2019年12月6日 星期五

Send a telegram, tell me your thoughts

I wanna live for a day in the way that we lost.
Joe Pesci, left, and Robert De Niro in “The Irishman.”Netflix
Author Headshot

By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist

So I saw “The Irishman.”

(Note: Spoilers ahead, so if you plan to see the film, you should skip this section for now.)

My wife and I watched it over two days, since neither of us has the time to watch a three-and-a-half-hour movie in one sitting. I like Martin Scorsese’s movies, but this is one of the few that has really stuck with me, perhaps because it is incredibly dense with meaning.

There’s the surface narrative, the story of a working man turned hired killer for the mob, who does what he’s told regardless of the cost to himself, his friends and his family. By the end of his life, he’s desperate for absolution and forgiveness, but he can’t find it; his family wants nothing to do with him and religion offers little comfort. The only thing he has are his memories, soured by time. He can recount them — the film is an extended flashback — but he’s an old man in his mind too, his younger self burdened with the weight of age.

Of course, this isn’t any story. It’s a mob story, starring stalwarts of the genre — Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci. And while you can watch “The Irishman” as just another mob film, you can also watch it as Scorsese’s commentary on his past work.

Where “Goodfellas” shows the drama of mob life in New York, and “Casino” shows the glitz of the same in Las Vegas, “The Irishman” is grimy and ordinary. Joe Pesci’s character, the quiet and understated Russell Bufalino, is head of the Scranton, Pa., mob. There are no fancy restaurants, just dimly lit bars and banquet halls. And the violence lacks the theatrics of Scorsese’s previous films. When people die, it’s quick, ugly and unceremonious. Being in the mob in “The Irishman” isn’t glamorous, it’s a job. Steady work. But even the most important players are ultimately replaceable. One man falls, another takes his place. Their loyalty and secrecy might serve the organization but ultimately pays them little. At this point in his life, Scorsese is old enough to see past the romance of the mob. What he shows instead is the banality of the life.

ADVERTISEMENT

But there’s more! The protagonist, played by De Niro, is Frank Sheeran, who claims to have killed Jimmy Hoffa, former president of the Teamsters union. Most of the film takes place between the late 1950s and mid-1970s, at the peak of labor power in the United States. And in addition to watching the movie for its own sake and as Scorsese’s commentary on himself, you can also read it as an attempt to grapple with the price of postwar prosperity for the individual. Sheeran is a veteran of the World War II, where he learned to obey and to kill. He joins the mob, which offers him a measure of financial success and where the only thing he has to do is obey and kill. When he’s eventually asked to kill Hoffa, who had become his closest friend, he does it out of loyalty and obligation. The institutions that shape Sheeran’s life give him work and structure. But they leverage his best qualities for their own ends. They use him up and discard him when he’s no longer useful. Sheeran isn’t a victim per se, but he does represent the alienation that was part and parcel of the stability of midcentury America.

As I said, this film is dense with meaning. And I’m still tossing it around in my head! I plan to watch it again over the holiday break, and I’m sure I’ll have more to say then. For now, consider this the first draft of my thoughts on this incredible, ambitious movie.

What I Wrote

I wrote on Democrats’ consistent failure to take organized labor seriously.

Despite this clear, partisan incentive for pro-union policies, too many elected Democrats have failed to make labor enough of a priority. This was true under Jimmy Carter, when union membership began its precipitous decline, as well as under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Other levels of government led by Democrats have also drifted away from unions.

I also wrote on the idea that “wokeness” is driving the Democratic primary.

If this were actually true, you would expect real traction for the wokest candidates in the Democratic presidential race. But it’s been just the opposite. The woke candidates have been the weakest, electorally speaking, and the defining attribute of the Democratic primary has been a preoccupation with the voters that put Trump in the White House.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now Reading

Michael Kazin on Eric Foner’s new history of the Reconstruction amendments in The Nation magazine.

Dexter Filkins on Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India in The New Yorker magazine.

Joshua Hammer on Mount Everest in GQ magazine.

Gabrielle Gurley on electric cars for The American Prospect.

Melissa Gira Grant on police and criminal justice reform in The New Republic.

ADVERTISEMENT

Feedback

If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week’s newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at jamelle-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Photo of the Week

Daughters of Zion Cemetery in Charlottesville, Va.Jamelle Bouie

I live down the street from two cemeteries, one a public cemetery still in use, the other a historic African-American cemetery. I walk through it on occasion, and sometimes I’m inspired to take a picture. I’m always struck by older gravestones, like this one for a young woman named Eliza. I guess I’m just interested in how we, or the people around us, mark our time on this earth.

Anyway, I’ve recently sold a bunch of cameras and am down to just a few. I took this with my digital Leica range finder and used a little post-processing to give it the monochrome look that I like.

Now Eating: Turkey Soup With Lemon and Barley

This soup is one of my post-Thanksgiving staples. It’s bright and brothy and fragrant and just what you need after days of heavy eating. I always go heavy on the lemon and turmeric, but you should feel free to adjust tastes to your liking. If you don’t have barley, farro works too. I got the recipe from Elise Bauer’s Simply Recipes.

Ingredients

  • 3 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
  • 1 large onion, grated or minced
  • 3 garlic cloves, minced
  • 1 teaspoon ground turmeric
  • ½ teaspoon ground cumin
  • ½ teaspoon ground ginger
  • Salt and pepper to taste
  • 6 cups homemade turkey stock or chicken stock
  • Strips of lemon zest from 1 lemon
  • ½ cup to 1 cup barley (more barley will yield a thicker soup)
  • 2 cups chopped cooked turkey
  • 2 tablespoons lemon juice
  • ¼ cup chopped parsley
  • ¼ cup chopped cilantro

Directions

Sauté the onion, garlic and spices: Heat the olive oil over medium-high heat in a heavy pot or Dutch oven. Add the grated onion and cook until the onion is translucent, about 3 minutes. Stir in the minced garlic and cook another minute, then mix in the turmeric, cumin, ground ginger and a generous pinch of salt.

Pour in the turkey stock and add the strips of lemon zest. Bring to a simmer, then add the barley. Simmer gently until the barley is cooked, about 20 to 30 minutes.

When the barley is cooked through, add the chopped cooked turkey, lemon juice, parsley and cilantro, and salt and pepper to taste. Cook gently just until the turkey is warmed through, about 3 to 5 minutes. Remove the lemon zest strips before serving.

IN THE TIMES

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Jamelle Bouie from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

|

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your Email|Privacy Policy|Contact Us

The New York Times Company

620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

The Interpreter: Impeachment & Human Frailty

Why we're powerless against fake news.

Welcome to The Interpreter newsletter, by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub, who write a column by the same name.

On our minds: Lies, and why we love them.

ADVERTISEMENT

Human Frailty, Impeachment Edition

From left: The constitutional scholars Noah Feldman, Pamela S. Karlan, Michael J. Gerhardt and Jonathan Turley on Day 1 of the House Judiciary Committee hearings, in what felt like a detailed recap of the main event. Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times

Impeachment hearings continued this week, with multiple constitutional scholars testifying about whether President Trump’s effort to pressure Ukraine into opening a criminal investigation into Hunter Biden in order to benefit Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign rises to the level of an impeachable offense. (Most said yes, with one scholar testifying that he believes more evidence is needed.)

Ukraine never actually opened the investigation. But let’s imagine, for a moment, that it did. Would it have hurt Joe Biden’s presidential chances, as President Trump is alleged to have believed it would?

ADVERTISEMENT

After all, the allegations against Mr. Biden’s son Hunter have already been conclusively debunked by numerous trusted mainstream media outlets. Would any investigation have seemed like an obvious sham, and therefore had little effect on the U.S. election anyway?

Well, no. Social science suggests that humans are simply too flawed and weak as a species for that to be the likely outcome. (How’s that for some holiday cheer from your friendly neighborhood Interpreters? Human frailty and a paaaaar-triiiidge in a pear tree.)

The illusory truth effect, a long-observed quirk of human psychology, means that when people hear a false statement multiple times, they perceive it as true, even if they are told it is false. That problem has become much more severe in the age of social media, because viral sharing online has made it easier than ever for people to be exposed to the same false idea over and over.

So a big, splashy story like an investigation into a major candidate’s son, even if coverage included constant reminders that it had no factual basis, would probably lead many people to believe that Hunter Biden had been up to no good.

ADVERTISEMENT

And even if people did believe that the allegations were false, a 2018 study by Daniel Effron, a professor at London Business School who studies morality and ethics, found that we tend to be less judgmental of falsehoods that suit our political biases.

“When judging a falsehood that makes a favored politician look good, we are willing to ask, ‘Could it have been true?’ and then weaken our condemnation if we can imagine the answer is yes,” Mr. Effron wrote in a 2018 Times Op-Ed.

That means that people are less opposed to sharing such false stories — with the result that they will be more likely to go viral, and more likely to convince others via the illusory truth effect.

That makes us a little worried the impeachment proceedings themselves, by frequently referring to Mr. Trump’s efforts to get Ukraine to open the investigation, might be unwittingly reinforcing people’s belief in the underlying allegations against Mr. Biden. (And … that this newsletter might arguably be doing so as well. But we hope, perhaps over-optimistically, that by calling attention to these phenomena our readers will be more able to resist their effects.)

If you are a researcher and have some data on how impeachment coverage is affecting the public’s views of the debunked allegations against Mr. Biden, please send it along.

What We’re Reading

  • The Last Whalers”: Doug Bock Clark’s book about the Lamalerans, a tribe of 1,500 people on a remote island in Indonesia who are some of the last in the world to survive from subsistence whale hunting, is a beautifully written account of how technology and modernity can change the most fundamental aspects of human relationships and society.
  • “He’s a liar, a con artist and a snitch. His testimony could soon send a man to his death”: The great Pamela Colloff writes about one of the most prolific jailhouse informants in America.
  • Women pay a higher price for power: A new paper by Sandra Hakansson, a Ph.D. candidate at Uppsala University in Sweden, finds that perpetrators of political violence are much more likely to target women, making politics a more dangerous job for them than for their male colleagues.

How are we doing?

Follow Amanda and Max on Twitter. Was this forwarded to you? Subscribe here. We’d love your feedback on this newsletter. Please email thoughts and suggestions to interpreter@nytimes.com.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for The Interpreter from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

|

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your Email|Privacy Policy|Contact Us

The New York Times Company

620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/