In 1993, the New York Times published an article criticising Federico Fellini and some other foreign language films for being “hard work”. MARTIN SCORSESE sent this incredible letter in response.
[Transcription:
New York, 19 Nov 1993
To the Editor [New York Times]:
“Excuse me: I Must Have Missed Part of the Movie” (The Week in Review, 7 November) cites Federico Fellini as an example of a filmmaker whose style gets in the way of his storytelling and whose films, as a result, are not easily accessible to audiences. Broadening that argument, it includes other artists: Ingmar Bergman, James Joyce, Thomas Pynchon, Bernardo Bertolucci, John Cage, Alain Resnais and Andy Warhol.
It’s not the opinion I find distressing, but the underlying attitude toward artistic expression that is different, difficult, or demanding. Was it necessary to publish this article only a few days after Fellini’s death? I feel it’s a dangerous attitude, limiting, intolerant. If this is the attitude toward Fellini, one of the old masters, and the most accessible at that, imagine what chance new foreign films and filmmakers have in this country.
It reminds me of a beer commercial that ran a while back. The commercial opened with a black and white parody of a foreign film–obviously a combination of Fellini and Bergman. Two young men are watching it, puzzled, in a video store, while a female companion seems more interested. A title comes up: “Why do foreign films have to be so foreign?” The solution is to ignore the foreign film and rent an action-adventure tape, filled with explosions, much to the chagrin of the woman.
It seems the commercial equates “negative” associations between women and foreign films: weakness, complexity, tedium. I like action-adventure films too. I also like movies that tell a story, but is the American way the only way of telling stories?
The issue here is not “film theory,” but cultural diversity and openness. Diversity guarantees our cultural survival. When the world is fragmenting into groups of intolerance, ignorance and hatred, film is a powerful tool to knowledge and understanding. To our shame, your article was cited at length by the European press.
The attitude that I’ve been describing celebrates ignorance. It also unfortunately confirms the worst fears of European filmmakers. Is this closed-mindedness something we want to pass along to future generations?
If you accept the answer in the commercial, why not take it to its natural progression:
Why don’t they make movies like ours? Why don’t they tell stories as we do? Why don’t they dress as we do? Why don’t they eat as we do? Why don’t they talk as we do? Why don’t they think as we do? Why don’t they worship as we do? Why don’t they look like us? Ultimately, who will decide who “we” are?
The evident imminent demise of Netflix once again raises an issue I have had with streaming services, which is the lack of physical media support. If Netflix tanks, what’s going to happen to all those Originals, all the shows they picked up for more seasons after getting canned elsewhere? Was there any DVD releases of She-Ra, Carmen Sandiego, Series Of Unfortunate Events, and so on? Or is it just gonna get lost to the void because it was only accessible on servers that are likely to be shut down in the near future?
i miss when you could make political art without placing personal identity (and the self) at the center of everything
this piece (“artist bio” by anna daliza) sort of perfectly sums it up. the emphasis on identity politics and tokenization in art/music/performance spaces feels reductive and exploitative- like it offers a sort of racial tourism for the wealthy white patrons. none of what im saying are original thoughts btw go see White by james ijames
