What streaming platforms mean for traditional cinema
If further viewing is ‘suggested’ by algorithms based on what you’ve already seen ... then what does that do to the art of cinema?
In February, 78-year-old filmmaker Martin Scorsese raised more than a few eyebrows when, in an essay on the work of legendary filmmaker Federico Fellini for Harper’s Magazine, he bemoaned that in our world, oversaturated with streaming platforms and algorithms, “the art of cinema is being systematically devalued, sidelined, demeaned, and reduced to its lowest common denominator, ‘content’.”
Scorsese argued that the streaming universe had reduced the idea of cinema to just one in a long line of products that make up what the business people behind streaming giants Netflix, Disney Plus and Amazon Prime Video refer to as “content,” an umbrella term that includes, “all moving images: a David Lean movie, a cat video, a Super Bowl commercial, a superhero sequel, a series episode”.
While some may have thought that such a damning indictment was a little rich coming from a filmmaker whose mammoth mob epic The Irishman only saw the light of day thanks to Netflix, who funded the film for a whopping $160m, Scorsese acknowledged that “on the one hand, this has been good for filmmakers, myself included”.
But he also pointed out that “on the other hand, it has created a situation in which everything is presented to the viewer on a level playing field, which sounds democratic but isn’t. If further viewing is ‘suggested’ by algorithms based on what you’ve already seen, and the suggestions are based only on subject matter or genre, then what does that do to the art of cinema?”
These are valid questions and Scorsese made a strong argument in his essay for the idea that what is fast disappearing in the streaming age is the art of curation, which he argued, is not an elitist practice but rather one that celebrates the excitement of sharing new discoveries with others.
There are sites such as Mubi.com and The Criterion Collection, where curation is still a fundamental part of the process, but these are niche platforms in a space dominated by the powerful algorithms of services such as Netflix.
All of which means that cinephiles such as Scorsese have to fight an uphill battle against the streamers’ hunger for content, and its broad definition of what content is, if they wish to continue the traditions of filmmaking that pushes the boundaries of what cinema can be in the vein of cinematic heroes such as Fellini.
The story of Scorsese’s new project — the $200m 1920s’ set epic The Killers of the Flower Moon — reflects this battle. Initially Scorsese took the project, which stars Leonardo Dicaprio and Robert De Niro — two of the director’s longest-standing and most bankable collaborators — to Paramount Studios.
Netflix has never revealed whether its investment in The Irishman paid off and is perhaps unwilling to take a second even bigger gamble, especially in the light that, while Scorsese’s gangster epic was nominated for 10 Oscars, it did not manage to win one.
A period epic that is based on the true story of a series of murders that rocked the members of the Native American Osage nation in the 1920s after oil was discovered on their lands, Killers of the Flower Moon is not cheap and Paramount, balking at the cost, demanded that the director cut $50m from his budget.
In the old days, with only other major studios to go to, and the likelihood that none of them would be willing to accept a project with such an eyewatering budget, Scorsese may have been forced to agree to Paramount’s demands.
Paramount had also reportedly been unhappy about a lastminute casting change that saw Dicaprio drop the role of heroic saviour in favour of the more complicated character of the nephew of the villain of the piece. Ironically, thanks to the rise of streamers and their deep pockets, in this case he was able to tell Paramount to take a hike and instead he has found a home for the project at Apple, a studio backed by the huge profits of the computer company and which is steadily beginning to make a play for a slice of the streaming pie.
With this year’s Oscars flooded with nominations produced by streaming companies such as Netflix, Apple is certainly aware of the huge potential that a Scorsese epic has for reaping potential awards and greatly increasing its presence in the prestige cinema market.
And so it has forked out the $200m that it will cost to be the producers of the next muchanticipated Scorsese, De Niro, Dicaprio epic.
With shooting having now recently begun, it is hoped that the final film will arrive — on Apple TV and hopefully also in cinemas — sometime next year. What the story of how it finally gets there tells us is that things in the current streaming-infested world of filmmaking are a little more complicated than even a devoted cinephile and visionary director such as Scorsese would have us believe.
Yes, “content” is king and considered curation is a rarity but it is the business of churning out content for hungry, global markets that enables a streamer to give Scorsese the free rein he needs to make what will probably be an epic and memorable addition to American cinema.
Sometimes you have to dance with the devil to make the music that you love.