1058 The Irishman

[Brian C]

So the film lacks momentum and is bloodless and made with filmmaking hubris and is too long and people talk too slowly and makes mistakes rookie directors make and altogether lacks density and power.

But ... “there is nothing wrong with the film.”

[MichaelB]

I look forward to Nasir007's comparison between the script of Sátántangó and the final film.

Incidentally, I was delighted to hear that my mother-in-law loved The Irishman so much that she watched it twice on consecutive days - in both cases watching the entire film in one go.

[JabbaTheSlut]

A masterpiece.

SpoilerShow

I love the moment in the end when Pesci’s character mentions Hoffa to DeNiro’s character. ”He was a good guy” or something like that. A chilling moment.

[TwoTecs]

Your post doesn't discuss the difference in the approaches beyond the "ugliness" of CGI and its dismissive of the merits of the film as it exists. "This story" doesn't exist independently of the de-aging so it doesn't make sense to say that the approach was wrong for this story. Maybe try just a bit to see why Scorsese would want it this way instead of jumping to the conclusion that his whole approach is wrong and he should have done what you think he should have done.

Why isn't visual ugliness enough of a reason to criticize a film? Film is a visual medium. I'm sensitive to and have opinions about the way films look. Your objection to my criticism demonstrates the excesses of auteurism better than a caricature ever could, making what you imagine The Holy Author's intentions are to be literally above reproach. I'm struggling to see how it's possible to criticize the de-aging at all under the parameters your argument sets. Just because in pre-production the prospect of de-aging inspired the story as it now exists doesn't mean that the story as it now exists demands the de-aging in order to function. Also, I sat with the film for 3.5 long hours trying to reconstruct an excuse for the boring, ugly film I was seeing. I read posts in here, including yours, in defense of the decisions I didn't like. I thought about them, and even said I might give the film a second chance. That's far from "jumping to a conclusion" just because I disagree with you.

To say The Irishman an ugly film is a bad faith argument.

Saying that the film should have been made in a different way is jumping to a conclusion since none of your posts show any evidence of you grappling with the film's content. If you are going to say flippant bullshit like, "Scorsese should have made a different film", you ought to have a really good understanding of the film as it exists and have a well thought out argument for an alternate version. What actors would you cast to play the younger versions? Would all of the actors be recast? At what point will the current actors enter the story? How will the framing devices and their undercutting have to be changed to accommodate the new actors? What would be lost with the new actors? What would be gained?

You really should have watched the film again instead of arrogantly asking Scorsese to make a different film. You have no way of knowing that another version of the film would work better. If I don't have a substantial and well thought out critique of a film I just don't post anything on a public forum.

(I think the CGI effects in Silence are more distracting than they are here, though that didn't keep me from engaging with that film.)

What effects did you find distracting in Silence?

I don't think this was meant as a 3.5 hr movie because it most definitely does not read that way. It kinda sorta does read like Godfellas.

He did not want to make another Goodfellas. Both Scorsese and Schoonmaker have talked about this.

The script is incredibly fast paced and I think that was the movie intended here. The scenes are super super short. And the film zips through headlong through multiple events. And guess what - on the page, I did feel it had the momentum I felt was lacking in the film. Even though the movie follows the script very closely.

So wherein lies the rub? Why is the movie 3.5 hrs. The answer is Scorsese. He shot it like a 3.5 hr movie and then Thelma cut it like a 3.5 hr movie and neither needed to be the case.

Did you even think about why Scorsese made it so long before determining long=bad? The interstitial moments of Sheeran's life are what give the story an existential dimension. Scorsese doesn't just want to run through the big events of his life but also capture the smaller, seemingly insignificant, moments that were part of his life.

I can attribute this to a couple of things. First is, perhaps Scorese enjoyed working with his actors too much. He gives them room to ham it up and they do so with gutso. The performances are good but they take up time. There is ad libbing in here for sure to balloon up the length of scenes. There is also the fact that everyone speaks oh. so. goddamn. slow. ly. in this film. Jesus. That's often a mistake new directors make - have everyone speak very slowly. It can kill any movie. When actors speak fast, it lends energy to a scene and it cuts together better and lends energy to a movie. Think about this - I think Social Network and Silver Linings Playbook had longer screenplays. Yet resulted in shorter movies.

The Irishman: The story of a fast talking hitman with an acerbic wit who recounts his betrayal of his best friend (prompted by a business partner) just to end up alone in the end. Can someone remix The Irishman ending with "Baby, You're a Rich Man"?

[swo17]

(I think the CGI effects in Silence are more distracting than they are here, though that didn't keep me from engaging with that film.)

What effects did you find distracting in Silence?

SpoilerShow

When Garfield talks to his reflection in the water, and the very end when he is being burned alive and the camera closes in on the cross clasped in his fist

[Foam]

To say The Irishman an ugly film is a bad faith argument.

What?! To say that I found The Irishman ugly is a statement of a subjective fact--it's not any kind of argument, least of all one made in bad faith.

Now, you might object that my criticisms of the film's ugliness need to be fleshed out. That I'm happy to do if you'd ask nicely rather than telling me how to write about film:

Saying that the film should have been made in a different way is jumping to a conclusion since none of your posts show any evidence of you grappling with the film's content. If you are going to say flippant bullshit like, "Scorsese should have made a different film", you ought to have a really good understanding of the film as it exists and have a well thought out argument for an alternate version. What actors would you cast to play the younger versions? Would all of the actors be recast? At what point will the current actors enter the story? How will the framing devices and their undercutting have to be changed to accommodate the new actors? What would be lost with the new actors? What would be gained?

You really should have watched the film again instead of arrogantly asking Scorsese to make a different film. You have no way of knowing that another version of the film would work better. If I don't have a substantial and well thought out critique of a film I just don't post anything on a public forum.

Even if I were being paid to criticize the film--which I am not--none of your labyrinthine requirements would be necessary for my criticisms, as I have stated them here, to be acceptable. None of the most historically well respected film critics write in the way you suggest when they dislike a film; why should I?

[DarkImbecile]

this godforsaken place

I can’t even imagine how you’d describe the rest of the internet’s engagement with film culture.

[Nasir007]

Interesting interview with producer Gastón Pavlovich.

I find it surprising that their back-up choice for the Pesci role was... Dicaprio?! I can't imagine how he would remotely work in the role. The de-aging does not work at all (in the sense nobody is really de-aged in the movie) but it is not distracting because all the 3 leads are old. So it is a consistent effect. But throwing someone like Dicaprio into the mix would have upset that balance because then it would be a young guy and two old guys trying to look roughly the same age and it would not work at all. I am surprised they even thought of him.

[The Pachyderminator]

SpoilerShow

When Garfield talks to his reflection in the water, and the very end when he is being burned alive and the camera closes in on the cross clasped in his fist

SpoilerShow

He's not being burned alive in that scene; he's dead and being cremated. His wife presumably put the cross in his hand according to his wishes, which suggests that he came to deeply love and trust her. Distracting or not, the shot conveys crucial information.

[swo17]

Sorry for misremembering but my point still stands--the technique called attention to itself in a way that distracted me, but this didn't prevent me from engaging with the film

[Noiretirc]

this godforsaken place

I can’t even imagine how you’d describe the rest of the internet’s engagement with film culture.

This bears repeating.

[TwoTecs]

To say The Irishman an ugly film is a bad faith argument.

What?! To say that I found The Irishman ugly is a statement of a subjective fact--it's not any kind of argument, least of all one made in bad faith.

Now, you might object that my criticisms of the film's ugliness need to be fleshed out. That I'm happy to do if you'd ask nicely rather than telling me how to write about film:

Everyone, take a look at this ugly film.

Saying that the film should have been made in a different way is jumping to a conclusion since none of your posts show any evidence of you grappling with the film's content. If you are going to say flippant bullshit like, "Scorsese should have made a different film", you ought to have a really good understanding of the film as it exists and have a well thought out argument for an alternate version. What actors would you cast to play the younger versions? Would all of the actors be recast? At what point will the current actors enter the story? How will the framing devices and their undercutting have to be changed to accommodate the new actors? What would be lost with the new actors? What would be gained?

You really should have watched the film again instead of arrogantly asking Scorsese to make a different film. You have no way of knowing that another version of the film would work better. If I don't have a substantial and well thought out critique of a film I just don't post anything on a public forum.

Even if I were being paid to criticize the film--which I am not--none of your labyrinthine requirements would be necessary for my criticisms, as I have stated them here, to be acceptable. None of the most historically well respected film critics write in the way you suggest when they dislike a film; why should I?

I am sorry, I did not realize I was talking to Manny Farber. I also missed your detailed consideration of the film's strengths and weakness before you called for it be made in a completely different way. Could you please link me to it? I am still figuring the film out but maybe your thoughts would help clarify my own.

It's hilarious that you keep pretending that you wrote "Hell on Wheels" or something while all you did was make a flippant comment. And you should take pointers from Farber and Rosenbaum for critiquing Scorsese and stop trying to direct the films for him.

Bravo. You’re one of the few people who post in this godforsaken place with anything like a respectful and engaged film culture. I happen to like the film slightly more than you, but your posts and arguments have always impressed me as perceptive and considered.

Ah yes, the perceptive posts such as the one that called for the film to be made differently after a single viewing and one that showed no evidence of any deep understanding of the film as it exists. lol.

-------------------------------------------

I love Keitel's delivery of "Jew washerwoman" in the scene the with De Niro and Pesci.

[Foam]

In my post I don't compare myself to famous film critics as you suggest. I explicitly make the point that I am not a critic--and that even critics don't write as you are commanding me to write (ie having to elaborately reconcieve every decision in the film I dislike). It is you and only you who thinks I should be more like Jonathan Rosenbaum and not make flippant negative comments on the internet about a film I've seen once.

[Brian C]

TwoTecs ... as someone who basically agrees with you on the merits regarding the film’s effects, in the spirit of friendly criticism I gotta say that you’re vastly overreaching. Maybe it’s time to just accept that others feel differently than you do on the subject.

[Nasir007]

In my post I don't compare myself to famous film critics as you suggest. I explicitly make the point that I am not a critic--and that even critics don't write as you are commanding me to write (ie having to elaborately reconcieve every decision in the film I dislike). It is you and only you who thinks I should be more like Jonathan Rosenbaum and not make flippant negative comments on the internet about a film I've seen once.

Great post. It is almost as if the Irishman is somehow sacred rather than just another movie and that it cannot be shat upon, torn apart limb for limb, called garbage gutter trash, vilified and put down in any way that any viewer wants. Who cares. Nothing is above criticism. Everyone has a right to dislike movies in the way they want to dislike them. That doesn't make their dislike invalid just as those who like a movie are allowed to like it in any way they want - without having to write book-length doctoral dissertations about how they arrived at their opinion. It is a forum post not a judgement handed down from the supreme court.

[TwoTecs]

In my post I don't compare myself to famous film critics as you suggest. I explicitly make the point that I am not a critic--and that even critics don't write as you are commanding me to write (ie having to elaborately reconcieve every decision in the film I dislike). It is you and only you who thinks I should be more like Jonathan Rosenbaum and not make flippant negative comments on the internet about a film I've seen once.

Rosenbaum is still criticizing the film as it exists. He is not telling anyone how the film would be better. Again, you are free to dislike the film but your take on how the film should have been made is arrogant and worthless.

TwoTecs ... as someone who basically agrees with you on the merits regarding the film’s effects, in the spirit of friendly criticism I gotta say that you’re vastly overreaching. Maybe it’s time to just accept that others feel differently than you do on the subject.

Foam isn't the only person who dislikes the deaging. I am not stopping and searching everybody who dislikes it. My beef is with flinging around of the "they should have cast younger actors" one liner by people who saw the film once and who refuse to see what the point of de-aging was. I don't like it therefore it is completely worthless and Scorsese should have made the film as I say he should have.

Great post. It is almost as if the Irishman is somehow sacred rather than just another movie and that it cannot be shat upon, torn apart limb for limb, called garbage gutter trash, vilified and put down in any way that any viewer wants. Who cares. Nothing is above criticism. Everyone has a right to dislike movies in the way they want to dislike them. That doesn't make their dislike invalid just as those who like a movie are allowed to like it in any way they want - without having to write book-length doctoral dissertations about how they arrived at their opinion. It is a forum post not a judgement handed down from the supreme court.

You can hold whatever opinion. Just don't pretend you know better than the director when you have just started to scrape the surface of a film. Foam didn't tear apart any limbs and neither did you. Just try to see what the director was doing before proclaiming his whole approach is wrong.

Like I said before, if I don't have substantial criticisms to make I refrain from disrespecting a director's intelligence and acting like I know how the film should have been made.

[domino harvey]

Alright, mod here: step away from this thread, TwoTecs. There’s objecting to a fellow member’s take, and then there’s calling his articulately expressed criticisms arrogant and worthless simply because he doesn’t like a movie you appear to have sworn allegiance to. I know it can be frustrating for someone to not like a movie you love, but you need to let this one go. Do not post in this thread again until given permission by a mod to do so, and do not attack another member in this fashion and expect to stay a member here

[TwoTecs]

If only you could read.

[DarkImbecile]

Enjoy your holidays elsewhere!

[Michael Kerpan]

Over the course of over 2 years, 31 percent of TwoTecs's posts have been about The Irishman. Not certain I would ever be so invested in a single film -- unless I was a (big-time) investor...

[Brian C]

Hopefully Scorsese gets a different actor to play ca. 2017 TwoTecs when he makes a movie about this thread.

[Black Hat]

...Only thing I haven't seen anybody remark on and none of my friends have been able to sufficiently answer is

SpoilerShow

Why did Pesci take his sunglasses? Was it to make sure he'd see a dead Hoffa and thus serves as a warning?

Don't know if your friends suggested this, but...

SpoilerShow

...my impression was Bufalino wanted Hoffa to be able to see Sheeran's eyes to put him at ease; Sheeran "hiding" behind the shades might have caused Hoffa to suspect something was up.

This makes perfect sense. Thank you.

[Persona]

On the topic of the raging debate in here about the film's effects, I wrote a piece about why the "flaws" really work in the movie's favor, for me.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/ ... e-iri.html

[greggster59]

Good article.
It's interesting that Martin Scorsese made The Irishman this way at his age.
He has been using cinema to explore different facets of life his entire career. Now he makes a film that looks back at life from an advanced age.
Truly a Master.

[TwoTecs]

There’s objecting to a fellow member’s take, and then there’s calling his articulately expressed criticisms arrogant and worthless simply because he doesn’t like a movie you appear to have sworn allegiance to.

lmao. There are many others in this thread who did not like the film, including yourself. So why did I only pick on one particular member?

I have repeated this many times: My objection was about him asking the film to be made in a completely different way after watching it once and showing no evidence of a deeper understanding o the work. I called it arrogant, because it is arrogant to suggest you know more about Scorsese's film and how he should have made it after you just finished watching it for the first time.

I know it can be frustrating for someone to not like a movie you love, but you need to let this one go.

You are very good at being snarky but your reading comprehension still needs work.

Over the course of over 2 years, 31 percent of TwoTecs's posts have been about The Irishman. Not certain I would ever be so invested in a single film -- unless I was a (big-time) investor...

I also haven't made 8000+ posts on here, old man. Maybe you should be spending more time with your family instead of looking at my profile. Sad life for a big time spelling bee champion.

Has the arsehole left yet?

What are you doing here? Shouldn't you be putting out fires or something? Stay safe, lad.