1058 The Irishman

[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

[Noiretirc]

Oh dear, did I start this?

"Anti CGI" might be a bit harsh. I've read in a couple of reviews about heads that seem to float, and young people moving about like old people. I'm not anti CGI. I'm anti really badly done CGI.

Of course I'll watch this.

[TwoTecs]

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

"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."

[Foam]

Since you're hung up on my post, I'll add that it's not just the disparity between how old they look and how old they are supposed to look that's my problem. It's also that the effect looks ugly. Uglier than I imagine different actors would have looked.

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?

When did I say I think a different decision wouldn't have made a different film? I don't like the film. I wish the film were different. I think Scorsese's decision to use de-aging, for whatever reason you're giving me, was wrong for this story. This is pretty simple.

[Big Ben]

"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 don't mean to be difficult but this is information you can actually look up. Frank Sheeran was born October 25, 1920 and he enlisted in the Unites States Army in August of 1941 and was discharged in 1945 so De Niro's character would have been in his early twenties in the earliest flashback. Sheeran met Buffalino in 1955 which would make him around thirty five when he and Buffalino meet. Persci's character Russell Buffalino was born on October 28th 1903 which would make him around fifty two (Close to that number you cited) when we first meet him. Jimmy Hoffa was born on February 14th, 1913 and met Sheeran in 1957 which would make him forty four when we first meet him in the film. Not quite fifty but people certain don't look like spring chickens at that age either.

I don't disagree that some of the CGI looks wonky at times (The WWII footage is the worst by my estimation) but I feel you are being incredibly disingenuous by not looking any of this information up when it is readily available and in abundance due to the release of this film and the publicity behind it.

[domino harvey]

It should be noted that the above is actually a quote from Foam’s longer post earlier in the thread— there’s a reason the board has a quote function, people!

[Big Ben]

I don't feel that anything I've typed outside of missing who originally posted it (That's entirely on me. Yikes!) is necessarily wrong in the context of clarifying the time periods which I feel is important to point out in the broader discussion of why people look the way they do. No they don't all look like handsome devils but they don't exactly look atrocious either.

I mean just for reference:

[domino harvey]

It was on TwoTecs for not quoting properly in the first place. But that was how he intended his post to be so if I wanted to see that post use other methods, like with a quote box, that would have been a different post and not what TwoTecs intended

[knives]

This one needed to stew for a while for me to be able to get a handle on it. It's a sleepy, old man which isn't something that feels particularly great in the moment, there's no audaciousness like in Scorsese previous good feature, but since it hasn't left me after a day it must have some better merit to me then just being a good movie.

Scorsese's always talked about Casino as being set in purgatory and this really continues the Dante theme as Inferno with Hoffa as a sort of Virgil. The importance for Scorsese seems to be in that last scene asking if someone incapable of understanding their actions can attain forgiveness. So we enter and close in hell in the most real world sense. This intended question doesn't really matter to me, but the metaphor it exists in does as the horror of aging and in particular losing one's memory is terrifying to me. The film occupies that horror with a story that is long, rambling, and not entirely coherent. It is this pathetic old man's memories that he is forced to like Sisyphus relive basically as long as the movie is watched.

On a filmed basis I perhaps perversely couldn't help but think of Lubitsch's Heaven Can Wait as the jumping off point. We don't see the devil he confesses to though which makes him even more pathetic. Another a source, perhaps, seems to be Bunuel's Discreet Charm. The never ending car ride seems to replicate that film's characters pushing forward. Whereas they excitedly go with no destination Sheeran has a goal that seems to be never in reach (this is one of many things that makes me think perhaps the film would have been better with a few more hours).

I'm still fairly accepting of a lot of criticism against the film despite feeling for it, but one that seems insane to me is people complaining about Anna Paquin not talking. Had she uttered even a phoneme more it would have ruined the entire thematic purpose of her character. Her muteness isn't a disability, but it's used in the manner of the blind mother in Peeping Tom highlighting how these men are evil in a physical way.

Another thing this time holding the film down though also playing at elevation is a seemingly unintended, happy accident. The CGI looks incredibly fake which I doubt is intended, but has the fortunate effect (which I'm sure Scorsese became aware of) of the scenes being sketches from the demented confessor. If anything as a result I wish the film had gone further making the earliest scenes animated in a sketch style slowly filling in details as we got closer to concrete events. This is helped by the Bunuel influence I mentioned detecting earlier. If this was the lone surreal element I'd posit this as my own rationalization purely, but there are a lot of bizarre elements like the car ride or the lighting in one of the murders being like a von Trier piss dream. Even without the aging this is a strange movie.

[nitin]

It was on TwoTecs for not quoting properly in the first place. But that was how he intended his post to be so if I wanted to see that post use other methods, like with a quote box, that would have been a different post and not what TwoTecs intended

Ha, I actually snorted!

[therewillbeblus]

Scorsese's always talked about Casino as being set in purgatory and this really continues the Dante theme as Inferno with Hoffa as a sort of Virgil. The importance for Scorsese seems to be in that last scene asking if someone incapable of understanding their actions can attain forgiveness. So we enter and close in hell in the most real world sense. This intended question doesn't really matter to me, but the metaphor it exists in does as the horror of aging and in particular losing one's memory is terrifying to me. The film occupies that horror with a story that is long, rambling, and not entirely coherent. It is this pathetic old man's memories that he is forced to like Sisyphus relive basically as long as the movie is watched.

Really interesting thoughts, knives - especially regarding Paquin's effectiveness beyond the philosophical level as the moral center to the juxtoposition to the physical.

The above point about Sisyphus is great, especially if going by Camus' use of him as De Niro literally does the opposite of what he must to achieve any kind of existential meaning. His naivete makes him dead as a non-participant, doomed to endlessly be out of reach of any tangible means of accessing meaning or understanding from his life, his feeble elderly symptoms of physical loss only heightening that reality to frightening, depressing, and uncomfortable places in its regression to finality of hopelessness.

[Finch]

Netflix releases more viewing data

[flyonthewall2983]

...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.

SpoilerShow

I just realized the significance of him wearing sunglasses when we see his fourth-wall stuff

[TwoTecs]

When did I say I think a different decision wouldn't have made a different film? I don't like the film. I wish the film were different. I think Scorsese's decision to use de-aging, for whatever reason you're giving me, was wrong for this story. This is pretty simple.

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.

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.

It was on TwoTecs for not quoting properly in the first place. But that was how he intended his post to be so if I wanted to see that post use other methods, like with a quote box, that would have been a different post and not what TwoTecs intended

Thank you for respecting my auteurship. If only such courtesy was extended to Martin Scorsese.

[Foam]

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.

[Oedipax]

The discourse around this film w.r.t. the effects is, I must say, one of the more frustrating debates I've encountered around a film in a while. I don't begrudge someone finding them unconvincing, but to completely discard everything else that is on offer here - an instant classic, in my view - as some have, just seems self-defeating. To me it feels akin to saying you couldn't connect with a book because of the typesetting. Perhaps there's some merit in the complaint if it's particularly poorly done, but there's still the matter of the work itself that is getting completely overlooked as a result. People are willfully denying themselves one of the great cinematic experiences in recent years because some of its visual effects are questionable. I don't get it, but I have to trust that more people will come around to seeing the film's strengths in time, once the initial shock/disappointment of the CGI wears off. Or not...

[swo17]

This may not have been clear from my comments earlier but for the record, I think the effects are the second most interesting thing about this film (behind the treatment of Anna Paquin's character). Even if they aren't always entirely convincing I think they were a worthwhile experiment and I appreciate what Scorsese was doing with them. (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.) Overall I thought this was a good, solid effort though it doesn't need any more love from me than that

[Noiretirc]

The discourse around this film w.r.t. the effects is, I must say, one of the more frustrating debates I've encountered around a film in a while. I don't begrudge someone finding them unconvincing, but to completely discard everything else that is on offer here - an instant classic, in my view - as some have, just seems self-defeating. To me it feels akin to saying you couldn't connect with a book because of the typesetting. Perhaps there's some merit in the complaint if it's particularly poorly done, but there's still the matter of the work itself that is getting completely overlooked as a result. People are willfully denying themselves one of the great cinematic experiences in recent years because some of its visual effects are questionable. I don't get it, but I have to trust that more people will come around to seeing the film's strengths in time, once the initial shock/disappointment of the CGI wears off. Or not...

This.

I loved this film. 3.5hrs flew by, with not a single boring/wasted moment for me, in spite of the very far from perfect "makeup" that was employed to show us the younger versions of the characters involved. The rods that hold up King Kong (1933) in various freeze frames bother me more. This is a brilliant film from a Director and Actors that I might have started to doubt at this late stage. I am so happy that this film exists, even if it over-reached in certain areas of presentation.

[Nasir007]

Script here. It is styled as the final shooting script even though it is only 146 pages. I might dig into this. I am intrigued that this script resulted in a 3.5 hr movie.

[Nasir007]

Phew. So I read the screenplay - front and back. And then skimmed through the movie again, comparing it with the screenplay.

And this is my humble opinion - It is outrageous that this movie is 3.5 hrs. The screenplay is 145 pags, pardon the error above. And it reads like a 145 min movie. Reading the screenplay, the experience is completely different. Reading the screenplay, you get the intention of what kind of movie it is meant to be. 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.

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.

I will actually even say this - I think it is actually a very good script as I read it.

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.

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.

I see this as a sign of fim-making hubris. When a director feels the dialog is more interesting than it is. I last felt like this in Hateful Eight. That script was great too. A quick intriguing suspenseful script. But the way Tarantino directed it destroyed the movie. Everyone spoke so slowly - as if reciting metered dialog written by Shakespeare. It was the same mistake, a film-maker reveling in whatever the hell they were doing without realizing perhaps that the audience isn't that enamored with their every whim and fancy. As I say, you better have iron clad reasons for going super long. I don't see them here.

I am not alone in finding this film slow and overlong. That is the film Scorsese seemed to have wanted to make. But that is not what this film need have been. Infact reading the script, I actually feel had it been filmed as written - meaning had it been a super-taut 145 mins, it might have been some kind of a tour-de-force masterpiece. I know probably the majority of people here already think that it is. But sadly I cannot call it so in its current form.

I think a tighter pace would have given movie something which I think it lacks currently - density. The movie is very diffuse currently. And it feels that way because even though it is 3.5 hrs, there isn't 3.5 hrs worth of content here. There is only about 2.5 hrs worth of content needlessly stretched out. You could pack the same material in 2.5 hrs without cutting a single scene or line of dialog. And the cumulative effect would be so much larger. The movie then would have a massive sweep. It would have the glorious rush of great fiction. And it would have enormous staying power and be a rewarding sit as it would deeply engage the viewer every moment of its runtime. Basically no fat, no sagging skin, all muscle.

Again, this is kinda a late period magnum opus for Scorsese - at least it has been made and marketed and received that way. And I want to respect it. And I do respect it. There is nothing wrong with the film. As I have said the film is handsomely appointed, well cast, with very good acting and good staging. It is just that it has been rendered bloodless with its extended length. So I can respect but I cannot love it and cherish it.

But I encourage people to read the script. It is essentially the same thing, word for word and scene for scene for the most part, but it gives you the sense of what could have been had this been shot like a dizzying fast-paced movie. In my humble opinion, it would have acquired greater power, not lesser.

[domino harvey]

I like that it took 822 words to say something was longer than it needed to be

[nitin]

I for one can say I did not want this movie to be faster.