| December always means hearing who the Oscar contenders are, invariably before you’re able to see the movie. Either the small release movie never reached town or it’s a limited release until well into the doldrums known as the January box office. So when walking down the aisle toward a seat for Gangs of New York, each step isn’t met by the crunching of popcorn but the processing of that elusive buzz. Scorcese’s latest has buzz in spades, for a variety of reasons. It’s been years in the making … there allegedly were editing compromises … the pedigree of those involved proved a volatile mix … |
| The Movie Diary entry for ... |
| Gangs of New York |
 |
| Then there’s the positive things, culled from the reviews glanced at but not poured over. With too many reviews giving a map to how we should feel, reading reviews sometimes proves hazardous to one’s enjoyment. But in these reviews, one thing is clear: Daniel Day Lewis crackles with bravura (truly a criticism word - no one has ever said this aloud). There’s always the opportunity to get burned out on this buzz, or to get the double reverse phenomenon from such things. I read great things about Ben Kingsley in Sexy Beast but never saw the movie because a friend of mine said it wasn’t worth it. Maybe I need a bigger backbone. But Daniel Day Lewis escapes unharmed and his acting just makes even the casual filmgoer say, “Man, that was GOOD.” Sure, Leo isn’t that disaffecting and he does a good job, but it’s sort of expected. Maybe that’s the beauty of it, because he shouldn’t stand out in his low-key, blended and seething character. But Bill the Butcher, now that’s something to sink your teeth into. Wonderfully written, he straddles an interesting line between interesting ideology and low-down conniving bastard. He’s, at the same time, honorable for respecting the priest and cutting his own eye out and despicable for backstabbing (literally) and creating a culture of fear. Instead of a caricature (like his outlandish wardrobe would suggest) he’s intensely real and makes this depiction of Civil War new York so revealing a portrait. Because we really haven’t seen all that much about society in the 1860s. Sure, we know Lincoln and Lee and we know the southern belles from Gone With the Wind. But what of the normal folks, not fighting a war but fighting to create an orderly society? It’s obvious Scorcese sees this as a great American oversight, especially given the closing collection of images detailing New York’s great rise from the ashes and blood of violence. With these stories, the image of current gangs take on such a different weight. Instead of social outreaches to the disaffected, the gangs of New York were means of territorial control and survival. Sure, those things play a part on the current streets, but what are they fighting for? Are the base needs of food, clothing and shelter missing from such poverty-stricken areas, so much that there needs to be organization outside the law to provide it? Somehow, the end to the means isn’t the same, and that’s lost in the new generation of gangs. Today, there are other ways, but for the people of the 1860s that weren’t aristocrats there were none. The violence is upsetting, but never gratuitous. That’s the whole point, was that it was violent every day and in almost every way. The image of two rival firefighting groups fighting in front of a fire while the looters pick over a house can be seen as a comedy and the encapsulation of an “It was so bad …” story. But among the haunting scenes (and Scorcese crafts so many that the story remains visually appealing throughout the movie), the image of candles atop the dead remains etched in my mind. For even though the beginning battles proves as momentous and stunning enough to appease the XXX fan, there’s a message he sends of the unrecognized struggle of a nation. Under the skyscrapers and New York aura, there still remains the bloodlines of history. |
| Originally published Jan. 4, 2003 on Word of Mouth |
| Other Movie Diary entries |