GANGS OF NEW YORK review

I’ve been tossing around my feelings on GANGS OF NEW YORK for quite some time. I wanted to see the film twice – because… well I felt my feelings after the first showing were a combination of vast disappointment and awe for what was working, and I wanted to see how my feelings would balance out given a second viewing.

Well, GANGS OF NEW YORK might very well be my least favorite Martin Scorsese film ever made.

I love the history, the period, the source material, the sets, the designs and everything having to do with Daniel Day Lewis’ Bill the Butcher’s generation in GANGS OF NEW YORK… However, everything having to do with the younger cast of characters and that new generation… I loathed.

It isn’t a hatred for Leonardo DiCaprio, because I’m actually quite a huge fan of his work. Contrary to popular opinion today, I feel DiCaprio is one of the best young actors working. Unlike many, I haven’t forgotten his work as Gilbert Grape… nor can I forget the amazing charm he exhibited in Baz’s ROMEO AND JULIET or TITANIC – which I still very much enjoy – even if the world seems to have developed a distaste for it post-mania. The only time I’ve genuinely hated Leo in a film was in that truly rancid pile of dung, THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK… whew… Bad Movie.

No, it has nothing to do with the performances of Leo, Cameron Diaz, Henry Thomas and those other youths… No, it actually has to do with the fact that I don’t care for their stories. I don’t feel those characters have the weight, the interest, the insight, the power of the older characters in the film. In fact, every single time we left those older actors to go watch Leo tail Cameron – or go brood in the church depths… I could just care less. The flaccid scenes of Leo’s revenge moments… like where he practices throwing the knife… Well, I just know that at that exact moment, somewhere else in the universe of this film, Daniel Day-Lewis is having a great scene… or John C Reilly’s Happy Jack – whom I would give two teeth to have seen be developed better. Hell, the most fascinating character in the film for me was Jim Broadbent’s Boss Tweed. Oh, and lest we forget Brendan Gleeson’s Monk – there was a great character.

Oh and the best character that we never got to see do much of anything… Liam Neeson’s Priest.

Ya know… I was far more interested in seeing the movie that would have ended with that opening battle than the movie that began with it.

That’s my problem with GANGS OF NEW YORK. The Irish Draft Riots from the Civil War – well – that subplot wasn’t given life, so again… I could just care less. However, just hearing Daniel Day Lewis talk about the Priest and him carving his own eye out and reforging his soul and who he was… THAT’S THE MOVIE I WANT TO SEE.

A film where the character opposite Daniel Day Lewis isn’t a whiney pup, but Liam Neeson’s Priest. Where we see the relationships of Brendan Gleeson, John C Reilly and Liam. Where Bill the Butcher is the man forging himself and sharpening himself to be the man he becomes. I wanted to see Daniel play that defeated Bill, I wanted to see him transform.

INSTEAD – we get a film where there is zero significant character development. All we have is the character that Bill the Butcher has become – and that’s pretty great, but imagine watching him become that character. Can you imagine the eye-carving moment where he decides that’s what he must do to prove his commitment to the Priest. Where he rallies the Natives to fend off the foreign hordes…

That’s the narrative in this film that captured my imagination. That’s the story that when I talk with other film fans, that’s the part of the film they all loved. I mean, did anyone care if Amsterdam lived or died? If Jenny and Amsterdam ever got together? Did anyone feel the betrayal that Henry Thomas’ Johnny Sirocco was allegedly feeling when Vallon hooks up with Jenny? I mean, putting some half-assed REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE storyline in the middle of this film was just a terrible mistake in my opinion. For one, the characters and the performances of these three – well, they just aren’t a pimple on the ass of Dean, Mineo and Wood.

For me, this was a great disappointment. A film that is a profound disappointment. We’ve heard rumors of a 4 hour cut of the movie… I don’t know if there’s an ounce that’ll make a difference if we’re ever allowed to see that, but frankly… This film seems to have been made with all the lack of passion with which Martin Scorsese accepted the Best Direction award at the Golden Globes. Compare his pedestrian run-of-the-mill thanks list to a real speech of passion like Gene Hackman’s.

I know that Scorsese is one of the most elegant and fervent lovers of cinema that has ever seen fit to contribute to the history of film, but last night… His heart wasn’t in it. And I think somewhere along the way with GANGS OF NEW YORK – he just gave up. It sometimes happens with grand works of passion that have been decade long dreams.

It happened to Spielberg on HOOK. HOOK has moments that soar, but ultimately the film nosedives. As does GANGS OF NEW YORK. It’s painful to say that. It isn’t something to relish or cherish or bask in. It’s a god damn travesty. Maybe I was expecting too much, perhaps Daniel Day Lewis, John C Reilly, Brendan Gleeson, Jim Broadbent and Liam Neeson just over-balanced the film to where I could care less about everything else but them. They’re just 5 of the absolute best Actors… PERIOD! And to come away from this feeling cheated by missing their roles… I mean… It’d be like making GOODFELLAS – but instead focusing on Frank Vincent, Tony Darrow and Gina Mastrogiacomo – instead of DeNiro, Liotta, Pesci, Sorvino and Bracco… Just a Terrible injustice.

See – I think one of the problems with GANGS OF NEW YORK was that Scorsese had two stories he wanted to tell – the Older generation and that Newer generation. By trying to strike a balance – I think what happened was he short changed both. He couldn’t cut away from Bill the Butcher to strengthen Vallon’s story and character… at the same time, he couldn’t significantly lower the youth side of the story. The result, for me, is a film that is at war with itself.

At one level that could have worked for the film. That America didn’t know what it wanted to be, the youth of those that came to this country with a dream, or those that had been born here with a dream that what was theirs was theirs. By having it be a split generational story though – you unbalance the character work. Naturally the older characters have better stories – more character, they’ve lived longer. Hell, Leo’s character – throughout this film, we know that all he’s doing is thinking… MUST KILL BILL… Hey… Miramax’s two big Auteur films in consecutive years have the theme… KILL BILL… Hmmm, must be latent aggression towards Clinton alienating the voter base to shift to Dubya… hehehe, just kidding. Anyway – the thing is, all there is to Vallon is that desire to Kill Bill. We never get a sense that he’s in love with Jenny. That he wants to settle down. That he even has a dream of living in the United States. His character is an empty vessel. He has nothing but the memory of his father dying – but no aspirations of his own. No dreams. What will he do when Bill breathes no more? What is it he wants in life? Does he want to be a priest like his father? Does he want a family? To live in New York? I mean, his following Jenny to San Francisco seems more akin to… Oh, let’s put in some sort of fork in the road for his character, but because there is no significant attachment built between Jenny and Amsterdam… well… again, who gives a shit?

See, this is why I would have preferred the Bill / Priest storyline. There you would have fully developed the theme of the dreams of what the Foreign Hordes and the Natives. There wouldn’t be this silly trivial bullshit about going to San Francisco. There were two sides that said… “We’re putting roots down here! Right Here!” and you could, over the course of a 3 hour film, develop that story and those characters. However, in 3 hours of film, we never fully grasp Bill’s character or Amsterdam. I know for me, Bill’s character is the most compelling aspect of the film, but I just don’t feel that even that was explored as fully as my desires to see it be developed left me.

A film of moments and pieces dreaming of being a whole. This will be one of the great cinematic disappointments for me. For those for whom it works, I envy you, I saw all the jigsaw shaped pieces of the puzzle – but in the end, it didn’t make a complete picture. It was missing pieces and had pieces from other puzzles. Both puzzles could make beautiful films in their own rights, but this is no SPARTACUS, which essentially… that’s the story. Leo’s character is no Kirk Douglas. Cameron Diaz is no Jean Simmons. Hell, even Daniel Day Lewis’ Bill doesn’t compare to Laurence Olivier’s Crassus.

In the end, this film came up broken but interesting. Emotional but lifeless. The film never soars, never takes off all the way and it certainly stumbles and trips quite a bit.