|
 |
|
Gangs of New York
***1/2
Cinema
Reviews - Week of January 10, 2003
Rated on a 4-star scale. Certificate 18. USA.
168 minutes. Directed by Martin Scorsese. Written by Jay Cocks, Kenneth Lonergan,
Steven Zaillian; based on the novel by Herbert Asbury. Starring Leondardo
DiCaprio, Daniel Day Lewis, Cameron Diaz, Jim Broadbent, John C. Reilly,
Henry Thomas, Brendan Gleeson, Liam Neeson, Gary Lewis.
I was out at a club last night. I got there late,
and on my arrival, the guys were sitting at a table, beginning a conversation
about "Gangs of New York". The interesting thing is that Martin
Scorsese was not mentioned. There was talk of the coolness of the fighting
sequences, the menace of the villain, and this bit was mentioned, and that
bit, and so on.
We've been waiting two years for this movie. Stories
came out about an epic production running long and overbudget, of real and
fictional personality clashes on set, and of a story that refused to work
itself into a final product. The American release date of Christmas 2001
was delayed for twelve months as the material went through countless re-edits.
Scorsese himself has been waiting to direct the project for decades: He first
announced it in 1977.
After all the expectation, it is surprising how
absorbing "Gangs of New York" is as a playing movie, rather than an event
or a mark in the evolution of Scorsese's career. I thought I would have to
see the film twice before writing about it -- once to breathe a sigh of relief,
and another to see it clearly. But then the lights went down, and the picture
started, and a funny thing happened: I stopped thinking about the things
I knew, and just became absorbed with what was going on in the
story.
The film takes place in the mid-19th Century,
around the Five Points square of lower Manhattan, where street gangs waged
war for pride and control of turf. In an astonishing opening sequence, there
is an epic street fight between the Nativists and the Dead Rabbits -- descendants
of Anglo-Saxon settlers versus men of ethnic backgrounds who arrived in New
York City on the boat. The leader of the Nativists, Bill the Butcher (Daniel
Day Lewis), ends up killing his enemy, 'Priest' Vallon (Liam Neeson). The
son of the dead man sees all.
Years later, Amsterdam Vallon (Leondardo DiCaprio)
returns to the area, keeping his surname a secret. Bill the Butcher is now
a big shot, owed dues by every businessman and low-rent thug in the area.
He struts around, with every peasant a cheering yes-man, and he has the local
politicians in his pocket. When he spits at pictures of Lincoln and blames
the ongoing Civil War for whatever is his peeve of the moment, there is nobody
around to object. Amsterdam impresses Bill with some cocky boxing and a few
sharp words, and ends up being taken under the big man's wing. And from here
we know where we are: This will be a story of a young scrapper infiltrating
the inner circle of the man who killed his father, for the purpose of keeping
an enemy close and being able to exact a crushing revenge.
If the trajectory of the story is familiar, it
matters little, because the characters and settings are so well drawn. Scorsese
populates his large, sprawling, grotty frames with men and women engaged
in all kinds of seedy business -- petty thieves, ragbag tagalongs, rivalling
fire departments, filthy prostitutes and crooked cops. The man who made "Taxi
Driver" and "GoodFellas" is now so used to capturing the chaos of New York
that he seems to do it instinctively. Still, the main characters are strong
enough to never be overwhelmed: DiCaprio, with boyish face engulfed by a
film of dirt and a pointed goatee beard, is surprisingly convincing as a
lad with scars beyond his years. He looks around intensely, as if constantly
observing and planning, keeping secrets to himself, waiting to pounce. "I
don't know whether you're too smart for your own good or too stupid," one
of the characters tells him. Cameron Diaz plays Jenny, the film's love interest.
She's a charming and snappy pickpocket who slowly reveals layers of desperation
-- she hates the squalor and aggression of the Five Points, although she
has done better than most in terms of finding a niche and keeping head above
water.
The most interesting character onscreen is Bill,
performed by Daniel Day Lewis with grand, theatrical verbosity. He lunges
around, moustache curled like a stage villain of old, with one glass eye
depicting an American eagle and the real one expressing madness. His throaty
lines would push humour if they weren't so stunning ("I will festoon my bed
chamber with his guts!"), and his psychology is endlessly fascinating. Bill
goes on about having no respect for immigrant scum, because they're moving
in on a land they do not belong to and for which they did not fight. Does
he not recognise that every white man in America is there through immigration,
and many of those coming in during the 1860s risk facing army drafts before
getting a chance to unpack? On top of his seeming coldness, he has a lingering,
almost romantically passionate respect for Priest Vallon. He looks into the
distance dreamily while calling his former nemesis "the last honourable man
I killed", and keeps a portrait by his workstation, surrounded by memorial
candles. None of this sentiment prevents Bill from being a brute, who happily
slashes at the vitals on a hanging pig carcass while explaining, "That's
a kill! That's a kill!"
"Gangs of New York" is beautifully made, in a
style of operatic gruffness that never lets up. From the opening, it is obvious
that the grand production was necessary -- in that roaring, bloody fight
scene, there are no tricks of framing or editing to convince us that more
is supposed to be happening than was being performed on the set. Scorsese
uses a whole lot of wide shots, and even in their distant backgrounds we
can see fighters going at it with disorganised frenzy. The film recreates
the New York of the 1860s with huge, fiery sets and costumes that are so
warped and colourful they seem otherworldly. Scorsese has described his vision
as a western from Mars. It's sure arresting.
The film does have its flaws. The midsection is
absorbing, but lacks urgency, and the climax, depicting the 1863 draft riots
which included gangs, citizenry and the army, is somewhat confusing, because
it's hard to tell who we're watching, why they're attacking each other and
where in the city they are. Because the film chooses to be set in the time
of the Civil War, and features so many different groups swimming around its
grimy decadence, it also gives off the impression that Scorsese is making
a general statement about the nature of American violence. What the message
could be, I do not know, unless it is that the United States became a country
so unadmittedly yet bitterly divided by class because at the its time of
birth, everyone was struggling to carve out a piece of this great new land
for themselves, and many ended up secluding themselves along racial lines
or using bully tactics.
Individual points in the material are clearer
and more well-taken, like how groups oppressed by gangsters sometimes have
their own sycophantic cowardice to blame, and how even when others are pulling
the strings, certain politicians will care about nothing but staying in office.
("I want hot soup and bread brought down to the docks tomorrow," says the
mayor as corpses are thrown into holes on the street. "We're burying a lot
of votes tonight.") The beautiful final sequence -- a time lapse from the
New York of yesteryear to that of today - suggests, perhaps, that no matter
how distinctive events may seem at the time, history lets them fade away
and become forgotten legend. Be honest: Did you know anything of the Battle
of the Five Points before this movie was made?
Some of the footage that was taken from Scorsese's
original cuts might make the rhythm play better, but who knows. Despite moments
of confusion, "Gangs of New York" is a bold, violent, passionate film that
grabs us and imprints memorable images on our minds. Because of experiences
from "Apocalypse Now" to "Heaven's Gate", most of us film geeks are used
to thinking that that if a work has a lot of trouble in getting to the screen,
it's bound to be either masterful or a disaster. This is not necessarily
true. "Gangs of New York" might not be a great film, but it is an above average
rattler.
COPYRIGHT©
2003 Ian Waldron-Mantgani
2003 Reviews
(alphabetical)
2003 Reviews (by star
rating)
Archive of all cinema reviews
(alphabetical)
Review Archive
Index
UK
Critic main page
|
|
![[Image]](http://www.ukcritic.com/posbanr2.gif)