And to tie this into a timely moment, here's Kris Kristofferson's salute to Scorsese when the director was awarded the 25th AFI Lifetime Achievement Award:
Didn’t Sherman Alexie write just a few days ago that he cancelled his Times subscription because of their abominable arts coverage?
A few examples: a piece I remember from the 80s where people named their nominees for most overrated composer (Charles Ives got a few votes, as I remember it); the deliberate choice of a writer who was hostile to Ingmar Bergman to write an op Ed in the days after his death; a fawning piece about a “successful” poet, fixated on the fact that she had two agents, one for writing and one for modeling; a truly revolting piece, in the Sunday magazine section no less, called “Eating Your Cultural Vegetables” by a guy who tried to like Tarkovsky and the Dardenne brothers but that his taste for action blockbusters remained “stubbornly” his - Manohla Dargis and AO Scott rightfully objected in print; a suggestion by an art critic that the Met turn down a bequest of Guston paintings; and so on. And on.
I'm not sure if Sherman wrote that - I may have missed it. I've never been a great fan of the NY TIMES' art coverage myself, though. It's not the place I would think to go to for deep intellectual interrogation of art at all, in fact.
I love that he says everything without pointing directly to the idiot who wrote the first article. Nowadays people go straight to death threats when someone writes something that stupid. He just said it's distressing that someone would have such an attitude (which it is!!) It's dumbfounding that someone working as culture writer (I realize he usually wrote about sports but still) would have that opinion.
The urge for everyone to ‘be like us’ is a tribal desire for inclusion in ‘the group’ which of course has suspicion of and disdain for outsiders. Ironically, the ‘Hero With A Thousand Faces’ seen embodied in so many leading roles is by definition an outsider.
“[I]s 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.” So good! ❤️
Wow! I enjoy reading the Scorsese letter, and I admire your compelling interpretation as well. A lack of openness, the increasing intolerance to diverse perspectives, the imagined “other” in a false us versus them dichotomy, these narrow minded ideas are the antithesis of art and creativity. I like your line about how art fosters and cultivates understanding: “One of art’s great powers is to create understanding where once there was none.” Yes! Asking difficult questions in the arts opens up the possibilities for people to learn, grow, adapt, and expand their sense of empathy. The anti-foreign film ad is frightening to me; all the more because it sounds eerily familiar to the anti-immigrant venom that is spewed today. Like the theme in your secret annex essay, history seems to go in circles and repeat the most incomprehensible atrocities ad infinum. Fellini, Bergman, Cage, Warhol, etc are many if my favorite artists. Thank you for this beautiful tribute to openness and curiosity in the arts. The language of cinema is universal!
What annoys me intensely, whether it's from the point-of-view that "movies have to be fun and accessible" or from the opposite stance that "movies must interrogate and challenge our assumptions" is the notion that *there's only one thing that movies must be*. It's SO narrow minded to adopt such a view.
To answer this, Scorsese is absolutely right to go straight to the issue of "cultural diversity": that there are many things that any cultural product, whether film, literature, or music, can be, and the correct thing to do is welcome all of those possible forms of expression.
If a particular style isn't for you, fine, leave it alone, but don't broadcast your ignorance along with your intolerance. Just quietly move on to whatever it is you do like. Which of course doesn't preclude criticism, but I think the rule of thumb should be that you criticise from a place of understanding and acceptance of what the author of the piece has set out to do. If that thing exasperates you by its very existence, you should hold your peace.
There is a strain of audience -- and I do think it's the dominant, or close to it, strain -- which cannot accept anything that doesn't solely exist for their pleasure. It's a narcissistic way of interacting both with art and the world. Anything that isn't "for you" is, in some way, sitting in judgment of you. "What don't I understand? Is it something talking down to me? Uh-oh, am I an idiot?" This equally applies to more "cultural" people who look down their noses at art that they think was made for "those other people". "Ugh, this is for idiots, not me. I'm judging you for enjoying that commercial shit. It has nothing to say about how brilliant I am." Or, as you say, art doesn't have to be -- and should never be -- for everyone.
Very well put! One of my biggest gripes with lazy viewers is when they refuse to watch world cinema because they don't want to read subtitles. I've seen silent films from the 1920s that moved me juat as much!
Scorsese took the "show, don't tell" approach here, which is probably why his rebuttal is so devastating. As Deirdre pointed out elsewhere in these comments, he could've directly attacked Weber. Taking an educator's approach, he comes across as a wise, but stern father. To me, he sounds like the filmmaker's version of Atticus Finch here, explaining to a child why they're wrong about the world.
As brilliant a rebuttal as I've ever read.
And to tie this into a timely moment, here's Kris Kristofferson's salute to Scorsese when the director was awarded the 25th AFI Lifetime Achievement Award:
https://youtu.be/N-dq5BqjJzk?si=ccnF2AWgFnvPDX1P
This was wonderful to watch, Michael. Thank you so much for sharing it.
My pleasure. I just watched it for the first time this morning, and then later saw this post and it seemed to fit so well as a sort of postscript.
Oh! This is great. Thanks so much for sharing.
That was wonderful. Thank you.
That was 1993. This is (nearly) 2025 - The Tide of Stupidity is rising higher….
Didn’t Sherman Alexie write just a few days ago that he cancelled his Times subscription because of their abominable arts coverage?
A few examples: a piece I remember from the 80s where people named their nominees for most overrated composer (Charles Ives got a few votes, as I remember it); the deliberate choice of a writer who was hostile to Ingmar Bergman to write an op Ed in the days after his death; a fawning piece about a “successful” poet, fixated on the fact that she had two agents, one for writing and one for modeling; a truly revolting piece, in the Sunday magazine section no less, called “Eating Your Cultural Vegetables” by a guy who tried to like Tarkovsky and the Dardenne brothers but that his taste for action blockbusters remained “stubbornly” his - Manohla Dargis and AO Scott rightfully objected in print; a suggestion by an art critic that the Met turn down a bequest of Guston paintings; and so on. And on.
I'm not sure if Sherman wrote that - I may have missed it. I've never been a great fan of the NY TIMES' art coverage myself, though. It's not the place I would think to go to for deep intellectual interrogation of art at all, in fact.
That’s for sure
I love that he says everything without pointing directly to the idiot who wrote the first article. Nowadays people go straight to death threats when someone writes something that stupid. He just said it's distressing that someone would have such an attitude (which it is!!) It's dumbfounding that someone working as culture writer (I realize he usually wrote about sports but still) would have that opinion.
It's dumbfounding an editor decided to publish this take, too.
Embarrassing!
The urge for everyone to ‘be like us’ is a tribal desire for inclusion in ‘the group’ which of course has suspicion of and disdain for outsiders. Ironically, the ‘Hero With A Thousand Faces’ seen embodied in so many leading roles is by definition an outsider.
“[I]s 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.” So good! ❤️
Unfortunately, 32 years later Mr. Scorsese’s eloquent rebuttal is more relevant than ever— on many fronts.
Wow! I enjoy reading the Scorsese letter, and I admire your compelling interpretation as well. A lack of openness, the increasing intolerance to diverse perspectives, the imagined “other” in a false us versus them dichotomy, these narrow minded ideas are the antithesis of art and creativity. I like your line about how art fosters and cultivates understanding: “One of art’s great powers is to create understanding where once there was none.” Yes! Asking difficult questions in the arts opens up the possibilities for people to learn, grow, adapt, and expand their sense of empathy. The anti-foreign film ad is frightening to me; all the more because it sounds eerily familiar to the anti-immigrant venom that is spewed today. Like the theme in your secret annex essay, history seems to go in circles and repeat the most incomprehensible atrocities ad infinum. Fellini, Bergman, Cage, Warhol, etc are many if my favorite artists. Thank you for this beautiful tribute to openness and curiosity in the arts. The language of cinema is universal!
The language of cinema is universal - indeed! I'm glad to hear this letter spoke to you at all. I find it quite beautiful and inspiring.
What annoys me intensely, whether it's from the point-of-view that "movies have to be fun and accessible" or from the opposite stance that "movies must interrogate and challenge our assumptions" is the notion that *there's only one thing that movies must be*. It's SO narrow minded to adopt such a view.
To answer this, Scorsese is absolutely right to go straight to the issue of "cultural diversity": that there are many things that any cultural product, whether film, literature, or music, can be, and the correct thing to do is welcome all of those possible forms of expression.
If a particular style isn't for you, fine, leave it alone, but don't broadcast your ignorance along with your intolerance. Just quietly move on to whatever it is you do like. Which of course doesn't preclude criticism, but I think the rule of thumb should be that you criticise from a place of understanding and acceptance of what the author of the piece has set out to do. If that thing exasperates you by its very existence, you should hold your peace.
There is a strain of audience -- and I do think it's the dominant, or close to it, strain -- which cannot accept anything that doesn't solely exist for their pleasure. It's a narcissistic way of interacting both with art and the world. Anything that isn't "for you" is, in some way, sitting in judgment of you. "What don't I understand? Is it something talking down to me? Uh-oh, am I an idiot?" This equally applies to more "cultural" people who look down their noses at art that they think was made for "those other people". "Ugh, this is for idiots, not me. I'm judging you for enjoying that commercial shit. It has nothing to say about how brilliant I am." Or, as you say, art doesn't have to be -- and should never be -- for everyone.
Very well put! One of my biggest gripes with lazy viewers is when they refuse to watch world cinema because they don't want to read subtitles. I've seen silent films from the 1920s that moved me juat as much!
Its just so weird to declare yourself in opposition to things that don't work for you.
Yep.
👏👏👏👏
Bruce Weber wrote a book about training to be a baseball umpire. Just sayin'...
(Actually, it's pretty interesting.)
It's a good thing baseball has nothing to do with art. I expect it helped the read considerably.
Scorsese took the "show, don't tell" approach here, which is probably why his rebuttal is so devastating. As Deirdre pointed out elsewhere in these comments, he could've directly attacked Weber. Taking an educator's approach, he comes across as a wise, but stern father. To me, he sounds like the filmmaker's version of Atticus Finch here, explaining to a child why they're wrong about the world.
Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't have been my approach either!