|
|
Contemporary film reviews frequently rely on hyperbole to herald a new release, all too often at the expense of critical judgement. Such a response may be the result of a dearth of genuinely great - or even good - new films. When a decent one does come along, there is a rush to claim its place as the year's best release or even its status as a modern classic. But to lose critical distance results in reviews that read like press releases from the film company's marketing department.
So, it is with a degree of hypocrisy that I join the ranks of the hyperbolites, accompanied - I hope - with some semblance of judgement. Following protracted post-production complications, Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York is finally released and, for once, the wait has been worth it. A rich, brooding epic, Scorsese has produced his best film in a decade and helped redefine a tired genre. No less than an attempt to reconstruct the birth of America's most famous and iconic city, Gangs is to the gangster film what Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) was to the western; an account of the passing of one world and the troubled infancy of another.
Based on Herbert Asbury's 1928 account of the events that dragged New York into the modern age, Scorsese's film is a rich tapestry of life at the end on the 19th century. Jacobean in tone, it is a Revengers' Tragedy in which Leonardo DiCaprio's Amsterdam Vallon is pitted against Daniel Day-Lewis's William 'Bill the Butcher' Cutting, the man who killed Vallon's father. This bloody tale is set against the backdrop of the draft riots of the 1860s, events sparked by the Lincoln presidency's attempts to amass an army to fight the southern states in the war that resulted in the abolition of slavery.
Both narratively and thematically, Scorsese's film bear's comparison with Leone's sprawling epic. Although the story of a son's desire for revenge is hardly original, both films approach their material and the wider implications facing the society at large, with a similar gravitas. Their pacing allows the directors to explore the nature of good and evil, which are seen less as separate identities than two sides of the same coin. Leone's Frank (Henry Fonda) and Scorsese's Bill may be sadistic, almost psychotic, in the way they revel in their acts of violence. However, they are fully aware of their actions, which they use to engender fear amongst those around them, maintaining their position within their society. Both even make a brief attempt to change with the times, embroiling themselves in the world of politics - which in each film is employed to blur the line between the righteous and the corrupt - before accepting their true nature, even acknowledging that the path they have chosen will eventually destroy them.
Visually, Scorsese's style is more kinetic than Leone's, a contrast all too apparent in the opening battle scene. Set to music by Peter Gabriel and edited with the precision Thelma Schoonmaker has shown throughout her collaborations with Scorsese, it is a bloodbath of severed limbs and splayed bodies that sets the scene for the ensuing drama. In tone, the film shows the influence of one of Scorsese's favourite directors, Luchino Visconti, and his most complex drama, Senso (1954). Just as Senso opened with a remarkable tracking shot of the audience at an opera house, a representation of the minutiae of Italian society of that time, so Gangs' early scenes of life in the crime and disease-ridden Five Points presents the social fabric of a developing world. Scorsese is aided in no small way by Dante Ferretti's magnificent sets and Sandy Powell's costumes, successful not only in recreating the period, but also in defining the various ethnicities in New York's melting pot.
Both DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz are effective in their roles as avenger and lover, although Jenny could have been a more developed character (a probable result of much of her role left on the cutting room floor, following Harvey Weinstein's alleged order to trim the film by an hour). However, both are eclipsed by the ferociousness of Daniel Day-Lewis's performance. Visibly relishing the complexities of his character and the rich, evocative dialogue of Jay Cock's, Steven Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan's script, Day-Lewis transforms Bill into a character at once repulsive and compelling.
Certainly, there are flaws: an occasional over-reliance on Amsterdam's voiceover (once again, trimming the film from the original cut may have demanded more exposition), a love story that seems a little too formulaic and U2's closing track, 'The Hands that built America', which is, at best, portentous. But such minor criticisms seem churlish in the light of Scorsese's achievement. Not only riveting cinema, the film cleverly uses history to question the contemporary world. With its stories of vote rigging, corruption in public institutions, and rule by an iron hand, the America depicted in Gangs is all too relevant to today. Founding father Charles Louis de Secondat Montesquieu's vision of America as a political utopia is one that transformed into a society ruled by fear (for those who believe things have changed, Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine (2002) offers a contemporary take on Bill Cutting's speech on how to maintain rule in an unruly world).
In his introduction to 'The Golden Age', a fictional account of American history from Aaron Burr up to the mid-20th Century, Gore Vidal admits that the recent history of America is a period he would not, or could not, write about, and would leave to some other author to chronicle. To some, it may seem odd that the closing moments of Gangs, which shows the New York skyline through the ages, stops at 10th September 2001. With the length of time spent fine-tuning the film over the last year, it is hardly likely that the omission of the current skyline was overlooked. Perhaps the final image, dominated by the World Trade Centre towers is a paean to the lives lost over a year ago. Or, like Vidal, Scorsese may feel he has reached a turning point in history and a time he feels he can no longer chronicle. Gangs of New York is a testament to the best and worst of the world's most famous city. Its face may have changed over the years, but as Scorsese's masterly, arresting and possibly even great, film has proven, the only way it can move forward is by acknowledging its chequered past.
Reviewed by Ian Haydn Smith
Reader comments about Gangs of New York
Martin Smith (martinsmith2004@hotmail.com) writes:
I think Gangs is a sign if ever there was one of a director on the wane. Just as Kubrick showed slipping in Full Metal Jacket and a fullscale tumble in Eyes Wide Shut, Scorsese exibits all the signs of a director in the final death throes of a once great career.
The film lacks many of the defining stylistic features that have made the director so revered. The attention to kinetic camera and fabulous composition are lost in the anamorphic frame; too often clogged up in the sweeping detail of grand sets the film struggles to find focus. The performances are accomplished, Day Lewis in particular delivers a character of genuine depth - however this isn't something afforded entirely to Diaz and DiCaprio - if anything a victim of the films bowing to the editing whims of over eager executives .
However the key problem is that the story isn't told effectively enough and at times is simply boring. The dynamic betweem Amsterdam Vallon and Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting doesn't hold quite enough clout and the priest's son appears to lack the edge that is so visible in the heroes/anti-heroes of Scorsese's classics.
The Age of Innocence showed a director who commanded performances of gravity and restraint, a handling of period drama as accomplished as any Merchant Ivory. Gangs of New York is lost between the old and the new worlds, The Butcher is No Jake La Motta and Amsterdam no Charlie Cappa. Huge sets and grand casts an epic do not make. Scorsese has over reached himself and its just a tradgedy that this film could not have been made by the director, as intended, some 20 years ago when a more focused, dynamic and effective treatment could have been laid to rest. Never before has it seem more justified to hail a new king. Bring on the new generation, the old guard are on their way out.
JimBob (Email address withheld) writes:
To be honest I think Martin is wrong.
Gangs of New York is admittedly flawed, but it is a flawed masterpiece.The plot stretches over a period of about sixteen years, handles a large cast of characters and juggles both political and ethical issues at the same time. I think it's a tribute to Scorsese that it isn't a disaster! While watching it I felt increasingly that Scorsese had been hamstrung by Harvey Weinstein of Miramax who no doubt is responsible for the miscasting of Leonardo Dicaprio, who just looks out of place next to the (arguably) career best performance of Day-Lewis.Also Cameron Diaz is hardly a good choice for a gritty and bloody movie about the darkest days of American history. It's well known that Miramax's unofficial motto is 'Oscars at all costs' and so I suppose they felt they needed a Hollywood romance to achieve this-which feels at odds with the rest of the film. Its also undoubtable that Weinstein's demands for an hour of cuts gave the movie its disjointed feel and narrative black holes. 'Apocalypse Now: Redux' was four hours long and people still went to see that in droves, so why shouldnt Gangs of New York have been the same length?
Despite the intervention of Miramax this is still a very good film, the fight scenes and camera angles are pure Scorsese and fans of 'Goodfellas' blood count wont be dissapointed. The final scenes of the draft riots are some of the most disturbing and powerful scenes ive ever seen and with the exception of Leo and Diaz the acting is topnotch.
The sets are amazingly detailed and create a great period feel, and images such as the opening fight with all its blood and snow horror will be with you for a long time. Ultimately await the Directors cut to properly judge this film.
jeremy velvet (jeremyvelvet@hotmail.com) writes:
just wait for the dvd edition.
that's when we'll really see the film scorsese wanted to make.
as it stands gangs is flawed but still FAR superior to the majority of mainstream hollywood filmmaking. day lewis' perfomance doesn't spring from nowhere - scorsese is one of the finest directors fo actors in the history of film, and the opening fight sequence is vintage scorsese stuff. alright, there's not the edgy, kinetic quality of his other fims - the sense that any minute it's going to fly off out of control - but it's a period piece in the vein of age of innocence.
it's in the final third, after amsterdam's betrayal that you really feel the miramax cuts - the story moves way too fast and thelma schoonmaker doesn't get a chance to show what a fabulous editor she is.
Malcolm Laverymalavery@talk21.com (malavery@talk21.com) writes:
I think Martin (above) has got it spot on, and I take no pleasure in saying this as Scorcese is a much a movie icon for me as anyone else.
My suspicions were aroused some way before actually seeing the film itself.
The popularistic casting.... the relentless, tacky advertising campaign.....yes, even Scorcese promoting Johnnie Walker whisky (he can't need the money can he...can he?)
All were signs that somehow, somewhere, things were going awry in the Scorcese universe, and the film itself is clear evidence of this.
Its: confusing - the intertwining of the 'story' with the historical background is clumsily handled and just doesn't come off; boring - in some films nothing really happens plotwise and it doesn't much matter -here it does, as there isn't a great deal else to keep the film hanging together (characters anyone?, relationship development anyone?, decent score, ANYONE?); weakly scripted - none of the dialogue sparkles or feels authentic.
All in all there's a horrible feeling of playing to the gallery here, or of just plain selling out to the juggernaut of Hollywood commercialism.
I sincerely hope this isn't a swansong from this great director, and I greatly look forward to seeing his next, good, movie.
Max (Email address withheld) writes:
Daniel Day-Lewis is and has shown here to be an amazing actor, worth seeing the film just to watch him. Leonardo is way miscast and the film suffers for it.(a good role for colin farrel)Diaz should not of been in this film either as it has made it too hollywood and lost alot of what should of been its hard edge.
Stephanie (weesteph20042003@yahoo.com) writes:
hello, i thought Gangs of New York was exxtermly good but at the start a bit had to understand. What did you think of the film and could you please send me some information onthe star of the film. I'm diong a topic on it.
please send me an email back stephanie
Lisa Streisand (l_w33@hotmail.com) writes:
Well, having totally missed it when it was out on release, and yet keen to see it, only last night did I catch a glimpse. I have to say that my overall feelings were of disappointment.
I'm no expert on the portfolio of Scorcese, but it seems to me a huge opportunity missed. Yes, the sets were stunning and so too the use of camera, but there was this element of "Hollywood meets Barnum" which at times seemed to undermine the serious nature of the piece.
Day Lewis shone (although a little close to Bill Sykes and a shame that the only true Irish accent wasn't used), but the others were so weak. De Caprio was totally unegaging and lack lustre, and Diaz was surely there purely for star/babe appeal. Why oh why do these big directors still succumb to the call of commerciality and revert to the age oid formula?? Is there noonoe out there with the courage to be true to a plot/story/theme????
The political overtones relevant to our world were lost in a confusing hotch potch of final scenes I feel - and therein lies the tragedy. There is so much to say about our times and certainly the so-called "melthing pot of the world" and yet this was a paltry whisper.
Worth seeing for the visual feast, but suspend any high hopes of groundbreaking, gutsy cinema. This ain't it!
S (Email address withheld) writes:
to be honest i didnt know much about this film before i watched it. i thought it would be either a bloodfest or an intelligent insight beneath all the violence. and heres where lies its problem, it cant decide what it is.
one minute theres a full blown battle, then it threatens to get deep but pulls back at the last moment then it throws out another seemingly pointless death. that is what annoyed me(and then bored me towards to the end) about this film.
i cant even describe what this actually is, its violent in small but powerful doses but its also insightful in vague doses. i would give it 5/10, for not being any genre at all and being pretty pathless.
Add your comments about Gangs of New York [About]
|
