The bigger the movie, it seems, the worse the think pieces. It certainly seems to be the case in 2019, with everyone able to voice their opinions on a film at a moment’s notice. This fall, once the (mostly positive) Tarantino discourse died down after Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood, it was time for the social media hive to descend on Martin Scorsese, his thoughts on Marvel movies and the state of cinema, and his latest epic film, The Irishman. Scorsese’s latest gangster epic, a mournful meditation on death and duty, on family and business, on love and isolation, has been met with almost universal praise, save for a few complaints from philistines about the film’s 3.5 hour run time or – what is arguably the weakest, most feeble take on the peripheral elements of the picture – criticism of Anna Paquin’s role.
In The Irishman, Paquin plays Peggy Sheeran, the adult daughter of Robert De Niro’s Frank, the Irishman in question. We see Peggy through the years, at different ages, and as the film unfolds at its languid, deliberate pace, laying out all the criminal activity of its three main stars (De Niro, Joe Pesci in an absolutely remarkable, restrained performance as Russell Bufalino, and Al Pacino as the firebrand teamster leader of lore, Jimmy Hoffa), we witness Peggy, witnessing these men. Peggy has very different reactions to Russell and Hoffa, and is mostly silent as a youngster in the film. Roughly halfway through, we meet Paquin as an adult Peggy. And yes, her role is mostly silent. This is where some fools looking for clicks and not bothering to properly engage with art and what it’s trying to say decided to pounce on the Paquin role, and its very deliberate lack of dialogue.
https://twitter.com/ira/status/1199490883927891968?s=20
Most of the controversy is drummed up out of bad-faith arguments, like Ira Madison, the absolute king of trash opinions based solely on wokester double talk. But the issue, that Paquin has only seven lines of dialogue, has been kicked around enough to garner responses from the likes of De Niro and a handful of major entertainment outlets, al positioning the story as if Paquin should be upset and amazingly, she is not. Writers are taking the bait, sadly giving this disingenuous discourse on one of the best films of the year more oxygen than it ever deserved.
Lucy Gallina, who plays the younger Peggy in the film, has very little dialogue and much more screen time than Paquin. It is her interpretation of the character we see giving Russell the cold shoulder and warming to Hoffa immediately. We see Peggy on the sidelines, like the wives of our trio of power-hungry killers and thieves, an afterthought for men who are so consumed by their evil work that they ignore their loved ones along the way. That’s what some may call… the point.
Seeing that Paquin has seven lines of dialogue is surprising because it feels like less. But, the trick, and part of the reason Scorsese is a master storyteller, is that with almost no dialogue he can make her moments on screen drive home the entire emotional resonance of the story. Anna Paquin was hired for her black-eyed stare, one that can go cold and cut right through even the most hardened killer. This is the stare in Paquin’s most critical moment in the film, which also happens to be the biggest catalyst for the final act. For those who haven’t seen it, I will say no more; for those who have seen it, they know exactly the moment to which I am referring, not because of anything else other than the way Paquin plays the scene.
Anna Paquin is not only great in a limited role in The Irishman, she is essential to the success of the story. Like all of the women in the lives of these cursed men, they are relegated to the background of life, a mere witness to their powerful husbands and the ruin they bring on everyone in their lives. They are important because they are portrayed as precisely not important. the very point of their roles is to seem marginalized, so when they do speak up against the patriarchal poison, their words matter. Seeing Paquin’s face go cold and ask a simple question of her father, “why?”, packs more of a punch than any Danial Day-Lewis monologue. This is a deliberate criticism of the corrupted men in this world, and a harsher criticism of their sordid lives than any murder scene could convey.
Once again, however, a minimal facet of The Internet reacts in bad faith to something permeating the culture, and stirs up idiotic talking points to try and create controversy from nothing. Anyone who has ever seen a film, or a television show, or a play, or understands the basics of dramatic storytelling, could likely figure out Scorsese’s intention with the Peggy character. Unfortunately, showing off your depth of intelligence on a subject isn’t as important as getting the woke points. And yet, even pausing for a moment to consider that side of the argument, it doesn’t hold water either. You are defending Paquin against evil patriarch Scorsese because she doesn’t have any lines? That seems to be minimizing the work she’s doing in the role, as if she only has value if she speaks, and her physical performance isn’t good enough for YOU to understand.
Perhaps the culture warriors should take a page from Steven Zaillian’s brilliant screenplay and cut their own dialogue; let the rest of us engage with art in an honest way, and stop cluttering up the discourse with useless garbage.
Larry Taylor and The Movies 
A counter perspective would be that Zaillian’s screenplay is the other ‘b’ (bloated in parts), doesn’t start in media res like all good stories should and that a little more focus on the family aspect would have made the last hour even more powerful. The first two acts had some unnecessary repetition. Just because Scorsese could do what he wanted, doesn’t mean he should have. I’m not trying to argue or be combative, as I found The Irishman to be one of the best films I’ve seen this year, but it’s far from a flawless masterpiece and open to some of the criticism that you are scouring with your screed.