1058 The Irishman

[flyonthewall2983]

Dee-troit

[TwoTecs]

On the whole I agree with Domino's initial response. I'm not sure I could have found De Niro's character less interesting. For the whole film I was straining to understand what it was trying to say and why it was interested in doing anything it was doing. To me it's not really a matter of the film being too long, or too slow. I love Scorsese in his slower and more poetic mode as much as I love him at his most freewheeling and flashy. But this story didn't interest me, and the way it was told even less. The only time I felt anything at all in this film was in the conversations with the priest at the end, and in the final shot, but I'm a sucker for religious themes even in terrible films, so that doesn't say much.

And count me with those who found the de-aging thing a complete and total failure. How young is De Niro supposed to be at his youngest? How old is Pesci supposed to be at his youngest? They never look under 50 in their faces, and the performances certainly don't make up for that since they both hobble around like men in their 70s. I never got used to it and wasn't able to even get close to losing myself in the movie until late in the film when the effect was done for (although another factor with that is that Pacino has the only interesting character and doesn't appear until around then). And, I do not for a second agree that this story demanded the use of such technology. I would have much preferred different actors for the different ages. I sincerely hope the use of this technology dies among major directors.

I'm enough of a Scorsese fan, and I respect some of this film's defenders here enough, that I'll probably revisit it at some point with comments here in mind. But I went in expecting to like it and very thoroughly didn't.

Sheeran at his youngest in the film was 23 (WW2 flashback) but the meeting with Russ was around age 35. and Russ was 52 at his youngest. Hoffa would have to be atleast 44 but maybe even older.

Pablo Helman on the deaging:

“To Marty, these were damaged people and he defined the characters based on having a rough life, and de-aging was skewed toward older. From that point of view, you will see Frank Sheeran as a young version of the older Frank."

I feel like people who say that the characters in the film didn't really look young haven't seen how old the actors playing them actually look today.

Is it really so hard to understand that with different actors playing the characters at different ages we would get a different film. Those scenes of Russ and Sheeran at the gas station would be entirely different. And the effect of cutting back from an older De Niro reminiscing to another actor playing the younger Frank would be different. If Scorsese had wanted that, he would have done it. Do you really think he would go through all the trouble of the deaging without thinking about how it would change the film?

[swo17]

You made this same point before the film came out when people were discussing the de-aging in theory. You're going to need a stronger argument now that the film is out in the wild. If people found this element unconvincing, then their stated preference for another compromised option (e.g. using different actors) is clearly motivated by a feeling that Scorsese's experiment did not succeed in its aims.

Now what would have been really interesting is if Todd Solondz had cast this film...

[flyonthewall2983]

Intentional or not, the "unreliable narrator" framework makes scenes like the grocer beating work for me. Sheeran can imagine younger facades on himself and his compatriots, but he can't remember what it's like to fully BE younger, old age and disease have seeped too deep into his bones at the time he is telling the story that is being visualized before us. Scorsese flashes his hand for just a moment when Sheeran's narration starts repeating the best route to Detroit again and suddenly we are back with those characters by the roadside.

That's really kind of how I felt going into this. I'll go as far to say that you can expand that into other parts of the story too, especially the scenes with Peggy. Her silent presence, even as a child, is perhaps reflective of the silence she enforced in reality after she was out of his life.

[TwoTecs]

You made this same point before the film came out when people were discussing the de-aging in theory. You're going to need a stronger argument now that the film is out in the wild. If people found this element unconvincing, then their stated preference for another compromised option (e.g. using different actors) is clearly motivated by a feeling that Scorsese's experiment did not succeed in its aims.

Now what would have been really interesting is if Todd Solondz had cast this film...

A stronger argument than Scorsese's own words?

People feeling that the film/de-aging didn't succeed is irrelevant to my point. You can dislike the "experiment" but that doesn't mean you are right when you say the film didn't "need" de-aging. The film Scorsese wanted to make needed de-aging. You don't like what de-aging brings to the table? Okay, cool. But that doesn't mean it is true to say that a different approach would not have a different effect.

It is self-evident that casting a different group of actors would have changed the scenes. I don't know how I can break it down any further for anyone who doesn't understand this. What De Niro or Pesci bring to a scene cannot be replicated with any other actor. And what any other actor would bring to the scene would be different from what Pesci and De Niro did in the film.

Plus isn't your argument against de-aging based on the reasoning that in terms of artistic effect de-aging and younger actors are the same but younger actors are more palatable on a surface level? That's a bizzare criticism.

An example of what these actors bring to the table from Richard Brody, "The decision does more than make sense; it’s definitive. The movie is populated by actors who, like the protagonists, are marked by the selfsame moments in history, the identical forces, the same tones and moods as the ones that it dramatizes; it turns the movie into a virtual documentary."

The way their improvisations and interactions changed and molded would be lost with different actors. And there is a meta element of how the people involved in this film are close to their deaths and looking back on their lives and looking forward to eternity with this film that would be lost with a different cast.

Again you are free to dislike it but it doesn't mean anyone is right when they act like de-aging is a surface level choice with no material effect on what the film is trying to achieve artistically.

[domino harvey]

The obvious solution would have been to hire a younger actor to play his true age in the flashbacks and then transform to get older, as practical makeup can be quite convincing and body language would no longer be an issue (see even here how no one is complaining about the decrepit era's makeup effects or portrayals). But since Scorsese was set on De Niro, it is what it is

[swo17]

Actually, I was more taken out of the movie by Domenick Lombardozzi having been made up to be significantly older for his entire role (why didn't they just hire an older actor?) than any of the de-aging

[domino harvey]

Holy hell, that was Herc?!

[TwoTecs]

But since Scorsese was set on De Niro, it is what it is

Essentially what I have been saying. Of course some people would have liked it done some other way but I don't see the point in instructing Scorsese to make a film he didn't want to make.

[swo17]

Holy hell, that was Herc?!

Yep, his voice was the giveaway for me

Of course some people would have liked it done some other way but I don't see the point in instructing Scorsese to make a film he didn't want to make.

I mean, if you watch Netflix's post-film discussion, Scorsese talks about how the Marvel VFX guy had to talk him into it though

[TwoTecs]

Holy hell, that was Herc?!

I only realized realized that after the actor tweeted about his role.

I actually really enjoyed the small part he plays. An appropriately menacing turn.

[therewillbeblus]

Actually, I was more taken out of the movie by Domenick Lombardozzi having been made up to be significantly older for his entire role (why didn't they just hire an older actor?) than any of the de-aging

Wow I totally forgot about this but it was also the only moment in the film that took me out cold and puzzled for the same reasons.

[barryconvex]

Pesci's last scenes really may have stuck out among everything else, which is no small feat considering the brilliance of everyone else from De Niro and Pacino on down to Jesse Plemons and Anna Paquin. But there was something about seeing him in the wheelchair and being so convincing in the old-age makeup and the wheel chair and talking without his teeth, that really spoke to me about how death gets us all, even the ones we find intimidating in life.

I totally agree-Pesci's final scenes and exit from the movie are almost unbearably sad. After everything we've witnessed for three hours, all the implications of this man's actions and in the end he's just a feeble, toothless old man. I loved the way Pesci handled this part. He can do outwardly menacing in his sleep, I didn't know he was capable of quietly authoritative at this level. In contrast to his other roles in Scorsese's films his character here has nothing to prove to anybody and carries himself accordingly. His performance is a variation on Paul Sorvino's character in Goodfellas, but as cautious as Sorvino's character was he still retained a certain swagger. Dressed in expensive suits-you knew who he was just by looking at him. Pesci's character would never call that kind of attention to himself.

[Mr Sheldrake]

I was skeptical of the de-aging beforehand. But once I realized this was a memory film I quickly gave in to the remarkably sustained elegiac tone, and it didn’t seem to matter how realistic the effects were. The younger versions of the characters were more like shadows, ghosts recalled in a dream like atmosphere of regret.

[Never Cursed]

Holy hell, that was Herc?!

He's not even the only Wire alum in the film - Paul Ben-Victor (Spiros) make a brief appearance in the first hour selling Pacino on Vegas developments.

[flyonthewall2983]

I recognized Ben-Victor immediately. He's one of those guys you can't believe that he didn't work with Scorsese until now. Kinda like seeing Jeremy Davies in Twin Peaks: The Return, you sense the director could really have done so much more with what they're capable of than just a bit part.

I totally agree-Pesci's final scenes and exit from the movie are almost unbearably sad. After everything we've witnessed for three hours, all the implications of this man's actions and in the end he's just a feeble, toothless old man. I loved the way Pesci handled this part. He can do outwardly menacing in his sleep, I didn't know he was capable of quietly authoritative at this level.

You can see it at his cameo at the end of A Bronx Tale. I first saw that movie when I was a kid not knowing his other work besides Home Alone basically. So even still it was kind of a shock seeing this guy being quiet but somehow powerful too.

When he laments a little about Hoffa and tells Sheeran "fuck them", that's really the saddest part. It's the most upset he might be in the whole movie, but the limitations of his body prevents how he could have acted in better days.

[TwoTecs]

Holy hell, that was Herc?!

Yep, his voice was the giveaway for me

Of course some people would have liked it done some other way but I don't see the point in instructing Scorsese to make a film he didn't want to make.

I mean, if you watch Netflix's post-film discussion, Scorsese talks about how the Marvel VFX guy had to talk him into it though

I mean, if you watched Netflix's post-film discussion, Scorsese talks about why he didn't want younger actors and its right before the bit you are referring to. And you are misrepresenting what he was saying regarding Helman and the effects. Helman didn't convince him to stick with the same actors, he offered Scorsese a way of doing the film the way he wanted to do it.

[swo17]

This is not the conversation I want to have

[Oedipax]

This is not the conversation I want to have

Nor one I want to read...

Bottom line is, De Niro brought the book to Scorsese - similar to Raging Bull, De Niro was sold on it before Scorsese was. They had been looking for years for another project to work on together. Scorsese has said that it was seeing De Niro get very emotional in the course of describing the character that convinced him this was worth pursuing, that it could be more than a mafia retread, that they could push things further than in their past work together and say something new. If the only way to do it was to cast young actors for a large percentage of the movie, there would be no point doing it at all. That's not even getting into the added emotional heft (and cinematic pleasure!) of keeping the same main actors throughout, particularly these actors, who are now facing their own mortality and re-evaluating their own lives and careers much like Sheeran. I would argue that the slight uncanniness of the faces, and the occasional mismatch in the physicality of the bodies, only adds to the poignancy of the film - that the film itself is fighting its own losing battle against time, aging, and mortality.

I've watched this four times now (once in the theater, the rest at home) and it's certainly the 2019 film I've thought most about this year, has had the most profound effect on me emotionally, and continues to reveal new layers with each successive viewing.

[knives]

This is not the conversation I want to have

You're stuck in the same self repeating hell. I guess you're a lot like Frank.

Don't know what to think yet as I found both sides to be completely right.

[TMDaines]

I've read more than a couple of reviews where they state that the de-aging/CGI was so unconvincing that it ruined the viewing experience. I'm afraid to watch this.

My wife struggled to get over it, but she struggles to sustain disbelief when actors are playing characters much younger or older than themselves with copious makeup or otherwise.

I’ve always felt argued that that is part of performance; that’s part of the implicit contract you make when you choose to watch a film or go to theatre.

[Oedipax]

Yes, to me it was a bit like theater, where you're aware on some level of the artifice involved, but you just go with it. Scorsese has also been deliberate in calling the effects a sort of make-up - the same way we accept actors in aging makeup on other films. It's somewhat a question of being a charitable viewer, a willing suspension of disbelief, to meet the film half-way. Scorsese also notes that they wanted to create a younger version of the characters as we see them in the film - so De Niro's head is thicker now than it was in 1973, they weren't trying to recreate his appearance in Mean Streets, Frank Sheeran was a bigger guy even in his youth.

While it's clear that De Niro never looks like he's in his 20s or 30s in the film, there is a reduction in the weathered look of his face, and the degree of aging/de-aging is clear enough to understand where we are in the chronology of his life at each point. To me, that was enough.

[TwoTecs]

Do the anti-CGI people have a similar response to the kids in Goodfellas not looking like 13 year olds, and Pesci, Liotta and De Niro not looking like 20 something year olds?

[knives]

Why would they? That has nothing to do with the stated problem.

[domino harvey]

I think we really need to talk about this some more