A meditative saga on death that has perhaps the greatest opening and final shot in Scorsese’s oeuvre.
Starts with the Doo-Wop music drop (and back his debut and Mean Streets Doo-Wop is as important to Scorsese as rock and roll) “In the Still of the Night” by the Five Saints tracking shot as the camera glides through De Niro’s nursing home. It is death coming in for De Niro’s character. There are religious symbols (saints and priests) along the way in the nursing home— and it is also Scorsese flipping the Copacabana shot from Goodfellas– which may be cinema’s greatest single shot. This isn’t about getting swept up and thrilled, this is the opposite.
It’s not quite the accomplishment The Age of Innocence is with the use of color, specifically Green and Red—but the green food fair truck in the opening, and Peggy almost always in green is no mistake. De Niro’s character picks the casket the color of… yes— green. It is Scorsese’s fifty year obsession with sin (red) and Eden (green) and it’s in the Copa shot, it’s certainly in other works like Age of Innocence– and it’s here. The car that eventually picks up Pacino’s Hoffa for his assassination—red. These are not mistakes or coincidences.
As a said the film is a reflection on death. It’s not just the last hour of reckoning that wallops you (and it does)—throughout the entire film there’s a preoccupation with how these characters, the people in this life (Scorsese’s life as a director of gangster films) come to their end… Scorsese catalogues the deaths here…. there are titles about how characters died throughout the film. It’s a fantastic film form. The first is a great freeze on Keitel.
I don’t think it’s quite on the production design level of Tarantino’s 2019 Once Upon a Time in Hollywood but the period detail is worthy of praise. I love the Cadillacs, the steakhouse, the Italian restaurant with little wine glasses.
Paced but never uninteresting— the full weight of a life lived has to weigh on you for the last hour to have its full effect. Scorsese uses duration, size (this is a sprawling ensemble that touches much of the 20th century epic and sweep) to do this
Anna Paquin’s role is symbolic in many ways like Chastain’s mother in Tree of Life or Margot Robbie in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. She’s more than just De Niro’s characters’ daughter- she’s God— watching. It’s also a bit odd that Paquin (a great actor) plays a silent character—very against type. She’s usually so verbal (The Piano, Margaret).
Pacino is perfectly cast. Pesci says in the text: “he likes to talk doesn’t he?” This is his first film with Scorsese. He’s animated here, making speeches and stubborn as a mule. It’s stark contrast to De Niro’s stoicism (De Niro is largely a vessel, an observer). If De Niro outduels Pacino ever so slightly in Heat, I have to give Pacino the edge here. I think he’s superior.
Pesci though, may come off ahead of even Pacino. He’s brilliant here. It’s a major add to his all-time resume (which is not quite on the level of De Niro or Pacino). He’s the opposite of his Tommy in Goodfellas or Nicky in Casino. He’s not a volcano. He’s pensive, calculating—he’s playing chess- closer to Pacino in The Godfather II and Pesci has some of the best lines in the film like “It is what it is” and “He has no choice”. “I don’t need two roads coming back to me.” “We did what we could for the man”. It’s a superb screenplay—one of the year’s finest.
As I said above the last hour is the best hour of cinema in 2019 (from what I’ve seen). The sequence of De Niro in the car wash. Washing away the sins… wow. Potent.
Sobering and confessional.
The cracked door final shot is a jaw-dropper. Perfectly framed like Ozu’s Late Spring or Tokyo Story
The narrative vehicle involves talking to the camera and a flashback within a flashback (not dissimilar to the nesting doll opening of The Grand Budapest Hotel). We start with De Niro talking to the camera in the nursing home and then we go to the Wild Strawberries-like road trip and then go back again. Dense.
The film has so much that connects to Goodfellas, Casino, Wolf of Wall Street. Many of Scorsese’s films have the rise and fall. The high-life of sin and the crashing fall to hell and penance. This has no rise, no charm, no fun, no Rolling Stones. It is a lifetime of following orders and skirting responsibility and then a long slow realization and reckoning leading to a lonely death… yikes. Haha – cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto talked about the style mirroring the energy of the characters on screen
The de-aging. I don’t think it 100% works but I don’t think it’s a major deterrent. Watching Pesci call De Niro “kid” bothered me a little. Haha.
There are some stunning tracking shots- there’s the barbershop assassination at 23 minutes in (that glides over to the flowers for the actual killing). The camera glides into Umberto’s Clam House at 104 minutes as well.
The titles that show up to let you know how these characters died has relation to The Departed with the X’s—the mise-en-scene informing you (which is from Howard Hawks’ Scarface)
Very religious- like almost all of Scorsese’s work. Baptisms, Weddings—references in the text
Peggy (Paquin) is almost always in green. And she doesn’t like Pesci, but loves Pacino… like the devil and saint on De Niro’s right shoulder and left (Faust). De Niro also gets both the gold watch (Pacino) and the gold ring (Pesci) on the same night. Obviously he chooses Pesci.
Many comparisons to the war and Hoffa as General Patton. There’s a lot here as well to unpack.
Long-time music collaborator of Scorsese’s- Robbie Robertson (from The Band) has a strong harmonica theme here that moves the dense narrative along
The guns on the yellow bedspread is certainly a nod to Taxi Driver
There’s a fascinating entire character study film within The Irishman and it’s the story of Jimmy Hoffa. The ice cream, the obsessions (often hilarious) with tardiness and wearing shorts, the obstinacy, charisma and complex sense of right and vendettas.
the dialogue sequences with De Niro, Pacino and Pesci (just 3 time masters of acting) with top-shelf material is something to behold. It is more like The Godfather saga though than the cocaine-infused zip of Goodfellas or Casino.
So there are many moments that blew my hair back… the opening, the closing (I’ll get to more in a second) but none is better than the setting of the frame at Bill Bufalino’s (Ray Romono) daughter’s wedding and the slow-motion shots after (the only other slow-motion is the shooting at the Columbus circle). It’s a gorgeous frame set-up and total stylistic wow moment with the religious detail in the background. It also has duel meaning—it is a funeral for Hoffa (the reason for the road trip), and it gives us the pairing of the song about death “In the Still of the Night” that opens the film.
So there are many moments that blew my hair back… the opening, the closing (I’ll get to more in a second) but none is better than the setting of the frame at Bill Bufalino’s (Ray Romono) daughter’s wedding and the slow-motion shots after
In the final few minutes we get the procedural on death. Selecting the casket. The selection of the spot for him to lay to rest (another really beautiful setting of the frame by Scorsese)
And the final shot— one of Scorsese’s greatest single shots. The door cracked open, perfect frame – wall art in a museum (just like the Bufalino wedding frame) and De Niro telling the priest “don’t shut the door all the way” and the meaning and reverberations of that shot and line. Stunning
A Must-See for now- top 5 of the year quality easily and could go higher with more time and viewings.
Great review. 99% right haha. My favorite part of the movie is Al Pacino. Love the supporting too (Stephen Graham -Scorsese gives us a scene with 3 Scarface- & Bobby Cannavale,great intro for him).
I don’t like the « de-aging » but it’s bother me for 30 minutes only so…
In 2019,you dont have a masterpiece yet ?
@KidCharlemagne– Thanks for coming to the site again– you add so much to these pages. Stephen Graham– wow– you’re right. He’s right there acting with some of the biggest names in cinema history and holds his own.
So The Irishman may be a masterpiece. I just need some time to digest and unpack but I wanted to get this post up and write down my notes so I can move on and keep up with my backlog… I’ve seen it twice in the last 10 days. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood I have on the Must See/Masterpiece border. Both films were better on a second viewing. I haven’t had a chance at a second viewing of either Midsommar or Ad Astra and those are the two that I think would also have the most likely chance to be a masterpiece. Parasite wasn’t far behind either.
It took me 3 viewings to get there, but for me The Irishman is the best film I’ve seen in years ( of course Roma,La La Land or Dunkirk are very strong masterpieces ), but for me this film is the best Scorsese film from Goodfellas until now and Goodfellas didn’t have the emotional punch of this film. The 20-minute Hoffa killing sequence is breathtaking and the half hour that comes after was jaw-dropping. Giant masterpiece for me. Once Upon A Time in Hollywood is my second favorite film of the year also a great film. Thank you for this great review!
@Cinephile— great contribution here. Thank you for the comments. 3 viewings— really impressive. I’m very happy to read we’re really close to being on the same page here– perhaps with one more viewing I’ll be where you’re at. There are really two types of masterpieces, the ones I leave the theater with my jaw on the floor (La La Land was this way for me) and the kind that I need to process slower and revisit (The Master). This looks closer to The Master for me.
Yes, fully agree that The Irishman is the second type of masterpiece, in fact most Scorsese movies are like that, you need time to fully appreciate them and like you said The Master is brilliant but needs time to appreciate, one more movie like that is The Turin Horse for me, they are the type of movies that stay in your mind for a long time and you keep asking yourself about them, i think Scorsese has the power ( in fact most great directors like Kubrick, Tarkovsky or Bergman) to make a movie better with each viewing, something like Joker and Parasite became worse with the second viewing but this film really gets freaking better!!
Tomorrow I’ll see it a 4th time, and of course that final shot, breathtaking!! The only film (from what I can remember ) that has a final shot so brilliant in the 21st century is There Will Be Blood.
@Cinephile. a 4th time?!? haha. I love it. And we’re in agreement here. As much as I like getting blown away by a 1st viewing or a theater experience— I believe firmly that the true test of a film’s greatest is how it holds up to close study and repeat viewings.
This is a phenomenal movie. I agree with those who are comparing it to The Master in the way that you react to it. In a way, this film almost felt quite influenced by the works of PTA, which is somewhat ironic given that Scorsese is a massive influence on PTA.
What I feel like I love the most about this movie – akin to almost every one of PTA’s movies (the exception being Inherent Vice, which is more successful for its mood and atmosphere) – is the dynamics between the characters. This is easily Pacino and De Niro’s best work in a long time. I agree that Pacino is better than De Niro here – he is playing the sort of role that I always find fits him best, a kind of eccentric, neurotic, charismatic underdog, who has a dangerously high, but somewhat endearing level of pride. The scene where it becomes clear that Joe Pesci (who is, also, giving the performance of a lifetime) isn’t going to be able to convince Pacino to, essentially, give up is, honestly, heartbreaking to watch. The reason the film works so well, in part, is because of how much we like Al Pacino, in spite of his deep intensity. If it wasn’t for Brad Pitt’s career-defining, proper movie-star turn in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood I’d say either him or Pesci would be a shoe-in for best supporting at the Oscars. Although, to be honest, with a movie like this, awards aren’t necessary. Like any masterpiece of a film, this will be remembered for long after its release.
@Jeff—- Wow. Thank you for putting your thoughts down here- impressive stuff. I’m proud to have it on this page as it adds so much. Usually I’d pick out one thing I agree with but I’m with you on this entire comment.
Last night I had an argument with a friend about the de-aging. The argument was about the YouTube video, the Netflix de aging vs the deepfake de aging, I support that the netflix one is way better. Can you watch it and tell me what you think ?
@Cinephile— interesting. Way better? I dunno- some of the shots of De Niro specifically make a pretty compelling case.
@Drake- Okay, first, I think the Netflix one has no competition on Pesci and Pacino. It’s miles ahead. I agree that one can make a case for De Niro, but the only thing I can give praise to the deepfake one is that it makes him look really young. But have in mind that netflix tried to do a young Frank Sheeran not a young Robert De Niro. Either way, I find the deepfake one better at making him younger but I prefer the more realistic version, seriously they look like cartoonish video game characters, the lighting on their faces is awful, their skin is rubbish, it’s like they wear a mask, and the most important thing for me is that the deepfake destroys the actors performances, I mean if the original de aging by netflix hides some minor expressions the deepfake one completely sends them to the ground, just pause the video at any time and you’ll see that the deepfake one is fully different, like a whole different performance.
Also, what did you think of the infamous grocery store stomping scene everyone hates ? I had no problem with it, I’ll go that far and say I think it’s very good.
@Cinephile– you’ve studied it closer than I have but I think I’m with you.
As for the grocery store stomping scene- I thought it was very good.
I think anyone getting bogged down on this aspect of The Irishman is missing the forest for the trees sort of thing here.
Who is the best living director of all time under the age of like 50-60. Who are th most exciting directors currently working in your opinion? Steve Mc Queen would probably be one.
I think P.T. Anderson is 49, it is the sure answer, if he continues like this, I think he could become the best, he is the best of his generation, i think he has it easy, all except Scorsese are dead, the only other is Coppola but he is out of shape
Well quite a few great directors are still alive(though maybe not on the level of PTA or someone like that). Jean Luc Godard, Herzog, Malick, Spielberg ,Michael Mann, Rob reiner and more.
All the directors I mentioned are over 60 years old though. Well apart from PTA, who else would you have Aldo.
Damn, I forgot that Godard was still alive, a shame, Drake is very right, which he did not take advantage, that makes me very sad.
Here some (are in the limit of 50)
I can’t really think of others, I don’t know their ages
David Fincher – 57
Wes Anderson – 51
Christopher Nolan – 49
Bong Joon-Ho – 50
Denis Villeneuve – 52
Richard Linklater – 59
Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu – 56
Guillermo Del Toro – 55
A few that bear mentioning.
Yes all under 60. These are great directors. Thank you Matt. Bong Join Hooo is incredible too. What are some movies like Parasite(entertaining and artistic) that you would recommend?Preferably something lesser known.
Also what are some of your favorite movies from the directors you mentioned?
I’ll add a few others. The likes of Gerwig, Chazelle, Aster, Shults, Safdie are still in their 30s.
Yorgos Lanthimos: 47
Nicholas Refn: 49
Sofia Coppola: 49
Spike Jonze: 50
Noah Baumbach: 50
James Gray: 51
Darren Aronofsky: 51
Sam Mendes: 54
In the past, I have expressed how much I admire this film but since I’m in the mood today, I want to go deeper and explain why I consider it a massive achievement of cinematic form.
Il start by saying how Scorsese builds the relationship of Frank and Peggy over the film to finally conclude that Peggy doesn’t want him in her life. The glances of Peggy throughout show a complete understanding of what her father does, and those glances haunt Frank for the rest of his life. Their relationship is formally build. Peggy doesn’t want her father in her life as we, the audience, see at the final moments of the film. But to get to that point, Scorsese tells us from the start, from the first glance, and then to the next one, that this isn’t going to turn good. When that moment happens in the film, when she’s done with him, it is justified formally.
A formal “touch” that I find extremely interesting, is Frank’s story about the war. He says that he never understood how the soldiers keep digging their own graves. For the next of his life, Frank does exactly that, he keeps digging his grave further, metaphorically speaking, as he goes deeper into the mob abandoning his family and slowly losing his humanity. Scorsese reveals Frank’s fate in that moment.
Another formal “wow” thing is how Scorsese shoots the killings. Unlike his other mafia films, The Irishman is the completely opposite of romanticizing a murder, it’s stripped of its energy. Every “house painting” job is done with a pure simplicity, it’s something normal, it just happens. Life goes on.
Another one, is what i call “form married to narrative”. Scorsese shows the road trip through the film, leading the audience to question what will happen. Every other murder is just done. But this one is spread throughout the whole runtime. Because this is the day that will change everyone’s lifes. I find it fascinating how until that time, events in Frank’s life come and go, but from the moment he kills his friend, the narrative changes, a suddenly feeling of regret and sadness fills up the film. Hoffa’s murder is formally build, nothing unearned here, for half and hour they try to convince him to just stop, to change his mind, he doesn’t and the audience understands his fate. I also need to praise the 25 minute “silent” sequence which stands as it’s own sort film. How Scorsese doesn’t use music, how he catalogues the events. This “silent” part is one big formal conclusion, because as I said, from that moment, everything is ruined and the whole film builds to that point. It’s one of the greatest sequences in recent cinema.
I call this, the form of ‘death’. The title cards showing the death of each gangster and the whole situation of fading in time. This is the most important part of the formal achievement. How everything is build, and then slowly fades. The dinner with Russell and Frank in the start, at the height of their powers, and then, both old in jail, destroyed by time, this is not a coincidence, Scorsese knows what he’s doing. Time is the most important thing in the film, doesn’t forgive none. Everything is formally build to land on that final shot, it’s then that Scorsese whispers to us what the film is all about.
@Cinephile– thank you for sharing here, cinephile. What a nice addition to the page here! Despite seeing it twice in the first 10 days it was out– I’m already excited to revisit it
I enjoyed reading your thoughts, just watched it for the 4th time.
Great point regarding the relationship between Frank and Peggy. One thing I found interesting that I don’t quite know what to make sure of is the relationship between Peggy and Russ who Frank refers to as her “Uncle” she seems to take an instant dislike to him but she loves Jimmy. Obviously Jimmy’s personality is better suited for a kid, plus he gets her ice cream sundaes but still it’s almost like she just views Russ as an extension of Frank, another brute even though she does not witness Russ stomp on anyone’s face.
Good point regarding the scene where Russ and Frank are eating in prison, such a fall from earlier when they’re eating bread and drinking wine in the restaurant
Wow! I just found this:
It’s an excellent article.
@Cinephile- excellent indeed. Thank you for sharing!
Do you, perhaps after letting the movie simmer for a while, consider the movie to be an MP?
Also, (cinephile too) the explanation of the colours and symbolism was brilliant. It made me understand what genius Scorsese is.
@JC- Thanks for the comment. I’ll probably wait for another viewing before changing the grade here but I put more stock in my decade rankings than my actual grade on the review/page for the film and I have The Irishman in the top 30 of the 2010’s…. this is typically MP or at least MS/MP territory
I really think they should have used Keitel a lot more.He looked great.Crazy to think that Keitel was once Scorsese’s go to actor and now Scorsese think he is just a cameo guy.I think the film would have been up a grade if Scorsese gave Keitel more screen time.
@Chris- the big “what if” for Keitel isn’t Scorsese or The Irishman. He was in Eyes Wide Shut and Apocalypse Now and both Kubrick and Coppola decided to reshoot large chunks of the movie to replace him with Martin Sheen and Sydney Pollack respectively
This one is a different case.Keitel looked great.Perfectly cast.Sounded great.I bet if he was given 10-15 minutes of more screen time he would have crushed it.Maybe Scorsese doesn’t think he is a great actor anymore.
If Scorsese didn’t think he’s a great actor anymore he probably wouldn’t have had a role at all. Seems more likely that Keitel’s character fulfilled his role in the amount of time he was on screen. I don’t blame you for wanting to see more of Keitel though, he’s one of my favorite actors. I thought he was great in the brief time he was one screen. “No I do..not I know somebody who owns the other part” haha
I have read you say before that great film makers don’t just repeat themes over the course of their films but they even built upon their previous films.
I just watched this movie for the 4th time. Scorsese is my all time favorite filmmaker.
And in regards to your theory, The Irishman would certainly have to qualify as one of the best examples, right? As far as I know Scorsese has no intention of retiring (if there is such a thing as a filmmaker since you can always unretire) but if he did this would obviously have been a perfect film to conclude his legendary career. And that is really what I found so impressive amongst many other things, the fact that he had he did not try to outdo say Goodfellas or Casino (if it’s even possible to outdo those films). I cannot remember a film with such high expectations not only exceeding but even taking it to another level above. The way this film examines death is really fascinating to me. I loved the idea of introducing the characters with an explanation of not only when but how they die. Correct me if I’m wrong but this would be an example of a formal choice? I know I asked you about the concept of film form recently.
@James Trapp- spot on with the way The Irishman examines death and the formal connective tissue throughout the film
What is the better Pacino performance The Irishman(2019) or The Insider(1999)? You have the two films on the same level as well if I am not wrong.
@Anderson- I’m not sure- I’d have them on about the same level. What do you think?
I’m not sure either. That’s why I asked. Maybe Crowe and Pesci may have the slight edge over Pacino though. Great late career performances by Pacino nevertheless.
[…] The Irishman – Scorsese […]
@Drake-What would be your ranking of every important performance in The Irishman?
Mine would be
3.Robert De Niro
I think this is the best casts ever assembled for a film. It’s ridiculous that actors like Paquin and Plemons are playing nothing/very common roles in this film.
*one of the best casts
@Anderson- I had not thought about order of the cast here- but certainly Pesci and Pacino have to be the top two. And agreed- anytime you’re putting Pacino, De Niro and Pesci in a film together- you have a chance an all-time cast.
@Anderson – great ranking, its so close between the top 2 that I almost want to call it a tie if it were not for the fact that I consider that a cop out
1a Joe Pesci
1b Al Pacino
3.Robert De Niro
4. Anna Pacquin
6. Harvey Keitel
7. Ray Romano
9. Paul Herman
I would respectfully disagree on Anna Pacquin despite her short screen time and lack of dialogue her character is extremely important as her character carries an importance to the film beyond the basic plot as she is sort of a representation of a higher power who silently watches over Frank (De Niro). There is a pattern established throughout the film where Peggy (Paquin as adult) makes eye contact with Frank before and/or after Frank murders people. There is a sort of silent dialogue taking place after one of the hits where Frank is reading the newspaper in the kitchen, I believe it takes place after killing Crazy Joe Gallo. Peggy is basically saying “I know what you did you scumbag” without saying anything; the performance is masterful in body language and facial expressions. Paquin communicates so much nonverbally and the scene where she finally does speak is so much more powerful because of her silence throughout the film. At the end of the film Frank admits to a Priest he has little to no remorse but he is clearly devestated by the fact that Peggy has shunned him.
@James Trapp-I honestly think Paquin is a bit miscast. She is too old to play that role. I think also the De Niro performance is a bit flawed. Nothing to do with his line delivery or expressions. But sometimes he doesn’t move and react like a 30 something guy. I didn’t find this problem in Pacino and Pesci’s performances even though they are also de-aged.
@Malith – those are fair points, especially regarding De Niro, particularly the scene of him beating up and stomping the shop owner early in film.
Perhaps I’m giving Paquin some undue credit for Peggy the character who I find to be fascinating and actually one of the most important characters in Franks life although I stand by Paquin performance although I do agree somewhat on the age
@James Trapp-The character is great. But it is a very replaceable role. I think others like Cannavale, Romano, Graham, Keitel, De Niro(not perfect), Pacino, Pesci made the characters their own.
@Malith – I think she did make the role her own, its in a more subtle way than the others of course but whenever I think of this film a couple of the most lasting images include the final shot of course (brilliant), Frank and Jimmy walking into the empty house (reminded me of Tommy death scene in Goodfellas), Russell and Frank conversing while drinking wine early in film, and Peggy (Paquin) speaking up asking why Frank hasn’t called Jimmy’s wife. Her face in that scene and her face walking away from Frank near the end of the film are some of its most haunting images for me. I get your point and not saying your wrong but she left an impact on me with almost no dialogue so for me I think of that as making the role her own in a nonverbal way.
@James Trapp-Peggy is a great character. But it is not due to Paquin. Even the young girl that played Peggy was memorable and I thought was well cast. Actually the whole scene between Pesci, De Niro and Young Peggy in the bowling alley was one of the most memorable in the film for me.
@Malith – for sure, I hear you about the bowling alley scene
I have a question for you, if an actor or actress in miscast do you hold this against them? I agree with you on the young Peggy being a great casting choice and you may be right against Pacquin being a little too old but in a film where almost the entire main cast are playing much younger characters this does not bother me nearly as much
@James Trapp-I feel like the jump in age from young Peggy to Paquin was too big. There should have been a middle ground. Paquin is decent enough for those scenes with very old Frank but when Frank was still working I would prefer to see a younger actor playing that character. I actually don’t rememeber if they aged Paquin at all going from middle-aged Frank to old Frank in the nursing home.
3. De Niro
This is mine having not seen this film in 3 years
My top 5 is :
1 – Pacino (turn up the movie to a masterpiece for me)
2 – Pesci (obviously, could be 1)
3 – Graham (on fire)
4 – DeNiro (good)
5 – Cannavale, Romano, Paquin (good side characters)
@KidCharlemagne-What about Keitel?
Keitel is not bad but at this point, he’s just playing with his buddies. Nice casting but not a lot to do for him.
@KidCharlemagne – Keitel has just a couple of minutes of screentime but he makes the best of it as he is perfect in those brief scenes. He has an aura to him, his mob boss character feels authentic as he is playing a man with a great amount of power albeit in a more subdued way.
Scorsese’s new film Killers of the Flower Moon got a October 6 release date. I’m excited for this one. This is the first full-length film collaboration between DiCaprio and De Niro since 1993’s This Boy’s Life I believe. I’m curious how many archiveable films does De Niro and DiCaprio have now? Well given Scorsese’s history this one is probably a shoe-in for the archives.
@Malith- I saw that. Ari Aster in April, Wes Anderson in June, Scorsese in October. Villeneuve in November. I’m missing others of course- but it is exciting to knw these big ones are coming up and sprinkled throughout the year.