I mean its his job to make films and has been for like 50 years now. So of course he is going to take his job seriously.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Martin Scorsese Takes Aim at Streaming’s Lack of Curation and More: ‘Cinema Is Being Devalued by Content’
- Thread starter WrenchNinja
- Start date
I mean its his job to make films and has been for like 50 years now. So of course he is going to take his job seriously.
I don't see what's silly about finding 'content' a distasteful and damaging way to frame art. It's marketing speak that's penetrated the mainstream and I've always hated it.
I agree with Scorsese in spirit but not in fact.
The biggest obstacle to you seeing great cinema isn't corporate gatekeepers... It's your basic-ass taste.
Said taste is cultivated by the media industries to be braindead, of course, but Mubi and Criterion exist and most people pick Netflix and Disney+. American cinema, at least, is dumb because Americans are to a large degree culturally stupid.
Government arts funding and arts education funding would help, for sure...
The biggest obstacle to you seeing great cinema isn't corporate gatekeepers... It's your basic-ass taste.
Said taste is cultivated by the media industries to be braindead, of course, but Mubi and Criterion exist and most people pick Netflix and Disney+. American cinema, at least, is dumb because Americans are to a large degree culturally stupid.
Government arts funding and arts education funding would help, for sure...
OK, that's my mistake, I appreciate the correction. But however they actually work, it doesn't really change what Scorsese is talking about here: that they're designed to keep the user subscribed and keep the money flowing in. They're not designed to broaden a cinema fan's horizons or introduce them to something they might otherwise never seek out, which is what you'd get with more personal curation he's advocating.
He's right in a way, but it is an inevitability with technology. Not only is it possible to produce more films now, but the power is in the hands of anyone with a smart phone and a laptop. That's just what happens to an artistic medium over time. We saw it with music (streaming, MP3 players) and we are going to see it with gaming (streaming, gamepass-like services).
It's just inevitable.
It's just inevitable.
Streaming has given people opportunities that would have never gotten the possibility in the old world because people like him hiding behind and benefiting from 'artistic curation'.
The amount of foreign movies i watched which i had never gotten access to in his old world is the best proof of that.
Yeah, was gonna say something like this. The increase in content seems to have led to an increase in diversity of representation, so that's a good thing. I still see his point though, and I'm looking forward to reading his essay.
Here's the thing with that, it's not actually a level playing field. There's the illusion that it is because technically Netflix (or any other big streaming provider) just dumps movies online and you or me could watch anything whenever.
However, since evrything is algorithm or PR-led, this actually doesn't happen. Smaller, more unique movies often get lost in the mix since everything is released at once and instead of Netflix giving attention to everything equally they pick out whatever the new Netflix Original is for marketing purposes and all the other new stuff either has to be found by people searching themselves or thr algorithm recommending it.
Like I've heard from many indie film distributors over the years that they vastly prefer the cinema model despite technically their movies having a bigger potential audience on streaming services. However, in the cinema there are only a limited amount of movies playing at one time and you have people going to there physically and seeing a title and possibly going "hey, that sounds neat, I should look up stuff about it". On Netflix your movie is part of the sixty movies added that month and you have to pray to the algorithm gods that they choose to highlight your movie so people might actually watch it.
Even some Netflix Originals have this problem. Sion Sono released a Netflix Original movie called The Forest, which I only found out a year or so later because the algorithm never highlighted it for me. Or how a bunch of people only found outa about the Netflix Original film A Sun when some outlets rated it along their top movies of 2020.
A "level playing field" on streaming services is very bad for small creators.
this, I'll stomach the garbage so I can get the occasional gem in there as well. Superheroes are a much bigger reason that film is dead than streaming services.
I strongly agree with Scorsese on this but if he really believes that then what the hell is his excuse for The Irishman and Killers of the Flower Moon? Does the limited theatrical release of The Irishman for example make it a "real" picture in his mind or does he just feel that his artistic credibility is beyond reproach? I have no doubt that Scorsese loves cinema but I strongly suspect that he loves the money from these supposedly evil streaming companies that view films as "content" much more.
Just like with Steam i like to have choice and be my own arbiter of what's worth watching. Netflix has so many foreign language movies and shows that wouldn't even be considered because they aren't dubbed. There is way too much good stuff out there that a curator could never hope to get through. And that's ok, we don't need to all have watched the same things to get an appreciation for what's good.
The problem that I see with this example is the assumption that the average Netflix viewer is at all interested in watching these films. The vast majority are not, just as they never have been in the history of film. 30 years ago, critical indie darling films weren't being shown at the megaplex and they weren't being carried by the big chain rental stores. And that was because the average person wasn't clamoring to watch these films. Those who ARE/WERE interested in watching these films still had to find specialized outlets, whether that was finding the closest arthouse theater or smaller video store whose owner/staff was interested in those films and carried them because of that.
This has always been the case and streaming services hasn't changed that at all. Netflix, Prime Video, Apple TV, etc... are the megaplex and Criterion and whatever else are your arthouse theaters. Except whereas 30 years ago there was zero chance of getting an artistic film at the megaplex and now there's a chance to get them on Netflix et. al. in addition to the myriad of other films and series that get a share that same stage that would've never seen any theater release if they were even able to made at all.
This is what people are talking about when they're speaking of the level playing field in a positive manner. The fact that there is a much better chance for new and different voices to be heard through Film and Series. And despite the perception that it's harder to find indie darlings, the reality is that it always was harder to find them. Except back then fans of those films would cry out about "mainstream Hollywood and megaplexes" and now they're shifting that ire to streaming services.
I don't agree with this position. I think Scorsese makes it clear that he wants curation in the form of qualified people (whatever that means) determining what gets put in front of the viewer. He claims that it isn't elitist but it is the very definition of it: a small number of Hollywood elites determining what films are prestige enough to be allowed to be shown. This means that you are pre-determining the kind of films that end up being made since everything else is shut out.
You can see the results of his idea of curation every single year at the Oscars. A small group of Hollywood elites determine what films are worthy of consideration for an award and as it happens the only films that stand a chance of winning belong in an extremely narrow cone of genre, tone and theme. Everything else is completely shut out.
The fucking idea that it is ok that the majority of people are fine with consuming nothing but garbage all the time is some of the most cynical shit in the world. The average person doesn't exclusively consume garbage because he doesn't like anything else, he consumes garbage because he is never given anything other than garbage, because he has neither the access to, nor the means to comprehend, the means to interact with anything that isn't meaningless garbage. Interacting with art is something one needs to learn, and no company, and no school is interested in doing that. And if you care about anything at all in this world, you want people to have the means to meaningfully interact with art, since art is the most direct way for people to make sense of the world, some sense of the world that might be meaningful and productive.
Impossible. They have to show how much they love their corporate overlords.
I would love it if Netflix added a well-curated "critic's favorites" section with small write-ups on the films in addition to synopses (basically like Mubi). Unless the film is something super hyped-up like The Irishman, it's quite easy to miss it from the flood of content even if you might be interested in it. It doesn't help that the rating system on Netfix is absolutely useless.
For example, I found out that I'm No Longer Here and A Sun which were both recently shortlisted for the international film Oscar were actually Netflix Originals from a random tweet last week. I had never seen those films when browsing the service though I'm No Longer Here had been on the service since May last year.
For example, I found out that I'm No Longer Here and A Sun which were both recently shortlisted for the international film Oscar were actually Netflix Originals from a random tweet last week. I had never seen those films when browsing the service though I'm No Longer Here had been on the service since May last year.
I really don't know what to think. I do agree that curation should be sharing what the curator loves and not what he thinks the masses will love but on the other side I think this creates an elite. I mean, the massive amount of contents of the streaming giants also mean a lot of opportunities to a lot of diverse filmmakers. So I think he is both right and wrong.
Seems rather pretentious to gatekeep movies and cinema.
I can't say there's anything wrong utilizing algorithms and treating the viewer as consumer. At the end of the day, the viewers are smart enough to decide whether to use the algorithms as well. Cinema reduced to its lowest common denominator so more people can enjoy more forms of movies is great.
I agree.
I can't say there's anything wrong utilizing algorithms and treating the viewer as consumer. At the end of the day, the viewers are smart enough to decide whether to use the algorithms as well. Cinema reduced to its lowest common denominator so more people can enjoy more forms of movies is great.
I agree.
I agree soooooo much. Especially content. People who talk about culture as content makes me want to break fine china.
But why can't a curator put a spotlight on those diverse filmmaker so they don't drown in the algorithms? It's not mutually exclusive.
+1
Superhero movies in my opinion have lowered the quality of all American cinema.
My thoughts as well.
I agree with the idea that human curation is better than algorithms but the way movies and cinema as been gatekeeped for decades and a small percentage of, sometimes problematic, people wrote and directed everything isn't better than what streaming allows.
100%.
I used to find the next film I'd watch through Filmaffinity, which lets you see the favorite movies of your friends, and people with similar taste. I saw 1200 movies in 10 years.
Streaming came along and I started watching more garbage, I felt like I could never find good movies anymore.
I went back to Filmaffinity a few months ago, and thanks to the curated lists of my friends and people with similar tastes, I've seen so much high quality cinema. The worst part is, a lot of this "content" was on the same streaming platforms, I just didn't find it because the algorithm didn't understand what moves me or was pushing for whatever crap was popular at the time.
I used to find the next film I'd watch through Filmaffinity, which lets you see the favorite movies of your friends, and people with similar taste. I saw 1200 movies in 10 years.
Streaming came along and I started watching more garbage, I felt like I could never find good movies anymore.
I went back to Filmaffinity a few months ago, and thanks to the curated lists of my friends and people with similar tastes, I've seen so much high quality cinema. The worst part is, a lot of this "content" was on the same streaming platforms, I just didn't find it because the algorithm didn't understand what moves me or was pushing for whatever crap was popular at the time.
Honestly, in a world where Weinstein was a huge curator and decision point on what gets made I think looking at the "good old days" is probably ill advised.
Streaming can be improved and I think manual curation or recommendation is important but idealizing the past isn't the way to go about it.
Streaming can be improved and I think manual curation or recommendation is important but idealizing the past isn't the way to go about it.
That's only true where movies are 100% dependent on the market. For instance, in Spain most movies have public funding and we've had Almodóvar making movies about trans and queer people since the 80s, and winning Oscars with them.
I'm not saying you're not right, I'm saying there are other, possibly better, ways to achieve that.
Feels kind of insane to imply Scorsese was a gatekeeper when his foundation has restored and distributed movies from all around the world for more than a decade. He's always been a big advocator for lesser known movies, and not just white centric ones either.
Sounds like gatekeeping. Reminds me of the people complaining that Steam has too many games and should make it harder for people to release games on Steam.
It shouldn't be the job of the service to provide perfect curation and promotion for its products, other third parties can better tailor recommendations based on personal preferences.
It shouldn't be the job of the service to provide perfect curation and promotion for its products, other third parties can better tailor recommendations based on personal preferences.
He's right, but there is a lot of nuance of course Because damn I love it that I can access so much more content from all over the world now too. Netflix has some real gems in its lineup and supports great films, but it's true these often get burried. The algorithm actually works against you if you want to discover something new. It can be more problematic if it becomes a self-feeding loop where content is greenlit based on what worked before, which worked because the algorithm pushed it, etc. We're luckily not there yet, and I feel that the streamers right now are avoiding this to an extent. They're still casting their nets very broadly.
What I feel is a bigger problem is that there is no window anymore. Movies are released on Netflix and two days later they are forgotten because something else has released. It also means there is fewer conversation about it. There isn't really any 'movie of the moment' anymore people talk about, except the usual superhero fare. (It's even worse for tv-shows, where people watch it in their own rhytm now. That's cool, but it kills the conversations). Another unrelated problem is that it feels like there is a growing cinematic literacy, where people more and more lack the tools to 'read' and discuss films.
Oh, and if you want a curated streaming service offering a slice of (international!) cinema history, get MUBI. It's amazing.
Can you explain? What did they do that made American cinema better?
I feel like they are a big part of the reason why blockbuster cinema has become even more one note than before, with it being nigh on impossible to have original blockbuster features turning into a succes. Everything is a franchise now. They are not the root of the problem, because it has been going on for a longer time and they are kind of a symptom even, but they sure made it worse.
I also hate how they made storytelling more about connections and references than about characters and drama.
What I feel is a bigger problem is that there is no window anymore. Movies are released on Netflix and two days later they are forgotten because something else has released. It also means there is fewer conversation about it. There isn't really any 'movie of the moment' anymore people talk about, except the usual superhero fare. (It's even worse for tv-shows, where people watch it in their own rhytm now. That's cool, but it kills the conversations). Another unrelated problem is that it feels like there is a growing cinematic literacy, where people more and more lack the tools to 'read' and discuss films.
Oh, and if you want a curated streaming service offering a slice of (international!) cinema history, get MUBI. It's amazing.
Can you explain? What did they do that made American cinema better?
I feel like they are a big part of the reason why blockbuster cinema has become even more one note than before, with it being nigh on impossible to have original blockbuster features turning into a succes. Everything is a franchise now. They are not the root of the problem, because it has been going on for a longer time and they are kind of a symptom even, but they sure made it worse.
I also hate how they made storytelling more about connections and references than about characters and drama.
Crazy how people are saying he should die just because he's stating the truth that you have to filter through mountains of trash movies just to find the ones that are legitimately good when browsing through what's available on your subscription
It simply means the algorithm of FilmAffinity is better than that of Netflix.
Few people in history have done more than Marty to open the gates of cinema and bring attention to all manner of movies that would otherwise go unnoticed in the mainstream. It's basically his life's work (after actually creating works of his own, obviously :P). Seeing people go to bat for Netflix's content suggestion algorithm over Martin Scorsese's contributions to the medium is wild.
I don't care about that, I'm talking about the way we consume "content" or media right now. Without Netflix, Amazon or any other streaming service we would get less opportunities for diversity. I don't really care about their algorithm giving me suggestions, doesn't bother me.
The average American using a streaming service isn't interested in the types of movies Scorsese is talking about, nor have they ever been.
Nobody outside of film schools and hipster circles was ever going to watch Fellini films.
This is complaining about the vast majority being served what they actually want, instead of what Scorsese thinks they should want.
Nobody outside of film schools and hipster circles was ever going to watch Fellini films.
This is complaining about the vast majority being served what they actually want, instead of what Scorsese thinks they should want.
We got our first games on Steam in 2011 when the service was more tightly curated and even though our sales were better back then, things are better for the industry now. Yes, it's harder than ever to get noticed, but at least now, everyone who wants to make a game and sell it gets a chance.
When I was getting my degree at a major university in the US, the university had an international movie theater where they would show a few different films from around the world each week that were for free to anyone who wanted to attend. Wide variety of genres, time periods, and languages, all carefully curated by university staff. I went frequently and most of the time, attendance was abysmal. And that was at a university with a large student body, many of whom were studying foreign languages & would have gotten extra credit & additional practice from attending the films in their target language. The mainstream demand just wasn't there.
Oh and they showed Junji Ito's Uzumaki once - I've frequently wondered if I was indirectly involved with that (a year or two earlier, I introduced Uzumaki to an English professor I knew who liked Lovecraftian horror).
Heavily curated streaming services with the kinds of movies that Scorsese would pick are never going to have the kind of appeal as a Netflix that has a ton of everything. But you can stick an art movie on Netflix and yeah, most people won't see it, but more people will see it there than would have if it had gotten a limited art theater run for a week in LA & then a quickly discontinued VHS version (with no DVD rerelease because nobody cared).
There are billions of people on the earth right now - the idea that they all need to like the same things or that they need experts to tell them what they should be watching is ridiculous. The more movies & shows that are out there and easily viewable, the better. I love that in 2021, I can spend a weekend watching a modern Taiwanese drama in Mandarin about an angel who returns violent ghosts to their eternal rest, some episodes of classic sitcom farce like Frasier, and an 80's romantic comedy about Jeff Goldblum as a psychic who gets roped into a treasure hunt in Ecuador, and I can do all this on my own timeline (no need to wait for shows/movies to show up on TV), without leaving my house, and without paying anything extra beyond subscription fees.
When I was getting my degree at a major university in the US, the university had an international movie theater where they would show a few different films from around the world each week that were for free to anyone who wanted to attend. Wide variety of genres, time periods, and languages, all carefully curated by university staff. I went frequently and most of the time, attendance was abysmal. And that was at a university with a large student body, many of whom were studying foreign languages & would have gotten extra credit & additional practice from attending the films in their target language. The mainstream demand just wasn't there.
Oh and they showed Junji Ito's Uzumaki once - I've frequently wondered if I was indirectly involved with that (a year or two earlier, I introduced Uzumaki to an English professor I knew who liked Lovecraftian horror).
Heavily curated streaming services with the kinds of movies that Scorsese would pick are never going to have the kind of appeal as a Netflix that has a ton of everything. But you can stick an art movie on Netflix and yeah, most people won't see it, but more people will see it there than would have if it had gotten a limited art theater run for a week in LA & then a quickly discontinued VHS version (with no DVD rerelease because nobody cared).
There are billions of people on the earth right now - the idea that they all need to like the same things or that they need experts to tell them what they should be watching is ridiculous. The more movies & shows that are out there and easily viewable, the better. I love that in 2021, I can spend a weekend watching a modern Taiwanese drama in Mandarin about an angel who returns violent ghosts to their eternal rest, some episodes of classic sitcom farce like Frasier, and an 80's romantic comedy about Jeff Goldblum as a psychic who gets roped into a treasure hunt in Ecuador, and I can do all this on my own timeline (no need to wait for shows/movies to show up on TV), without leaving my house, and without paying anything extra beyond subscription fees.
As a non-american movie watcher I can't understand how an american audience perceives movies in general so it's possible that there is some cultural bias on both sides but personally I strongly feel that the average modern superhero film is not just better but in fact leagues above the average action blockbuster of the last 30 years that I've been watching movies. I can't think of a single thing that older blockbuster films of the same type did better except maybe the action itself since I mostly share the dislike of heavy CGI usage in modern films.
For me the main advantage that modern superhero films have over the average action blockbuster of yesteryear is the more interesting character work. Fundamentally, the average superhero character is just way more interesting than the average action hero. We can talk about this in more detail but I'd like to hear first about some movies that you consider representative of the action blockbuster so that we have a frame of reference.