10月初在英格蘭時(shí)，我接受了《帝國雜志》(Empire)的采訪。我被問到一個(gè)關(guān)于漫威電影的問題。我回答了。我說，我試著看了其中幾部，但它們不適合我，比起我一生所了解和熱愛的那些電影，它們?cè)谖铱磥硭坪醺咏黝}公園，到最后，我覺得它們不是電影(cinema)。 一些人似乎抓住我的回答的最后部分不放，視之為侮辱，或是我本人憎惡漫威電影的證據(jù)。如果有人著意要從那樣的角度描述我的話，那我也沒有辦法。 許多系列電影是由有著相當(dāng)才能和藝術(shù)技巧的人制作的。這個(gè)你能在銀幕上看到。事實(shí)上，這些影片本身不吸引我，與個(gè)人口味和性情有關(guān)。我知道假如自己年輕一些，假如我成熟得晚一些，可能會(huì)對(duì)這些影片感到興奮，甚至可能想自己也拍一部。但我已經(jīng)長(zhǎng)大，并且形成了對(duì)電影的理解——它們是什么以及它們可能成為什么，這個(gè)理解和漫威世界的距離，就像地球和半人馬座阿爾法星系的距離一樣遙遠(yuǎn)。 對(duì)于我、對(duì)于我所喜愛和尊敬的電影人、對(duì)于大致和我同一時(shí)期開始拍電影的朋友們來說，電影是關(guān)于啟示的——美學(xué)、情感和精神上的啟示。它是關(guān)于人物的——人的復(fù)雜性和他們矛盾的、有時(shí)是悖謬的本質(zhì)，他們可以彼此傷害、彼此相愛、突然面對(duì)自己的方式。 它是關(guān)于在螢?zāi)簧?、在它加以戲劇化和詮釋的生活中，直面意料之外的事，并以藝術(shù)的形式擴(kuò)大對(duì)可能性的感知。 而這對(duì)我們來說恰是關(guān)鍵之處：它是一種藝術(shù)形式。當(dāng)時(shí)，對(duì)這一點(diǎn)存在一些爭(zhēng)論，于是我們堅(jiān)持電影與文學(xué)、音樂或舞蹈相當(dāng)?shù)挠^點(diǎn)。并且我們認(rèn)識(shí)到，藝術(shù)可以在許多不同的地方以同樣多的形式出現(xiàn)——在塞繆爾·富勒(Sam Fuller)的《鋼盔》(The Steel Helmet) 和英格瑪·伯格曼(Ingmar Bergman)的《假面》(Persona)里，在斯坦利·多南(Stanley Donen)和吉恩·凱利(Gene Kelly)的《美景良辰》(It’s Always Fair Weather)及肯尼斯·安格(Kenneth Anger)的《天蝎星升起》(Scorpio Rising)里，在讓-呂克·戈達(dá)爾(Jean-Luc Godard)的《隨心所欲》(Vivre Sa Vie)和唐·西格爾(Don Siegel)的《殺人者》(The Killers)里。 或者在阿爾弗雷德·希區(qū)考克(Alfred Hitchcock)的電影里——我想你可以說希區(qū)考克自成一個(gè)系列?；蛘哒f他是我們的系列。每一部新的希區(qū)考克電影都是一個(gè)事件。在最老的影院之一、在滿滿當(dāng)當(dāng)?shù)挠皬d里觀看《后窗》(Rear Window) 是一次非凡的體驗(yàn)：那是觀眾和影片自身之間的化學(xué)反應(yīng)制造出的事件，令人興奮不已。 從某種程度上，某些希區(qū)考克電影也像主題公園。我在想《火車怪客》(Strangers on a Train)，其中的高潮部分發(fā)生在一個(gè)真實(shí)游樂園的旋轉(zhuǎn)木馬上；還有《驚魂記》(Psycho)，我是在首映當(dāng)天看的午夜場(chǎng)，那次經(jīng)歷我永遠(yuǎn)難忘。人們前去感受意外和驚悚，他們沒有失望。 六七十年后的今天，我們?nèi)栽诳催@些片子，并對(duì)它們贊嘆不已。但我們一再回顧的是那些驚悚和震驚嗎？我不這么看。 《北西北》(North by Northwest)里程式化的場(chǎng)景固然出色，但沒有故事核心的痛苦情感，或加里·格蘭特(Cary Grant)所飾角色絕然的迷失，它們不過是一系列不斷變化、優(yōu)美的構(gòu)圖和剪裁。 《火車怪客》的高潮部分是一項(xiàng)驚人的成就，但如今引發(fā)共鳴的，是兩個(gè)主要角色之間的互動(dòng)，以及羅伯特·沃克(Robert Walker)著實(shí)令人不安的表演。 有人說希區(qū)考克的影片有一種雷同，或許這是對(duì)的——希區(qū)考克本人也想過這個(gè)問題。但當(dāng)今系列電影的雷同又是另外一回事。我所知道的定義電影的許多元素，漫威系列里都有。它所沒有的是啟示、神秘或真正的情感危險(xiǎn)。沒有什么面臨風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。這些影片是為滿足一套特定的需求而制作，并被設(shè)計(jì)成數(shù)量有限的主題的變體。 它們名義上是續(xù)集，但在精神上是重復(fù)的，其中一切都經(jīng)官方認(rèn)可，因?yàn)椴豢赡苡衅渌问健＿@就是現(xiàn)代系列大片的本質(zhì)：市場(chǎng)調(diào)查、觀眾測(cè)試、審查、修改、翻新和再加工，直至可供消費(fèi)。 換言之，它們和保羅·托馬斯·安德森(Paul Thomas Anderson)、克萊爾·丹尼斯(Claire Denis)、史派克·李(Spike Lee)、阿里·艾斯特(Ari Aster)、凱瑟琳·畢格羅(Kathryn Bigelow)或韋斯·安德森(Wes Anderson)的電影大相徑庭。當(dāng)我看那些電影人的影片時(shí)，我知道自己可以看到全新的東西，進(jìn)入意想不到、乃至無以名狀的體驗(yàn)領(lǐng)域。用移動(dòng)的畫面和聲音講故事還有著什么樣的可能性？他們的影片會(huì)擴(kuò)展我對(duì)此的感受。 你可能會(huì)問，我這是怎么了？為什么就不肯放過超級(jí)英雄電影和其他系列大片呢？原因很簡(jiǎn)單。如今，在美國和世界各地許多地方，如果你想在大銀幕上看到些什么，系列大片是你的首選。這是電影表演的艱難時(shí)期，獨(dú)立影院比以往任何時(shí)候都少。規(guī)則遭到顛覆，串流媒體成為主要傳播系統(tǒng)。不過，我認(rèn)識(shí)的電影人里，沒有誰不愿為大銀幕拍電影，沒有誰不愿在影院面向觀眾放映電影。 雖然剛剛為Netflix拍完一部影片，但我也是如此。 Netflix，也只有Netflix，允許我們以我們所需的方式拍出了《愛爾蘭人》(The Irishman)，為此我永遠(yuǎn)心懷感激。我們有了一扇通往影院的窗口，這非常好。我可想讓這部電影在更大的銀幕上播放更長(zhǎng)時(shí)間？當(dāng)然如此。然而，不管你同誰合作拍電影，事實(shí)是，大多數(shù)多廳影院的銀幕上還是充斥著那些系列大片。 如果你告訴我，這只是供求關(guān)系而已，無非是將人們想要的提供給他們，恕難茍同。這是一個(gè)先有蛋還是先有雞的問題。如果只向人們提供一種東西，沒完沒了地只賣這種東西，人們當(dāng)然就想要更多這種東西。 但是，你可能會(huì)說，他們就不能回家去，在Netflix、iTunes或者Hulu看他們想看的東西嗎？當(dāng)然可以——在任何地方都可以，但不是在大銀幕上，而電影人還是最想讓自己的作品在大銀幕上被世人所見。 我們都知道，在過去20年里，電影行業(yè)在各個(gè)方面都發(fā)生了變化。然而最有威脅性的變化是在黑夜掩蓋下悄悄發(fā)生：風(fēng)險(xiǎn)在逐漸穩(wěn)步消失。今天的許多電影都是為即時(shí)消費(fèi)而生產(chǎn)的完美產(chǎn)品。其中很多亦是由才華橫溢的團(tuán)隊(duì)所創(chuàng)作。盡管如此，它們?nèi)鄙匐娪八囆g(shù)所必需的東西：藝術(shù)家個(gè)體一致的愿景。理應(yīng)如此，因?yàn)樗囆g(shù)家個(gè)體正是最危險(xiǎn)的因素。 我當(dāng)然不是說，電影應(yīng)該是一種受到額外資助的藝術(shù)形式，或者它曾經(jīng)受此優(yōu)待。當(dāng)好萊塢片廠制度還存在，并且運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)良好的時(shí)候，藝術(shù)家與商業(yè)經(jīng)營者之間的張力頻繁而激烈，但這是一種充滿創(chuàng)造性的張力，為我們帶來一些有史以來最偉大的電影——用鮑勃·狄倫(Bob Dylan)的話說，其中最好的影片「充滿英雄氣概和遠(yuǎn)見卓識(shí)」。 如今，這種緊張關(guān)系已經(jīng)消失，電影行業(yè)里的一些人對(duì)藝術(shù)問題全然漠不關(guān)心，對(duì)待電影史的態(tài)度輕蔑專橫——這兩樣加起來真是要命?？杀氖?，我們現(xiàn)在有兩個(gè)互相獨(dú)立的領(lǐng)域：一個(gè)是全球范圍內(nèi)的視聽娛樂，另一個(gè)是電影藝術(shù)。它們?nèi)匀徊粫r(shí)重疊，但這種情況越來越少見。我擔(dān)心其中一方的經(jīng)濟(jì)優(yōu)勢(shì)會(huì)將另一方邊緣化，甚至縮小另一方的生存空間。 對(duì)于那些夢(mèng)想拍電影的人，或者那些剛剛起步的人來說，現(xiàn)在的情況很殘酷，對(duì)藝術(shù)來說很不友好。只是寫下這些話已令我心中充滿哀傷。 Open menu Icon for eventPlace your pixel Use App Expand search Expand user menu r/movies iconGo to movies r/movies 4 yr. ago by? sawmyoldgirlfriend Join Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain.? By Martin Scorsese Nov. 4, 2019 When I was in England in early October, I gave an interview to Empire magazine. I was asked a question about Marvel movies. I answered it. I said that I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me, that they seem to me to be closer to theme parks than they are to movies as I’ve known and loved them throughout my life, and that in the end, I don’t think they’re cinema.? 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. For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, 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.? And that was the key for us: it was an art form. There was some debate about that at the time, so we stood up for cinema as an equal to literature or music or dance. And we came to understand that the art could be found in many different places and in just as many forms — in “The Steel Helmet” by Sam Fuller and “Persona” by Ingmar Bergman, in “It’s Always Fair Weather” by Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly and “Scorpio Rising” by Kenneth Anger, in “Vivre Sa Vie” by Jean-Luc Godard and “The Killers” by Don Siegel.? Or in the films of Alfred Hitchcock — I suppose you could say that Hitchcock was his own franchise. Or that he was our franchise. Every new Hitchcock picture was an event. To be in a packed house in one of the old theaters watching “Rear Window” was an extraordinary experience: It was an event created by the chemistry between the audience and the picture itself, and it was electrifying.? And in a way, certain Hitchcock films were also like theme parks. I’m thinking of “Strangers on a Train,” in which the climax takes place on a merry-go-round at a real amusement park, and “Psycho,” which I saw at a midnight show on its opening day, an experience I will never forget. People went to be surprised and thrilled, and they weren’t disappointed.? Sixty or 70 years later, we’re still watching those pictures and marveling at them. But is it the thrills and the shocks that we keep going back to? I don’t think so. The set pieces in “North by Northwest” are stunning, but they would be nothing more than a succession of dynamic and elegant compositions and cuts without the painful emotions at the center of the story or the absolute lostness of Cary Grant’s character.? The climax of “Strangers on a Train” is a feat, but it’s the interplay between the two principal characters and Robert Walker’s profoundly unsettling performance that resonate now. Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes. They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.? Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.? So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. Still, I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters.? That includes me, and I’m speaking as someone who just completed a picture for Netflix. It, and it alone, allowed us to make “The Irishman” the way we needed to, and for that I’ll always be thankful. We have a theatrical window, which is great. Would I like the picture to play on more big screens for longer periods of time? Of course I would. But no matter whom you make your movie with, the fact is that the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures.? And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.? But, you might argue, can’t they just go home and watch anything else they want on Netflix or iTunes or Hulu? Sure — anywhere but on the big screen, where the filmmaker intended her or his picture to be seen.? 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.? I’m certainly not implying that movies should be a subsidized art form, or that they ever were. When the Hollywood studio system was still alive and well, the tension between the artists and the people who ran the business was constant and intense, but it was a productive tension that gave us some of the greatest films ever made — in the words of Bob Dylan, the best of them were “heroic and visionary.”? 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. （事件開端） Martin Scorsese Compares Marvel Movies to Theme Parks: ‘That’s Not Cinema’ Don’t ask Martin Scorsese his thoughts on the record-breaking “Avengers: Endgame” because he hasn’t seen it, nor will he ever see it. The legendary filmmaker recently dismissed the Marvel Cinematic Universe during an interview with Empire magazine, saying that Marvel movies do not possess the traits that make cinema truly special. “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.” Scorsese is fresh off universal praise for his new drama “The Irishman,” which debuted on opening night of the 2019 New York Film Festival. The gangster epic, starring Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, and Joe Pesci, debuted to instant Oscar buzz and is considered a top contender to land nominations for its actors, plus Best Picture and Best Director bids, among others. Disney and Marvel Studios is also launching an Oscar campaign for “Avengers: Endgame,” which grossed over $2.7 billion worldwide this year to become the highest-grossing movie in history (unadjusted for inflation). Scorsese’s thoughts on Marvel movies recall a similar opinion shared by Ethan Hawke in August 2018. The “First Reformed” actor told Film Stage that moviegoers were treating superhero movies as if they were great works of art, which is not the case. “Now we have the problem that they tell us ‘Logan’ is a great movie,” Hawke said. “Well, it’s a great superhero movie. It still involves people in tights with metal coming out of their hands. It’s not Bresson. It’s not Bergman. But they talk about it like it is. I went to see ‘Logan’ ‘cause everyone was like, ‘This is a great movie’ and I was like, ‘Really? No, this is a fine superhero movie.’ There’s a difference, but big business doesn’t think there’s a difference. Big business wants you to think that this is a great film because they wanna make money off of it.” Scorsese’s “The Irishman” opens in theaters November 1 before making its Netflix debut November 27.