"GANGS OF NEW YORK" (2002) Review
"GANGS OF NEW YORK" (2002) Review
With the exception of a few, many of Martin Scorsese's films have been set in the City of New York - whether in the past or present. One of those films is his 2002 Oscar nominated film, "THE GANGS OF NEW YORK".
Loosely based upon Herbert Ashbury's 1927 non-fiction book, "GANGS OF NEW YORK" had the distinction of being a crime drama about a gang war . . . set during the first half of the U.S. Civil War. Before I continue, I should add that the film was not only based upon Ashbury's book, but also on the life and death of a street gang leader named William Poole.
"GANGS OF NEW YORK" began in 1846, when two street gangs - the Protestant"Nativists" led by William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting; and the "Dead Rabbits", an Irish immigrant gang led by "Priest" Vallon; meet somewhere in the Five Points neighborhood of Manhattan for a fight. Near the end of a vicious street brawl, Cutting kills Vallon. A close friend of Vallon hides his young son inside an orphanage on Blackwell's Island. Sixteen years pass and Vallon's son, who has renamed himself Amsterdam, returns to the Five Points neighborhood to seek revenge against "Bill the Butcher", who now rules the neighborhood. Against the back drop of the early years of the Civil War, Amsterdam maneuvers himself into Cutting's confidence, as he waits for the right moment to strike and get his revenge against the man who killed his father.
There are aspects of "GANGS OF NEW YORK" that I either liked or found impressive. Considering that Scorsese shot the film at the Cinecittà Studios and the Silvercup Studios in Queens, New York; I must admit that I found Dante Ferretti's production designs serving for Manhattan rather impressive. Impressive, but not exactly accurate or near accurate. The movie looked as if it had been shot on a sound stage. But I must say that I admired how the designs conveyed Scorsese's own vision of Manhattan 1862-63. I also noticed that the color tones utilized by cinematographer Michael Ballhaus reminded me of the three-strip Technicolor process from the early-to-mid 1930s. Rather odd for a period movie set during the U.S. Civil War. However, thanks to Ferretti's designs and Michael Ballhaus' very colorful photography, the movie's vision of 1860s Manhattan had a theatrical style to it - especially in the Five Points scenes. I did not love it, but I found it interesting.
I could probably say the same about Sandy Powell's costume designs. They struck me as an extreme version of 1860s fashion, especially in regard to color and fabrics, as shown in the image below:
And there was something about the movie's costume designs for men that I found slightly confusing. Mind you, I am not much of an expert on 19th century fashion for men. But for some reason, I found myself wondering if the costumes designed for the male cast were for a movie set in the 1840s, instead of the 1860s, as shown below:
But if I must be honest with myself, I did not like "GANGS OF NEW YORK". Not one bit. The movie proved to be a major disappointment. One of the main problems I had with this film was that Scorsese; along with screenwriters Jay Cocks, Steven Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan; took what should have been a character-driven period crime drama and transformed it into something nearly unwieldy. When you think about it, "GANGS OF NEW YORK" was basically a fictionalized account of a feud between American-born William Poole and an Irish immigrant named John Morrissey, the former leader of the real "Dead Rabbits" gang. And their feud had played out in the early-to-mid 1850s. Instead, Scorsese and the screenwriters shifted the movie's setting to the early years of the Civil War and ended the narrative with the New York City Draft Riots of 1863 in some attempt to transform what could have been a more intimate period drama into this gargantuan historical epic. I found this perplexing, considering that the Civil War had little to do with the film's main narrative. It also did not help that the film's narrative struck me as a bit choppy, thanks to Scorsese being forced to delete a good deal of the film at the behest of the producers.
I did not have a problem with the conflict/relationship between Bill Cutting and Amsterdam Vallon. I thought Scorsese made an interesting choice by having Amsterdam ingratiate himself into Cutting's inner circle . . . and keeping his true identity a secret. This paid off when Amsterdam saved Cutting from an assassinating attempt, leading the latter to assume the position of the younger man's mentor. At first, I could not understand why Scorsese had included a romantic interest for Amsterdam in the form of a grifter/pickpocket named Jenny Everdeane. In the end, she proved to be a catalyst that led to Amsterdam and Cutting's eventual conflict near the end of the film. One of the few people who knew Amsterdam's true identity was an old childhood acquaintance named Johnny Sirocco, who became infatuated over Jenny. When he became aware of Amsterdam's romance with Jenny, Johnny ratted out his friend's identity to Cutting.
But what followed struck me as . . . confusing. On the 17th anniversary of his father's death, Amsterdam tried to kill Cutting and failed. Instead of killing the younger man in retaliation, Cutting merely wounded Amsterdam, branded the latter's cheek and declared him an outcast in the Five Points neighborhood. An outcast? That was it? I found it hard to believe that a violent and vindictive man like Bill "the Butcher" Cutting would refrain from killing someone who tried to kill him. Perhaps this scenario could have worked if Cutter had tried to kill Amsterdam and fail, allowing the latter to make his escape. Or not. But I found Scorsese's scenario with Amsterdam being banished from Cutting's circle and the Five Points neighborhood to be something of a joke.
As for the movie's performances . . . for me they seemed to range from decent to below average. For a movie that featured some of my favorite actors and actresses, I was surprised that not one performance really impressed me. Not even Daniel Day-Lewis' Oscar nominated performance as William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting. Mind you, Day-Lewis had one or two scenes that impressed - especially one that involved a conversation between Bill the Butcher and Amsterdam, inside a brothel. Otherwise, I felt that the actor was chewing the scenery just a bit too much for my tastes. Leonardo Di Caprio, on the other hand, was crucified by critics and moviegoers for his portrayal of the revenge seeking Amsterdam Vallon. Aside from his questionable Irish accent, I had no real problems with Di Caprio's performance. I simply did not find his character very interesting. Just another kid seeking revenge for the death of his father. What made this desire for revenge ridiculous to me is that Bill the Butcher had killed "Priest" Vallon in a fair fight. Not many critics were that impressed by Cameron Diaz's performance. Aside from her questionable Irish accent, I had no real problems with the actress. I had a bigger problem with her character, Jenny Everdeane. To put it quite frankly, aside from her role serving as a catalyst to Cutting's discovery of Amsterdam's true identity, I found Jenny's role in this movie rather irrelevant.
As for the other members of the cast . . . I found their performances solid, but not particularly noteworthy. I thought Henry Thomas gave a decent performance as the lovelorn and vindictive Johnny Sirocco. The movie featured Jim Broadbent, Roger Ashton-Griffiths, Cara Seymour and Michael Byrne portraying true-life characters like William "Boss" Tweed, P.T. Barnum, Hell Cat Maggie and Horace Greeley. They gave competent performances, but I did not find them particularly memorable. The movie also featured solid performances from the likes of Liam Neeson, John C. Reilly, Brendan Gleeson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Gilliard Jr., Stephen Graham, Eddie Marsan, David Hemmings, Barbara Bouchet and Alec McCowen. But honestly, I could not think of a performance that I found memorable.
My real problem with "GANGS OF NEW YORK" was Scorsese's handling of the movie's historical background. Quite frankly, I thought it was appalling. I am not referring to the film's visual re-creation of early 1860s Manhattan. I am referring to how Scorsese utilized the movie's mid-19th century historical background for the film. Earlier, I had pointed out that the Civil War setting for "GANGS OF NEW YORK" barely had any impact upon the movie's narrative. I think it may have been a bit in error. Scorsese and the screenwriters did utilize the Civil War setting, but in a very poor manner.
"GANGS OF NEW YORK" should never have been set during the U.S. Civil War. It was a big mistake on Scorsese's part. Day-Lewis’ character is based upon someone who was killed in 1855, six years before the war's outbreak. Scorsese should have considered setting the movie during the late antebellum period, for his handling of the Civil War politics in the movie struck me as very questionable. From Scorsese's point of view in this film, the Union is basically a militaristic entity bent upon not only oppressing the Confederacy, but also its citizens in the North - including immigrants and African-Americans. This view was overtly manifested in two scenes - the U.S. Naval bombing of the Five Points neighborhood during the Draft Riots . . . something that never happened; and a poster featuring the images of both Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass that appeared in the movie:
What made this poster even more ridiculous is that the image of Frederick Douglass was anachronistic. Douglass was roughly around 44 to 45 years old during the movie's time period. He looked at least 15 to 20 years older in the poster.
In "GANGS OF NEW YORK", Americans of Anglo descent like Bill the Butcher were the real bigots of 1860s Manhattan. Not only did they hate immigrants, especially Irish-born immigrants, but also black Americans. I am not claiming that all 19th century Anglo-Americans tolerated blacks and immigrants. Trust me, they did not. But did Scorsese actually expected moviegoers to believe that most of the Irish immigrants were more tolerant of African-Americans than the Anglos? Apparently, he did. He actually portrayed one character, an African-American named Jimmy Spoils, as one of Amsterdam's close friends and a member of the latter's newly reformed "Dead Rabbits" gang. Honestly? It was bad enough that Scorsese's portrayal of Jimmy Spoils was so damn limited. I cannot recall a well-rounded black character in any of his movies. Not one.
Scorsese and his screenwriters made the situation worse by portraying the Irish immigrants as generally more tolerant toward blacks than the Anglos. In fact, the only Irish-born or characters of Irish descent hostile toward African-Americans in the film were those manipulated by Anglos or traitors to their own kind. According to the movie, the violent inflicted upon blacks by Irish immigrants was the instigation of Federal military policy. By embracing this viewpoint, Scorsese seemed unwilling to face the the real hostility that had existed between Irish immigrants and African-Americans years before the draft riots in July 1863. Actually, both the Irish and the Anglo-Americans - "the Natives" - were racist toward the blacks. One group was not more tolerant than the other. The movie also featured Chinese immigrants as background characters. In other words, not one of them was given a speaking part. If Scorsese had really wanted the New York Draft Riots to be the centerpiece of this movie, he should have focused more on race relations and been more honest about it.
I really wish that I had enjoyed "GANGS OF NEW YORK". I really do. I have always been fascinated by U.S. history during the Antebellum and Civil War periods. But after watching this film, I came away with the feeling that Martin Scorsese either had no idea what kind of film that he wanted or that he tried to do too much. Was "GANGS OF NEW YORK" a period crime drama or a historical drama about the events that led to the New York Draft Riots? It seemed as if the director was more interested in his tale about Amsterdam Vallon and William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting. If so, he could have followed the William Poole-John Morrissey conflict more closely, set this film where it truly belonged - in the 1850s - and left the Civil War alone. I believe his handling of the Civil War proved to be a major stumbling block of what could have been an well done film.