I can’t help but feel that this film was inspired in part by Hamlet. It’s as if they used the tragedy as a template and then freed themselves to create an epic New York story. Dead father and revengeful child haunted by ghosts of inaction. In fact, this thought first struck me just after Caprio saves the Butcher’s life…not sure why…maybe it was reminiscent of the “Now I’ll do it…thus am I revenged” soliloquay (sp?)…but just as I am attempting to draw parallels to Hamlet, the character of Monk (the eventual Sheriff) says to Leo, “That was postively Shakespearean”. I think an argument (albeit a weak one) can be made for Diaz’s character being loosely based on dear ol’ Mumsy as well…
I had heard that this was an overly violent film, but I really didn’t find it so. Most of the violence is imagined.
And this guy DD Lewis…he continues to amaze me…gritty as grit…dirty as dirt…with an eye as glassy as glass…how on earth did they do that tapping the knife point on his eye scene anyway…so cool…
Now I did have two problems with this film…one minor, the other major…
The minor problem was this quick little scene where Leo tosses the bible into the Hudson (East?)…and then goes on to pray for strength…why the contradiction…was sectarian thought okay as long as it was his very own?
Then I had a big problem with the length of the movie…it was one scene too short…I totally got the allegory that the times had changed and what mattered before did not seem half as important as the new world order. I saw this as the two rivals lay battered by the militaristic onslaught barely able to believe what had happened. But Coppola goes on to make sure that we all get it by montaging the changing NYC skyline ending up with a shot of the twin towers. My question is this…if he is going to make this statement, why didn’t he go all the way and continue the montage to show the skyline as it is today?
This is the best movie I have seen since American Beauty and that was the best movie I had seen since Silence of the Lambs…and like I did with those films, I hereby predict a sweep of 4 of the big 5 Oscars. Sorry Cameron, maybe a nod, but no gold for you.
I liked it too. The story really drew me in, but I lived in NY 7 yrs so may have more interest than others in NY history. Seemed a bit long, and the fight scenes are overdone/too bloody, but I would recommend it without hesitation.
I must agree that it was a great movie and Toe Save, I love American Beauty as well, esp. Kevin Spacey.
I think he was praying to his father for strength. And as the party where he threw away the bible, maybe because he didn’t have a good memories while he is growing up so throwing away the bible means to throw away the memories??
[quote=“Toe Save”]
This is the best movie I have seen since American Beauty and that was the best movie I had seen since Silence of the Lambs…and like I did with those films, I hereby predict a sweep of 4 of the big 5 Oscars. Sorry Cameron, maybe a nod, but no gold for you.[/quote]
First, there’s no movie that can compare to the brilliance of Silence of the Lambs except for Fargo. Second, this film was nominated at last year’s Oscars and lost out to Chicago.
And Daniel Day Lewis lost to Adrien Brody.
[quote=“Alien”]
First, there’s no movie that can compare to the brilliance of Silence of the Lambs except for Fargo. Second, this film was nominated at last year’s Oscars and lost out to Chicago.
And Daniel Day Lewis lost to Adrien Brody.[/quote]
Fargo was great and I am stoopid…So much for my predictions…but to be fair, I completely clued out to last year’s awards…
[quote=“Toe Save”]
Then I had a big problem with the length of the movie…it was one scene too short…I totally got the allegory that the times had changed and what mattered before did not seem half as important as the new world order. I saw this as the two rivals lay battered by the militaristic onslaught barely able to believe what had happened. But Coppola goes on to make sure that we all get it by montaging the changing NYC skyline ending up with a shot of the twin towers. My question is this…if he is going to make this statement, why didn’t he go all the way and continue the montage to show the skyline as it is today?[/quote]
Scorsese directed it.
The scorsese version that he gave to the producers was originally something like 40 minutes longer. The producers thought it was too long and cut it. Scorsese wasn’t happy. I don’t think he has had that done to him before. Hopefully there will be a directors cut sometime soon.
What pissed me off, was that Taiwan had to wait some 8 months or so to see the film. As scorsese is a fave of mine I had to download it from kazaa, I couldn’t wait.
I thought the movie was so-so. The most interesting parts were the wonderful sets that recreated 19th century New York and Daniel Day Lewis’s performance.
Unfortunately, Scorsese seems to have become so obsessed with the history of the period that he lost track of the narrative. He crams in so much detail instead of only using what he needed in service to the story. The result is like a beautiful girl with no brains – a delight to look at, but hell to talk to.
I watched this in the States in July in DVD. There was another disc of additional material (we get screwed in Taiwan with extra stuff on DVD) and there was a half-hour Discovery Channel documentary of the real gangs of New York (we get screwed in Taiwan with old Discovery Channel stuff).
I felt that I would have enjoyed the movie a lot more if I had seen the documentary first. If you don’t have a very keen sense of the historical aspect, some of the details just go zipping past you.
DDL was fucking incredible, though, as usual.
Saw it last night. I guess I may differ with others because I wanted more details about the gangs. The documentary that Wolf mentioned probably got into this more.
What great names: The Plug Uglies, the Bowery Boys, the Slaughterhousers, the Dead Rabbits, and so on. I wanted to know more about how these gangs were formed, why they wore the clothes (uniforms ?) they did, what areas they controlled, and so on.
True, there was a brief bit where “Amsterdam” explains the Five Points and the different gangs operating there. And there was the gang summit where the leaders of each gang answer to a roll call.
Perhaps there is a book (must be) or two about this interesting time in New York’ history.
Anyone ever see the 1970s movie The Warriors–about a gang having to “bop” its way back to Coney Island after a gang summit in the Bronx (?) goes awry?
Finally, after seeing Gangs, I returned home to watch an episode of Sex and the City. All I could think was how that show seems to want to show how tough life is in the big bad city of New York. I wished Carrie Bradshaw and her gang would be transported to the Five Points to see how tough New York city really could be.
I’m not being negative purely for amusement’s sake, and to get a rise out of all of you that enjoyed this movie. But… I HATED IT. I thought it was horribly long, horribly boring. I nearly fell asleep during the second hour. Yes, it is amazing that he could pull off such a difficult movie, but I really didn’t FEEL anything when it was done (except bored and exhausted).
Silence of the Lambs was very good, and of course Fargo and American Beauty were AWESOME. But Gangs of New York??? Not even in the same league. Give me something I’ve never seen before, please?
Fee, in fact the movie was based on the book (nonfiction compilation) i think the same title.
I actually saw it in ESlite. fascinating stuff. and the movie based a lot of it on the book. there really was such names and some of the characters even. the book covers a much greater span of time (and hence many more stories). there’s stories even about the chinese gangs.
Thanks, Kenny. I would like to read that nonfiction book. I’ll look for it at Eslite or on Amazon. This is another case where the book may be better than the movie made from it.
Thanks, again.
In the movie, I noticed that there were few Italian gangs (maybe I missed it). When did the Italian immigrants start coming to America and when did the Italian gangs (la cosa nostra, the mafia) start to be seen in New York City?
[quote=“fee”]Thanks, Kenny. I would like to read that nonfiction book. I’ll look for it at Eslite or on Amazon. This is another case where the book may be better than the movie made from it.
Thanks, again.
In the movie, I noticed that there were few Italian gangs (maybe I missed it). When did the Italian immigrants start coming to America and when did the Italian gangs (la cosa nostra, the mafia) start to be seen in New York City?[/quote]
i don’t reckon i know exactly, but i thought the italians came after the irish. the movie was around civil war time. i thought the italians came way after like closer to turn of the century (ie not for another few decades). dont’ quote me. wasn’t the godfather era ie. the rise of the first corleone around the 1900 or so?
Fee, the book is Gangs of New York by Herbert Asbury, a journalist working in the 1920s. The book has been pretty much debunked as sensationalist “penny dreadful” claptrap, but it is based on truth and is a fascinating read, although its a bit “stiff” in style, drawing as it does from newspaper and police reports at the time. If you can’t find it, I can toss you my copy. Its particularly amusing that Asbury writes at a time when New York gangsterism was totally washed up (as he saw it, at least )
I think it is interesting that this book was written in the 1920s. According to my loose understanding of New York City history, this is when the Italian gangs would have been consolidating power–at least in certain neighborhoods (and according to the Godfather movies and books. .)
It seems by that time (1920s to 1940s) (and I am making a broad generalization) many of the earlier Irish immigrants had been there for a few generations and had become members of the police force and the fire department (and to a certain degree this may still hold true today.)
I guess my question now is: Who controls New York today? Tony Soprano from his suburban home in New Jersey?
I think that the movie did a good job of showing how the politicans have control on one level, but down at the street level, others have the power. Of course, if the mayor can always call in federal troops to quell any uprisings, then perhaps ultimately the power is in the politicans’ hands.
Or is New York City still largely territorially controlled–neigborhood by neoghborhood and borough by borough?
And are there any other cities in the world like New York City, made up largely of different immigrant groups?
Anyway, fascinating stuff and probably too much to think about on a Friday morning (shouldn’t have had that second cup of coffee.)
Sandman, thank you very much for the offer. I will scrounge around for the book, but I may want to borrow it in the future if that is OK.
)
.)