Martin Scorsese Essay on Streaming Platforms and Film as "Content"

[Pink Mist]

Last year, filmmaker (turned critic?) Martin Scorsese took aim at superhero movies comparing them to amusement park rides, this year he's put his sights at the streaming services in another excellent and provocative essay.

[Essay] Il Maestro, By Martin Scorsese | Harper's Magazine

The art of cinema is being systematically devalued, sidelined, demeaned, and reduced to its lowest common denominator, “content.”

As recently as fifteen years ago, the term “content” was heard only when people were discussing the cinema on a serious level, and it was contrasted with and measured against “form.” Then, gradually, it was used more and more by the people who took over media companies, most of whom knew nothing about the history of the art form, or even cared enough to think that they should. “Content” became a business term for all moving images: a David Lean movie, a cat video, a Super Bowl commercial, a superhero sequel, a series episode. It was linked, of course, not to the theatrical experience but to home viewing, on the streaming platforms that have come to overtake the moviegoing experience, just as Amazon overtook physical stores. On the one hand, this has been good for filmmakers, myself included. On the other hand, it has created a situation in which everything is presented to the viewer on a level playing field, which sounds democratic but isn’t. If further viewing is “suggested” by algorithms based on what you’ve already seen, and the suggestions are based only on subject matter or genre, then what does that do to the art of cinema?

Click to read more...

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Comparing superhero movies to amusement park rides is a bad comparison. The latter is far more thrilling, inventive and stimulating (both physically and intellectually) than the latter it their current form.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Oh, and interesting snippet in that article. I'm going to read the rest.

 

[Osprey]

I'm sure that he has a good point that I would partly agree with if I cared to read it. That said, I also find it funny that he's lamenting about "content" on streaming platforms when his Netflix movie was 4 hours long.

 

[Pink Mist]

I'm sure that he has a good point that I would partly agree with if I cared to read it. That said, I also find it funny that he's lamenting about "content" on streaming platforms when his Netflix movie was 4 hours long.

To be fair he acknowledges this that he has directly benefit from it. His point is more about the perils of algorithms deciding on what's available over curation

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Unfortunately, not that insightful or fresh of an article as the above snippet amounts to almost all of it that isn't strictly gushing over Fellini. The end weaves away from that but it's the same old 'movie is becoming more and more of a cash business' that we all know so well.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

To be fair he acknowledges this that he has directly benefit from it. His point is more about the perils of algorithms deciding on what's available over curation

Yeah, but we all know this. It's been talked to death. The people who are going to read that article probably already know (and agree) with him. Other people in the film business won't do anything about it because there's a lot of cash invested in it. It's too bad but I'm not sure I take his crying very seriously. So what if MUBI and The Criterion Channel is where folks now have to go to watch curated movies? I assume it's still more accessible than what the average moviegoer had before the Internet, both in terms of access and as a resource for world and independent cinema. The average viewer who only follows what's recommended to him by Netflix has probably never thought of the dilemma in the first place - nor do I think they would care to. They see the visual arts (sometimes without realizing it) the same way I see playing a game of Madden. I just fail to see how the caring moviegoer is in worst shape than in the 60s or the 70s.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Ah the proverbial death of art. Again.

 

[Shareefruck]

I didn't read it, but it sounds about right at face value, although I'm not sure what can be done about it-- you're not going to stop technology from doing its thing. I'm sure other factors do probably make up for it to some degree as well.

I don't know if this is exactly what he's talking about, but I've always felt that if you're exposed to enough different things, what you initially think you want usually turns out to be very different from what you might eventually realize you want (and whatever that might be will inevitably have more potential value, I think). People will always gravitate towards the former first and get stuck in that comfort zone to some degree, and it was already hard enough in past eras for the latter to gain any traction (because it goes against our natural impulses and you kind of have to accidentally stumble upon it), but now with things like algorithms pin-pointing the former with greater accuracy and making that comfort zone easier to find and stay in (and harder to escape from), the whole thing seems designed to restrict the possibility for learning or developing what our preferences actually are.

The old system of having strongly opinionated and passionate authority figures tell you what you ought to think is good and giving that a lot of weight that you're forced to consider maybe isn't perfect either, but it's a lot better than just reinforcing that whatever you already think is right is always right, in my view. This is why I always find it really dumb when some people have that "I don't read reviews/care about what other people think because I don't want my opinion to be affected by others" attitude-- impressionability is a good thing.

The thing I personally find most rewarding about media is that feeling when something challenges your preconceived notions about what's good and what works and completely changes your perspective on it by making a strongly expressed case for it, and this whole algorithm-driven-recommendations trend does seem pretty antithetical to that, I find.

I don't really agree with the "Wah-wah-- People always whine about art dying and it always survives" sentiment, either. Like, yeah, it's never going to go away completely, but certain powerful factors that people are concerned with can certaintly hurt that and turn it into more of a receding up-hill battle. I don't think it should be taken for granted that it'll just always be as strong as it ever was no matter what (and I actually do think that a lot of those previous concerns have already weakened it, personally). I'm also sure that to some extent, the reason for this resilience is partly because these kinds of dangers were taken seriously and vigilantly combated by alternatives, not because they were never valid concerns in the first place.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

...and the people complaining about this today will be making the same arguments in 30-40 years themselves.

 

[Pink Mist]

Yeah, but we all know this. It's been talked to death. The people who are going to read that article probably already know (and agree) with him. Other people in the film business won't do anything about it because there's a lot of cash invested in it. It's too bad but I'm not sure I take his crying very seriously. So what if MUBI and The Criterion Channel is where folks now have to go to watch curated movies? I assume it's still more accessible than what the average moviegoer had before the Internet, both in terms of access and as a resource for world and independent cinema. The average viewer who only follows what's recommended to him by Netflix has probably never thought of the dilemma in the first place - nor do I think they would care to. They see the visual arts (sometimes without realizing it) the same way I see playing a game of Madden. I just fail to see how the caring moviegoer is in worst shape than in the 60s or the 70s.

But that's his point, that the average moviegoer is worse off than before. He writes about Fellini because he's arguing that Fellini would not have the success he had in the 50s-60s in today's film environment because of these streaming giants. Since these services see film as content, they load their services with safe, less risky, lowest common denominator films, and due to how the algorithm is designed it will keep recommending these kinds of movies. This isn't to say that your average moviegoer would see Fellini today if things were different, but their chance to see challenging or different films are lost because we've lost this aspect of curation. While you may be right that things in theory are may accessible today, the path to actually get these films to an audience is the problem

 

[Shareefruck]

...and the people complaining about this today will be making the same arguments in 30-40 years themselves.

That's always the response, and I don't really understand the logic behind that sentiment. If the argument is that A is an ever growing force that progressively weakens B, how does the fact that people will be complaining about the same thing in 30-40 years contradict or dismiss that in any way? However bad of an effect something can have, it can always get worse and that would still be consistent with the original suggestion without negating its validity.

 

[RandV]

To be fair he acknowledges this that he has directly benefit from it. His point is more about the perils of algorithms deciding on what's available over curation

I haven't read the article but I have a hard time agreeing here. Content algorithm on something like youtube can be bad because there you can find just an endless downward spiral. There's much less of an issue on an already curated platform like Netflix. It can shoot recommendations your way but if you start focusing on say 'super heroes' and binging you'll eventually hit an end. Plus as each option can represent a significant time commitment I'd assume most people will put a bit more effort into planning what to watch next.

Basically I assume this is something about algorithms keeping people from diversifying and finding less known art house films or whatever, but I fail to see how that's much different from the regular old cinema. And from a certain perspective I'd think a Netflix will increase your diversity, as in addition to your own recommended list they always have the general 'top shows' and 'top shows in <country>'.

Like personally considering international fair, this past year on Netflix I've watched shows direct from Korea, Japan, India, Denmark, France, Germany, Australia, and maybe one or two more. Typically through traditional 'cinema' I'd probably only see one foreign film a year. Is this not better?

 

[Rhaegar Targaryen]

The entertainment industry is ever changing. People appreciate convenience..finding a date through an app, watching a movie from home on a website, having your favourite food delivered to your door.

I personally enjoy seeing a movie I’m interested in a theatre, but I’ve also gotten to see plenty of films I wouldn’t have seen because of streaming services.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

This is why I always find it really dumb when some people have that "I don't read reviews/care about what other people think because I don't want my opinion to be affected by others" attitude-- impressionability is a good thing.

Guilty. Not because I don't want my opinion to be affected by others, just because I really absolutely don't care about what other people think (in regards to what I should or shouldn't like, I'm always curious about what they like, but rarely read something about a film I haven't already seen).

I don't really agree with the "Wah-wah-- People always whine about art dying and it always survives" sentiment, either.

That's probably because you think, like Scorsese, that you have an interesting take about what's good or bad cinema. You don't (and he doesn't). The arrival of sound was supposed to kill film art, the arrival of color, the arrival of TV, block booking, digital projection, etc., etc. - and everytime, there's some important figures that pronounce film dead or dying - not only does it survive, but new technologies bring new forms that eventually also end up considered as "high art".

Stretching the horizon of expectations is what art do. The more washed-out film consumption becomes, the thinnier the expectations, the easier that horizon is to stretch, but there will always be a point outside that horizon that artists can aim for - and this, will be art.

 

[Pink Mist]

I think an easy solution to this issue he is identifying is found on Spotify. Where they do recommend you things but they also feature well curated playlists and even the ability for artists and users to create and share their own playlists (Spotify obviously has its own problems though). I would love to see a curated list of movies by Scorsese on Netflix for example.

This is basically what Criterion Channel, Mubi, and Shudder is and why I find them so refreshing. It's surprising that Netflix wouldn't adapt to improve their recommendation

 

[Osprey]

I haven't read the article but I have a hard time agreeing here. Content algorithm on something like youtube can be bad because there you can find just an endless downward spiral. There's much less of an issue on an already curated platform like Netflix. It can shoot recommendations your way but if you start focusing on say 'super heroes' and binging you'll eventually hit an end. Plus as each option can represent a significant time commitment I'd assume most people will put a bit more effort into planning what to watch next.

Basically I assume this is something about algorithms keeping people from diversifying and finding less known art house films or whatever, but I fail to see how that's much different from the regular old cinema. And from a certain perspective I'd think a Netflix will increase your diversity, as in addition to your own recommended list they always have the general 'top shows' and 'top shows in <country>'.

Like personally considering international fair, this past year on Netflix I've watched shows direct from Korea, Japan, India, Denmark, France, Germany, Australia, and maybe one or two more. Typically through traditional 'cinema' I'd probably only see one foreign film a year. Is this not better?

I watched a new Spanish movie on Netflix just last night.... and I liked it. A few nights ago, I watched a new Korean movie, also on Netflix. I wouldn't have paid attention to either of them if it weren't for Netflix distributing them. Now, granted, I learned about both movies outside of Netflix, not because they recommended it to me with their algorithms, but the whole reason why Netflix paid to distribute them is to generate content for their service, and films being reduced to "content" seems to be what Scorsese is worried about.

It's kind of funny that we're all talking about what he wrote while most of us admit to not having read it. I tried reading it, but it seemed too artistically bloated and I didn't want to read an entire essay just to get the gist of it. The poster who suggested that he wrote it for people who would agree with him seems accurate. If you want to reach the masses, an "essay" probably isn't the best vehicle. What he should've done is made a short documentary out of it and given it to Netflix to add to their content .

 

[Spring in Fialta]

But that's his point, that the average moviegoer is worse off than before. He writes about Fellini because he's arguing that Fellini would not have the success he had in the 50s-60s in today's film environment because of these streaming giants.

I think that's a difficult thing to say with any sort of confidence considering the success we've seen world directors have since the turn of the 21st century.

Since these services see film as content, they load their services with safe, less risky, lowest common denominator films, and due to how the algorithm is designed it will keep recommending these kinds of movies.

But that's the thing, there are streaming services that offer more unique films and it's not like a platform like Netflix are completely devoid of them. Also, is the algorithm offering choices based on accessibility or genre, subject matter? For example, one could watch a weak, run-of-the-mill film with an LGBT subject matter, but would that film's mediocrity/accessibility/rating/popularity prevent it from the user being recommended something like Tomboy (I haven't seen it but it is an example of a criticially acclaimed art film that was offered on Netflix)?

This isn't to say that your average moviegoer would see Fellini today if things were different, but their chance to see challenging or different films are lost because we've lost this aspect of curation. While you may be right that things in theory are may accessible today, the path to actually get these films to an audience is the problem.

But my question is, how accessible was that curation to moviegoers who were not interested in these kind of films in the first place? For example, to some average joe in middle America, is Mubi any less accessible than say, Cahiers du cinéma at its peak relevance? Like, any person that I know that as a strong interest in cinema never mentioned some media release as their first step into non-Hollywood films. Often, it's just been a recommendation from a peer or a genuine, personally cultivated curiosity. Curators are a tool and I doubt very much an introductory one.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I watched a new Spanish movie on Netflix just last night.... and I liked it. A few nights ago, I watched a new Korean movie, also on Netflix.

While this is great, where I agree with my buddy Martin is that it's all very normalizing. You've watch that Spanish movie, the same your neighbour will watch if he cares to watch one too. Is this a problem? Not really if it means more people watch a Spanish movie they wouldn't have watched, but maybe a little if everybody that would have watched a Spanish movie end up watching the one Netflix selected for them.

In the end, I don't think it changes much. There's always been just a restricted crowd that cares enough to partake in the Festivals' runs, even fewer that would go for the lesser revered arty films that you need to dig to find. I don't think this will change.

 

[Shareefruck]

Guilty. Not because I don't want my opinion to be affected by others, just because I really absolutely don't care about what other people think (in regards to what I should or shouldn't like, I'm always curious about what they like, but rarely read something about a film I haven't already seen).



That's probably because you think, like Scorsese, that you have an interesting take about what's good or bad cinema. You don't (and he doesn't). The arrival of sound was supposed to kill film art, the arrival of color, the arrival of TV, block booking, digital projection, etc., etc. - and everytime, there's some important figures that pronounce film dead or dying - not only does it survive, but new technologies bring new forms that eventually also end up considered as "high art".

Stretching the horizon of expectations is what art do. The more washed-out film consumption becomes, the thinnier the expectations, the easier that horizon is to stretch, but there will always be a point outside that horizon that artists can aim for - and this, will be art.

I'm not as knowledgable about the history of these things as you guys are, but I don't see what is wrong with having a take about what you think seems good or bad for the direction the medium goes in, personally. Sure, we realistically have no control over it and can't micromanage it, but like everything else, there are things that we value and would want to encourage and things that we don't and would want to discourage. There's nothing wrong with expressing that (although I don't know how aggressively Scorsese does it). Instead of just believing that every change is a good one because some high art will inevitably result from it, it makes more sense to me to view each change on more of a case by case basis in regards to how we think a change is a benefit or harm. The concern isn't whether or not high art can exist if a trend continues (I agree that it always can), it's how the result would compare with and without it, which is unknowable because we move in the direction that we move in, but I think that is still fair to speculate about and pick a leaning anyways.

Besides, it's not impossible to find a direction something goes in to be bad in hindsight, even if nothing is bad enough to truly kill that thing outright. Maybe not the best example, but a lot of good things came out of Disco, and it didn't kill music, but it had a ripple effect that people can have mixed reactions about, and who's to say that music wouldn't have been better off if it never took off (or if it had less dominant cultural power)? You can't just go "Look, here's an amazing thing that came out of disco, here's another amazing thing that came out of disco" and consider that so easily disproven, IMO.

There also seems to be weirdly a bit of "history is written by the victors" to this. Since things as they currently are seem fine according to us, the people who complained about them at one point get dismissed as if they were clearly proven wrong, but I'm not convinced that that's even necessarily the case, personally. I'm not familiar with the historical argument that you're alluding to, but the hypothetical that we would have been better off if television was never introduced sounds pretty wild and out there, sure, and I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't think it's clearly invalid or unfathomable, even looking at it now with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[Osprey]

While this is great, where I agree with my buddy Martin is that it's all very normalizing. You've watch that Spanish movie, the same your neighbour will watch if he cares to watch one too. Is this a problem? Not really if it means more people watch a Spanish movie they wouldn't have watched, but maybe a little if everybody that would have watched a Spanish movie end up watching the one Netflix selected for them.

In the end, I don't think it changes much. There's always been just a restricted crowd that cares enough to partake in the Festivals' runs, even fewer that would go for the lesser revered arty films that you need to dig to find. I don't think this will change.

I see your point, but who decides "I feel like a Spanish movie tonight"? I certainly didn't. In fact, I started watching the movie last night only knowing that it was foreign and, a few minutes in, went "Hey, they're cursing in Spanish. This must be a Spanish movie." Also, that Korean movie that I watched a few nights ago? The whole time that I was watching it, I thought that it was Chinese. Maybe I'm not very observant... but my point is that I'll decide to watch a movie on the basis of genre, plot summary, actors, director and/or reviews more so than origin. I imagine that most other people do, as well... unless they just can't get into foreign movies, in which case they probably aren't going to be going "I feel like a [foreign] movie tonight," either.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I see your point, but who decides "I feel like a Spanish movie tonight"? I certainly didn't. In fact, I started watching the movie last night only knowing that it was foreign and, a few minutes in, went "Hey, they're cursing in Spanish. This must be a Spanish movie!" Also, that Korean movie that I watched a few nights ago? The whole time that I was watching it, I thought that it was Chinese. Maybe I'm not very observant... but my point is that I'll decide to watch a movie on the basis of genre, plot summary, actors, director and/or reviews more so than origin. I imagine that most other people do, as well... unless they just can't get into foreign movies, in which case they probably aren't going to be going "I feel like a [foreign] movie tonight," either.

I didn't mean that people would necessarily want to watch a Spanish film specifically, just that they end up watching one. You could replace Spanish with foreigh, or art film, the idea would be the same.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I'm not as knowledgable about the history of these things as you guys are, but I don't see what is wrong with having a take about what you think seems good or bad for the direction the medium goes in, personally. Sure, we realistically have no control over it and can't micromanage it, but like everything else, there are things that we value and would want to encourage and things that we don't and would want to discourage. There's nothing wrong with expressing that (although I don't know how aggressively Scorsese does it). Instead of just believing that every change is a good one because some high art will inevitably result from it, it makes more sense to me to view each change on more of a case by case basis in regards to how we think a change is a benefit or harm. The concern isn't whether or not high art can exist if a trend continues (I agree that it always can), it's how the result would compare with and without it, which is unknowable because we move in the direction that we move in, but I think that is still fair to speculate about and pick a leaning anyways.

Besides, it's not impossible to find a direction something goes in to be bad in hindsight, even if nothing is bad enough to truly kill that thing outright. Maybe not the best example, but a lot of good things came out of Disco, and it didn't kill music, but it had a ripple effect that people can have mixed reactions about, and who's to say that music wouldn't have been better off if it never took off (or if it had less cultural power)? You can't just go "Look, here's an amazing thing that came out of disco, here's another amazing thing that came out of disco" and consider that so easily disproven, IMO.

There also seems to be weirdly a bit of "history is written by the victors" to this. Since things as they currently are seem fine according to us, the people who complained about them at one point get dismissed as if they were clearly proven wrong, but I'm not convinced that that's even necessarily the case, personally. I'm not familiar with the historical argument that you're alluding to, but the hypothetical that we would have been better off if television was never introduced sounds pretty out there, sure, and I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't think it's completely invalid or unfathomable, even looking at it now with the benefit of hindsight.

Can't really disagree with you, and certainly some of these changes brought a poorer period of creativity, but eventually everything comes back afloat and none of this came close to killing film art. My point was that Scorsese, and most people, argue in defense to what they already consider great art as if it was a finite concept and can't admit other great things are being made and will continue to be made above and beyond their understanding of what's good. Who cares if Fellini wouldn't have today the success he had back then? Who says Fellini would be relevant at all in these days? Marty sure ain't much... ;-)

 

[Osprey]

I didn't mean that people would necessarily want to watch a Spanish film specifically, just that they end up watching one. You could replace Spanish with foreigh, or art film, the idea would be the same.

In that case, my answer would be the same. I don't imagine that most people would decide to watch a foreign film or an art film, either. I, for one, put other qualities first. For example, I felt like watching a thriller last night and the one that sounded as if I might like it, mostly based on the premise, setting and reviews, happened to be Spanish. If I watch an art film, it'll have to similarly appeal to me on several levels first.

I think that I get the gist of your argument. I just don't see it as a problem, at least compared to all of the advantages. I see it as being better that lots of people watch the same example of a type of film than few people watch that type of film. For example, probably the only Korean film that a lot of non-film buffs have seen is Parasite. Is that a bad thing when the alternative is that all of those people still wouldn't have seen any Korean film? If the argument is that it'd be better if all of those people were to watch different Korean films rather than the same one, that seems like something that'd be nice in theory, but very unrealistic.

 

[Shareefruck]

Can't really disagree with you, and certainly some of these changes brought a poorer period of creativity, but eventually everything comes back afloat and none of this came close to killing film art. My point was that Scorsese, and most people, argue in defense to what they already consider great art as if it was a finite concept and can't admit other great things are being made and will continue to be made above and beyond their understanding of what's good. Who cares if Fellini wouldn't have today the success he had back then? Who says Fellini would be relevant at all in these days? Marty sure ain't much... ;-)

Don't get me wrong, I would never argue that anything puts art in danger of actually being "killed" (that strikes me as just someone being melodramatic-- even if every acknowledgement of it disappeared off the face of the planet, it would just end up being organically rediscovered again), but weakened for a period of time?-- absolutely. And even if it will inevitably come back, that damage seems more than unfortunate enough to me to warrant expressing concern.

That said, I'm struggling to see how what you're saying is any different than just about anyone having an opinion on what they think is good or bad and expressing that, just in general. We all have no choice but to concede that we have a limited understanding of what we could potentially end up thinking is good or bad (because that whole world-view can be flipped upside down at any point through some new insight that we're not aware of yet), yet we tentatively express our opinions about them anyways and draw tentative conclusions about the value we do or don't see in them, or the credit that you would rather give to some than others. Do you think that's obnoxious as well? I tend to think that "This is my tentative assessment given all that I can possibly understand at the moment" should be implied without needing to be said, and that this type of opinion still has a ton of value that I greatly appreciate being expressed. I don't see why this wouldn't extend to opinions about what we do or don't like about the direction that the medium's going in, personally-- just as much uncertainty seems to be at play, in my view (again, maybe Scorsese expresses it in a particularly d*ckish way or something, I don't know).