I ponder this question sometimes, but in the realm of music. In the eighties, after Prince broke up his band the Revolution, he wanted to put out a three-disc set of music. He was good for those. I mean, Emancipation was slept upon, Crystal Ball got a lukewarm response, if that... Anyway, WB insisted that Prince put out a double album, and the result was SIGN O' THE TIMES. Sign went platinum and is one of Prince's most acclaimed releases. It may be indulgent, but it isn't inaccessible. Not a studio but a record company meddled, and the final product is a masterpiece!

@Satch_the_man said:

I ponder this question sometimes, but in the realm of music. In the eighties, after Prince broke up his band the Revolution, he wanted to put out a three-disc set of music. He was good for those. I mean, Emancipation was slept upon, Crystal Ball got a lukewarm response, if that... Anyway, WB insisted that Prince put out a double album, and the result was SIGN O' THE TIMES. Sign went platinum and is one of Prince's most acclaimed releases. It may be indulgent, but it isn't inaccessible. Not a studio but a record company meddled, and the final product is a masterpiece!

Interesting. I also notice a lot of the time when a band gets more creative freedom to be experimental the album turns out a bit of a mess. It could be the case with all forms of artistic product. Especially in the indie boom we had several years back.

I was a big fan of Muse for quite a while. And when they released their biggest hit 'Black Holes and Revelations', which was pretty focused and clearly had studio input, they then were clearly rewarded with carte blanche to do what they wanted. Their next album was pretty bad, they branched out to try and cover many different genres, a terrible R and B song that just wasn't them and even a 15 minute 3 track classical piece. The whole thing was a mess. A combo of interestingly good and indulgently misguided. They haven't been too good ever since.

We always assume the narrative of studio suits being the moronic, money hungry philistines trying to crush the vision of the gifted artist. But with these sorts of films and music it's very much in the interest of the studio for the product to be genuinely good. Sometimes it could be meddling, but sometimes it could be guiding and honing the artist's genius to get the best out of him.

On the flipside, we also label the suits as dumb when they make a sequel to some terrible blockbuster that all the masses went to see. But if that awful film made lots of money for them then the reality is they'd be pretty dumb not to.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@Satch_the_man said:

I ponder this question sometimes, but in the realm of music. In the eighties, after Prince broke up his band the Revolution, he wanted to put out a three-disc set of music. He was good for those. I mean, Emancipation was slept upon, Crystal Ball got a lukewarm response, if that... Anyway, WB insisted that Prince put out a double album, and the result was SIGN O' THE TIMES. Sign went platinum and is one of Prince's most acclaimed releases. It may be indulgent, but it isn't inaccessible. Not a studio but a record company meddled, and the final product is a masterpiece!

Interesting. I also notice a lot of the time when a band gets more creative freedom to be experimental the album turns out a bit of a mess. It could be the case with all forms of artistic product. Especially in the indie boom we had several years back.

I was a big fan of Muse for quite a while. And when they released their biggest hit 'Black Holes and Revelations', which was pretty focused and clearly had studio input, they then were clearly rewarded with carte blanche to do what they wanted. Their next album was pretty bad, they branched out to try and cover many different genres, a terrible R and B song that just wasn't them and even a 15 minute 3 track classical piece. The whole thing was a mess. A combo of interestingly good and indulgently misguided. They haven't been too good ever since.

We always assume the narrative of studio suits being the moronic, money hungry philistines trying to crush the vision of the gifted artist. But with these sorts of films and music it's very much in the interest of the studio for the product to be genuinely good. Sometimes it could be meddling, but sometimes it could be guiding and honing the artist's genius to get the best out of him.

On the flipside, we also label the suits as dumb when they make a sequel to some terrible blockbuster that all the masses went to see. But if that awful film made lots of money for them then the reality is they'd be pretty dumb not to.

Right! By the way, I knew I was digressing with my last post, but I figured it was really germane to your discussion anyway.

On the flip side, I've heard Prince did the album Diamonds and Pearls to satisfy WB and that's one of my least favorite releases by him, featuring the abysmal song "Jughead."

@Satch_the_man said:

Right! By the way, I knew I was digressing with my last post, but I figured it was really germane to your discussion anyway.

I don't see that as digressing. And it wouldn't matter to me if it was. I'm not one to split heirs over what people talk about in forums. I'm of the opinion that the rigid 'stick to topic' forum rule is too controlling. It conflicts with the natural flow of discussion.

I think this movie was inspired heavily by Sergio Leone's last film and highly underrated masterpiece Once Upon Time In America(that is the almost 4 hrs cut not the heavily cut version released in the US at the time)which is a movie with an almost similar structure and also takes it's time but is a feast for the eyes.Leone himself described the movie as a five course meal and I think The Irishman should be viewed in a similar manner .The Irishman is the five course meal under the "fastfood" movies like the Marvel or other franchise movies.

@Nexus71 said:

I think this movie was inspired heavily by Sergio Leone's last film and highly underrated masterpiece Once Upon Time In America(that is the almost 4 hrs cut not the heavily cut version released in the US at the time)which is a movie with an almost similar structure and also takes it's time but is a feast for the eyes.Leone himself described the movie as a five course meal and I think The Irishman should be viewed in a similar manner .The Irishman is the five course meal under the "fastfood" movies like the Marvel or other franchise movies.

I do love Once Upon a Time in America. But it is not underrated. His heavily tampered with original release may not have been well received at the time but fortunately the version as it is today is very well regarded and seen as a classic. One of my favourite films. When I first watched it I found it's 4 hours to zip by. But I wasn't engrossed in The Irishman in quite the same way.

I would never claim The Irishman to be better or on terms with Once Upon A Time In America I only said it was inspired by that movie since both have a similar structure and narrative and both have similarities in the subjects they deal with .Both deal with organised crime and their affiliations with the labour unions (Treat Wiiliams character)and politics both at the end of the movies have very political figures "disappearing" Hoffa in the case of The Irishman and James Woods character in Once Upon A Time.. . And with underrated I meant more that the focus with Sergio Leone's movies usually is on his Westerns than this epic ,which is my favourite Leone movie. But I agree the movie is now considered a classic (here in Europe it was already regarded as such upon it's release ).Although in the current political climate the rape scene might be considered problematic at least since that already was an issue when the film was released back in the '80's.

I agree with you inasmuch as I felt like the film was indulgent. It was a ridiculously talented director with a star-studded cast, using all the latest technological bells and whistles (including the dual release mechanism). But with all that going for it (and I can't imagine what else could have been going for it) the film fell flat for me. Much of the technology was a distraction and to put it in a word, the film had no "soul". I don't know what that is...that missing element? I even wonder if it's the filmmakers themselves or us as an audience...we have seen so much. Of course, all that being said, in what scenario do you see anyone, let alone Netflix, calling Scorsese to heal?

Also, for the record, I love his films and his body of work. Silence was a masterpiece in my opinion, so it's not his age nor his vision...it's something else.

@Daddie0 said:

I agree with you inasmuch as I felt like the film was indulgent. It was a ridiculously talented director with a star-studded cast, using all the latest technological bells and whistles (including the dual release mechanism). But with all that going for it (and I can't imagine what else could have been going for it) the film fell flat for me. Much of the technology was a distraction and to put it in a word, the film had no "soul". I don't know what that is...that missing element? I even wonder if it's the filmmakers themselves or us as an audience...we have seen so much. Of course, all that being said, in what scenario do you see anyone, let alone Netflix, calling Scorsese to heal?

Also, for the record, I love his films and his body of work. Silence was a masterpiece in my opinion, so it's not his age nor his vision...it's something else.

SPOILERS AHEAD...

Hey, I just saw it & I feel that the film has as much soul as Goodfellas or Casino. I agree with whoever said the film is sad and nostalgic. It was sad when Frank killed his friend, but as the film continued, it seemed to grow even sadder... yet often at the same time, its gaze felt clinical. The later parts with Frank in the nursing home and confronting his daughter Peggy esp. felt world weary. Close to the film's end, the combo of sad and clinical traits grew very tiring for me. However, the film's expression of such very much reveals, I think, a "soul."

In that respect The Irishman and Once Upon A Time In America have similarities seen from the perspective of DeNiro's character both basically end with nothing.

To address Justin's subject, having seen the film, I do feel that The Irishman could be leaner, shorter.

Maybe they could have trimmed the end a bit,but I feel it is still somewhat needed.Like Leone he takes his time .In Once Upon A Time there are also these lengthy scenes that could have been trimmed like in the opening where we have the phone ringing with Noodles in the opium den,or the scene when in the present when Noodles is exploring the mausoleum etc.

@Nexus71 said:

Maybe they could have trimmed the end a bit,but I feel it is still somewhat needed.Like Leone he takes his time .In Once Upon A Time there are also these lengthy scenes that could have been trimmed like in the opening where we have the phone ringing with Noodles in the opium den,or the scene when in the present when Noodles is exploring the mausoleum etc.

You're right. I should probably watch the film again so I can revisit the theme(s)... but that'll take another 3 1/2 hrs., ha ha.

Also like I mentioned the rape scene of Deborah is problematic in the current times and seems to "drag on" longer than necessary and the scene where we have an underage Jennifer Connely (probably in her first major role) displaying her naked butt would probably be labeled as child pornography nowadays.

@Nexus71 said:

Maybe they could have trimmed the end a bit,but I feel it is still somewhat needed.Like Leone he takes his time .In Once Upon A Time there are also these lengthy scenes that could have been trimmed like in the opening where we have the phone ringing with Noodles in the opium den,or the scene when in the present when Noodles is exploring the mausoleum etc.

You did bring to light many similarities between the two films that I never noticed so I do agree Scorsese took inspiration from Leone. But I do feel they are quite different in tone. Once Upon A Time has a kind of sweeping, poetic and emotional vibe to it while The Irishman is quite clinical. The former style does suit extremely long films more. I did actually think to myself while watching The Irishman "This would be better with some trims here and there". It was kind of repetitive, with a few more scenes of gangsters arguing than was necessary.