Martin Scorsese Isn’t The Biggest Fan Of Streaming Services

February 17, 2021 / Posted by:

Martin Scorsese is back again with another one of his hot takes regarding the current state of the film industry. Once again, Marty gives you some major “Old Man respectfully disagrees with cloud,” which is to say he isn’t yelling at anyone in particular. He’s just more or less doing that thing where an old guy looks at something popular, shrugs his shoulders, and says, “Eh, I don’t get it…and here’s why. Get comfortable, youngins.” Martin Scorsese’s film purist energy is usually directed towards superhero films, but now he’s taking aim at all the streaming services that are pumping out content, much to the chagrin of Martin Scorsese.

This all started with an essay written by Martin Scorsese for Harper’s Magazine, about the work of legendary Italian filmmaker Federico Fellini. Scorsese argues that the magic of cinema you get from watching Fellini or the work of any number of filmmakers is being lost on the streaming services who don’t care so much for filmmaking as they do content. Scorsese acknowledges that partnering with Netflix allowed him to make The Irishman and that his latest film Killers of the Flower Moon will be released in theaters and exclusively on Apple TV+, so he understands that he’s already sort of set himself up for people calling him a hypocrite. But the point he wants to make is the term “content” makes him cringe harder than hearing an overenthusiastic fan yell, “Kundun, I liked it!. via Indiewire:

“As recently as 15 years ago, the term ‘content’ was heard only when people were discussing the cinema on a serious level, and it was contrasted with and measured against ‘form.’ Then, gradually, it was used more and more by the people who took over media companies, most of whom knew nothing about the history of the art form, or even cared enough to think that they should. ‘Content’ became a business term for all moving images: a David Lean movie, a cat video, a Super Bowl commercial, a superhero sequel, a series episode. It was linked, of course, not to the theatrical experience but to home viewing, on the streaming platforms that have come to overtake the moviegoing experience, just as Amazon overtook physical stores.”

It’s not that he has a problem with content being accessible to the masses. What he’s upset about is how content relates to the algorithm. For example, after I’m done watching The Mask, my streaming service might then suggest I watch Son of The Mask, then Son in Law, then Law & Order: SVU, which honestly sounds like a terrific night. They can’t all be Goodfellas nights, Marty! But Scorcese disagrees, and he hates that streaming services are just randomly throwing meaningless content at people.

“If further viewing is ‘suggested’ by algorithms based on what you’ve already seen, and the suggestions are based only on subject matter or genre, then what does that do to the art of cinema? Curating isn’t undemocratic or ‘elitist,’ a term that is now used so often that it’s become meaningless. It’s an act of generosity – you’re sharing what you love and what has inspired you. (The best streaming platforms, such as the Criterion Channel and MUBI and traditional outlets such as TCM, are based on curating – they’re actually curated.) Algorithms, by definition, are based on calculations that treat the viewer as a consumer and nothing else.”

And ultimately, what Scorsese’s main complaint boils down to is that he believes the focus is on money, not the art of film. For example, I’m sure he’d grimace just a bit to learn that indie filmmaker Jim Jarmusch was hired by Disney+ to write and direct an idiosyncratic, meandering origin story about Baby Yoda, but that would still be an act of filmmaking. What he’s upset about is if Disney+ suddenly shelved that origin story because they didn’t think that kind of “content” could make enough money for them. He’s also mad that the people who own classic films won’t really put them out there, because they don’t think audiences will pay to see them, and therefore they’re not worthy of being seen.

“In the movie business, which is now the mass visual entertainment business, the emphasis is always on the word ‘business,’ and value is always determined by the amount of money to be made from any given property – in that sense, everything from Sunrise to La Strada to 2001 is now pretty much wrung dry and ready for the ‘Art Film’ swim lane on a streaming platform…They are among the greatest treasures of our culture, and they must be treated accordingly.”

Martin Scorsese may have a point, albeit one that is going to be really hard to enforce. Because the algorithm is already trying its best with some people. It already has the best intentions for me, and it really does want me to watch quality content. After I watch Bio-Dome, my streaming service recommends other, much better movies, instead of suggesting I see a doctor immediately for a brain scan.

Pic: Wenn.com

Our commenting rules: Don't be racist or bigoted, or post comments like "Who cares?", or have multiple accounts, or repost a comment that was deleted by a mod, or post NSFW pics/videos/GIFs, or go off topic when not in an Open Post, or post paparazzi/event/red carpet pics from photo agencies due to copyright infringement issues. Also, promoting adblockers, your website, or your forum is not allowed. Breaking a rule may result in your Disqus account getting permanently or temporarily banned. New commenters must go through a period of pre-moderation. And some posts may be pre-moderated so it could take a minute for your comment to appear if it's approved. If you have a question or an issue with comments, email: michaelk@dlisted.com

src="https://c.statcounter.com/922697/0/f674ac4a/1/"
alt="drupal analytics" >