The Irishman (no spoilers)

Cafe Society
1

I saw it the day it was released on Netflix. Then I watched it again.

I think The Irishman is one of the great movies of all time. It is a film that moves on multiple levels, with intersecting themes that carry it to a profound conclusion.

On one level, you can watch it as Scorsese’s homage to the genre (which, to a large extent, is his), or to its stars. DeNiro, Pesci, and Pacino are playing themselves playing characters we already know. Characters whose fate, like that of the actors’ themselves, like of all us, is fixed, their first breath signaling the excruciating wait for the inevitable last.

The acting in The Irishmen deserves a thread of its own. These are capstone performances by the best of their generation. Some will quibble that Pacino’s Hoffa was not Hoffa. I would answer that he has created the Hoffa we’ll remember. The movie is full of tragedies not the least of which is that one of Pacino, Pesci, and DeNiro will not be on stage to accept an Oscar. A smaller tragedy, but tragic nonetheless, is that Harvey Keitel, showing us genius in every second of his minute or two of screen time, will get no more than passing praise. In the company of brilliance, even the brightest can lose some lustre.

The Irishman is about how we become deaf to the pervasive evil and corruption that has been the soundtrack of our lives. About inquiries, obstruction, prevarication, and resignation. Scorsese’s use of landmark political events is not simply to provide a chronology. It’s to remind us what happened, what happens still, and what will happen next year.

But it’s the many other levels that elevate The Irishmen to greatness. It is about the choices we make. The ones we regret and most especially about the ones we never took. It’s about loyalty and the fluid morality we create to serve it. It’s about sinning, atonement, and forgiveness (even if forgiveness is self-given). It’s about family, whether tied together in blood or with blood; about the parents we have, the parents we choose, and the parents who choose us. And it is very much about mortality - that we all have a date with death is hardly a new observation but Scorsese reminds us that with every choice we make, we murder a possibility.

It is a magnificent film.

2

Can’t believe I misspelled the title in the OP. Please, if a kind mod could change it to ‘The Irishman’, I would be grateful. Thanks

3

Fixed.

4

I would disagree about some of what you’ve written. I found it to be fomulaic and rather dull. Trite, in fact. The emphasis on Hoffa (no spoilers) seemed to me to be the result of someone (Scorsese, Pacino, whoever) wanting to make sure that Pacino had extra screen time. (One notable omission was that nobody brought up the fact that one of the conditions of Hoffa’s pardon from Nixon was that he could not serve as an officer in the union. The legal battle over this is nowhere to be found.)

In the book on which the movie was based, there is a great deal of detail about how Frank started “painting houses” and his thoughts about his actions. This is all dealt with in a mini-montage of several shots in the movie, lasting a total of under a minute.

Overall, a huge disappointment to me. It is one of the few Scorsese movies that I have no desire to see again.

5

I have mixed feelings about it. There were parts of it that were absolutely riveting - not because of the drama but rather the lack of it, which created tension and suspense and a sense of unease that pervaded the whole movie. Al Pacino’s acting performance was great - he managed to make Hoffa so obnoxious, arrogant, and annoying that I wanted to kill the guy! De Niro’s was a little bit more dry and opaque; he was more of a figure that things happened around, rather than to, and the de-aging effect was a little strange and distracting at times. I think it was more effective on Pesci.

I wished Harvey Keitel had more screen time, but I realize his role was rather peripheral. It was cool though to recognize a ton of faces from The Sopranos.

It’s definitely a Scorsese movie, cinematography and narrative wise. But it’s not the “drugs and sex and glamor” kind of Scorsese, it was more bleak. Even the color palette was kind of grim.

(Have to run, more later)

6

I have watched the first half and it is boring. Maybe the 2nd half is better . I did not notice the CGI faces so they were very well done.

7

Just watched it. I think it appropriate to view it not only for entertainment value, but also historical. It’s just a film and it does not (legally) put to rest the Hoffa mystery. Those that may know, have taken the answer to their graves.

Interestingly, and of no particular value, back in the mid/late 1960’s I knew Joseph Glimco. He ran Teamsters Local 777 in Chicago. Bo Deitl portrayed him in the film.

8

Dang, the Goodfellas got old! While I appreciate them not trying to pass someone else off as young De Niro, no amount of CGI can cover up the fact that the man is in his mid-70s. No matter how smooth they make his skin look, he’s still got that “old man hunch” and he just moves like an old man.

Now, of course I realize, what else are they gonna do? But still, it was somewhat distracting. I kept having to try and figure out what time period we were supposed to be in by the set and props, because the actor’s faces weren’t a lot of help.

9

I’ve only watched about 30 minutes so far but I’ll say this: They may have de-aged DeNiro’s face, but they sure as heol didn’t de-age his body and movement. The scene where he

stomps on the grocery store owner’s hand for pushing around his daughter is just too ridiculous looking.

10

Someone else take a look at 1:03:15 when Pacino is behind his desk yelling about some guy selling his insurance to his “fuck’n father’s locals.” Pacino pauses because he clearly can’t remember his line (even though they edited to make it look like he was so angry that he couldn’t speak). He even looks up and smiles to the guy across the desk. How they thought that was the take to use is beyond me. I can’t think of a worse editing choice in the history of decent cinema.

11

2nd half was a little better but overall not very good. Very slow and too long. I really prefer the Godfather, Sopranos and Goodfellas .

12

(Edited to remove spoiler.)

Second. I mentioned this specific scene to my wife as being an example of using a very bad take. (Or, an example of needing to use a stunt double and blocking the scene so you don’t see their face.) Lo and behold…I read a review of the film on the BBC news website that evening and the reviewer also singled out this scene as being a very bad choice on the director’s part.

13

I knew nothing about the movie, I just decided to watch it the other day. I loved it. At one point I realized I’d been watching it for a couple of hours and was surprised when I looked and saw I had over an hour to go. But I loved it and will watch it again.

14

Scorsese went on a rant against Marvel type movies. But he did not seem to have problem using Marvel type CGI.

15

The de-aging wasn’t bad, but I thought it laughable that Pesci would, in the course of helping De Niro with his truck, would call him “kid”.

16

I was impressed with Pesci’s subdued, nuanced performance. Not his usual role, but damned if he didn’t nail it.

Kind of makes me wonder what other acting goodness we might have been treated to if Hollywood wasn’t so quick to typecast.

17

Yeah, I was actually confused during that scene because it didn’t look violent at all.

18

Maybe you did it right by taking it in two bites. My wife and I thought the first half (or maybe first 3d) enjoyable, but MAN did it turn into a long 3.5 hrs! Come to think of it, it probably woulda made 2 decent movies: 1 strictly about the mob and the 2d centered around Hoffa.

I guess I’m too much of a stortytelling philistine, but I like my stories a little more linear. With some of the scenes, I had a hard time figuring out whether they were supposed to have occurred before or after other scenes, so the result was, I gave up trying to figure it out.

Another problem I have with some “period” films, I had a hard time telling some of the women apart.

19

Did Steven VanZandt have any lines and was that his voice singing as Jerry Vale? I was surprised that he got the credit that he did (one of the first dozen or so that appeared).

20

I thought he was great too. DeNiro and Pacino just aren’t good here. I’ve always thought they were both overrated and critics mistook intensity for acting chops.