Gangs Of New York
Directed by Martin Scorsese
2003 R/18
Gangs Of New York
is artistic. It has one of my favourite actors,
Daniel Day-Lewis against a least favourite,
Leonado DiCaprio. The writers, director and
Day-Lewis himself forged a villain so stunningly
compelling that the nuisance of the sulky DiCaprio
was all the more irksome because it spoiled
what could have been a great movie.
Set in the 1800's,
Gangs Of New
York is a revenge movie: during
a gang battle a little kid witnesses his Irish
immigrant father getting slaughtered by
Bill
The Butcher (Day-Lewis), the gangster who runs
the crime-infested Lower Manhattan district
of Five Points. The boy returns as an adult
and anonymously (and unconvincingly) infiltrates
Bill's gang... You've seen this plot before.
A pleasure of this movie, if that is your thang,
are the sets and the cinematography: often this
film looks like a painting. One advantage of
the hugely expensive quest of setting a movie
during the 1800's setting is you can harvest
myriad scenes bathed in atmospheric candlelight,
scenes half murky in mysterious shadows and
emblazoned with sumptuous highlights. Quality
poured from each frame, and there are many frames
indeed, nearly three hours worth.
Making this movie adult with a healthy spicing
of sex, female flesh and graphic violence (well,
OK, graphic violence is quite common in kiddies
movies these days) was one of the tactics this
movie got right. Kids would not appreciate
Gangs
Of New York anyway. It is great
to have Hollywood make a movie aimed at a mature(ish)
audience: given that they have stolen most of
the Western world's movie distribution, they
have a moral obligation do commission this type
of move far more often instead of sucking up
to teens all the time, trying to be kewl. Did
I say moral? When alluding to a philistinic
industry ruled by $$$? Oh well. Dream on.
Gangs Of New York
sided with the Irish, which is a bit of a dodgy
plot tactic: they were immigrants after all,
so why did they automatically deserve equal
rights with the "natives"? Should not some rights
be earned?
Bill The Butcher put this
question and it was not answered in my opinion.
Even though I personally have nothing against
the Irish, as a people they are not quite the
innocent victims
Gangs Of New York
portrayed them to be: Irish history is awash
in the blood of terrorism and political battles
(against each other and against the English)
fuelled by Catholicism vs. Protestantism-style
religious fervour. This movie did not make me
sympathise with the Irish at all. I suppose
showing the American "natives" behave in a beastly
manner towards blacks (preachy stuff when such
scenes are drilled home over and over again)
is supposed to make us hate them, but I am not
convinced that the Irish were innocent of prejudice
either. After all anti-prejudice was not institutional
until relatively recent years (and it is still
not practiced by the vast majority of the world
population). The Irish certainly hated, and
many still do loathe, the English for example,
and they attack us through terrorism. (At the
time of writing, since the September 11th Islamic
terrorist attacks, the IRA and spin-off Irish
terrorist groups seem to have paused their terror
campaigns, probably out of fear of losing American
funding).
Hollywood is hardly innocent of English-bashing
either: that Mel Gibson attacks the English
by casting them as unspeakable felons in his
laughable rewrites of history (i.e. downright
lies and propaganda) is just one obvious example.
But it is unusual to see a Hollywood movie sympathise
with a white faction (the Irish) that is less
American than the villains and kudos to
Gangs
Of New York for taking that risk.
But it still smacks of any-minority-must-be-virtuous
bullshit.
I did not much care for Cameron Diaz in this
movie: she lacks the power of a serious actress
and she did not convince playing a rough character.
Worse, her shallow acting meant I was not moved
by her plight. The romance between her and DiCaprio
was criminally unerotic. She is a bombshell
but here she was not alluring in the slightest,
so why not hire a more talented actress? (Oh
yeah, $$$). The love triangle aspect of this
movie fell flat on its face. Both Diaz and DiCaprio
were horribly miscast in this movie
As always Jim Broadbent was great. His corruption
seemed charming, everything he did was criminal,
yet he was likeable. But scenes containing Day-Lewis
shone with life: Bill The Butcher was a brilliant
villain, a classic monster. He was all the scarier
because at times he was almost,
almost
sympathetic. Bill ruled Five Points by terror,
and Daniel Day-Lewis ruled this movie likewise.
The strange thing about
Gangs Of
New York is that the only character
whose fate I was interested in from a human
angle was the foul villain. The villain was
over-the-top and yet this exaggeration was his
character, not the hamming of an ack-toor. Bill
The Butcher, the monster, the mad scourge of
decency, was the most human of all the cast.
 |
|
|
spoilers corner
Spoilers!!!!
Warning: this box contains a movie post-mortem analysis that freely gives away important plot twists and details. If you have not yet seen this movie and intend seeing it, avoid this spoilers box until afterwards. Bookmark the page, see the movie, see if you agree with my review then write an arsy comment saying I am talking total b*ll*cks :-)
|
| |
Bill The Butcher ruled by his wits;
he was observant (he noticed and recalled
that DiCaprio had saved his friends
life in the fire) and he was obsessed
with Amsterdam's father. So why in Hell's
name didn't he recognise the his rival's
son, especially when the said son was
easily recognised by other characters
that had less motive to be suspicious.
There are many excellent scenes in Gangs
Of New York. Jim Broadbent's innocent
pleasure of sending his fire brigade
into battle against a rival gang, neglecting
the burning building, was comedy of
the highest art. The scene of the woman
dropping an ear into a jar full of them
was surreal. The incessant daily routine
of crime was made to look impish and
picturesque in Gangs Of New York, but
in reality life must have been terrible.
It makes one thankful for modern civilisation,
where it actually exists. But civilisation
is decaying in many big cities, and
the gangland culture of 1800's is burgeoning
once again.
The ending of Gangs Of New York was
anticlimactic. The mob scenes were horrific
but not as compelling as the previous
two hours. The draft riots had the effect
of diluting the movie's great asset,
Bill The Butcher, and were wrecked by
a screeching commentary.
It would have been so refreshing if
Bill had defeated DiCaprio. The bad
guy deserved to win. If only movie makers
dared to break the rules.
|
|
There are no more spoilers below this
point, except maybe in any user talkback
comments.
End of spoilers corner
|
|
|
DiCaprio's character dies horrifically in his
first scene. It's not an ending, but it would
have made for a superior one. Knock a point
off the score.
Add your comment to this page
| | | | |
| From: |
zatoichi | Subject: | 2003-04-05 12:28:10 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Daniel | Subject: | 2003-07-27 23:11:38 |
| | | | |
| From: |
muralidharan.m.p | Subject: | 2004-03-04 07:14:07 |
| | | | |
| From: |
andy kaufman | Subject: | 2005-10-24 16:47:56 |
| | | | |
| From: |
alan coleman | Subject: | 2005-10-24 16:53:43 |
| | | | |
| From: |
niles | Subject: | 2005-10-24 16:55:28 |
| | | | |
help: how to add your comment Page hits: 10383
