The recent debate about whether the Marvel Cinematic Universe or superhero movies generally is “cinema” is getting more and more heated every day.
Since Martin Scorsese first commented that superhero movies are not cinema, more have chipped in. Francis Coppola also decried the popularity of these non-cinematic products and added more fuel to the debate. But what exactly is cinema? And who can determined whether a piece of cinematic work can be considered as well…‘cinema’?
With the advance of technology, we have opened up a lot of possibilities in movie making that were not available for film makers previously. As such testing or revisiting genre became more accessible than ever as compared to before. Just looking at the Star Wars franchise – from the first Star Wars (before it was even being renamed as ‘A New Hope’) to now ‘The Rise of Skywalker’, technology had allowed the retelling or continued telling of stories in a way that were impossible in the past.
Martin Scorsese and Francis Coppola have both earned their rights to their comments. I do not think anyone would question their talents and contributions to cinema as an art form to the world. They specialised in certain genres and they did well with those genres. The movies they made drove people’s emotion in the theatres and the way they exploited the technologies using their techniques at that time still have immense impact to all film makers in the world today. Cinema was truly a well-loved art form in their hands.
But was cinema an art form right from the beginning? Or who owns the right to cinema as an art form?
Cinema was created as part of technological development. It allows us to record memories as actual moving images as we remembered. It became a more engaging way for telling stories than just going through photo books. So it is not surprising that its creation also created generations of film makers who told excellent and exciting stories on screen. As cinema transformed from a piece of technology into an art form, everything became subjective. Certainly, there are still certain aspects of it that are technical and “basic” but to judge a piece of work as a piece of art has become more subjective.
However, once it involves subjectivity things became complicated. Throughout our cinematic history there were lots of films that were derided by critics but then gradually over the years developed a huge cult following and became important movies in the cinematic world. Was ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ at the time of its release? Was ‘The Big Lebowski’ ‘The Big Lebowski’ when it first hit the theatres? As such it is fair to say that when it comes to art it is not about an instance but the longevity of impact to our cultural history. Each film maker could have his / her fair share of box office hits, or Oscar nominated or winning products, but whether it is cinema or cinematic art within this art form is going to be determined by those who saw them and made judgement on them collectively.
For me personally, if a piece of cinematic work commands my emotion, engages my participation through its unidirectional delivery, opens up my or other people’s world view and progresses our world view, that is a piece of credible art. Great frames, great artistic creation via sets, props and costumes are all important aspects of this experience in the cinema and by that it is not about expensive costumes or sets but about whether these media reflects honestly the world this story is being told in. Hence for me, ‘Avengers: Endgame’ has the same weight as ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ because they both carried the same emotional weight that I felt through the course of the story telling. So they are both cinema to me whether they are about a bunch of dejected superheroes trying to save the day or a pack of wolves trying to rip people off. Lasers firing across CGI battle fields has the same impact as splashes of blood across the screen in ‘Gangs of New York’. The mobs of ‘Godfather’ were equally impactful as the dissidents in ‘Black Panther’ as they both opened our eyes to a different world on a very human level. I appreciated ‘Captain Marvel’ as much as ‘The Cotton Club’. They are different but they both offered different insights of our society.
Cinema is subjective, but whether a piece of work can be considered as “cinema” is not subject to one or two or a few persons’ view but collectively down the human and cultural history. That does not mean that someone is right or wrong as we always need to remember that cultural history only evolves for the better when we have better and more informed discussions on the subject. Sometimes we get really personal because cinematic arts were created with a subjective view of our world so any different views might get extremely sensitive on related parties. As this debate rages on I hope everyone can remain objective on this subjective matter and be informed all the time. Who knows? Maybe through these debates we can even redefine cinema in this modern society.
