a woman his body of work may not be as broad and varied as it might seem to a man. Tarantino isn't a woman director, but still he creates great femele characters, in fact he has more movies in which the main character is femele than Spielberg and Scorcese combined- I disagree with Reservoir Dogs. In facts have very interesting femele characters, even when they are extras.-
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Nov 1, 2019 17:16:04 GMT
The main trouble with Scorcese is that in his films, usually there are just one or two femele characters. While the men characters are at least a dozen.- Usually the lead is Blond, blue eyes and sexy, a femme fatale, and if there is a seccond important character is brunet or redhead, innocent and neurotic.-
Scorcese women are idealized, tha's not bad, the main trouble is when almost all the femele characters are idealized.-
|
|