Skip to main content

Scorsese and Friends Solemnly Reflect on a Career of ‘Painting Houses’


There’s been a lot of stupid discourse surrounding Martin Scorsese lately because so many people are upset or delighted that he’s not too keen on Marvel movies, and it’s all so tiresome and unimportant. He hasn’t done much to discourage this obnoxious debate of course, but its’ even more annoying seeing industry professionals, big name actors and directors criticizing the guy (none worse than the Russo Brothers) for daring to voice an unpopular opinion on the most popular movies on the planet. And it’s distracting from why we should be talking about Scorsese right now –his new movie that is one of his most ambitious in a career not wanting for risky endeavours. A gangster epic that reteams him with Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci for the first time in twenty-four years and reaffirms why he’s one of our most revered filmmakers.
Of course The Irishman, based on the book I Heard You Paint Houses by Charles Brandt, has actually been a passion project of De Niro’s for about fifteen years, who brought Scorsese onboard before the film was consigned to development hell for over a decade. It was the confirmed casting of Al Pacino (who in four decades had never worked with Scorsese before) and Pesci (coming out of retirement for one last project with Scorsese and De Niro) that finally gained the film traction, and though no major studio was willing to foot the bill for the long and expensive crime drama, Netflix bought the rights, meaning that after a brief theatrical run (which I was lucky enough to catch) it’ll be arriving on the platform available for widespread consumption –not ideal for Scorsese, but at least with his vision intact.
In it, De Niro plays mob hitman Frank Sheeran, and the decades-spanning film follows his rise in the employ of Russell Bufalino (Pesci) and subsequent work for and friendship with Jimmy Hoffa (Pacino) at the height of his popularity as head of the Teamsters Union. Making liberal use of CGI de-aging visual effects to resurrect its’ lead stars in their prime, the film is a contemplative slow burn (at three and a half hours total runtime) that chooses not to focus on the action and violence typical of gangster films –and especially this movies’ most obvious cousin, Scorsese’s 1990 mafia classic Goodfellas –but instead hones in on such a lifestyle and what it does to a person. De Niro’s Sheeran is an ambitious and effective enforcer, clever and loyal if lacking in social graces, but a man with a compromised conscience, an almost apathetic inability to see the long-term consequences of just being associated with figures like Hoffa and Bufalino, and a complacent distance from any meaningful connection to his family. He only lives for the life of crime, yet never seems to enjoy it the way Goodfellas’ Henry Hill did.
However, he does manage to forge a real friendship with Hoffa, standing by him from the Kennedy election through Hoffa’s imprisonment and up to his famous disappearance –on which the movie poses a potential theory. Regardless, as the film presents the tumult of the 60’s and 70’s as they concerned Hoffa, we see this relationship grow, the chemistry between De Niro and Pacino well-established and completely apparent here. Indeed, one of the films’ small delights is in seeing these legends (Pesci included of course) merely interacting in otherwise monotonous conversations or negotiations or strategizing, tinged with instances of well-timed humour (the movie is actually fairly funny, employing some of the same narration and metatextual techniques Scorsese incorporated into The Wolf of Wall Street). At times, it’s just enough to see such figures sharing the screen in 2019 and delivering exemplary dialogue from Steven Zaillian’s sharp yet heavily humanist script; especially when you factor in an appearance from Harvey Keitel and realize all of Scorsese’s regular players of the 70’s and 80’s are together again.
And I don’t think it’s an accident. The Irishman is a very self-reflective film that intentionally hearkens back to Scorsese’s earlier career. Much like Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, this movie really feels like a filmmaker coming to terms with his legacy, thoughtfully considering how far he’s come, expressing some regrets, and attempting to reconcile his place in a changing world. Of course, Scorsese is a much more accomplished and versatile director than Tarantino, but he seems to be drawing in some part from a like source. In the way The Irishman pensively examines and challenges themes of friendship and trust and the price of violence and greed over a long period of time, there’s something of Sergio Leone’s crime odyssey Once Upon a Time in America to the film. Certainly, Scorsese at least equals Leone in the sad, melancholy place he ends his story.
The last half-hour brutally emphasizes these themes, and better than nearly any other mafia movie de-glamorizes organized crime by showing exactly where it will lead a life. Though you never quite sympathize with Sheeran due to the choices he makes, the film ultimately conveys him as a pitiful old figure with some of the gut-punchiest commentary on aging, remorse, and loss that I’ve seen on film in some time. And the final shot, evocative of another famous final shot, is especially poignant.
The movies’ biggest obstacle is foreseeably enough some of the de-aging effects. The further back the story is set the more plastic De Niro’s face looks (particularly one brief flashback to the war). He and Pesci especially don’t quite look real in many of the scenes set in the 50’s and early 60’s, and the way their characters move is sometimes odd, clearly the result of actors in their seventies physically acting out characters in their forties. It’s considerably better in the later decades though where any digital touch-ups to De Niro and Pacino are barely noticeable and the actors are compelling enough to overpower the occasional weak spot.
But on a movie like this a technical imperfection in the make-up is far from a deal-breaker when virtually everything else is done so well. De Niro delivers possibly his best performance of the decade, Pacino is as dedicated and bombastic as ever, and years of retirement haven’t hindered Pesci’s ability to own every scene he’s in. Outside of these major New Hollywood stars, Scorsese fills his supporting cast with veterans of the HBO shows he produced: Ray Romano of Vinyl, Stephen Graham of Boardwalk Empire, Bobby Canavale of both (Boardwalk Empire’s Aleksa Palladino and Jack Huston appear in minor roles as well), alongside a large ensemble that also includes Jesse Plemmons and a tremendously icy Anna Paquin. Additionally, Scorsese has his long-time collaborators Robbie Robertson delivering an excellent score, and Thelma Schoonmaker (a legend in her own right) editing with a precision and sharpness that rivals any of her younger colleagues. And the director himself divests an unbelievable amount of effort and stamina to the film, likely in the knowledge it’s his last gangster picture, determined to leave audiences with a monument of a movie and some meaningful final words.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...