Failed Oscar Campaigns: "The Irishman" (2019)

Scene from The Irishman (2019)

As awards seasons pick up, so do the campaigns to make your film have the best chances at the Best Picture race. However, like a drunken stupor, sometimes these efforts come off as trying too hard and leave behind a trailer of ridiculous flamboyance. Join me on every other Saturday for a highlight of the failed campaigns that make this season as much about prestige as it does about train wrecks. Come for the Harvey Weinstein comments and stay for the history. It's going to be a fun time as I explore cinema's rich history of attempting to matter.

The Irishman (2019)

Directed By: Martin Scorsese

Written By: Stven Zaillian (Screenplay) Charles Brandt (Novel)

Starring: Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci
Genre: Biography, Crime, Drama

Running Time: 209 minutes

Summary: An old man recalls his time painting houses for his friend, Jimmy Hoffa, through the 1950-70s.

- The Movie -

As Oscar season continues to roll along, one has to ask a big question: can anybody beat Netflix? Whereas most years it feels like they're the underdog competing for nominations, 2020 feels a bit different thanks to a pandemic that is likely to make the brackets full of streaming exclusive titles from the giant. Among the noteworthy new releases is The Trial of the Chicago 7, which finds writer-director Aaron Sorkin releasing a critically acclaimed court-room drama that looks to be one of the few essential stories of the remaining season. Even then, they're rolling out with a series of big names that will include Hillbilly Elegy and Mank. Yes, Netflix's 2020 is looking to be their strongest yet, and it's easy to believe that this will be the legitimizing they need to change the whole conversation of what a Best Picture candidate looks like.

Of course, 2019 was their banner year overall for one major reason: Martin Scorsese. Having worked with several big-time directors before, The Irishman was going to be something more symbolic. It would be the moment where they earned their prestige title full-on with a film that had every ounce of class put behind it. The legendary filmmaker would help the studio be taken seriously with an epic that found him at his best, bringing back collaborators he hadn't worked within a few decades. How could this not be one of the most substantial titles of the year? If nothing else, it was a gateway for other big-time filmmakers to work with them and not look like total buffoons.

In a year that found Netflix banking on films like The Two Popes, Marriage Story, The Laundromat, and The King, it was interesting to see how things evolved around The Irishman. Much like Roma the year before, it was considered the front-runner to beat, serving as a towering achievement of art that everyone else would envy. And yet, it ended up serving nonstop controversy in ways that was both merited to the film as well as the filmmaker himself. Was The Irishman actually art, or was it an overlong testimony of an aging artist? It was tough to say, even though the results were less than pleasant. Netflix banked the farm on this film going all the way, and yet it came up shorter than some of their other titles. With that in mind, one has to wonder what gives. Why did a master of filmmaking lose even the technical categories that felt like easy shoo-ins? To quote Joe Pesci, it is what it is.

- The Campaign -

An important thing to consider when talking about The Irishman is that it was the first 2019 movie to launch its Oscar campaign. Netflix went so far as to introduce the first teaser during the 91st Annual Academy Awards. Last season wasn't over yet, and there was already buzz being built around a video that amounted to a bullet falling through a black screen as dialogue appeared. There was no word on its release, but it was a highlight of the ceremony, suggesting that the master was back. While his previous film, Silence, had underperformed, this was going to be a momentous occasion. Given that Netflix would go on to win Best Director with Roma at the ceremony, there was a sense that this talking point was the victory lap they needed to keep the goodwill going.

For the first time, they had a whole outline for how The Irishman was going to be released. Every significant film from Netflix that Fall was outlined with a limited theatrical release, playing two weeks before making it onto streaming. It was designed as a response to the controversy surrounding Roma the year prior which failed to have a clear roll-out model. Many were still confused as to whether Netflix should've been considered at all at The Oscars. While Roma was the door being opened, The Irishman was going to be what pushed them through. Along with their other Fall releases, they were about to over-populate the nominations.

There were a handful of appealing reasons to consider the film even before it was released. Outside of a 2015 short called The Audition, the last time that Scorsese worked with Robert De Niro was Casino in 1995. Similarly, it was the last time he worked with Joe Pesci, who had become more selective with his movie roles since then. Their returns were celebrated, though they were overshadowed by Al Pacino, who would be making his inaugural appearance in a Scorsese movie. One had to wonder why he waited so long. After all, he had worked with De Niro a few times before, usually with great results. Of course, the film had been in development hell for years, waiting for things to feel right. Scorsese knew that he wanted these three men to star in the film and yet, he didn't know how to make it work.

A big selling point would be the "de-aging make-up" used to make these elderly actors look younger, reflecting an epic throughout the decades. The response was divisive, with some believing that it was distracting while others felt it was necessary. As Scorsese would put it, he wanted people who knew what it felt like to be alive when John F. Kennedy died. Those who disliked the technique argued that it was visually jarring, with a lot of movements feeling stilted. They would argue why they didn't just use younger actors in key scenes. Meanwhile, in my humble opinion, it felt necessary because this was a memory of one man and always had this unreliable narrator artifice over it. Still, it was a good starting point for helping the film get into the conversation, considering it to be revolutionary.

Another big issue for many was the idea that this would be 3.5 hours long. To supporters, it was an argument for appearing on Netflix. To everyone else, it was considered difficult to sit through in one sitting with constant conversation as to how to break it up into "episodes" similar to a recent treatment of The Hateful Eight so that they could enjoy over several sittings. The debate raged on, though mostly became evident in the third act. It was more drawn out and slow with some believing that a pivotal car ride scene lasted too long while others argued it was important to the atmosphere. While they could praise De Niro, Pacino, and Pesci's performances, there was concern that this could've been cut down significantly, making it already one of the more divisive Scorsese movies of the decade. After all, when was the last time he made a movie that wasn't factually the length of an epic?

Then there was the supporting plot of De Niro's daughter, played by Anna Paquin. While a silent character, more observant than active, many began to accuse Scorsese of not writing great female characters. They put misogyny into the film and dubbed the film incompetent. The debate raged on among other points that De Niro was playing a sociopath who didn't have any feelings for his actions. Still, there was no agreement around Paquin's character, making it difficult to appreciate the symbolism that screenwriter Steven Zaillian was putting into the subtext. She was silent for a reason, but it became an argument point among the fact that it was unnecessarily long. Forget those that called it one of Scorsese's best, serving as the gangster movie to end all gangster movies. As entertainment, general audiences had spoken.

Well, it was that and some public comments from Scorsese himself. With the recent success of Todd Phillips' Joker, many tried to make the argument that comic book movies were art. The issue soon reached Scorsese amid the press junkets where he compared them to theme park rides. Even if his comments weren't to de-legitimize it as entertainment, going so far as to compare the thrills to his experience watching Psycho on opening night, it still caused many to find Scorsese out of touch, unable to accept modern entertainment. It divided the comic book movie crowd from those with more snobbish tastes. It raised a debate about film that was eventually defended by Francis Ford Coppola, though neither warmed themselves to the Joker fans as well as those in the Marvel community who found Scorsese to be a bit daft. The controversy was far-reaching, creating a divide in large part because nobody wanted to indulge the other's perspective as more than the opposition.

To be fair, The Irishman never got that wide release that it was touting in early marketing. It was the goal, though mainstream movie theaters were still unwilling to work with Netflix. There were also complaints that Scorsese's film had an Oscar campaign of over $100 million. It's been suggested that the number is closer to $20 million. Still, with the Joker crowd likely not to turn out, the film was getting major advertisement while also exposing a cinematic divide in audiences. By the time it would stream in November, it would also plan to have a behind the scenes podcast hosted by Sebastian Maniscalco where they were interviewed about the process of making the film from book to screen. Similarly, there would be Netflix supplements where Scorsese and his three main actors had conversations about making the film. There was an emphasis on its development hell, the special effects, and how they were giving great performances. All three were billed as potential Oscar front-runners, making the whole thing this exciting proposition.

The immediate success of the film made it one of Netflix's most successful films. Its numbers were on par with another successful movie called Birdbox, raising the question as to whether it would've been more successful with a conventional theatrical release. Given that it only made $8 million that way, it's easy to understand how things could be skewered. Still, in an age where 3.5-hour movies are rare, the discussion of time commitment fueled the conversation, asking if it was really worth the length. Thankfully, the awards season would play in their favor (mostly) in terms of nominations, making it a constant presence in every major guild. Many labeled it among the best movies of the year while memes of Pacino yelling at people became popular. There were endless articles written analyzing the plot and characters. For the most part, it was among the most successful Netflix movies ever from a prestige standpoint.

But the question still remained. Was The Irishman going to win some Oscars? By all accounts, it should. After all, it hit the zeitgeist in just the right ways, legitimizing Netflix as a home for great original films. This felt momentous even if it didn't hold the advantage of later Oscar contenders. Even in the world of Marriage Story, it wasn't able to compete in terms of memorable conversations around actor Adam Driver's on-air meltdown, or how his pivotal scene was now a comedic meme. While The Irishman was never doubted, it had a lot of competition even from the streaming service to draw in viewers. Still, without any substantial lead in the win column, Oscars would become the last vestige for the film to win anything.

- The Payoff -

For the most part, many would tell you that The Irishman earning a solid 0% wins on Oscar night was not a result of Netflix being marginalized. After all, the service would win two awards with several more films nominated in major categories. With 10 nominations, Scorsese did an incredible job of getting the film recognized in several fields that included Best Special Effects and earning Pesci a Best Supporting Actor nomination for the first time in a near-30 years. It had the clout that it needed to suggest that everything would be all right, but there a handful of issues in regard to the optics on Oscar Night. It wasn't just that Joker had outranked it in total nominations. It was also that it was no longer the most univeral title on the whole list.

While the film earned Pacino and Pesci nominations, many considered De Niro's lack of nomination a snub. Others suggested that this was because of a crowded Best Actor category, though nobody could agree on what should've been removed. In every field, there were a handful of films that were playing their cards a little smarter. After all, these were the elder statesmen. They already had Oscars in almost every case. There was no value in doing a late-career honorary win, even if many would argue that they were well-deserved. Scorsese had gotten his due, and most of all it would look odd that they gave the film that most appealed to old white males following a year where Best Picture went to Green Book: a film that was accused of appealing to an older crowd.

Also, plain and simple, this was the year of Parasite. During director Bong Joon-ho's many acceptance speeches, he praised the likes of Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino for inspiring him to make films. This was an example of The Oscars finally breaking new ground, recognizing world cinema as legitimate art in the one category that it never had won before. While the elder statesmen were also deserving of the award, it was clear that Joon-ho was having a moment that needed to be recognized, a hopeful turning point for Oscars going forward. It was no longer a distinctly English-language arena. Anyone could play.

With that said, Scorsese did have one of the highlights of the night. Alongside Billie Eilish's awkward reaction to Maya Rudolph and Kristen Wiig's cringe-humor performance, Scorsese sleeping through an abrupt performance of Eminem's "Lose Yourself" was a comical sign of the times. Who cared if The Irishman didn't win? Everyone was having too much of a good time, celebrating the best in art. Scorsese's film epitomized a career's worth of achievements in one film. Joon-ho was someone who deserved the title if just to be considered great. If nothing else, he was able to get the recognition many felt he deserved.

In all honesty, The Irishman has been just fine even with its lack of Oscar wins. Even if this marks the second Scorsese-Zaillian collaboration to earn 10 nominations and zero wins (Gangs of New York), there's little to suggest that this is the end of some groundbreaking moment. Netflix had everything it needed to symbolize its status among conventional movie studios. No matter what happened next, they would be responsible for producing one of Scorsese's late-career bests. He still could raise discussions, even controversial ones, in a way that benefited them greatly. Given that they would work with auteurs like Spike Lee, Ron Howard, David Fincher, and Aaron Sorkin in 2020 alone, there's reason to believe that this was the turning point they had been building towards since Beasts of No Nation started the hubbub all those years ago.

While Amazon Studios had beaten them to Oscar night, Netflix has won the long-term game with more per-average nominations annually. Not only that, but they have more films entering the beloved Criterion Collection, including The Irishman. With conversations continuing to arise and hope that streaming continues to dominate this otherwise desolate year, there's plenty of reasons to be thankful for The Irishman. Even if you never finished it, it was a stamp of approval that auteurs could work here with some of the greatest actors of their generation. This wasn't some throwaway Christmas movie. This was an indisputable, highly adorned accomplishment for what cinema in the streaming age could do both behind the scenes and on screens.