November 30, 2019 at 1:36 am #1203209573
Trying again, as the last poll did not seem to work. I will see if I can merge the replies from the other thread here.November 30, 2019 at 1:50 am #1203209118
Not voting because I actually can’t decide. Maybe I will after rewatching.November 30, 2019 at 2:06 am #1203209122
I can already tell from the discourse on this film so far that I’m going to be one of the very few Pesci votes, but alas. It’s incredibly close and both are Oscar worthy but Pesci is able to craft a permeating presence in the film and exert his influence without you even knowing he’s doing so. He plays incredibly against type and really blew me away, not that Pacino didn’t as well but in a much different way. Pesci is already being underrated on this forum though, I’ll say that much
FYC: Mary Kay Place in DianeNovember 30, 2019 at 3:20 am #1203209137
Joe Pesci. He should even win.November 30, 2019 at 3:59 am #1203209152
I voted for Al Pacino but Joe Pesci is also award worthy in “The Irishman.” A movie I really like, but I felt like I’ve seen it before in “Goodfellas” and “The Departed.”
Pacino should be going for his third Oscar. His first two should have been “The Godfather, Part 2” (sorry Art Carney) and “Dog Day Afternoon” (Nicholson should have won for “The Last Detail” – the wrong Jack won that year). And Denzel Washington deserved two Oscars for his portrayal of “Malcolm X.” To have “A Scent of a Woman” attached to Pacino’s Oscar is one of the Academy’s biggest embarrassments – in my humble opinion.November 30, 2019 at 4:14 am #1203209159
Pesci. There’s nuance in his performance while there’s barely any in Al Pacinos.November 30, 2019 at 4:25 am #1203209161This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.November 30, 2019 at 6:16 am #1203209226
Can both win in a tie? I’m dying to see this happen.
𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙤𝙙, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙖𝙙, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪November 30, 2019 at 6:50 am #1203209257
Pacino is fiercely energetic, scenery-chewing and funny. The one problem with his performance is a certain lack of depth. He walks away with his scenes but doesn’t leave the audience – me anyway – with a deeper sensation of what kind of a human being Hoffa was underneath his showy facade.
Pacino is Pacino to the max here, in many ways a less unbearable version of himself in The Devil’s Advocate. His Jimmy Hoffa has the mannerisms of Al Pacino, not the mannerisms of Jimmy Hoffa.
Pesci is less showy and more subdued – but he projects a profound sense of a human being made of flesh and blood, and while Pacino impressed me more while I was watching the film, it’s Pesci’s work than crawled under my skin and left a more lasting mark.
As far as Oscars go, while both have a shot at a nomination, I believe Pacino is the shoo-in as he acts in spades. Can’t see either of them threatening Pitt though.
In the end this is a case of apples and oranges, so I suppose it’s just as well that I’m for some reason not able to cast a vote in the poll.November 30, 2019 at 7:10 am #1203209275
Pacino is much better but Pesci is worthy too. It seems that Pacino will win Oscar over Pitt.November 30, 2019 at 7:45 am #1203209290
Not sure if anyone else is having a problem viewing the poll results, but my vote goes to Pacino. I referred to him as a force of nature before, and I stand by that statement. He steals every single scene that he’s in. He’s got so much to work with portraying Jimmy Hoffa, and he knocks each component out of the park.
However, I still loved Pesci. I’m predicting and hoping he can get nominated alongside Pacino, who I think and hope will win. I was impressed that he could so easily play a role against his type after being in retirement for so long. If it weren’t for Pacino’s presence, I think Pesci would be seen as a much stronger contender.Marcus Snowden (The Artist Formerly Known as msnowden1)ParticipantNovember 30, 2019 at 7:46 am #1203209294
Pacino, but DAMN it’s close. Pacino is larger than life in the movie, but Pesci is measured but also intimidating. I don’t mind who wins this poll.November 30, 2019 at 8:42 am #1203209348
Pacino is showy but Pesci is multi-layered and subtle. Depends on what your criteria for a better performance is but I prefered Pesci marginally more. Honestly, the difficulty in establishing who was better is just a testament to how incredible this film is. Would love to see it or Parasite win.November 30, 2019 at 10:14 am #1203209421
I’d just like to say that I thought Pacino’s work was multi layered as well, despite being much bigger and showier.November 30, 2019 at 10:17 am #1203209427
What’s the deal with this stupid myth that a showy performance automatically means no or almost none subtlety or nuance? Where did your guys get that from? I have the impression that some people consider a more reserved performance is naturally better, deeper and more difficult than a more showy one, which is laughable. This’s not true at all, there is no rule about it.
Pacino’s performance has MANY nuances and subtleties, even more than Pesci (an amazing performance too), I’d say. Although he is extremely energetic and charismatic, he shows, at key moments, a subtle vulnerability and even fear in his Jimmy Hoffa. The Frank Tribute dinner scene is the best example of this. Pay attention to his voice and expressions in the conversation with Frank.
Pesci also has many nuances and subtleties, but this side of Russell is much more apparent and evident. It is clear from the beginning that the character hides things, is more reserved e etc. This, naturally, creates a subtlety for the character that Pesci exploits very well, but it’s a more obvious subtlety. You get what I mean? And with Jimmy Hoffa, Pacino exploits a hidden and unexpected subtlety.
This “showy performance? No subtlety or nuance then” nonsense has also been used to devalue Joaquin’s Joker performance. It’s such a stupid and false criticism.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.