Martin Scorsese argues that the art of cinema is being systematically disparaged as "content" by streaming algorithms.

In a new article for Harpers Magazine, renowned director Martin Scorsese argues that the art of cinema is being systematically belittled by streaming services and their algorithms, "and reduced to its lowest common denominator property — 'content'," according to foreign media reports.

"Content" became the business term for all moving images: a David Lane movie, a cat video, a Super Bowl commercial, a superhero sequel, a series. Of course, it's not about the cinema experience, it's about home movies, and on streaming platforms, it's already going beyond the movie-going experience, just as Amazon has gone beyond physical stores.

On the one hand, it's good for filmmakers, myself included. On the other hand, it creates a situation where everything is presented to the audience on a level playing field, which sounds democratic, but it's not. If further viewing is "suggested" by an algorithm based on something you've already seen, and those suggestions are based solely on the subject matter or genre, what effect does this have on cinematic art?

At this point, we can't take anything for granted. We can't rely on the film industry to take care of cinemas. In the film business, which is now the mass visual entertainment business, the emphasis is always on the word "business", and the value is always determined by the amount of money made by any particular property - in this sense, from "Sunrise" to "The Road", everything has now dried up and can be prepared for the "art film" swimlane on the streaming platform.

Is Scorsese's point of view correct? Slashdot reader enterante shared some of the reactions gathered by BBC entertainment journalists. Elinor Carmi, a research assistant in the Department of Communication and Media at the University of Liverpool, sees it as a "battle between old and new gatekeepers of art and culture".

"At its core, curation has always been behind the scenes," Carmi says, and it's not clear what the rationale behind the production and distribution choices of art culture is unclear. Take, for example, the Motion Picture Association's film rating system. The 2006 documentary Film Unrated explores how film ratings affect the distribution of films, as well as accusations that big studios have given their films a more lenient rating than independent companies. "If you compare an established company with a new technology company and present it with a romantic color, you would be very wrong. In both cases, we are talking about powerful institutions that define, control, and manage the boundaries of what art and culture are. "

So is Scorsese right to suggest that streaming services relegate content to its "lowest common denominator" attribute? Journalist and media lecturer Tuffayer-Ahmed said they were an easy target, while the reality was a bit more complicated. He said focusing on "pulling the numbers" could mean that some of the best shows weren't being promoted and were therefore canceled... "Some of the best things on streaming seem to get very little attention, and a lot of marketing and publicity is thrown behind the more mundane box office, and they know people will watch." This became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Scorsese himself benefited directly, relying on Netflix to fund his 2019 gangster film The Irishman after traditional studios were afraid of cost. It makes sense for streaming services to invest in the publicity and marketing of these projects to create visibility. Ahmed said.

But if part of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of streaming services, we must not forget the choices of the audience itself. "You can't just blame the algorithms, because people watch vulgar content, not TV shows and movies that are considered valuable, because people have flocked to TV for years and watched it lightly, not the critically acclaimed TV series."

The BBC ultimately argues that perhaps "streaming algorithms are really not the culprits after all, they are just made in our image". But scorsese recalls in his article how the brave, pioneering decisions made by film distributors and exhibitors in the 1960s contributed to that moment of "shared excitement about the possibilities of cinema" — a feeling he seemed to want to preserve.

Those of us who know the film and its history must share our love and our knowledge with as many people as possible. We have to make it clear to the rightful owners of these films that they are not just property that is exploited and then locked up. They are one of the greatest treasures of our culture and must be treated accordingly.