Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

The Nine Best Quotes from Martin Scorsese's Essay on the Language of Cinema

News
by Maggie Lange
July 28, 2013 2:46 PM
5 Comments
  • |
Georges Melies
Georges Melies


  • Over the years, the Lumieres and Melies have been consistently portrayed as opposites--the idea is that one filmed reality and the other created special effects. Of course this kind of distinction is made all the time--it's a way of simplifying history. But in essence they were both heading in the same direction, just taking different roads--they were taking reality and interpreting it, reshaping it, and trying to find meaning in it.


  • You're seeing it all in your mind's eye, you're inferring it. And this is the fourth aspect of cinema that's so special. That inference. The image in the mind's eye… For me it's where the obsession began. It's what keeps me going, it never fails to excite me. Because you take one shot, you put it together with another shot, and you experience a third image in your mind's eye that doesn't really exist in those two other images... And that has been called, appropriately, I believe, film language.


  • We're face to face with images all the time in a way that we never have been before. And that's why I believe we need to stress visual literacy in our schools. Young people need to understand that not all images are there to be consumed like fast food and then forgotten--we need to educate them to understand the difference between moving images that engage their humanity and their intelligence, and moving images that are just selling them something.


  • So not only do we have to preserve everything, but most importantly, we can't afford to let ourselves be guided by contemporary cultural standards--particularly now. There was a time when the average person wasn’t even aware of box office grosses. But since the 1980s, it's become a kind of sport—and really, a form of judgment. It culturally trivializes film.


  • We have to remember: we may think we know what's going to last and what isn't. We may feel absolutely sure of ourselves, but we really don't know, we can't know. We have to remember Vertigo, and the Civil War plates, and that Sumerian tablet. And we also have to remember that Moby-Dick sold very few copies when it was printed in 1851, that many of the copies that weren't sold were destroyed in a warehouse fire, that it was dismissed by many, and that Herman Melville's greatest novel, one of the greatest works in literature, was only reclaimed in the 1920s.


  • Someone born today will see the picture with completely different eyes and a whole other frame of reference, different values, uninhibited by the biases of the time when it was made. You see the world through your own time--which means that some values disappear, and some values come into closer focus. Same film, same images, but in the case of a great film the power--a timeless power that really can't be articulated--is there even when the context has completely changed.


The full essay is here, at the New York Review of Books

News
  • |

More: Martin Scorsese, Martin Scorsese

5 Comments

  • Brian | July 29, 2013 11:12 AMReply

    Scorsese sounds the clarion call for preservation, but it's a mission that becomes much harder when "films" are no longer made on film. What form does a movie most often take these days? A hard drive? A memory card? A disc? A tape? Formats that are much more ephemeral than 35mm film ever was. For over 100 years 35mm films could be viewed on a projector. How will we view something on a hard drive in ten years or even five, or two, after the technology has changed? Techies offer a solution that sounds perfectly simple to them: back everything up in whatever new format appears. But who is going to do that? Who takes charge of that? Who keeps track of it? Which version gets backed up? These are big jobs and it's a safe bet that most production companies and studios don't have departments devoted to them. And how many individual filmmakers have the resources to do it?

    And what happens when books stop getting printed and are available only on e-readers? Who's going to preserve the literature of our time? Future archaeologists will find plenty of material from the 20th century they can examine and study. Books and photographs on good photographic paper will last. Even without a projector they will be able to figure out how a reel of film works and reverse engineer a method to view it. But the 21st century will be a complete blank to them since they will be unable to figure out how to decode the formats from our current era.

  • ITTY OUT | July 29, 2013 1:18 AMReply

    Have ANY of the 70's Show wunderkind managed to
    pass the threshold into the next level artistically?

    And where are the second thought, not to say repentance,
    on the 'content' factor.

    How does one feel having basically promoted and celebrated the
    mafia 'vision' without that old Warner Bros. morality of the 30s?

    And beyond that ---just the STALENESS of it all.

  • Orson | July 28, 2013 6:11 PMReply

    I'm surprised by the large number of factual errors in Scorsese's (probably ghost written) ramble, beginning with the circumstances of the "Vertigo" restoration. The old prints were fine; it was the horrible make-over of 1993 that produced the awful magenta color cast that now mars the film, as well as the outrageous, re-foleyed soundtrack, in which the gunshots now sound like explosions in a Michael Bay movie.

  • alfie | July 28, 2013 4:27 PMReply

    it's interesting that Scorsese mentions that Moby Dick was reclaimed decades after it was first published. I saw his My Voyage to Italy recently and I expected to learn something new about the history of Italian cinema but he only repeated what I already knew - that Rossellini, Visconti, de Sica and Fellini were great film makers. He didn't mention anyone or any movie I never heard of and that's what I was hoping for.

  • Ted | July 28, 2013 5:15 PM

    If I remember correctly, he did mention Alessandro Blasetti, who isn't particularly celebrated. Blasetti is interesting because he's the inverse of the Herman Melville. Blasetti was originally celebrated, almost unanimously, by Italian critics (particularly at the Italian film journal Cinema), and won numerous prestigious awards. But now he's mostly just listed in historical footnotes about precursors to Italian neorealism.

    But, also, I think the reason Scorsese might not have mentioned more obscure films because "My Voyage to Italy" was about films that had personally influenced him rather than films he necessarily thought were important.

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

Email Updates

Most "Liked"

  • Why Weinstein Is Re-Releasing Summer ...
  • First Gurus 'O Gold Pre-Festival Top ...
  • Emmy Watch: As TV Enters the Future, ...
  • Emmy Awards: Lena Dunham Wins the Red ...
  • The Radical World of Avant-Garde Master ...
  • Participant Joins DreamWorks' Spielberg ...
  • Strange August Box Office Weekend Boosted ...
  • How David Byrne Collaborated with Jonathan ...
  • WATCH: Live Stream Emmys Red Carpet ...
  • Participant Media, Changing Its Stripes, ...