Gangs of New York--why all the hating?
“…..allowing Oskar Schindler to be slaughtered point-blank in the street by the last of the Mohicans” heh
I didn’t think it was a write off, just overwrought to the point of being numbing is how I mostly experienced it. I think Nick Davis whose reviews I usually find thoughtful and balanced sums up pretty well why it “fails” for the want fo a better word.
“I am convinced that film criticism at the New Yorker is one big circlejerk, which is a shame since it is otherwise a great magazine. Apparently, in the world of film, those who can’t do AND can’t teach become critics.”
Yes, I don’t think many people here will be arguing for critics (even though most are pretty critical).
“What’s worse, I noticed in my film studies textbook that the author cites Gangs of New York as an example of excessive, “counter-productive” mise-en-scene. What frustrates me most is that I cannot even begin to see the reasoning behind such claims.”
As far as mise-en-scene is concerned, I’d laugh if I saw that in a textbook. They can’t be a little more specific than that? Mise-en-scene is the most broad brush stroke term that I’m aware of in the film criticism repertoire. That can mean almost anything. However, I do see where they’re coming from.
Something about this movie reminds me of Sophia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette. It’s supposed to be the early 19th century New York. Even if you wanted to make an abstract of 19th century street gangs, you’re going about it all wrong. I’m all for historical transposition, but it just doesen’t work here. What’s going on with the make up, wardrobe and set design? How are characters moving in relation to the camera? There seems to be a lot of tension there. It just doesen’t “work” well. There’s a kind of break between what you’re seeing on screen and the story you’re trying to tell. I mean comeon, why all the flamboyance?
No way can you judge on a trailer. That is just not fair to the movie. Any movie, when it is pitched to the lowest common denominator, looks like a piece of crap.
I guess all I can argue is, I believe Scorsese knew full well he was making a film. This isn’t a history textbook. I think he realized that, historically speaking, the U.S. is at a huge disadvantage. How do you turn lame infantile U.S. history into the something even half as dramatic as the battle of Troy? If you’re trying to create something mythical out of material that is less than two centuries old, it probably requires a bit of metanarrative. So he’s flaunting the fact that this is a movie— a big, bloody action movie. I don’t mind that it’s totally contrived. I’m not going to shake my fist at the historical inaccuracy of playing a U2 song in the 1860s. I think the flamboyance is beautiful and intentional.
can everyone please read Nick’s review because that is the first time I’ve done hyperlinks
I just put the trailer up because I couldn’t find anything more specific.
In any case, the battle of Troy? I don’t think he was trying to go that far…I was just trying to help you see where the critics are coming from when they complain about the mise-en-scene. Like I said, I have nothing against historical transpositioning. That’s not the problem. It’s more about the way he went with the script that creates problems.
@Penguin_08: Yes, I’ve read Nick’s review in the past, it’s quite good.
This was the best film Scorsese put out in since ‘Casino’. A tremendous piece focusing on the hubris of two men who thought their dispute was greater than the events surrounding them. Of course, the praise on Day-Lewis is well documented. Bill the Butcher is one of the most fascinating characters in recent cinematic history. Despite how loathsome he can be, there are admirable qualities about him. Unfortunately, he holds the misguided belief that he symbolizes the country. His over the top nationalism drives him. With the recent activities of the Tea Party and similar movements (the push to denationalize children born in the US of illegal parents, etc.), this film holds extra relevance even now.
“By contrast, the first hour and a half of Gangs’ 164 minutes…is consumed by almost pure exposition, despite the fact that most of the characters are either familiar from historical record or instantly recognizable from the archetypal portfolio of epic melodrama: the martyred father, the avening son, the charismatic villain, the duplicitous friend, the beautiful and penitent traitress.”
Has he ever considered that these characters have evolved into archetypes precisely because people are drawn to the “epic melodrama,” and willingly identify it at any chance they get? I’m not even really sure what he means by “epic melodrama,” but he’s certainly basing his criticism on the durability of a basic plot arc. So this movie appeals to those feelings we’ve all been conditioned to feel. We recognize the characters. Damn our judeo-christian upbringing and the tyrannical narratives it instilled! Does this mean anything that panders to western psychology is lowbrow? What would you suggest Scorsese do, instead? Have the characters wear placards around their necks reading “hero.” “villain,” “love interest,” etc., so he can cut to the chase?
I think “jaded” film critics are the worst. So the film is long. God forbid. Tarkovsky’s films are interminable and yet he’s untouchable (I don’t mean this as a stab at Tarkovsky, I think he’s brilliant). I enjoyed the exposition; I often do. I consider it an inevitable part of the narrative, and like all other parts of the narrative, it can be done well or it can be done badly. There may be some predictable parts in Gangs of New York; however, I think it is all worth it, if only for the shot about 4 minutes in when the camera tracks backward to reveal that massive, gaping, terrifying structure packed with brawling people, and it’s like a whole new level of combined beauty and horror. Unforgettable.
it just feels like a dull studio picture to me. i was surprised to hear that he waited so long to bring this ‘vision’ to the screen. D.D.L blew everyone else off the screen. i couldn’t take Leo seriously in that film. he was no match for him at all.
""racters in recent cinematic history. Despite how loathsome he can be, there are admirable qualities about him. Unfortunately, he holds the misguided belief that he symbolizes the country."
Yes but America was built partially by men like Bill The Butcher yes?
I think the film is good, but not great. I don’t think it matchs up to a film like Taxi Driver, Raging Bull or Last Temptation of Christ. However, for the most part, I think the film is pretty enjoyable. I thought Daniel Day Lewis’s performance was brilliant. He was so into the character he was playing that off camera he spoke like Bill the Butcher. I think the film drags a little and maybe it goes on a bit too long, but still, Scorsese has made worse films. One of the things that stick out to me in a portion of the film is the editing towards the end of the film where you have Bill’s gang, Amsterdam’s gang and the Union soldiers marching down the streets. The cutting of the shots with the elephant from Barnum’s circus walking down the street, the reporting of what is happening by some journalist and all that with people setting houses on fire and breaking into them is kind of clumsy, but I have heard that that was Harvey Weinstein editing those portions and not Thelma Schoonmacher. Scorsese had wanted to make that film I believe since the 70’s and with the help of a studio like Miramax and a star such as Leonardo DiCaprio he was able to find the funding he needed. I have watched it from time to time and I think it holds up rather well for a good film.
Johnny Dubiel, I salute you. I thought Casino was a great achievement for Scorsese. I’m glad you liked Gangs of New York as well. Now I feel like less of a loner.
Joks, I don’t think the rest of the cast should be punished due to one brilliant actor. Someone is always going to steal the limelight. Personally, I couldn’t take my eyes off Jon C. Reilly as Happy Jack Mulraney.
We’re still talking about it. For better or worse it’s left a mark. Even in your film studies text book mentioning it means it hasn’t just gone by the way side.
Personally I think it’s a great film. Fantastic cinematography, strong performances all round, memorable scenes, strong visuals, strong use of music, many things.
But then I prefer to love than hate as much as possible. Just because it doesn’t “match upto” (what the fuck does that really even mean, really) Taxi Driver or Raging Bull does not make it forgettable or any less worthy of watching.
The film was dazzling on a first viewing on a big screen, but repeat viewings have revealed some major problems. Leonardo DiCaprio never once convinces as a street tough, and he has zero chemistry with Cameron Diaz. The art direction and supporting cast are what really make this film: Daniel Day-Lewis was terrific, as is Jim Broadbent and Brendan Gleeson and Henry Thomas.
But the film over-reaches, I think. It is so concerned with Big Historically Accurate Sets and the Historical Statement that Scorsese wants so desperately to be making that basic things like creating interesting lead charactes and coming up with an interesting story get lost in the shuffle. The “you dirty rat, you killed my father” plotline is just too flimsy to carry all the BIG HISTORY that Scorsese keeps shovelling on top of it — it just collapses under the weight of all that detail.
A major disappointment, one that only gets more disappointing as the years pass.
So why are you still talking about it Roscoe?
That’s my point. Gangs really hasn’t seemed to forgettable or disappointing to me as I see so many people talking about it all the time.
Smokey, the thread asks the question: why all the hating? I sought to answer the question with what I think are some reasonable criticisms of the film.
It seems reasonable enough to keep talking about the film, doesn’t it? Scorsese is, after all, the most lauded of contemporary filmmakers, and GANGS is, after all, a major work. It is also reasonable, I think, to have real problems with it.
Looks like we disagree. GANGS seems pretty well forgettable to me, except for Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance, and even that, in less charitable moods, can be seen as a warm up for his work in THERE WILL BE BLOOD.
Glad you like the film.
Fair enough, I guess I was going broader than you though Roscoe. Gangs has stayed around in the form of discussion. Even in this way. Forgettable films to me just plain don’t get talked about at all. This kindof time frame I wouldn’t expect forum threads to still be popping up is my point Roscoe. I didn’t mean to be attacking your answering it.
Yeah, I agree with much of what Roscoe has said, particularly bothersome for me are the mismatched acting styles of DiCaprio, Diaz, and Daniel Day-Lewis. Stylistically, to me it now feels like a stumble forward from his mid-career style (Age of Innocence, Casino, Kundun, Bringing Out the Dead) to the late-career style he found with The Aviator, The Departed, and Shutter Island.
If you cut out all of Di Caprio’s and Diaz’s scenes, I’d be tempted to re-watch and re-judge GANGS. But those two ruin the movie for me. Could have been a great film without them. I would have preferred a more historically accurate film about the rise of Tammany and the way the gangs fit into the developing political/organized crime structure. Maybe include the Draft Riots, too. But leave Di Caprio out!!!
I’ve often thought that Matt Damon would have been more effective in the role than DiCaprio.
@Smokey SD I didn’t say it wasn’t worth watching. I just said that it is not as great as Taxi Driver, Raging Bull or Last Temptation of Christ. I think it is a very entertaining film but people might have gone to see if for the fact that it was made by Scorsese in the first place. Sorry if you misunderstood me.
A super underrated film. The movie is fantastic. I felt DiCaprio did a good job. He wasn’t great but we have to remember he was in the same picture with Daniel Day Lewis so you have to give him some credit. The real culprit was Cameron Diaz. WTF was she doing in such a serious picture?
hmmm…. where to begin? When this film hit cinemas in December 2002 it felt like the biggest wait for cinephiles in a long time. In a weird way you could compare it to the release of Star Wars Episode One. The director talked about the project orever and then he finally made it. But this was such a big film there was a lot of bad press in the air before it came out and that I believe hurt some critics and fans feelings towards it. Also the simple fact is that it’s not a great film like we (diehard Marty fans) had been dreaming about… it’s just a really good one. So I think it’s just taken a few years and finally people are reconsidering their feelings wether it be catching it on tv or checking out the recent blu ray release.
I will admit that Diaz is the weakest casting of the film but I think she does a decent job. I was alway worried about her casting and apparently Scorsese’s first choice was Samantha Morton but he went with Diaz because she had good chemistry with Leo.
I think the editing is a little “punk” for a period piece and that turns some people off. I really dug the cutting in the last 30 minutes.
oh and Roscoe…except for Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance, and even that, in less charitable moods, can be seen as a warm up for his work in THERE WILL BE BLOOD.
dude come on now. I think he is solid in There will be Blood but the Butcher is just as fascinating a character.
oh and yes this film came out in 2002 when it was still cool to bash “Leo” after Titanic. I think he is better in his other Scorsese collaborations but I think he is pretty damn good here. The scene where he first meets Bill… so on the money. The scene where Bill scars him… it feels like you the one being burned.
This film made my Daniel Day Lewis love waiver, for the briefest of seconds, then I put on Last of the Mohicans and everything was right again and I went to go pick up some Thai food.
If I could give things negative stars, I would give them all to Cameron Diaz.
The scope of the project and the depth of detail in the book hampered the film, in my opinion. The fact that there were all these interesting details, like draft riots, machine politics and immigration weighted the film down. DiCaprio and Diaz just didn’t hold my attention in this. When the villain in the film is more compelling than the leads, it tends to cause problems. I think the TV show Deadwood handled this much better, but then again, it was a narrative that took multiple episodes to build momentum. I bet the spirit of what they wanted to create is embodied in Boardwalk Empire than this film.
Erin Graham
I thought this was an amazing movie. I’ve seen Mean Streets, Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Casino, among other Scorsese films. They are all fantastic, and I believe Gangs of New York holds it own alongside of these. Why do so many critics pan this movie and call it “weak” for a Scorsese film? What’s worse, I noticed in my film studies textbook that the author cites Gangs of New York as an example of excessive, “counter-productive” mise-en-scene. What frustrates me most is that I cannot even begin to see the reasoning behind such claims. In which case, how can I argue? I really do want to know how Gangs of New York merits this kind of criticism; for all I know, I have a vulgar taste in movies. I promise that regardless of the criticism you offer, I will be grateful. I prefer to reserve my hatred for the choice few (warning: rant below. feel free to bypass now):
I really hate the New Yorker film critics. The word “we” should be banned from their vocabulary. They may be getting off on their own supposed witticisms, but they shouldn’t assume that anyone else is. Anthony Lane, you are not Pauline Kael. And even if you were, I wouldn’t like you. If you disdain the medium of film so much, why don’t you f*** off and write a novel. I am convinced that film criticism at the New Yorker is one big circlejerk, which is a shame since it is otherwise a great magazine. Apparently, in the world of film, those who can’t do AND can’t teach become critics.