Old Stuff
Gangs of New York (2002)
Directed by Martin Scorsese
"Gangs of New York" is a three hour long potboiler about Irish immigrant power-politics in old New York (1863ish) with everything thrown in including a giant Irish crosses. It's a noble effort by Martin Scorsese to bring a little known chapter of American history to the screen but it feels more like medicine that is good for you rather than enjoyable in the taking. The violent story is an uneasy blend of a revenge saga, historical drama about New York City's bloody draft riots, and love story involving DiCaprio and pickpocket Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz).
The core of the story belongs to "Amsterdam" Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) whose father, Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson), has been killed by "Bill the Butcher" (Daniel Day-Lewis) during a turf battle for bragging rights over a notorious slum known as The Five Points (located on a spot in Manhattan's lower east side with a good chunk now buried beneath Pace University and Police and Court buildings). Like the character Hamlet, DiCaprio is a reluctant avenger and because the movie is almost 3 hours long there is little for him to do for most of it but brood; usually expressed through watery voice-overs. An unfortunate effect of DiCaprio's story-enforced restraint, and Daniel Day-Lewis' scenery chewing, is that the two seem to exist in two very different movies. Personally, I'd take the movie Daniel Day-Lewis is in rather than the introspective DiCaprio/Hamlet pic.
It's not just with the acting, but everywhere you look, that tone problems exist. To my eye, the gangs seem a bit over-stylized compared to the realistically gritty and detailed sets they inhabit. The "Dead Rabbits", "Plug Uglies", and "Bowery Boys" depicted in "Gangs of New York" would be right at home with the roller skating, baseball gang in Walter Hill's campy "The Warriors". Do all these street urchins shop at the same trashy boutique? Parts of the film seemed to be striving for absolute realism, and others pieces and performances, went for over-the-top hokum. It's hard not to compare the "Godfather II's" depiction of the young Vito Corleone's (Robert De Niro) mobster genesis (with its vengeance subplot) and Amsterdam Villon's. "Gangs" obviously suffers greatly from the comparison.
The violence, which there is in bloody abundance, is more of the stylized "Gladiator" variety than the brain bashing "Braveheart" kind, which, again, seems at odds with the historical detail and the fact that the gangs are wielding axes. The historic events (such as draft riots) feel more like interruptions than filling out the world where this drama unfolds, and is also undermines the heightened stylization of other elements in the movie. Again, as a way of comparing, think Richard Lester's "The Three Musketeers" where the characters were in sync with the larger canvas of pre-revolutionary French politics. Although "The Three Musketeers" hardly aspires for documentary style realism, the characters do inhabit their world and it has zeitgeist instead of just being actors that wander around a nicely propped-out set.
Scorsese is a legend and has made some of my favorite movies but "Gangs" doesn't rank with "Mean Streets," "Taxi Driver," "King of Comedy," "Raging Bull" or "After Hours." I can picture, in a couple of years, flipping around the boob tube, and coming across "Gangs of New York." It'll be fun to switch back and forth between "Gangs" and "Men in Black II." Getting bored with "Gangs," I'll escape to "Men in Black II," which is more even in entertainment value. After some of that DiCaprio/Diaz love story has passed, I'll safely return for some more of that Bill the Butcher over-the-top shit. Hopefully, I can catch the scene where Daniel Day-Lewis weeps over the mangy carcass of a rabbit. I don't know if that was good cinema or not, but it was pretty damn classic in a De Niro "Cape Fear" kinda way. If you're a Scorsese fanatic, or thought "Gladiator" was brilliant, then "Gangs of New York" is a must see. -- Rating: $3.45
Tom Graney -- copyright 2002 Hollywood Outsider