Gangs of New York (Summer of Scorsese)

After revisiting Gangs of New York I was surprised to find I did not have the same enthusiasm for the film I had after the initial viewing. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is a good film, but I had many issues with what was done on a story level. The production design is nearly flawless, and many of the performances are quite good, including an absolute tour-de-force from Daniel Day-Lewis, but it didn’t all click for me, and most of my problems lie in the second half.

Gangs of New York claims to tell a lost chapter in American history, the history of the Five Points in New York City. The Five Points were located in what is now Manhattan, and back in the mid-1800’s it was ruled by various gangs. Poverty ravaged the area, and any immigrants getting off the boats are met with brutality. The country is in the midst of the Civil War, a war many citizens of the Five Points don’t believe should be fought.

The film begins with a battle between the Irish immigrants, led by Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson), and the so-called American “natives”, led Bill “The Butcher” Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis). The fight is one of the more brutal battle sequences captured on film, and Scorsese does something here similar to what Steven Spielberg did with Saving Private Ryan. The camera, and thus the audience, stays in the midst of the action instead of pulling away, putting us in the middle of the violence. It is not a pleasant sequence to watch, and we know right away that we are not dealing with normal men. These are savages.

Priest Vallon is killed by the Butcher, leaving Vallon’s son Amsterdam orphaned. We flash forward to Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio) in adulthood, and he vows revenge against the Butcher as most movie characters do. In my opinion this is the plotline that works best here. Amsterdam returns to Five Points and through his fellow Irish friends gets close inside the Butcher’s circle. Instead of going straight for the kill, Amsterdam starts to get a little too comfortable with being so powerful. This is an idea Scorsese has expressed in many of his works, particularly the gangster movies, and it does not come off as wholly original. That does not mean it doesn’t work, because if you’re good at something you never stop being good at it, and thus I quite enjoyed this plotline the most.

What doesn’t work quite as well is when the film tries to shoehorn in some actual history. While the character of Bill Cutting is based on an actual man, the story involving Amsterdam and his revenge seems entirely fictional. In the second half the film tries to incorporate the New York draft riots of 1863, and it does not do so gracefully. I truly believe a great, separate movie could be made about the riots, but it doesn’t work here. Because the riots are introduced, the climax of the movie is interrupted and it ends with more of a whimper than a bang.

Leonardo DiCaprio is a good actor who is able to perform most every job asked of him rather impressively, even if he is never truly great. The actor here who is always truly great is Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill the Butcher. He had not done a film since 1997 when he was approached for this film, and here he gives a great performance. This might be a warm-up for his eventual work in There Will be Blood, in which he gives us the best performance in recent memory, but here he exudes an acting ability the likes of which the world rarely sees.

Cameron Diaz I never quite buy in a role like the one she has here. She’s a pleasant enough screen presence, but as a serious actress I have yet to be sold. There’s solid work here from everyone else as well, including stints from Brendan Gleeson and John C. Reilly.

There is a moment towards the end where Amsterdam finally decides what he is going to do about the Butcher situation, and when he acts on it the sequence is terric, most of the credit going to Day-Lewis. However, from that point on the film slogs down quite a bit, feeling the need to be much more methodical than is required. I grew bored with it a little bit, but I thought we had a slam-bang climax to look forward to. I was wrong. Instead we get the draft riots and a bit of an anticlimax.

The final shot, which is impressive, tries to sell to us that what we have just seen single-handedly built the city of New York as we know it. While it altered the future, I don’t think it’s as important a chapter in American history as the film thinks it is. Someone could explain to me why I’m wrong, and I would listen, but at the moment it seems more unpleasant than critical. Not to mention there isn’t a bunch of originality at work here. The acting, set design and most of the special effects all work quite well, but at the end of the day Gangs of New York seems to be one of Scorsese’s more minor efforts.

Summer of Scorsese
Original Post
Goodfellas
Taxi Driver
After Hours
Gangs of New York
The Departed (My Favorite Movies)
Shutter Island (Review)

Up next: Mean Streets