MovieChat Forums > The Irishman (2019) Discussion > Fight at the grocery store ... to me, no...

Fight at the grocery store ... to me, no big deal.


I remember thinking while I was watching that fight at the grocery store ... and thinking for just a split second ... it looked a bit staged, or fake, and then never thought about it again until I started to see the meme on the net. Lots of things is great movies or TV look fake. Some of my favorite programs were Star Trek and Outer Limits and a lot of it looked fake and almost laughable - but a good movie makes you suspend your disbelief.

A lot of guys fights are sort of mock battles. Sheeran wanted to put the fear of god into the grocer, not kill him, and the grocer knew that Sheeran was mad and he should not have done, and was trying to apologize, and he needed to pretend he was hurting enough to satisfy Sheeran to stop.

I don't know why so many people repeated that meme about the fight ... it was nothing in my opinion. In reality Sheeran was a big guy ... something like 6'3" ... and anyone that came out you that was that big would not have to work hard to intimidate someone.

Way too much made out of this fight.

reply

One explanation that might work is just pretending Frank Sheeran had a few injuries from war and never emerged the same. Would help my head canon explain why he was in his 40s/50s but moved like he was in his 70s many times. Plus, to be fair, many in their 40s/50s do start developing some aches and pains that inhibit movement. They no longer move like the spry 20-something they used to be.

If anyone who has read the book which this movie is based on can chime in, was there any mention of Frank getting injured in the war?

reply

Exactly .... I mentioned that in other threads, but people, or trolls or whatever seem to just want to go off on how fake that fight looked - and only because it was digital aging involved. If you look as closely at almost every other fight scene in movies, they are mostly fake looking at that is OK because we get what is supposed to be happening. They cannot film movies and get actors to take chances at getting hurt. De Niro is 76 years old now.

And also, do we hear complaints when young actors are aged with makeup but do not move as if they are as old as their characters. The whole subject makes me laugh, it is so frivolous.

reply

Exactly, I didn't think twice about the fight when I saw it. I thought -- yes-- it's a fight. I didn't deconstruct it. But then again, maybe I've had such a sheltered life that I haven't seen that many "real" fights to know better.

reply

It doesn't look staged - it just looks like an actor too old to play the part is pretending to be playing a younger man and miserably failing.

That's the thing about the Irishman - most of the peeps playing in it are way past their time to be playing tough guys.

reply

I'm sorry but the scene looked ridiculous, simply because it showed the realism of DeNiro's age. That was a geriatric man getting into a nursing home fight. I thought DeNiro was going to fall over and hurt himself.

For context, go back and watch Goodfellas where they beat the hell out of Billy Batts. Now that is what a late 30's gangster should look like kicking the crap out of someone. The Irishman was just sad.

reply

If you are so obsessed with fighting ... go out and get in a fight ... maybe that will be realistic enough for you. Me ... I just don't watch movies simply for the fights and violence.

reply

I didn't watch Dexter simply to see him chop up bodies, but had there been an episode where he dismembered them using an ice cream scoop, I'd still point out the lack of realism and say it was a poor decision on the directors part.

None of us are saying that this 30 second scene makes the movie bad, but it's a pretty big WTF moment that we wouldn't have expected from a director like Scorcese.

reply

That's an absurd comparison. I watched the film on a big screen, and noticed nothing unusual whatsoever about the scene where DeNiro attacked the grocer. I'm sure if I go back again and scrutinize it, I may notice something, but in the context of the film it looked fine. Your analogy is foolish.

reply

You seem to be looking for excuses for it but it's just a terrible and laughable scene. It's meant to be menacing but it's hilarious. It was meant to be realistic so all the complaints about the scene are justified.

reply

To me this is the one bad scene in the whole movie, it is the one scene where you clearly say "well, deaging tech can't make deniro move like a 50+ year old"

But, Martin S had options, he could have shot it differently and had a stuntman do it from behind or many other different ideas could have been applied to make it look less, well, bad.

But you can completely see how he decided for artistic integrity to keep the show the way he would normally shoot it. The thing about Scorsese is that his violence, whether it's a lot or dialed in, is always in your face and one take, he doesn't do multiple takes to make it seem more intense (typical bad action movie technique)

Then again, Scorsese isn't an action movie director, you can't expect his beatdowns to look like John Wick. There's a charm to his violence, it always seems real and gritty but also sort of artistic.

I am pretty sure he was aware that the grocery store fight was not what he wanted but that was the only way it was going to come out if he wanted to have DeNiro shot up front doing the actual kicking himself.

This is why I don't take many points from the movie for that one scene, it is bad for sure but you can understand why.

This movie was great, I saw it yesterday in one sitting and I couldn't take my eyes away. My favorite aspect of this movie was how they go with the theory that the mob killed kennedy, with the whole cuba angle (casinos and all that) I never expected them to mention JFK or Castro so much in this movie so it was a welcome surprise that makes the whole thing seem even bigger. That scene where Rus tells Frank that they killed a president, they won't mind killing a union president" was powerful as hell.

Great movie, one of my favs from Martin Scorsese because the violence was a bit dialed down, DeNiro wasn't his usual badass, stoic gangster, if anything sometimes he felt like a punching bag between Hoffa and Rus and watching him trying to deal with the stress was fantastic.

And Paccino as Hoffa was expectedly fantastic

reply

> Then again, Scorsese isn't an action movie director, you can't expect his beatdowns to look like John Wick. There's a charm to his violence, it always seems real and gritty but also sort of artistic.

I call it stylized. It is like the violence you see in the Japanese Samurai movies.

I think Scorsese may be old but his eyesight is still good, and he is not stupid. He must have seen that scene before it was OK'ed to go in the movie and thought it was OK. I agree. It was on-purpose. This is just some issue to grab some attention to the movie I think.

They can always re-choreograph or edit it so that it looks realistic ... it's the movies for god sake. It was done in a way to make the scenes quick and easy to film in my opinion.

And anyone who goes to a gangster movie and complains the violence is not real enough ... who cares what they think, they are probably gangsters or trolls or both.

reply

What about the scene at the court where hoffa nearly gets shot (gun misfires)? One moment his son grabs the guy from behind, and the next scene he is way in the back with hoffa punching the guy. I put that scene in the same category as this fight sequence - poor decisions by scorcese, though I keep thinking that these sloppy scenes were partially a result of money running out (though that scene in court..... it was just badly edited, and scorcese was the one who missed it). That de-aging tech apparently cost quite a bit to implement in this film.

reply

It wasn't a very good fight scene and didn't look like he was really connecting. Some of that is De Niro, some is on the other guy not selling it. It didn't look good. It's supposed to traumatise the kid and I was expecting something more savage.

Your point is well taken, though, and he didn't need to put the guy into a coma. I think, as others have said, he just showed his age a bit and that was a bit distracting in the film. It takes you out of it for a second. But...

...only a second. It didn't really bother me. It's one of the only problems with the film. It's so minor. It's a nitpick at worst.

reply

I saw a few interviews - apparently the old peeps even had problems doing the most simplest tasks like getting up from a chair in a way that did not look like they were in their late 70's. I wonder how many reshoots were necessary for such simple things.

Deniro, observing his de-aged scenes said that he could have a job for another 30-40 years because of the tech, but.... not if there's action in the film - like any action at all. Then again, with deepfakes these days, it's kind of obvious that it should be quite easy to convincingly use a stunt double for body actions with actor faces attached later on.

reply

I think deepfakes are creepy. Just the idea of that tech being out there is unsettling.

I also kinda hate the idea of studios putting actors into movies after the actor is dead.

Not saying it couldn't be done, just...it's weird, and I'm not sure it's ethical.

reply

Man, what are you going on and on about? Staged or fake would have looked better than grandpa movements. That's what people are talking about. He's playing a younger Sheeran, but moves like 76 yr old De'Niro. They should have CGI his face onto a stuntman.

reply