ALL I HAVE TO DO IS STREAM

Not even Martin Scorsese is immune from
death threats from angry patrons.

Sometimes, two unrelated contemporaneous headlines have more in common than they first appear to. Yesterday morning gave us: Martin Scorsese says streaming services are ‘devaluing’ films by reducing them to ‘content’ in blistering essay. In the afternoon came this: Couple Arrested For Shooting Woman Who Shushed Them In Atlanta Movie Theater.

If you think this is just a way to justify my decision to avoid movie theaters, you're incorrect. It's only one way. Others include outrageous ticket prices, endless commercials and trailers before the feature, the hassle of finding a decent theater, and inconsiderate patrons not even including those who shoot you.

I'm more interested, however, in Martin Scorsese's "blistering essay". This isn't the first time he's raised hackles in the business in which he's made such an impact. Two years ago, while promoting The Irishman, the headline was Martin Scorsese claims Marvel films are 'not cinema' and compares them to 'theme parks' instead. To which I replied, Finally, someone in the movie business said it! Thank you, Marty!

Um, I don't think he was wrong.

Unfortunately, he wasn't expecting the subsequent blowback from his colleagues. So a day or two later came this: Martin Scorsese praised for clarification of Marvel comments: 'If I’d come of age at a later time, I might have been excited by these films'. No, you wouldn't have, Marty. I liked you more the first time.

Before I continue, allow me to say that Martin Scorsese remains one of my favorite contemporary directors -- the only one I know immediately by name other than the Cohen Brothers.

One of these hair colors is not like the others.

Now then. Scorsese's take on streaming services is more than a little amusing, considering his last movie, The Irishman, was financed by Netflix, and his current production, Killers of the Flower Moon, will come to us through the courtesy money of Apple TV+. That's because the total budget for those two movies is $359-million.  And studios are mighty wary of shelling out that kind of dough for movies that don't feature characters possessing magic powers (like turning a profit on budgets that big).

He probably never heard of the
Marx Brothers, either.

Scorsese's other point I take issue with is "content" being a new concept in the movie business. Watching TCM over the years, I've deduced that the movies from Hollywood's Golden Age can be placed into one of three categories. Twenty-five percent can be labeled Classic -- the titles everybody knows even if they haven't seen them (like the current Variety movie critic who boasted he's never seen Casablanca). 

Another 25% are those I would call Gee-Why-Isn't-This-Better-Known? Movies that range from entertaining to great. Black Moon, for instance, or Voice in the Wind.

The other 50% was the stuff ground out in a week, often meant to fill out a double bill or entertain less demanding audiences at the studio-owned theaters. What we would refer to today as Content.

Do you see Harry Cohn's fanny
squirming?

I understand Scorsese's basic premise: the movie business doesn't care about cinema. But it never did. It was always about entertainment -- a nice way of saying "turning a profit" -- first. If it was classy, that was just celluloid gravy.  

As for "cinema" -- well, Harry Cohn, the head of Columbia Pictures, likely spoke for his brethren as to how he judged a movie's worth: "If my fanny squirms, it's bad. If my fanny doesn't squirm, it's good." Would you agree?

As for me, thank God for streaming services. My 47" HDTV (and stereo soundbar) is just right for the non-Marvel movies we watch. And I'm guaranteed that my wife won't shoot me if I ask her to keep quiet. I hope.

                                                            *****************

To read about Black Moon, go here.

To read about Voice in the Wind, go here.