Current Events > Hollywood Superstar Tom Holland disagrees with Famed Director Martin Scorsese

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://people.com/movies/tom-holland-disagrees-martin-scorsese-about-superhero-movies-art/

"You can ask Scorsese, 'Would you want to make a Marvel movie?' but he doesn't know what it's like because he's never made one," said Holland, 25, who has also starred in movies like The Impossible and The Devil All the Time.

"I've made Marvel movies and I've also made movies that have been in the conversation in the world of the Oscars, and the only difference, really, is one is much more expensive than the other," he continued. "But the way I break down the character, the way the director etches out the arc of the story and characters it's all the same, just done on a different scale. So I do think they're real art."

Holland added that his Avengers costars would back him up.

"When you're making these films, you know that good or bad, millions of people will see them," he explained, "whereas when you're making a small indie film, if it's not very good no one will watch it, so it comes with different levels of pressure."

"I mean, you can also ask Benedict Cumberbatch or Robert Downey Jr. or Scarlett Johansson people who have made the kinds of movies that are 'Oscar-worthy' and also made superhero movies and they will tell you that they're the same, just on a different scale."

Adding in one more difference between the two types of movies, he joked, "and there's less Spandex in 'Oscar movies.' "

Seems biased

Hes not wrong.

Teh_Dr_Phil posted...

Hes not wrong.

Yeah he probably is though

I don't know why some got/get so mad over Scorsese's opinions. It's like they took it personally.

TroutPaste posted...

Yeah he probably is though

Except he isn't.

TroutPaste posted...

Seems biased

Both are biased in their own way, really.

Ryven posted...

Except he isn't.

I thought so

I feel like actors would have a very different opinion than directors on the matter. But tbh there's not much different from the beloved blockbuster action movies of the 80s and 90s and the Marvel movies today.

TroutPaste posted...

I thought so

You thought wrong.

I mean it's pretty stupid comment imo. It's like saying classical music is art but rock n roll isn't.

Tom holland should stop embarrassing himself.

Imagine being angry about superhero movies in 2021.

Well marvel movies are 70% CGI including the actors (face replacement, full digit doubles of actors etc.)

It like the actors dont even need to be on set to film a marvel movie these days

SaccharineSmile posted...

Well marvel movies are 70% CGI including the actors (face replacement, full digit doubles of actors etc.)

It like the actors dont even need to be on set to film a marvel movie these days

Low key shitting on animated films here.

Godnorgosh posted...

When Holland says he's "made" both types of movies, he just means he's acted in them, right? You don't necessarily know how to make movies that are considered high art just as someone who's acted in films with that distinction.

There will always be a (justified) distinction between a Scorsese, an Aronofsky, a Hitchcock, a Tarantino, a Coen brothers, a Kubrick... and the cash cows that Marvel spits out on a regular basis, as much as I enjoy them.

The distinction is one of auteur and pedestrian, but not necessarily one of quality imo or one that defines something as strictly being art or not. And the lines can definitely be blurred. Like technically both Michael Bay and Zack Snyder are auteurs, and the James Bond movies are absolutely pedestrian films.

Godnorgosh posted...

When Holland says he's "made" both types of movies, he just means he's acted in them, right? You don't necessarily know how to make movies that are considered high art just as someone who's acted in films with that distinction.

There will always be a (justified) distinction between a Scorsese, an Aronofsky, a Hitchcock, a Tarantino, a Coen brothers, a Kubrick... and the cash cows that Marvel spits out on a regular basis, as much as I enjoy them.

He's giving his own perspective.

Are actors supposed to not have opinions on what is considered a movie, much less a good movie? I feel they have a say as well.

He sounds full of shit.

Btw my shit doesnt stink.

Also he starred in Cherry lolololol

from the directors of avengers believe it or not

it says something doesnt it

marvel movies are indeed movies

checkmate boomer

Sounds like a bunch of pretentious hogwash from people that think specific forms of art can only be considered 'special' if they so deem it, ngl.

Godnorgosh posted...

An auteur is much, much more likely to fall within the scope of high art than a pedestrian film, though correct, auteur is not always synonymous with quality. I think Scorsese would agree with that as well.

Sure but there are many exceptions to the rule for both. Ridley Scott is not an auteur and he's made plenty of great high art films, while Ed Wood was an auteur and all he made was garbage films.

Slayer_22 posted...

"When you're making these films, you know that good or bad, millions of people will see them,"

Isn't that an issue in its own right?

Godnorgosh posted...

Just study cinematography and notice how so many superhero movies follow the same formula of fast cuts for their action sequences. Compare that to something like Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream, where nearly every single shot has a specific intention which underpins it and drives the film's purpose.

Again, pretentious hogwash. An action sequence is meant to be fast, exciting, for the purpose of driving the plot. There is a purpose behind it, it just isn't an attempt to push a narrative.

Different films have different intent, and arguing that one is better because it focuses on a different type of focus and intent than that of another film is just moving a goalposts so it more or less suits a narrative that only specific movies can be considered art.

High art is up to the person classifying it, to each individual. But when you attempt to force your views into the broader narrative, you're just being beyond conceited and extremely pretentious.

Godnorgosh posted...

It's more or less all the same purpose, though, for those sequences. They're meant for popular genre consumption, and as such follow a similar, safe formula. The narrative purpose of shots in an auteur film are more likely to be specific to the auteur's unique intentions, rather than just genre conventions established for the purpose of driving profit.

But does the intentions of one, single person supersede the intention of many?

If one person makes a drawing to make a ton of people happy, it's not suddenly not art.

If another person makes art to make themselves happy, it's not suddenly not art.

Both are art, and the only one who can say 'this is high art' is the person viewing them. Intentions don't matter in the end, personal enjoyment does.

People who call the MCU not cinema or anything close to it just want to feel pretentious about something in their life and going after the popular thing is what makes them feel that way.

Imagine if he ruined his career by speaking up.

Returning_CEmen posted...

Imagine if he ruined his career by speaking up.

No way, dude is slowly becoming a box office draw as of recent.

Slayer_22 posted...

No way, dude is slowly becoming a box office draw as of recent.

Eh, people came to see Spider-Man not Tom Holland. I guess well find out with the Uncharted movie

Godnorgosh posted...

High art isn't defined by personal enjoyment in general. I would argue films belonging to that classification are defined much more by appeals to the intellect, and appreciation and enjoyment from that perspective, specifically.

Low art is art too, btw.

The concept of high, low, whatever classifications of art is just pretentious as hell. It is an attempt to pretend one thing is better than the other thing, even if both things are functionally the same.

The issue with Scorsese is pretty much the same as the one that occurred with Bill Maher when he brought up comic books: there is a kernel of truth in their criticisms of superhero comic books/superhero movies despite being wrong about a lot of the details. The issue is not the films or comic books, but people's overindulgence on entertainment. These movies, along with superhero comics, are not typically a source of wisdom, they're just something fun to pass the time. Many people just jump from moment to moment of pleasure without actually learning anything or doing anything to improve themselves. Again, there's nothing wrong with entertainment or superheroes, but it's not something to indulge in endlessly without ever cracking open, say, a history book.

Regardless, the best comics tend to be written by people who read other things besides comics; compare Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman's writing to Kevin Smith's.

Godnorgosh posted...

Agreed, and I don't think that contradicts what Scorsese would say, either. But that's far from claiming there's virtually no difference between the two other than the scale because you've acted in both and the films seem similar from an actor's perspective.

Yeah I agree. But in regards to both of their statements I believe they're both coming at it with a flawed understanding of what constitutes as "art". And I think co-opting "cinema" to be synonymous with "auteur film" or high art is pointless and comes off as unnecessarily pretentious.

I dont know Tom I havent seen it

Godnorgosh posted...

They're not functionally the same, though... films classified as high art function to express the auteur's artistic vision, usually irrespective of mass appeal. Low art is created with the purpose of driving mass appeal, mass viewership, and as a result, profit. One is creator-driven, the other is fundamentally viewer-driven.

No, one was made for people to feel pretentious over others.

super hero movies are for the dumb masses and the world has alot of those i prefer story driven movies

Godnorgosh posted...

They're not functionally the same, though... films classified as high art function to express the auteur's artistic vision, usually irrespective of mass appeal. Low art is created with the purpose of driving mass appeal, mass viewership, and as a result, profit. One is creator-driven, the other is fundamentally viewer-driven.

But what creates that distinction? What if the creator's artistic vision to to create something that has mass appeal? Wouldn't that qualify as high art?

The qualifications can be easily ignored if you take into consideration that the only objective of the concept of low or high art is to attempt to give them a distinction based solely around the concept that one is better than the other.

Godnorgosh posted...

lol

Blocking something behind high art and then shitting on anything beneath it is the literal definition of being pretentious.

You can say theres different reasons make movies all you want, but all of them are art. And one type isnt better or higher than the other. And thats what people like you and Scorsese refuse to acknowledge because anything he doesnt like, he doesnt think is real cinema.

Just because he wouldnt make the movie, doesnt make it any less art than any of his movies. And you can choose to like his better all you want. You dont have to like the MCU. Yeah, some movies are really bad in it. Some of them are fairly bland. Some of them are really good as well. Thats what happens when you have a giant shared universe.

The fact that your response was just lol proves my point that some movies are labeled something higher because it makes people feel better about themselves.

Most MCU movies follow the same formula as set forth by Disney. I dunno if its real but I heard that some cgi scenes are already being worked on before theres even a damn script.

I cannot think of a bigger waste of time than arguing if something is high or low art