Comments on: Martin Scorsese Says He’s Hasn’t Seen Many New Films Because “The Images Don’t Mean Anything”

By: danwroy

danwroy — Tue, 13 Dec 2016 23:51:00 +0000

In reply to Montage Matt. It's not a complicated point. He's saying images are everywhere all the time in a way that isn't true of the world that cinema was founded in. And he feels like they've been drained of meaning. It's an easy point to sympathize with.

By: Montage Matt

Montage Matt — Tue, 13 Dec 2016 01:18:00 +0000

Hard to interpret exactly what he means. It’s a subjective view rather than an accurate objective one. I would argue that perhaps filmmakers may be as technically proficient as they were before but maybe they don’t think about the meaning of each shot. But if you think about it, the old Hollywood of the 1930’s and 40’s was a factory churning out films as fast or faster than today. So I think Scorsese is wedded to the cinema of the 1950’s 1960’s and 1970’s where cinema grew out of cinematic political movements [neorealism] and artists [Godard, Fassbinder, Fellini] who thought about more than just entertaining the audience.

By: rnlol

rnlol — Mon, 12 Dec 2016 23:45:00 +0000

It’s funny how the most sweeping generalisations about the state of contemporary films so often go hand-in-hand with an admission of not actually watching very many contemporary films (cf. any Peter Greenaway interview from the past 25 years).