La polemica è continuata a montare nel corso dell’ultimo mese, arrivando sino a Bob Iger, il potentissimo CEO di Disney.
A questo punto Martin Scorsese ha preso carta e penna e ha scritto al New York Times, chiarendo una volta per tutte le sue posizioni in un editoriale pubblicato questa mattina e che vi invitiamo a leggere integralmente al link riportato in calce.
Vi riportiamo qui solo qualche stralcio, particolarmente significativo rispetto alla posizione del regista newyorkese su film Marvel: “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”.
Scorsese poi ricorda la battaglia culturale dei suoi tempi per l’accettazione del cinema come forma d’arte. E non solo il cinema degli autori europei, ma anche dei grandi artigiani hollywoodiani, da Fuller a Hawks fino a Hitchcock. Era la rivelazione della politiques des auteurs.
“Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures […] 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”.
E poi arriviamo al cuore del problema. La libertà di scelta e la creazione di vere opportunità: “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.”
Ed in modo ancor più radicale: “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.”
Scorsese conclude il suo editoriale con profonda amarezza: “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”.