criterionforum.org

TwoTecs wrote: Mon Dec 16, 2019 11:26 pm

swo17 wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:33 pm (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?

Spoiler

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

TwoTecs wrote: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:

TwoTecs wrote: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?

david hare wrote: Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:22 am this godforsaken place

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

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.

swo17 wrote: Mon Dec 16, 2019 11:32 pm

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

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.

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

DarkImbecile wrote: Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:31 am

david hare wrote: Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:22 am 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.

Foam wrote: Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:16 am

TwoTecs wrote: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.

Foam wrote: Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:16 am

TwoTecs wrote: 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.

david hare wrote: Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:22 am 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.

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.

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 wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:14 pm 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.

Foam wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:14 pm 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.

Brian C wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:50 pm 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.

Nasir007 wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:20 pm
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.

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

If only you could read.

Enjoy your holidays elsewhere!

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...

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

Roger Ryan wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:47 pm

Black Hat wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:40 pm ...Only thing I haven't seen anybody remark on and none of my friends have been able to sufficiently answer is

Spoiler

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...

Spoiler

...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.

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

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.

domino harvey wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:41 pm 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.

domino harvey wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:41 pmI 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.

Michael Kerpan wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:23 am 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.

david hare wrote: Tue Dec 31, 2019 10:09 pm Has the arsehole left yet?

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

At least you don’t need digital de-aging software to demonstrate a decline in maturity, self-awareness, and social skills

More like the Irishban amirite — though this one’s gonna last even longer than the movie

So David now has an answer?

It is what it is.