‘The Irishman’: Scorsese’s latest casts a sentimental eye at hit men

Netflix/AP
Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro, left) introduces daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina) to crime boss Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci) in “The Irishman.”

Martin Scorsese’s 3 1/2-hour gangster epic “The Irishman” isn’t the masterpiece many critics are calling it, but I do like it more than anything he’s directed in a long time. It’s more melancholy and deeply felt than, say, “The Departed,” “Goodfellas,” or “Casino.” Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, and Joe Pesci, its three stars, all give performances with flashes of their best work. But there’s an aspect of the movie, common to all of Scorsese’s organized crime films, that I find troubling. To wit: Just how sentimental should we be about coldblooded killers?

There are a lot of them in the film. First among them is De Niro’s Frank Sheeran, an Irish American trucker and petty crook who rises in the ranks of the Philadelphia Bufalino crime family to the favored position of hit man. (In mob vernacular, he “paints houses.”) He is introduced in a long, languorous tracking shot in a nursing home. His intermittent voice-over narration then takes us through flashbacks spanning more than five decades. (The film utilizes de-aging technology, to mostly serviceable effect, on the three actors.)

We briefly take in his service as a soldier in Italy during World War II, his meetup in 1950 with crime boss Russell Bufalino (Pesci), his marriages, his children, and his hit jobs. Then, momentously, his fraught friendship with Teamster chief Jimmy Hoffa (Pacino), whom he protects as a bodyguard until ordered to kill him. (Although the people portrayed in the movie, written by Steve Zaillian, are real, the facts in Charles Brandt’s 2004 nonfiction book “I Heard You Paint Houses,” on which the film is based, have been much disputed.)

Why We Wrote This

Moviegoers often have a soft spot for gangsters and the actors who play them, especially when Martin Scorsese is at the helm. Film critic Peter Rainer suggests bringing more balance to portrayals of those who pull triggers.

Unlike those earlier Scorsese gangster movies, the violence here is comparatively subdued. Frank’s hits are staged as wham-bam events. In one, the camera is mostly focused on a bouquet in a flower shop window. Despite, or perhaps because of this, the cruelty and pitilessness still come through loud and clear. And yet Scorsese wants us to comprehend these killers apart from their killings – as tragic figures caught up in a web of violence of their own making.

He is trying to expose the depredations of these people, but he can’t hide his affection for them. Part of the problem, of course, is that we feel emotionally close to his actors. De Niro, Pacino, and Pesci have such built-in audience rapport that no matter how horrible their characters behave, we are, not unwillingly, on their side. Our long and happy history with them is a species of sentimentality that the film inevitably mainlines.

Unregenerate murderers are people, too. And if one is crafting a work of art, to deny them their humanity is to deny reality. (Shakespeare knew this; so did Dostoevsky.) But it’s really not all that difficult to make movie killers sympathetic. It’s done all the time, even in far greater films such as “The Godfather,” “Bonnie and Clyde,” and “The Wild Bunch.” The more difficult achievement here would have been if Scorsese, surveying the havoc these men wrought, maintained a hard edge of horror.

To his credit, he does show us, if too briefly, the toll Frank’s violence takes on his daughter (played by Lucy Gallina and, as an adult, by Anna Paquin). But the regret Frank feels by the end, which he cannot even bring himself to confess to a priest, has mostly to do with offing Hoffa, and not with the many others he dispatched. He has no qualms about killing per se.

When Frank in his old age says, “You don’t know how fast time goes by until you get there,” the autumnal tone rings false. What about all the people he murdered? Time passed awfully fast for them, too.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.