MUBI

The good thing about Martin Scorsese that no other director can say is that even those films that aren’t his greatest are still among the best of the year. Gangs of New York is not his apotheosis, it came too late for that, but it is an expertly crafted work, with all of the finesse and polish we expect from Scorsese, and the kind of power-house performance we can expect from Daniel Day-Lewis.
It knows something about immigration in the mid-19th century that history books seem to have forgotten. Irish-Americans were treated like dirt and were the most likely to end up in reform schools. Religion played no small part as the Irish were the first Roman Catholics to emigrate, Italians and Poles arriving some fifty years later.
As the film opens in the wintry slums of Five Point (which is now a high-rise jungle), two rival gangs are preparing for a brutal confrontation. They are the Natives, the disgruntled American-born controllers of the district led by the murderous Bill “The Butcher” Cutter (Day-Lewis), and the marginalized Irish immigrants led by “Priest” Vallon (Liam Neeson as a one scene wonder).Much of this is true to life, right down to the Irish gang’s name, the “Dead Rabbits”.
The Dead Rabbits live in the dark and fiery tunnels beneath buildings. Emerging from there they seem to be coming from hell to and into battle. But this too has a basis in real-life, as Scorsese remembered well. Although he drew most of his facts from the nonfiction book of the same name by Herbert Asbury, the look of these tunnels were inspired by a childhood memory in which he was chased by bullies. Taking refuge beneath a building, he discovered a dark catacomb that stuck in his mind ever since.
Superficially, Gangs of New York may seem like a topical departure for Scorsese, but it is a story that the director knows better than anyone else. This is a pure gangland film, about rival gangs fighting for control of the same city. Here the rivalry is motivated by religion and ethnicity above all. The gangsters are not after glamour, but battle out of the primal instinct of our species. The violence is a lot more visceral, and yet, Bill, as ruthless as he is, fights with a code of honor and after murdering Vallon, respects him as a brave enemy and allows his young son to grieve before sending him off to the reformatory.
It’s a tough choice, but Bill the Butcher may well be Day-Lewis’s most famous role. Certainly it was his most profitable, but it wasn’t an easy victory. Day-Lewis is known for the extravagant lengths he goes to get in character. He set a new precedent here, refusing to take antibiotics as they wouldn’t have been available in the 1860s. Listening to Eminem would help fuel his anger. Ironically, he disguises his Irish accent with an archaic variation of the New York accent.
After his victory against the Dead Rabbits, Bill’s control of Five Points is solidified. Neighborhoods under gang control have had a surprising resiliency. Southie, for instance, had a rap for being an unwelcoming zone to foreigners during the Boston Crisis of the 1970s.
It’s interesting to observe the children during Gangs of New York. They are caught in this cycle of violence broken only when they are shipped to reform school. So it was with Priest Vallon’s son Amsterdam who returns to the city where his father was murdered sixteen years later, seeking revenge. He has toughened up and is now played by Leonardo DiCaprio, who made the smartest move of his career when he became associated with Martin Scorsese.
Amsterdam finds Five Points a city jittering from the effects of the Civil War. On a side note, Gangs of New York cleverly breaks stereotypes about the North. Not all New Yorkers like Lincoln’s ideas on slavery, and many want to secede from the Union. In any event, those rich enough, could pay $300 and avoid the draft and then be replaced by Irish immigrants, usually those just off the boat. Since this was the time of the famine, immigration was high. The Civil War, however, would end up being a major stepping stone for the acceptance of the Irish. During the war, most of New York’s Irish population (which were mostly Democrats) kept quarters in Tammany Hall under the crooked William Tweed (Jim Broadbent).
But the most significant change for Amsterdam is how his neighborhood has been fractioned. Each gang controls its own quarter. The will to survive proves stronger than ethnic allegiance. Instead of putting out fires, rival fire squads fight over the blaze while people loot the burning buildings. Much of Priest’s old gang has been absorbed by Bill the Butcher. But Amsterdam does find a temporary companion in Johnny (Henry Thomas from E.T.), but he does prove to be a rat when jealousy gets the better of him.
As can always be expected from a Scorsese film, Gangs of New York is an actor’s film and Scorsese leads a stellar cast. DiCaprio makes Amsterdam an enigma. He wants to kill the Butcher, but he also holds a certain admiration for him. Perhaps it’s because both men are following the legacy of their martyr fathers. In a surprising turn, Amsterdam ends up saving the life of the man he set out to murder. There is also a serious turn by John C. Reilly as a former Dead Rabbit now turned into a corrupt policeman. Only Cameron Diaz, as Jenny, the thieving whore with a heart of gold, seems miscast.
Of course, the most complex performance comes from Daniel Day-Lewis. Bill the Butcher is frightening, but also very colorful. He respects his worthy enemies and offers a service of sorts when he sells body parts to local physicians that he robs from the graves. Fighting is not just a daily occurrence with him, but it is even encouraged as a way of getting into his inner circle.
The Five Points itself is its own character. Its decay and desperation imbues every scene with a sense of place and time.
As usual, Scorsese knows how to use music really well. Notice how a lot of the music is diegetic folksy ballad from the old country. It is especially powerful as the camera takes us on a tour of the underworld where monsters like Bill the Butcher lurk manipulating the city above him. In a particularly chilling moment he uses a pig to demonstrate how to kill a man.
With so many backstabbers in the city, Amsterdam’s identity is soon revealed to Bill. Since we know that Bill already knows about Amsterdam’s plan, a knife-throwing act in a following scene is truly terrifying. Gangs of New York makes a turn when Amsterdam and Bill declare war on each other, becoming a first rate revenge picture. Unfortunately, the political and social complexities of the first half cease to be, but the characterization fire-up from the two leads is more than enough compensation.
The best thing in Gangs of New York is Scorsese’s recreation of the Draft Riots. These harrowing shots capturing a city turned savage in panic and anger are the film’s most lasting statement about how New York’s ethnic conflicts were just one in a tangled web of animosities. The death of Bill the Butcher, soon after the blood clears, marks the end of an era; an era that would leave faint traces of its legacy for decades to come.
The skeleton of Gangs of New York is pure Scorsese. Gang wars, revenge, and, of course, the city of New York are all things the director knows well. But this time, Scorsese has taken a historical checklist to understanding the forming of the city he knows so well. Atypical or not, Gangs of New York is a major work made with great passion and skill. Because the competition is so high, it doesn’t make it to the final round as a contender for the title of Scorsese’s crowning work. But it says something about its maker that it was still one of the best films of 2002. This was a film that Scorsese felt he had to do to understand the city that laid the foundation for his remarkable career. Looking back on the forming of New York City, Scorsese can trace back the roots of the gang wars he has documented so well to their point of origin.

I haven’t seen this in a since it first came out so I decided to re-watched it last night. It’s strange because people say it’s Scorsese’s weakest and there are certain flaws with the movie, but for the most part, I found it very enjoyable.

The main criticism I always hear is about how Scorsese’s films are in this later part of his career is how his films aren’t the character driven Cassavetes/Kazan/Godard influenced films they once were. There a whole other beast now. I think he’s reached a point where I feel he closely identifies with the films of Samuel Fuller more than anything else. Like Samuel Fuller, his new films are very over-the-top with crazed performances, ideas that hit you in the cut and a very dark (almost morbid) sense of humor. I can’t see why Scorsese isn’t allowed to do this in the eyes of most cineastes. Any good artist changes throughout life. If they kept repeating what they were doing twenty years ago, they wouldn’t be a very good filmmaker. Some change for the better, some for the worst, but Scorsese’s is neither. The films maybe less personal, but does a man his age feel the way he did when he quit cocaine and made Raging Bull? He’s a different man twenty (at the time this movie was made, now it’s almost thirty) years later. It’s a definitely more inline with classic Hollywood, but certainly much better than most of the crap that hits cineplexes today.

My complaints laid mostly in the cheesy soundtrack which was just too far distracting for my tastes (A much better and I’d say “classic Hollywood” soundtrack was written by the late Elmer Bernstein, but was rejected by the producers, NOT Scorsese. You can hear it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X14YEg_f7k0). The traditional folk music, drum pieces and marches were fine, but the Howard Shore soundtrack is actually downright awful. There’s also plenty of historical accuracies, but then again it’s a movie; it’s expected to not be completely accurate. If you wanted an accurate representation of what New York was like in the 1860’s, I’d suggest reading a book, not viewing a movie. I’m certain Scorsese is aware of the inaccuracies, and knows it’s not meant to be accurate. You can mold history, time and people with cinema and get away with things like that in order to serve the purpose of telling the film’s story. The plotline between Cameron Diaz and DiCaprio wasn’t very strong either, but the films short comings were made up excellent with great performances from an array of character actors and Daniel Day Lewis.

In the end, it’s certainly not the greatest Scorsese, but not great Scorsese is still many times better than the films of other directors.