Jump to content
rllmuk
grounded_dreams

The Irishman - Martin Scorsese, with Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Al Pacino

Recommended Posts

I’ll never understand why ppl are so bothered by Scorsese or Coppola not liking Marvel films.  They’re obviously not the type of films they like, or make, to me it’s really akin to asking Scorsese in the ‘80s what he thought of all the action blockbusters, I doubt he had much time for those either.

 

Is there the same outcry over Todd Phillip’s implication that other comic book movies, Marvel movies if you will, aren’t real films?

 

https://www.thewrap.com/joker-director-todd-phillips-rebuffs-criticism-of-dark-tone-we-didnt-make-the-movie-to-push-buttons-exclusive/

 

Quote

 

“We didn’t make the movie to push buttons,” Phillips told TheWrap’s editor-in-chief, Sharon Waxman, in an interview last Friday about the filmmaking process. “I literally described to Joaquin at one point in those three months as like, ‘Look at this as a way to sneak a real movie in the studio system under the guise of a comic book film’. It wasn’t, ‘We want to glorify this behavior.’ It was literally like ‘Let’s make a real movie with a real budget and we’ll call it f–ing Joker’. That’s what it was.”

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy Marvel movies. I booked tickets way in advance to make sure I could watch Endgame opening night,  after already having done the same with Infinity War. I also don't think there was anything particularly contentious about what Martin Scorsese said. It's possible to take pleasure in something and also have a realistic view of what it is you're enjoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this tonight, it’s fantastic. Both De Niro and Pacino are superb. I simply can’t remember the last time they were this good. And seeing Pesci again is just pure joy. I think award season is going to have a hard time choosing between Pacino and Pesci for best supporting actor, they both really deserve it.

 

It’s a very different beast from Goodfellas and Casino. I wouldn’t call it slow paced, but it isn’t afraid to take its time and give its characters room to grow. Just a perfect way for Scorsese to bow out of the genre he helped mould.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah just saw this tonight and it was excellent, albeit quite bittersweet. It’s definitely about old age and the scene near the end with an old De Niro and Pesci eating bread was a reminder of how old they are now and yet still brilliant actors (as well as making me think that it’s a shame Joe Pesci has been pretty much retired for over 20 years).


Im just grateful I managed to see a new Martin Scorsese film with these wonderful actors in the cinema. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of cinemas..

 

Maybe i overestimate how much wealth the most well regarded, sometimes most successful directors of the last 40 years have or underestimate how large their many mansions and ranches are, but i don't understand why they can't join together to open the kind of cinemas that play more of the films they want to be shown. You get token purchases, like Tarantino buying the New Beverly Cinema in 2007, but..that's it. Like Soderburgh moaning about his difficulty in getting films financed..i can't help think he of anyone is in a position to have the wealth, power and connections to start a production company long ago, take a cut from profits (like unexpected low budget success Magic Mike) and use that. I guess i don't understand the structure of most of what they do when they appear to be so prominent and influential in shaping a medium yet still on the outside somehow. When Spielberg comes out with suggestions he's no different to any other director when trying to get a film financed. He's got to be pretty well off by now. How much did Lucas spend on his ranch? Whenever an article expresses admiration a director takes a wage cut to make a film..yeah why not? As long as they're living comfortably enough. As we meant to admire that supposed sacrifice?

 

Or JK Rowling sitting on infinite billions but using all her energy bashing Corbyn on twitter and occasionally throwing some money towards charities instead of, i dunno, building, and funding public buildings and services in the Scotland she resides in. Banging on about libraries closing and pleading for people to be aware, give money, whatever is strange. I suppose i can't make sense of such futile language coming from millionaires and billionaires who are as revered in popular culture as it's possible to be when I have basically nothing yet think anything and everything is possible.

 

Maybe it takes becoming a billionaire to lose the capacity to imagine.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having slept on it I think the slower pacing will definitely put people off, but the last third of the film definitely feels like a metaphor for the whole “New Hollywood” cinema - everyone is dead, retired or has sold out and there’s only Scorsese left And he’s going to do it his way whether you like it or not ;) 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't be for everyone. I was in a busy showing and there were definitely a few grumbling about the runtime (its famously long, don't go in the first fucking place). But this film is pure class, and I can't stop thinking about it this morning.

 

I'm actually really liking the Netflix model. Had the chance to see it on the big screen, and really look forward to being able to rewatch it as many times as I want in a couple of weeks time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bazjam said:

 

 

I'm actually really liking the Netflix model. Had the chance to see it on the big screen, and really look forward to being able to rewatch it as many times as I want in a couple of weeks time.


I have to agree with the model they’ve taken, but it’s also made me appreciate that while Netflix may be funding some of the shittest quality films possible (cough... Adam Sandler... cough), if it means that they can also spend $150m+ on a film like The Irishman, knowing that it doesn’t have to bring in $750m+ Box Office to be considered a success, then overall it’s definitely a good model going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Loik V credern said:

On the subject of cinemas..

 

[snip] 

 

I'm not sure what your point here is. That directors should have enough earning power in Hollywood to what, run the show? Unless the likes of, say, Spielberg generated enough to compete with the studio owners - which since the nineties have been mega corporations like Sony - their wealth is a comparative drop in the bucket. 

 

They have nowhere near enough power, either. If they bought a cinema (or even a small chain) they *might* be able to rent films at a slightly lower rate than - say - AMC, but they'd still have to sell inordinate amounts of overpriced popcorn to see a profit.

 

And without that revenue, they couldn't afford to use their theatres to show their own movies. Copola tried all this shit with Zoetrope in the 70s and was constantly in the red. Am I miscomprehending what you're suggesting? Cos otherwise, the answer is that there's no route to affordable, creator-owned cinema happening; not until the fall of Capitalism, at least! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Loik V credern said:

I mean however indepedant cinemas operate, more of them. 

 

 

Good business model, try dragons den. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like the idea in theory @Loik V credern. As attendence is dropping and gimmicks aren't working, you could create a niche by doing a couple of things, I think.

 

Yep, you could have a couple of maker-operators whose stuff you could only see first at that cinema or chain. You could have festivals of the owners' films, perhaps remastered versions/alternate cuts and Q&As, at the flagship theatre but broadcast across the chain live. 

 

Having a society of maker/owners who jumped onboard could help lower budgets, but also lower the cost of rentals and distribution to negligible levels - partner with someone like Netflix for exclusive rights to broadcast after the theatre run, and that could offset production cost significantly. 

 

It'd be a risky enterprise and the biggest barrier would be the fact it's quite a liberal/left-leaning, almost collectivist approach but yes, it could work if the directors invested that money rather than buying manses. So yeah, it may be a pipe dream but it's not impossible :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Loik V credern said:

I mean however indepedant cinemas operate, more of them. 

 

 


What you’ve described there is the art house cinema circuit. It already exists in the form of Curzon, Everyman and to lesser extent Picturehouse. 
 

You are very unlikely to get a director taking on the risk and ballache of owning a chain. The art house circuit is a happy medium where they can scale up and make a decent profit but also, in the case of Curzon and Picturehouse, have some control over content as they are both distributors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, gone fishin' said:


I have to agree with the model they’ve taken, but it’s also made me appreciate that while Netflix may be funding some of the shittest quality films possible (cough... Adam Sandler... cough), if it means that they can also spend $150m+ on a film like The Irishman, knowing that it doesn’t have to bring in $750m+ Box Office to be considered a success, then overall it’s definitely a good model going forward.

In some ways its just the industry being circular. In the pre internet days the industry would make worthy pictures that they knew would lose money but the losses would be covered by the hits. It was only because those pesky Europeans were treating celluloid as some kind of new canvas for art that (new)Hollywood ever even pretended to care about the quality of its product at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh Kerraig is back :)

 

I just say simple things without understanding the complexities, i wasn't thinking of any individual director taking it on, but loads of them mostly financing it and getting others to operate them. Like I've not given much thought to when this shift occurred when the multiplexes mostly just showed blockbusters. It's not like Scorcese might have imagined in the 70s the situation in 2019 where his newest film is funded by a subscription streaming service given only a limited cinema release. i guess all the mansions and ranches were already bought by then ;)

 

I read a bit of Soderburgh's speech about this earlier. Scorcese in his article brought up he disagrees people only want blockbusters, it goes that if that's all they are given that's what they will consume. David Chen on his podcast spent 30 minutes going through the article and disagreed with this bit, supposing it was what capitalism does best; boiling down what people want and delivering it. I'm with Scorcese. Soderburgh was like; i get it! People are working longer hours for less pay, at the end of a hard day/week they just want some easy escapism, not pulled into the hellish existence of someone surviving on the fringes of society. Those are the most rewarding films but you have to be in the right frame of mind to embrace them. Well, i do. I might intend to watch a few films in a gap but after one just leave it there and let it sink in for a bit. (I've been meaning to watch The King but after a few weeks I'm still recovering from The Nightingale) 

 

That cinema card available in America was popular, monthly pay unlimited cinema watches. I liked the argument that every time a film is shown and there's empty seats that's a waste of people filling the seats. The film is gonna be shown anyway, just get people in. I don't have a nearby cinema i can walk to, i could take a diversion home and go then. I prefer watching films lieing down, can't watch anything without subtitles either. I need pitch darkness, the cinema ceiling lights annoy me as do the green exit lights beside the screen. It's those things rather than the noise of others that let the experience down. 

 

Soderburgh reckons studios should identify talent and think long term. Not take the box office of each release and allow that to impact their relationship, but know that they're so good any minor failure might be an anomaly among surprise hits. Or Soderbergh says, just hand them an amount intended for 3 films and allow the director to decide how they separate it out over releases. He just wants more trust there. No one knows anything, as Goldman said. Imagine being one of many employed to figure out why a particular film didn't reach the expected box office heights the weekend of release. Soderburgh expresses some of the self doubt and confusion involved in his Side Effects film, i read a few sentences before wanting out. i dunno, it was a good film. If i left the cinema having seen that I'd be content. Would i choose to see it? Depends on access of cinema and price. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely think there's a feedback loop with film like there is with the Daily Mail. Mail printed hate that conditioned their readers into a confirmation bias of wanting hate in their paper. The Mail now has to keep printing it or lose customers.

Same with CGI fest franchises. The audience are conditioned now to expect that from their cinema experience so only go and see that.

Joker was a refreshing change of pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to say. Been to see The Irishman three times now at the cinema and it is the most beautiful, perfect, enigmatic wonderful gift to us New York Cinema kids. A love letter. A farewell to a particular type of cinema..
 
It's cinematic paradise for me. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are the New York Cinema children?

 

Nobody told me cinema had ended either. I was looking forward to loads of stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JPL said:

Who are the New York Cinema children?

 

I think you have to have reached a certain level of pretentiousness before you get the invite.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JPL said:

Who are the New York Cinema children?

 

Nobody told me cinema had ended either. I was looking forward to loads of stuff.


Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/11/2019 at 06:25, Loik V credern said:

On the subject of cinemas..

 

Maybe i overestimate how much wealth the most well regarded, sometimes most successful directors of the last 40 years have or underestimate how large their many mansions and ranches are, but i don't understand why they can't join together to open the kind of cinemas that play more of the films they want to be shown.

 

I imagine owning and running a cinema chain is a very different proposition to making films, and might not really be what even a cinema-loving great film director wants to do, or is any good at.


As far as putting their money where their mouth is, I believe Scorcese has spent a fair bit of his own personal money paying for the restoration and archiving of many old films that might otherwise be lost forever, so he's doing his bit for the wider art form.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.