Directed by:  Martin Scorsese
Written by:  Jay Cocks, Steven Zallian, Kenneth Lonergan
Starring:  Daniel Day-Lewis, Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, Jim Broadbent, Henry Thomas, Liam Neeson, John C. Reilly, Brendan Gleeson
 

January 4, 2003

In the late 1970’s as filmmaker Martin Scorsese was building his career as an auteur in the film community, he read a book by Herbert Asbury, written in 1929, titled Gangs of New York.  He was encapsulated with the milieu of old New York, the 1840’s to 1860’s New York, the gangs that filled the streets, the immigrants that continuously came off the boats, and the corruption that ensued.  For the next 20 some years, this became his pet project, and he never could get the financing or studio backing to actually make it until now.

Who’s better to make an epic film about the history of the streets of New York City, of the Five Points where the gangs of the streets merged to fight battles, than the director who brought us such New York City classics as Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, and Raging Bull, and the influential mobster hit Goodfellas?  Scorsese's films have influenced a generation of filmmakers: from Spike Lee, for instance the lighting in Clockers resembles Casino, to Paul Thomas Anderson, whose Boogie Nights not only borrowed from the structure of Goodfellas, but paid tribute to the final scene from Raging Bull. 

Earlier I asked if Martin Scorsese’s long time project, his epic, the most expensive film he’s ever made, could save us from a drab year in films.  His opus to New York City, Gangs of New York, can be added on the list of the most disappointing films of not only this year, but of a career of a master filmmaker. 

While the sets and costumes are quite magnificent and detailed—it appears this is where most of the budget went—the story and characters are not fully developed. The opening scene is visually stunning and leads into a battle scene between Priest Vallon’s gang of Dead Rabbits and Bill the Butcher’s gang of Natives.  The battle is a gore fest, and some of the camera movements take us back to Scorsese’s Roger Corman days ala Boxcar Bertha (and this is not a compliment).  The young Amsterdam Vallon, the Priest’s son, witnesses his father’s death during this battle, and the revenge plot that tries to lead the rest of the story begins.

The main problem is, Amsterdam is supposed to be the hero, the one we identify with, the one we want to overcome the evil Bill the Butcher, but he’s not well developed.  There was a scene in the trailer where Amsterdam held the knife that killed his father and his voiceover said something to the affect of, “With this knife, I shall avenge my father’s death.” This was left out of the film, and the scene where Amsterdam digs up the knife is too quickly ended by a couple a scoundrels that challenge him.  This example is too often the case—just as we are about to delve into the characters, we cut away.  To add to that, Leonard DiCaprio’s performance as Amsterdam is kind of deadpan, there’s not much emotion in him.

Though the most developed and one of the most evil and demented characters to hit the screen since Robert De Niro’s Max Cady is William “Bill the Butcher” Cutting.  His nickname, as well as his surname, is quite fitting, as Bill appears to enjoy cutting people up like a slab of meat.  We can understand and almost side with Bill's feeling of how the immigrants are invading his hometown because we see how many come off the boats everyday.  Bill becomes a surrogate father to Amsterdam, much like he is to the city.  Daniel Day-Lewis plays Bill with a maniacalness and immerses himself into the character reminiscent of a young De Niro Scorsese once directed. 

Upon his return, when Amsterdam first meets the Butcher, Bill exclaims, “I am New York.”  That’s a great line, and many more are filtered through, but the problem is, we don’t get to see the inner workings of how Bill ran New York City, as opposed to in Goodfellas where Paulie’s operation is laid out by Henry's narration.  We get a bit of the politics and the corruption of Boss Tweed, who at one point says, “The appearance of law must be upheld, especially when it's being broken,” but the only reason that’s really given as to why Bill rules is the people’s fear—we don’t really get to see how he runs things.

Gangs of New York is more of a western, ironically set in the east, than a gangster flick.  Epic in its scope and historical showmanship, it takes after another ambitious project, the 1962 How the West was Won, which ultimately failed as well.  How the West follows a pioneer family through western expansion, telling a history lesson more than engaging in character development.  The end of Gangs just jumps around too much.  Amsterdam recovers from a beating, desires to revive the Dead Rabbits gang, and suddenly has a gang of hundreds of immigrants to challenge Bill.  Lawrence of Arabia is the best example of a historical epic that works—although it takes jumps in time, Lawrence’s character is built up enough by this time to take those leaps.

Scorsese seemed to also lose trust in his audience.  After Amsterdam returns and begins meeting the members of the dissembled Dead Rabbits gang—like Happy Jack (Reilly)—we flashback to the opening scene to make sure we remember who these people are.  Did Scorsese really think we were going to forget that Monk (Gleeson), the hired mercenary, kicked open the door that led to the opening battle sequence?  These flashbacks were not necessary and it makes you wonder how much of this film the studio’s input influenced.

Gangs is Scorsese’s highest budgeted film ever, reportedly coming in at over $100 million, and maybe this was too much for Scorsese.  He’s at the top of his peak with smaller indie films.  Here he spent too much time on sets and costumes and the look of the film, rather than the story and character development he’s so well known for.  In addition to collaborator on the story Jay Cocks, Scorsese brought in two well-established screenwriters who couldn’t come up with a decent storyline.  Steven Zallian did a masterful job adapting Schindler’s List, and Kenneth Lonergan is a noted playwright who you would think could develop ample character.

History impedes the final battle scene, as the draft riots demolish the city—a metaphor for the whole film.  History gets in the way of what could have been Scorsese’s best film, or at least a decent epic. Gangs of New York is not a total failure, as it is worth seeing for Daniel Day-Lewis’s performance, and can teach you some about a little discussed part of American History, where once again the US government stepped on individual rights by drafting immigrants to fight on the side of the Union in the Civil War.  We could get into how illegal, immoral, and against our country’s ideals the draft is, but that would be another discussion all the same. 
 

Gangs of New York has already been  nominated for 5 Golden Globes.  The real question is, will Scorsese take home the Oscar?  If Scorsese wins, I won’t be too upset, as the Academy Awards will be awarding a long career by a tour de force of American cinema, rather than the film in question itself.  Oscar is known for awarding not the film at hand, but previous endeavors, ala Russell Crowe for Gladiator rather than for The Insider, and most notably Denzel Washington for Training Day rather than The Hurricane or Malcolm X.

Alternative Recommendations:  Taxing Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Mean Streets, The King of Comedy, In the Name of the Father, The Last of the Mohicans (Day-Lewis version), Lawrence of Arabia

Check out these previous Fidelio Film Reviews:

Bringing Out the Dead
The Beach
The Insider
Magnolia