Author Topic: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman  (Read 12006 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +638
I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« on: October 02, 2008, 01:02:06 AM »
0
Scorsese, De Niro to 'Paint Houses'
Paramount taps Zaillian to adapt Brandt book
Source: Variety

Paramount Pictures is plotting a return to organized crime for Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro. Studio has set Steve Zaillian to adapt "I Heard You Paint Houses," the book about the mob assassin who many believe was involved in the death of Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa.

Scorsese is attached to direct. De Niro will play Frank "the Irishman" Sheeran, who is reputed to have carried out more than 25 mob murders. Pic will be produced by Scorsese and Tribeca partners De Niro and Jane Rosenthal. Project landed at Paramount through the overall deal that the studio has with Scorsese’s Sikelia Prods.

Pic’s title refers to mob slang for contract killings, and the resulting blood splatter on walls and floors. Book was written by Charles Brandt, who befriended Sheeran shortly before the latter’s death in 2003. Among the crimes Sheeran confessed to Brandt, according to the 2004 book, was the killing and dismemberment of Hoffa, carried out on orders from mob boss Russell Bufalino.

Zaillian most recently scripted the Frank Lucas crime saga "American Gangster" and was a co-writer of the Scorsese-directed "Gangs of New York." Scorsese also brought in Zaillian to script "Schindler’s List," before turning over the project to Steven Spielberg and instead directing De Niro in "Cape Fear." Zaillian won an Oscar for his "Schindler’s List" script.

Scorsese just completed a screen adaptation of the Dennis Lehane novel "Shutter Island" for Paramount with Leonardo DiCaprio. He’s in the midst of settling on his next directing project, with "Silence," "The Wolf of Wall Street" and "The Long Play" at the top of his list.

De Niro has wrapped the Kirk Jones-directed "Everybody’s Fine" with Sam Rockwell, Kate Beckinsale and Drew Barrymore. He’s also plotting a re-team with "Heat" director Michael Mann on "Frankie Machine," an adaptation of the Don Winslow novel that is also at Paramount.
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Respect: +470
Re: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2008, 02:20:02 PM »
0
I love the title. Hope it happens but damn, what about Silence?

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
Re: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2008, 11:48:52 PM »
0
I love the title. Hope it happens but damn, what about Silence?

I've come to the conclusion Silence will never happen, but this projects sounds OK for him. It's mobster material, but if I read the synopsis right, it deals with a mobster type character looking back at his criminal life. The irony is that Scorsese's first film about mobsters, Mean Streets, seems to have the most iorta of reflection and context to a mobster's struggle. Goodfellas and Casino are mainly fun rides through the gangster life with reflection and meaning added in as post scripts. Scorsese could really dig into the meaning of the mobster to him with this film, or he could sell himself short like normal.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Respect: +470
Re: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2008, 08:59:42 AM »
0
Truly, the most introspective of his mafia films is Mean Streets, I guess mainly because it's the most autobiographical. I do think, however, that Mean Streets could have been about non mobsters characters and still work. Despite having gangsters in it, it never gets as specific as Goodfellas or Casino about the inner workings and day to day problems of mobsters.

Scorsese has said that one thing that he found intresting about Henry Hill as a character was his lack of guilt about his lifestyle, that he wasn't sorry about anything in the end excepto that the fun was over. So maybe he wasn't the best character to explore an inner struggle in mobsters. The characters in Casino are all very practical too, these are not introspective characters. But I do think both films are very illustrative of the context in which their life takes shape. Also, he's obviously way more interested in both films in the connection between the individual lifes of those characters and the workings of their environments and society.

I don't know what you get out of this synopsis...I don't get anything except is a mobster film with De Niro and Scorsese together again, and that's why it excites me. Other than that this doesn't indicates anything about him maybe exploring this or that.

It really must suck to have a project like Silence and being unable to get it off the ground. Really, that's all it is. Of course, who knows what kind of budget they're trying to get...maybe they're not being reasonable...

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
Re: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2008, 07:12:40 PM »
0
Truly, the most introspective of his mafia films is Mean Streets, I guess mainly because it's the most autobiographical. I do think, however, that Mean Streets could have been about non mobsters characters and still work. Despite having gangsters in it, it never gets as specific as Goodfellas or Casino about the inner workings and day to day problems of mobsters.

Any film about the personal characteristics of someone who is a professional something would blend together with other humanistic stories. The profession always takes a back seat when the portrait is personal. You're right that the characters in Mean Streets could be anyone, but that is also a compliment. Good films about people focus on the characteristics that we all share.

Scorsese has said that one thing that he found intresting about Henry Hill as a character was his lack of guilt about his lifestyle, that he wasn't sorry about anything in the end excepto that the fun was over. So maybe he wasn't the best character to explore an inner struggle in mobsters. The characters in Casino are all very practical too, these are not introspective characters. But I do think both films are very illustrative of the context in which their life takes shape. Also, he's obviously way more interested in both films in the connection between the individual lifes of those characters and the workings of their environments and society.

Goodfellas and Casino are no more insightful or depth than any general story about gangsters. Scorsese patterned his storytelling off old Hollywood sweeping tales and there are only two major difference between his films and those earlier ones. The first is that his films don't hang off a high moral lesson and that his subject material requires permissive subject matter. I think his style and the latter is what convinces some people to believe his films really are doing something good.

Scorsese is an unapologetic Hollywood filmmaker and makes films that prove that point. He will never be a challenging filmmaker of structure or thought. He will embrace cliches and rework them to suit basic modern expectations. I always find it amazing when reading original reviews of his films from the 1980s. The critics comment on his style like he was the only one who had the imagination to come up with such a style, but now he is just one of many filmmakers making films that have his quota for storytelling. Casino was his filmmaking height. It's been automatic since then and so it's also become old hat.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Respect: +470
Re: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2008, 10:54:02 AM »
0
As usual I don't disagree but at the same time I do. Of course he is now one of many, but he was first. I'm not saying he invented modern cinema, but he did used what was there before him and reworked it in a way that was new when it came out. The use of music mainly, I think is one of his strongest points and more valuable contributions. Yeah, he wasn't reinventing the wheel, and he was probably thinking of old hollywood films when doing it, but the fact is that before him the use of music was pretty boring, with maybe the exception of Kubrick, and then what he did in his first films became the norm.

The other thing is the uniqueness of his voice. He has plenty of imitators. His kinetic style is very seductive, specially for young filmmakers, but he has a special sensibility to it and it shows. I find his films more complete than pretty much anyone else's films. He has an ability to feel at the same time modern and old without seeming like he's just  rehashing stuff. Like Beck, in music I guess. And he makes each one a celebration of "motion picture", and I find his choices appropiate and brilliant most of the time. I agree also that Casino is the peak of the mountain for him, but he certainly found interesting ways to depict the Tibetan life in Kundun and the old Hollywood of The Aviator. He certainly makes me feel joy when I catch his films. I don't expect him to rewrite the book or anything, I certainly don't know if anyone is doing it right now. People talk about the Dardennes, or some of these new "slow" filmmakers like Apichapong, but I don't see anything new there, just an intellectual idea executed with precision. Personally, I don't need that in a film so much.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
Re: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2008, 02:57:47 PM »
0
People talk about the Dardennes, or some of these new "slow" filmmakers like Apichapong, but I don't see anything new there, just an intellectual idea executed with precision. Personally, I don't need that in a film so much.

Haha, you're going to get me going on the Dardennes, aren't you?

I had a conversation with a friend about the Dardennes last night. You're right, there is nothing technically new to their style or even their aesthetic ideal. The greatest of filmmakers have experimented with the Dardennes style in trying to film a story so close to the characters and action that it becomes the replication of a personal experience for the viewer. When Michelangelo Antonioni made La Notte right after L'Avventura, he specifically made a film devoid of standard story and detailed composition and instead layered the film with close proximity events. He did it because he wanted the audience to experience Jeanne Moreau's indecisiveness about her marriage with her. The random events she has with her husband (and more importantly by herself) leaves her feeling more confused and adrift about things. It is exactly what the audience is supposed to experience because they have no prior bias of the relationship. Films always try to juxtapose the audience to feel certain ways, but the content of La Notte comes from the disconnect Moreau feels to each new situation. 

That film was a huge break through for the personal experience film, but the Dardennes take it to such greater heights than Antonioni or any other filmmaker has. Too many times the film going public applauses the first instance at the crack of a new style, but usually it is never the best. Antonioni was limited with La Notte because he had camera equipment that had to remain stationery when handheld can do almost anything today. The Dardennes also layer their films with stories that dig at our intrinsic emotions. The Son recollected Bible parables and The Child deals with one of the harshest subjects in child exploitation.

People compliment films like Gummo for gritty realities of tough subjects, but I'm not impressed with those films. These filmmakers take similar routes with using the same camera equipment, but Gummo and others try to insist upon their gritty reality by making every image of the film as uncomfortable for the viewer as possible. There are scenes in Gummo that are revolting to watch, but what I like about the Dardennes is that their tough reality is still focused on the philosophical idea at hand. Film is so connected to reality that it is easy to imply a disgusting and terrible lifestyle just by showing it, but the Dardennes mix grittiness with the idea of terribleness. Because for as bad as Gummo makes life out to be, the crime that the protagonist in the Child commit still becomes a more terrible and unthinkable crime. The Dardennes illustrate this without being overly graphic at all.

I will always argue that Oliver Stone is the most complete filmmaker I've ever seen. I don't take that comment lightly and can talk at great length to why, but the Dardennes are the best filmmakers going today. That statement only represents here and now because every generation has its own issues and concerns, but they are the best for me. I could still go into further detail, but who cares?



As far as Martin Scorsese is concerned, I don't know if he was the first filmmaker to really do what he does. He is certainly the first modern American filmmaker to do it, but a lot of his style draws from filmmakers like Max Ophuls. But I do believe he advanced his style past Ophuls' accomplishments. That is a compliment to him.

The reason why I don't care too much for Scorsese is because his identity is just based on a style. He has shown an ability to mix and mesh it with any type of story possible. Oliver Stone's style requires a certain narrative and so it could never (for him at least) be in a standard action or drama. His style requires stories that are denser and don't have easy answers for the characters. This leads to the development of themes in his films. Even simpleton style filmmakers like Stanley Kubrick realized the importance of themes in an artists oeuvre, but Scorsese takes on films as a handy man would. I still think he is an artist, but I never see him as the complete one.


(Department of Corrections: I originally listed Julien Donkey Boy in place of Gummo. The intention was always Gummo. Sometimes films are confused.)

Fernando

  • satan's little helper
  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2228
  • Respect: +227
Re: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2008, 11:17:43 AM »
0
Oliver Stone's style requires a certain narrative and so....Even simpleton style filmmakers like Stanley Kubrick realized the importance of themes in an artists oeuvre, but Scorsese takes on films as a handy man would. I still think he is an artist, but I never see him as the complete one.

from dictionary.com
sim·ple·ton
n. A person who is felt to be deficient in judgment, good sense, or intelligence; a fool.


gt, what exactly did you mean by that?

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
Re: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2008, 12:06:52 PM »
0
Oliver Stone's style requires a certain narrative and so....Even simpleton style filmmakers like Stanley Kubrick realized the importance of themes in an artists oeuvre, but Scorsese takes on films as a handy man would. I still think he is an artist, but I never see him as the complete one.

from dictionary.com
sim·ple·ton
n. A person who is felt to be deficient in judgment, good sense, or intelligence; a fool.


gt, what exactly did you mean by that?

Exactly what the definition says. While I have already gone to considerable lengths to detail my disdain for Kubrick, stay tuned to the Kubrick forum today for my promised explanation of how his style not only became predictable, but also facile and simplistic.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Respect: +470
Re: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2008, 11:58:59 PM »
0
sorry gt, i never felt any replication of any personal experience with any of the dardenne films i saw. what you see there i don't by any chance. i liked L'Enfant, but i wouldn't want to watch it again any time soon, because i get their "idea" but get no enjoyment from it.

to me Oliver stone is amazing, but he is just like Scorsese regarding style, they both apply the same tricks to any story available. that's why i like them both, actually.

RegularKarate

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 6047
  • Respect: +204
    • http://www.livejournal.com/users/regularkarate/
Re: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2008, 12:47:49 PM »
0
GT, I respect your dedication, but you can't call Kubrick a "simpleton" and then get mad when people say you dislike things just to dislike the popular.

Stanley Kubrick would beat you at chess.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
Re: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2008, 01:43:19 PM »
0
GT, I respect your dedication, but you can't call Kubrick a "simpleton" and then get mad when people say you dislike things just to dislike the popular.

Stanley Kubrick would beat you at chess.

I can reference Kubrick in passing and make it a legitimate comment. I've said enough about Kubrick in detail recently where I'm not just speaking from my ass. I don't expect I have to go into great detail about him everytime I mention his name. If that was the case I would go into detail about numerous people before I would ever get to the subject of the thread. I veer off and go into explanation when my opinion has been lacking on a subject, but I don't see the need to do it all the time.

And I don't think Kubrick is just dumb. Like I said in my recent pieces, he was a master craftsman of production but lacked in filmmaking virtues. The details of production numbed his artistic senses.

Also, people here will always think I dislike things just to dislike them. That's just how it is.

cron

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3292
  • deeply superficial
  • Respect: +9
Re: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2008, 10:28:52 PM »
0
maybe they're predictable because they're so incrusted (gloriously incrusted) in our pop culture chip.
context, context, context.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Respect: +470
Re: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2008, 12:09:56 AM »
0
gt, you haven't said enough about why kubrick is a simpleton. you probably never will.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
Re: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2008, 01:15:58 AM »
0
gt, you haven't said enough about why kubrick is a simpleton. you probably never will.

All you asked for is explanation to how his films became predictable. You're right I haven't produced that effort yet, but I will. I was going to do it last night but got slammed with homework I had to do. It will be done. Hopefully in the next few days. See, his being pedictable has an association with his being a simpleton, but it doesn't encompass the idea. I've gone enough into his general faults that would point some idea to why I could call him a simpleton.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy