Selasa, 05 November 2019

Martin Scorsese Explains What He Was Trying to Say About Marvel Movies - Slate

Martin Scorsese makes a "calm down" gesture behind a podium at an awards show.

Hold on, let me explain!

David Livingston/Getty Images

Since early October, the film world has been arguing about Martin Scorsese’s thoughts on Marvel movies, based on a brief answer he gave in an Empire magazine interview in which he compared the films to theme parks said he did not consider them cinema. The discussion had a certain amount of Kremlinology to it: Scorsese only said a few words on the matter, leaving more room for projection than a movie palace, and so a lot of different issues were being conflated in the responses from both Scorsese’s New Hollywood peers and Marvel fans and filmmakers. On Monday, Scorsese published an op-ed in the New York Times hashing out exactly what he was trying to say. It’s a beautifully written, melancholy look at the state of the industry, and although it’s unlikely to change many minds, it should reduce the number of people talking past each other. Read it, read it, read it.

Advertisement

It’s a generous essay in one sense: Scorsese goes out of his way to acknowledge that taste isn’t subject to dispute, going so far as to say that if he had been born later, he could imagine enjoying Marvel movies. He also interrogates his own taste as a young man, acknowledging that some of his favorite films—Alfred Hitchcock’s in particular—promised and delivered some of the same theme park thrills Marvel traffics in. But he thinks Marvel is different, and he shows his work, proceeding backwards from “I do not enjoy watching these movies” to the industrial processes that produced them.

Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.

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.

Revelation, mystery, and genuine emotional danger are where you find them, but it’s hard to argue with the way Scorsese characterizes Marvel movies as business ventures built-to-order for a specific purpose. You could say the same thing about the overwhelming majority of Hollywood product, but Scorsese also explains why he isn’t just letting people like things: The scale and cost of a Marvel film requires it to play on as many screens as possible, there are a finite number of movie theaters, and the resulting crush is relegating other types of movies—the ones Scorsese likes to watch and make, for instance—to streaming and home video. That is a real thing that is happening, it is distinct from “I don’t like watching superhero movies,” and it’s something we should be able to talk about without getting into an argument about whether there’s a line between “worldwide audiovisual entertainment” and “cinema,” and if so, where to draw it. (It’s also distinct from “I wanted The Irishman to play in more theaters,” as he explains.) To be clear, Scorsese isn’t backing down from the argument part of this, and this gets Disney dead to rights, given the way they’re locking down the Fox library:

… there are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive and proprietary—a lethal combination. 

Advertisement

The debate over whether or not Hollywood studios are making good movies at the moment has been raging since 1911, and it’s not going to end any time soon. But going forward, at least we have some clarity about what Scorsese thinks about Marvel movies.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://slate.com/culture/2019/11/martin-scorsese-on-marvel-mcu-new-york-times-op-ed-not-cinema.amp

2019-11-05 06:49:00Z
CAIiEI-Qp01xgSpelCgYGvYXAuwqFggEKg0IACoGCAowuLUIMNFnMMyu7QU

Martin Scorsese clarifies criticism of Marvel movies but refuses to back down - The A.V. Club

Photo: Vittorio Zunino Celotto (Getty Images)

It may feel like we’ve been hearing about this for years, but it was only a month ago that Martin Scorsese shocked the world by declaring that he wasn’t especially interested in Marvel movies, saying they were more like theme park rides than proper cinema. Based on the sheer volume of the backlash, though, you would’ve thought his totally fine opinion—which has absolutely no impact on anyone’s life whatsoever—had somehow killed the beloved childhood dog of literally everyone on the planet. Everyone got mad (because whether or not people like Marvel movies is the most important issue of our time) and then, mercifully, it all seemed to die down.

Until tonight. For some inexplicable reason, Scorsese has decided to resurrect this certified Dumb Controversy in the New York Times op-ed section (also home to the most highly regarded pieces about the benefits of coddling fascists) with an essay featuring the catchy title “I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain.” And explain he does! The crux of the piece is that Scorsese wants to clarify that he doesn’t hate Marvel movies and that he doesn’t intend to insult them or the people who like them, he just doesn’t like them because he doesn’t think they live up to the high standards of the art form that he loves so much.

Scorsese admits that he probably would’ve liked Marvel movies just fine if he were younger, but he grew up in the age when movies fought to be treated with the same legitimacy as books and music, and so he remembers when movies were about “confronting the unexpected on the screen” and “enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form.” He concedes that Alfred Hitchcock movies were sort of the MCU equivalent of his day, and though he loved them and still loves them, they “were also like theme parks in a way.” That being said, he believes that it’s not the “thrills and the shocks” that made those movies so good, but the art that went into making them—for example, he highlights the “painful emotions” that drive North By Northwest and the “absolute lostness” of Cary Grant’s character over the “stunning” set pieces.

Advertisement

Marvel movies, as he sees it, don’t meet that level of art because there’s no risk to them. There’s no “revelation, mystery, or genuine emotional danger” because they’re all meticulously designed to meet “a specific set of demands.” This wouldn’t really be a problem, though, if not for the fact that Marvel movies are now unavoidable. “In many places around this country and around the world,” he says, “franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen,” but he doesn’t think it’s a “matter of supply and demand.” Instead, he thinks of it as a “chicken-and-egg issue,” which is to say that people only want to see Marvel movies because that’s all there is, but that’s all there is because it’s all people want to see.

Scorsese goes into the history of Hollywood and the competing motivations between the artistic side and the business side, and he also makes a point to repeatedly note that the people making these franchise movies are often very talented and creative, it’s just that the things they’re making are part of a soulless machine that can only create the same things over and over again.

He makes a strong case that’s hard to argue with, even for people who like Marvel movies and believe that the efforts required to make The Avengers and Endgame happen were masterful in their own right, but let’s all be honest here: Nothing he could ever possibly say will sway anyone from one side of this “argument” to the other. So maybe we could all just agree to cut this shit out and accept that it’s totally fine to like Marvel movies and it’s equally fine to think they’re bad. (Just kidding, we should keep arguing about this until we all die.)

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.avclub.com/martin-scorsese-clarifies-criticism-of-marvel-movies-bu-1839625004

2019-11-05 04:32:00Z
52780426591049

Alexandra Grant: 5 Things To Know About Keanu Reeves’ Girlfriend After Their Red Carpet Debut - Hollybaby

Alexandra Grant was Keanu Reeves’ first ever (romantic) date on a red carpet, 35 years after launching his career! Here’s what you should know about the renown artist whose work relationship with Keanu blossomed into something more.

Alexandra Grant’s love story with Keanu Reeves, 55, is a beautiful one. The 46-year-old artist’s fateful meeting with the John Wick star at a dinner party in 2009 led to nearly a decade of work collaborations, a love for art and books, and a friendship that all culminated into their red carpet debut as a couple at the LACMA Art + Film Gala in Los Angeles on Nov. 2, 2019. Keanu’s decision to bring a plus-one (that wasn’t a relative or friend) was a big one. To the public’s knowledge, the actor hasn’t been joined by a sweetheart on the red carpet since appearing in his first movie in 1985! However, the blossoming romance between Alexandra and Keanu was already apparent after they were seen holding hands at the Saint Laurent Mens Spring Summer 20 Show in Malibu on June 6 — it’s just extra official now!

Keanu (publicly) remained a bachelor for a long time after the tragic death of his stillborn daughter Ava Archer Syme-Reeves in 1999, which was shortly followed by a car accident that cost the life of the child’s mother and Keanu’s former girlfriend, actress Jennifer Syme, in 2001. Here’s what you should know about Alexandra, the woman who has captured The Internet Boyfriend’s heart after all this time — a feat most could only dream of!

1. Text and language inspires Alexandra’s art. She is described as “a text-based artist who uses language and networks of words as the basis for her work in painting, drawing and sculpture,” according to the Ochi Gallery’s introduction for Alexandra. The talented artist fostered her love for the spoken word as a child, since she grew up in a variety of countries: Mexico, Spain and France.

2. Her work has been showcased in prestigious museums. Alexandra’s art has been put on display in the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) in Los Angeles, the Contemporary Museum in Baltimore, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), the Galerie Gradiva in Paris, the The Broad Museum at Michigan State University, and the Harris Lieberman Gallery in New York City, just to name a few!

Alexandra Grant, Keanu Reeves
Holding hands, Keanu Reeves and Alexandra Grant make their red carpet debut as a couple at the LACMA Art + Film Gala in Los Angeles on Nov. 2, 2019.

3. Keanu is one of Alexandra’s longtime collaborators. Their relationship, professional at first, began with books! Alexandra contributed the illustrations for Keanu’s first book, a grown-up picture book called Ode To Happiness, that was published in 2011. She also lent a hand to illustrate Keanu’s poetry book, Shadows, released in 2015.

4. Alexandra and Keanu run a publishing company together. The publishing company, called X Artists’ Books, launched in the summer of 2017. A deviation from mainstream imprints, the company focuses on “unusual collaborations” and books that “don’t really have a place because they’re between genres,” which the business partners explained in an interview with Los Angeles Magazine in Feb. 2018. The interviewer noted that they shared an “easy rapport” and spoke “in a comfortable shorthand fueled by inside jokes and knowing smiles” — foreshadowing, is it not?

5. Alexandra is active in artist philanthropy. She founded the grantLOVE project in 2008, which sells a variety of products from hoodies, screen prints to neon signs to raise funds for other artists’ projects and non-profits!

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://hollywoodlife.com/feature/who-is-alexandra-grant-artist-3782701/

2019-11-05 06:18:00Z
52780427191346

Senin, 04 November 2019

Kim Kardashian and Kanye West’s whole family kept Halloween going with two more group costumes - Yahoo Lifestyle

As if it wasn’t already clear, Halloween is an event for the Kardashian family. After donning her Elle Woods costume on October 31st, Kim Kardashian West pulled her family together to pull off three—yes, three—group Halloween costumes, all of which were debuted during the following weekend. And we thought we loved Halloween. But we just can’t compete with the Kardashian-West clan.

The last group costume Kim shared on her Instagram was Kanye and the kids dressed as the characters from the 2016 animated movie Sing. Saint played Johnny, Psalm played Johnny’s brother, Chicago went as Ash, and Kanye as Johnny’s dad (in a giant gorilla suit).

undefined

Neither Kim nor North took part in the Sing costume. But don’t worry. They were present for the other two family costumes earlier in the weekend.

Before the Sing costume, Kanye, Kim, and the kids dressed as “West Worms.”

Again, Kanye looked mildly terrifying in his faceless costume. And yeah, those tentacles coming out of his “mouth” (??) moved. We’re not sure how the kids weren’t crying.

It turns out, the kids actually did cry during the family’s first Halloween photo session. Well, at least Chicago was crying. She couldn’t quite handle the fact that her father was in that inflatable Dino suit. And TBH, we don’t blame her.

undefined

Thankfully, Chicago recovered in time to get a couple of cute shots with her mom and sister.

How are we supposed to compete with Halloween enthusiasts like the Kardashian-Wests? We better start planning our three+ group costumes now if we want to run with big dogs come next year.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/kim-kardashian-kanye-west-whole-144852476.html

2019-11-04 14:48:00Z
52780425513104

Olivia Newton-John's famous 'Grease' outfit sells for over $400,000 - CNBC

Jeff Conaway, Olivia Newton-John, John Travolta and Stockard Channing in a still from 'Grease'

Fotos International | Moviepix | Getty Images

Olivia Newton-John's iconic outfit from the final scene of the movie "Grease" has sold at auction for more than $400,000.

The all-black ensemble, which the actress was famously sewn into to shoot the scenes, fetched a combined $405,700 at the sale in Beverly Hills on Saturday. Its estimated sale price was between $140,000 and $260,000.

Newton-John, who played Sandy in the 1978 hit musical, auctioned off more than 500 personal items and memorabilia on Friday and Saturday, according to auctioneers Julien's Auctions.

Other items in the sale included Newton-John's custom "Pink Ladies" jacket, which sold for $50,000, and the pink gown she wore to the "Grease" premiere, which went for $18,750.

The auction raised a total of $2.4 million, according to The Guardian newspaper, with a portion of the profits set to be donated to the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness & Research Centre in Australia.

Newton-John is currently undergoing treatment for stage four breast cancer, after being diagnosed with the disease twice previously in 1992 and 2013.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/olivia-newton-johns-famous-grease-outfit-sells-for-over-400000.html

2019-11-04 15:12:04Z
52780425783959

Olivia Newton-John's famous 'Grease' outfit sells for over $400,000 - CNBC

Jeff Conaway, Olivia Newton-John, John Travolta and Stockard Channing in a still from 'Grease'

Fotos International | Moviepix | Getty Images

Olivia Newton-John's iconic outfit from the final scene of the movie "Grease" has sold at auction for more than $400,000.

The all-black ensemble, which the actress was famously sewn into to shoot the scenes, fetched a combined $405,700 at the sale in Beverly Hills on Saturday. Its estimated sale price was between $140,000 and $260,000.

Newton-John, who played Sandy in the 1978 hit musical, auctioned off more than 500 personal items and memorabilia on Friday and Saturday, according to auctioneers Julien's Auctions.

Other items in the sale included Newton-John's custom "Pink Ladies" jacket, which sold for $50,000, and the pink gown she wore to the "Grease" premiere, which went for $18,750.

The auction raised a total of $2.4 million, according to The Guardian newspaper, with a portion of the profits set to be donated to the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness & Research Centre in Australia.

Newton-John is currently undergoing treatment for stage four breast cancer, after being diagnosed with the disease twice previously in 1992 and 2013.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/olivia-newton-johns-famous-grease-outfit-sells-for-over-400000.html

2019-11-04 12:42:31Z
52780425783959

Olivia Newton-John's famous 'Grease' outfit sells for over $400,000 - CNBC

Jeff Conaway, Olivia Newton-John, John Travolta and Stockard Channing in a still from 'Grease'

Fotos International | Moviepix | Getty Images

Olivia Newton-John's iconic outfit from the final scene of the movie "Grease" has sold at auction for more than $400,000.

The all-black ensemble, which the actress was famously sewn into to shoot the scenes, fetched a combined $405,700 at the sale in Beverly Hills on Saturday. Its estimated sale price was between $140,000 and $260,000.

Newton-John, who played Sandy in the 1978 hit musical, auctioned off more than 500 personal items and memorabilia on Friday and Saturday, according to auctioneers Julien's Auctions.

Other items in the sale included Newton-John's custom "Pink Ladies" jacket, which sold for $50,000, and the pink gown she wore to the "Grease" premiere, which went for $18,750.

The auction raised a total of $2.4 million, according to The Guardian newspaper, with a portion of the profits set to be donated to the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness & Research Centre in Australia.

Newton-John is currently undergoing treatment for stage four breast cancer, after being diagnosed with the disease twice previously in 1992 and 2013.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/olivia-newton-johns-famous-grease-outfit-sells-for-over-400000.html

2019-11-04 10:14:40Z
52780425783959