The Irishman (Martian Scorsese)
This
is a polarizing film for me. I want to really like this film, but I
just didn't, for the most part. This movie is what I would call the very definition of a vanity project. A bunch of creators that are not so
much "past their prime" but defiantly past the use by date for this kind
of film. These are people who are making a film together. To make a
film together. Not because they are the best choices for actors to make
the film.
No amount of "digital makeup" can get around the fact
that they move and have the vocal inflection of old, old men. In the
same way that the newish Star Wars film with Vader in it sounded "wrong"
as Jones's voice was so weak, this film just lacks all the energy
needed to portray these villains. The old men sequences work, and work
very well. Joe Pesci particularly comes off the best, as unlike Dinero
he isn't kicking people in the head when he can hardly lift his foot and
balance on one leg. This really brought me out of the film and the film
makers knew this. That is why the "young" Dinero still looks like he is
in his late forties, to try and minimise this problem. I even read that
they had a "posture coach" on this movie. They just can not fake their
way around how frail Dinero and Al Pacino are and despite their vast
acting talent they fail to complete the illusion the movie requires for
the majority of "youth" timeline. This does mean the latter parts of the
film are, imo, vastly superior as their age is not something that they
are fighting, and the performances feel more natural and convincing.
In
the old days, there was a covenant between audience member and film
maker. The film maker only had to set up the premise of someone being
old or young. The visual illusion was easily seen through but the viewer
understood what was meant. In Little Big Man we are not fooled by the
"Old Man Makeup" of Dustin Hoffman, but we accept it. In Batman (1998)
we are not fooled by the "young Jack Nicholson" but we accept it. Films
nowadays are obsessed with visual illusion over the metaphoric, and I
think this is a huge loss to film making. A great example is Anthony
Hopkins in Nixon and Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon. Having Hopkins in
all that makeup actually puts barriers between the audience and the
actor and while Langella looks nothing like Nixon the illusion is
actually better as those barriers are absent and the actor's art is raw
on the screen. What I am trying to say here is that this film would have
been immeasurably better if they fucked off all that digital makeup and
just hired some young actors to play them as kids, even if they didn't
look exactly the same. For no matter how good the "visual" illusion was,
the performances were just not able to be convincingly put onto the
screen and in a film such as this which is so low key and so much about
characters and in a film which has the acting right at the forefront,
well, it just really hurt this movie.
Also this film is LONG.
Like many vanity projects the editing is all over the shop. I read a
metric that said only 17% of the viewers on Netflix finished the film in
one session and most people took over a week to watch the film across 3
sessions. I myself watched it in two sessions over 4 days. This isn't
necessarily a bad thing. I actually think the long format film could be
the future for streaming services. In the same way I think the short TV
Episode could be the future of streaming TV, one we are glimpsing on
Disney+ with The Mandelorian. What dose it matter how long a film is if
you can pause it and come back the next day, or how short a tv show is
if you can press "next" and watch another episode strait away? Even so,
this film is undeniably self-indulgent. With film, I still
think that single sessions are the way to consume them, to get lost in a
story by surrounding yourself in it. Long form film work great on a
second or more viewings, as you are watching to relive things, kinda
like having a memory of a experience rather than actually experiencing
it. I could hardly sit though the Lord of the Rings films at the cinema,
but have no issues with watching the trilogy's extended editions during subsequent viewings over a
few weeks at home. To that end I think that this film will gain
ground on second or more viewing, as the viewer is not being asked to "live"
the film, so to speak, and that means that length and more importantly
the pacing is no longer as important.
The good stuff of this film
is far more obvious. I mean this is a master craftsman doing his thing
with some truly legendary actors behind him. Pesci stood out to me and
really highlights the loss to cinema that happened when he walked away
form hollywood. Even so I do not need to tell you that the main cast of
Pesci, Dinero and Pacino are showcasing an actors workshop here. The
cast of this movie is like a who's who. Even bit characters like Harvey
Keitel shine and faces popup constantly that make you call out.. "that
guy!" and no one can deny the understanding of film language which
Scorsese has.
So this is a strange film for me. It is obviously
something interesting and above the crowd, yet it is incredibly flawed,
almost ruined in some parts and then on top of that there are these
absolutely stunning actor on actor character scenes. It is such a mixed
bag. One that feels undercooked somehow and it is not helped by
seemingly overly lenient editing.
Verdict : Everyone should see this, but not everyone will like it, and that is ok.
