The utter success of Marvel movies have brought the wrath of gods of film into himself. Martin Scorsese called them “Not Cinema” and closest experience to “Theme Parks”, Coppola called them “Despicable”, Ken Loach showed his anger too. Some of the directors of Marvel movies have responded to that comments and some critics have responded heavy heartedly about the new zeitgeist. In the latest of those responses, Blige Ebiri of vulture concluded his piece by:
People who are genuinely upset by Scorsese’s comments should ask themselves why they’re so upset by them, and whether their response, in its own way, proves his point.
This is not an either/or question: The question of what is cinema and what is not, have been with the medium from the beginnings (here). To give a short answer, Cinema has never been defined by its artists, nor by its franchises, meaning the “Film World”. The fallacy lies here is the same as defining the art itself by the “ArtWorld discourse”.
The reason I’m calling this a fallacy is an ontological argument lying in the works of Stanley Cavell; “Film” and “World” are not there for us to be owned. According to Cavell, There’s no world other than the one that is screened and passing in front of eyes. Before I get to philosophical discussions I just want to acknowledge the liberating power of SVOD platforms that employs big names like Scorsese these days. In a recent article Daniel Friedman wrote extensively about the merits of new standard (streaming) to the old standard (cable) in Quillette: