|
"Gangs of New
York" reminds me in several ways of a movie I saw
when I was a kid. It was called "How the West Was
Won"(1962). Like "Gangs of New York" it was about
a time in America's history when the rules were
different. Like "Gangs of New York" it was often
visually stunning. They're even about the same
length with "Gangs of New York" only beating the
former by 6 minutes. Unfortunately the one thing
they most have in common is that they are both
excellent examples of why historical epics usually
don't work.
The movie basically centers on Amsterdam
Vallon(Leonardo Di Caprio) a young man who is
released from an orphanage in New York in 1863. It
seems some while ago, when Amsterdam was a boy,
his father was killed in a vicious gang war
between two rival factions in New York's squalid
Five Points section. Amsterdam's sole reason for
living appears to be to avenge his father's death
upon the man who caused it. That man, William
Cutting (played marvelously evil by Daniel Day
Lewis), appears to pretty much control the area
and even lifts a toast to Amsterdam's father once
a year at the anniversary of his victory. Although
Amsterdam's first attempt to kill Bill the Butcher
(as he is commonly known) fails miserably, he gets
another chance when New York goes up in flames
during one of the worst riots on its history.
"Gangs of New York" has one of the best opening
scenes of any movie I've seen this year. It
involves the battle for domination of Five Points
in 1846. The two rival factions are The Nativists
(Bill the Butcher's set) and The Dead Rabbits
(Irish immigrants). Scorsese takes us deep into
the bowels of the Dead Rabbit's headquarters as
they prepare for battle. The fight that results is
at once visceral, repellant but beautifully
staged. I can't fault the staging of the movie one
bit. If that area of New York was indeed like the
Wild West, and I've read that it may have even
been worse, Scorsese and his technical team did a
great job recreating the period. In that sense
Scorsese's ambition succeeds. But ambition can be
a tricky thing and I think the great director bit
off more than he could chew here. The movie
meanders all over the place and at times is even
unintentionally funny.
Nowhere is the split personality of the movie more
evident than the casting of the central roles. In
the hands of Oscar winner Daniel Day Lewis, Bill
the Butcher is an unforgettable character. Like
the Devil himself, The Butcher is equally
seductive and disgusting. If Damon Runyon wrote
about 70 years earlier and had less of a sense of
humor, he may have invented Bill the Butcher. The
man has his own way of speaking that would almost
be endearing if the guy weren't so horrible.
Unfortunately Scorsese seems to not want to let
sleeping dogs lie and his casting of Di Caprio is
as unfortunate as his casting of Lewis was
brilliant. Leonardo (who is just fine in "Catch Me
if You Can) is horribly miscast as a mid 19th
century hooligan, even if the character does have
a sensitive side. The smaller parts are all very
well played, including a wicked turn by Jim
Broadbent as Boss Tweed.
"Gangs of New York" really only succeeds in one
department. It is the film that Scorsese has
wanted to make for many years. I applaud him for
sticking with it. It didn't work. Now it's time to
move on.
|
