MovieChat Forums > The Irishman (2019) Discussion > Confusion around Frank’s orders (spoiler...

Confusion around Frank’s orders (spoilers)


I didn’t get that Frank was being ordered to actually do the hit on Jimmy, it sounded like he was being sent elsewhere, perhaps for his own protection. Was there deliberate ambiguity about this or did I just flat out miss something?

If it was a planned hit, then why did Jimmy’s son do the driving? Was he in on it?

Thanks in advance.

reply

I think it was pretty clear that he was being ordered to do the hit. The conversation with Russ at the dinner the morning of, before he got on the plane, made it very clear that they felt as though they had exhausted all other options with Hoffa. And it would have to be someone they trusted to do it, and someone that he trusted, so that his guard would be down. And the fact that Tony Jack and Angelo weren't in the house and Hoffa and Frank walked in made it clear what was intended to happen.

reply

It was clear that the hit was going ahead, and yes, once in the house it became likely that Frank would be the hitman, but I just didn’t get from the diner conversation that Frank was being ordered to do the hit - it sounded more like he was being sent elsewhere, perhaps so he couldn’t be tied to the hit or something.

And what about Jimmy’s son? Why was he involved in a hit on his dad?

reply

Didn't understand that, myself. Towards the end they talk about how he was "stupidly" involved, meaning he didn't know that it was going down, or that he was a part of it...but that doesn't mean that he wasn't the last person to see Hoffa alive either, right?

I mean, they surely investigated the hell out of his disappearance, and his own kid dropped him off at the house with Sheeran...the last time he was seen alive. Which would point the finger directly at Sheeran. "What happened with him after you were dropped off, Sheeran?"
And what could Sheeran possibly say to deflect the suspicion that he knows? He has nothing. The police pull on that thread and with Hoffa's kid as a witness, the whole thing comes unraveled, right?

But it doesn't even get that far, as far as the movie tells, anyway. Yeah I don't know, it was a strange loose end that I'd be interested in hearing an explanation for, myself.

reply

I think you’re missing my point. It was clear that Jimmy was to be hit by someone, possibly at the meeting he was due to have, but when in the film was Frank actually ordered to be the hitman? In the diner scene I didn’t get that Russ was ordering Frank to kill Jimmy, but sending him elsewhere.

If it WAS a planned hit then why was Jimmy’s son involved?

I’m talking about the world of the film, not the real life facts here.

What was the plan?
When was the plan articulated?
Was Frank completely in on the plan?
Why was Jimmy’s son involved?

reply

I realized Frank was being told to do the hit when Russ said something like: our wives are staying here registered at the motel and you will take the trip and it will take about 3 hours. After it’s done we go back to the motel and when we leave we take our time driving home.

He was setting up the alibi.

reply

What was the plan?
When was the plan articulated?
Was Frank completely in on the plan?
Why was Jimmy’s son involved?

reply

I think the threat was veiled that if he did not do the hit, the "management" was going to take him down too.

reply

It was a cheap movie trick ... they stuck "Todd" in there as Hoffa's son, not bothering to fill in the backstory. That is why this movie is useless for facts or to find out what happened to Hoffa.

In any case, the mob to hit someone would find your best friend to lead you to the slaughter.

reply

I Googled around a bit, and this movie is all over the place from the facts ... and the facts, unknown, are also all over the place. There is no point in making this movie other than to remind Americans about Jimmy Hoffa and Labor Unions. This stunk.

reply

Why does that ‘stink’? It’s a perfectly valid approach to a real life mystery, ‘JFK’ did the same thing - present a possible version of events to reopen public discussion about the case.

Got you Googling for the facts - that’s the purpose of the film.

reply

> Got you Googling for the facts - that’s the purpose of the film.

Then this movie is a total failure ... who cares? No one, and there
are a lot of people out there who think Frank Sheeran was just a
miserable fuck that was trying to claim on his deathbed that he
did something big.

reply

Who cares? You. It got you Googling for the facts, and many others. It has made you form or clarify your opinion on the issue - which was the purpose of the film, similar to Stone’s JFK.

reply

> Who cares? You.

That is such an idiotic statement. The implication is that if you Google something you "care" about it, and somehow either equally or significantly. Also implying that Scorsese's measure of success for this movie is how often Hoffa gets Googled?

I was interested in Hoffa since the 70's, so on this subject of course I would Google for clarity. The movie, the Googling, was all pointless because they movie really had nothing to say. To make a movie that says nothing so that the audience goes home and Googles the story after the show is one of the most numbskull things I've ever heard something say to try to win an argument that the other person is not even participating in.

There is no point in having any opinion or wasting brain cells on Frank Sheeran or any of it if there is no truth there. Hollywood movies based on true stories or books are usually BS.

reply

You went from

I Googled around a bit, and this movie is all over the place from the facts


to

I was interested in Hoffa since the 70's


in the space of a few posts. Yeah, we’ll go with your original statement. you watched the film and started Googling for the facts and that’s precisely what the film is designed to do. If Scorsese got you to start thinking then that’s something to celebrate, not rage-dump about.

The movie, the Googling, was all pointless because they movie really had nothing to say.


Actually the movie had plenty to say about Hoffa, his murder, and the killer, among much else. Surely you paid attention at least once over the 3.5 hour runtime?


There is no point in having any opinion or wasting brain cells on Frank Sheeran or any of it if there is no truth there.


Actually unsolved mysteries are very much worth ‘wasting brain cells’ over, but I guess that depends on how many brain cells one has to ‘waste’ in the first place. Clearly you need to ration yourself lest you forget how to breathe.

Hollywood movies based on true stories or books are usually BS.


All fiction is ‘BS’ by nature, do you understand the point of narrative cinema?

reply

I agree with you. I was confused myself. I thought it was that it was 2 hours in and my concentration was fading a little. I thought Frank was getting sent away and that the others would kill Hoffa whilst Frank, Hoffa's protector, was out of the picture.

There's a few things wrong with the movie in my opinion. The Grandpa beating, the lack of explanation about Columbo and this section.

reply

A big who the hell cares about this movie. No one knows if what Sheeran
claimed was true. Why give him fame? This is like publishing the names
of mass shooters and giving them their 15 minutes of fame. As with most
of Scorsese's movies, I just don't really care for it ... but they priced it right
to get me to watch. :-)

reply

Given Scorsese’s track record the ambiguity will likely be entirely deliberate, rather than a failure of filmcraft.

Glad to hear I’m not the only one stumped by that apparent inconsistency.

reply

[deleted]

OK. That’s not relevant to the part of the film we’re discussing here.

reply

lol you're right...wrong thread!

reply

In the film the Frank character says Chuckie, the son, was there, but didn't realize what was really going to happen at the meeting.

reply

Why was Chuckie there at all then?

reply

He must have believed he was helping out by driving him to a meeting that would allow the two sides to patch up their differences.

reply

I suppose the mob would have placed him there to reassure Hoffa before the hit.

reply

OK on rewatch Pesci’s slightly cryptic dialogue became clearer. He says:

‘I had to put you into this thing or you woulda’ never let it happen... but you and Renie will be OK, cos you’re with me.’

Translation: I’ve decided you’ll be the one to kill your best friend and mentor because then you won’t warn him, and BTW if you don’t go through with it you and your wife will be killed.’

reply

[deleted]

‘Obvious’ would be to have Pesci say ‘I’ve decided you’ll be the one to kill your best friend and mentor because then you won’t warn him, and BTW if you don’t go through with it you and your wife will be killed.’

It wasn’t obvious. Instead the orders were never spelled out, and we only heard vague justifications veiled threats. Perhaps they kept it implicit so as not to run into any libel issues.

reply

It's was pretty clear to me the first time I watched it. They're were not "sending him elsewhere" as you keep saying. I don't understand the confusion.

reply

The confusion comes from the fact that Frank was never explicitly ordered to kill Hoffa.

reply

Don't worry, you and me and many others interpreted in a similar way. I was really surprised to seen Frank near Jimmy house, like you I thought they "sent elsewhere" for protection.

About his son, from the first time his character appear in the movie I had a feeling he's angry at him, so yes I think he know about the plan. Although, the assassins have no motive I can think of to tell the son about the plan to murder Jimmy. We never know with Scorsese.

reply

...and where the story goes from there:

The daughter, Peggy, who loved Hoffa, realizes that her father -- Hoffa's ostensible "best friend and protector" -- killed Hoffa. Why didn't her father call Hoffa's grief stricken wife?

As DeNiro says...his relationship with Peggy ended that very day.

reply