Jelly-Town!
CAPRICIOUS COMMENTARIES, CAREFULLY COOKED-UP TO CONFUSE AND CONFOUND YOU!
Top Fifty Films of the 00s -- Number Thirty-Eight 
24th-Aug-2009 09:11 pm
gromit


#38 -- Gangs of New York (Martin Scorsese, 2002)
There is a contingent of film observers that met Gangs of New York with the perspective that Martin Scorsese's professional narrative had eclipsed that of his films. Gangs wasn't about the bands of warring parties in New York City's Five Points district around the time of the American Civil War, it was about Miramax head Harvey Weinstein's rumored meddling with Scorsese's cut, the exec's fabled proclivity for aggressive editing room pruning supposedly brought to bear on arguably the finest director to work within his stable. It wasn't a vast, complex story about villainy and revenge, it was Scorsese's calculated attempt to secure the Academy Award that previously eluded him, the film representing a pandering embrace of the sort of epic moviemaking that had long held sway over Oscar voters' hearts. As the inside stories of the movie business were increasingly traded across multiple media platforms and weekly box office tallies were reported with the urgency of football scores and election results, the work of a consummate filmmaker began to get lost. The attention was riveted on the backstory to the expense of the story itself.

All that chatter ignores that Gangs of New York, on its own terms, is fantastic: bold and audaciousness and fearless and resonant and memorable. In short, it's all the things we always hope films will be when the lights go dim. It is a film brimming with wild activity, ideas and wonderment around every turn of the reel. Scorsese throws everything he can into it. There's political intrigue and twisty religious commentary; raw violence and vibrant music; sweaty sexuality and precarious friendship; a vast city at its overgrown birth and experiencing one of many potential deaths; knife throwing and garishly decorative glass eyes. Just when you think he's included everything except marauding elephants, here come the marauding elephants. It is the sight and sound and feel of a gifted filmmaker with an imagination that moves so fast that words come out of him at twice the speed of normal men getting the chance to let that imagination bend and burst and manifest itself fully on a wide, wondrous screen.

His grand ambition is met by the actor he cast as the snarling, vicious, powerful city crime lord Bill "The Butcher" Cutting. Scorsese had worked with Daniel Day-Lewis once before, in the period drama The Age of Innocence. There, Day-Lewis was a model of restraint, quietly clawing into the refined, internalized agony of his lovelorn character, passion thwarted by a society that had a rigid place settled for him. Here, he's quite the opposite, acting with a spectacularly unhinged emotiveness. Every gesture and expression has a sweep and sway to it, every line is delivered in such a way that it brings out its juiciness. It's a performance that hard to defend to anyone who would describe it as overacting, except to note that its broadness and uncalibrated bravado works so perfectly, adding to the danger of this dangerous man. Like many of Day-Lewis's finest moments, it provides a riveting new definition of actorly inventiveness.

Any suspicions about the period setting and the saga-friendly scope soothing Scorsese's dark daring are resoundingly refuted by the film itself. The violence is as brutal as any he's ever committed to film, fully appropriate since he's depicting a time when the streets were at their meanest. There are no rules that can't be fully shredded at the barbaric imperative of men who've decided they can claim their power and position through any means at their disposal. Backroom deals can easily be vetoed by street-level brawls, and the spoils are fully available to anyone with the unrestrained willingness to take them. It is fully in line with the career-long thesis that Scorsese has constructed, about the uncivilized nature of humanity when the basest instincts are allowed to surface unchecked. For all the superiority of American nationalism, it is no different here. Indeed, what else could be expect from a nation forged from rebellion? Scorsese allows for a unvarnished version of the American story, the ugliness and anger intermingled with pride and patriotism.

Through it all, his filmmaking is unimpeachable. The frame is filled to bursting, every cent of his uncommonly large budget visible on the screen. The sets and costumes are beautifully rendered, but also worn enough to reflect the battering of a large, hard-living population. Scorsese's camera savors it, pulling back to capture it all, and occasionally taking it in through extended tracking shots that put the mad bustle and sprawling disarray in proper perspective. It is headlong and yet controlled, a splendidly expansive vision miraculously honed into something that fits on little frames of thin film. It is the work of a master who has spent his entire career somehow making films that properly realize his outsized ambition. That's the backstory that has some bearing on the final product bearing the title Gangs of New York.

(Posted simultaneously to "Drilling Holes in the Wall.")
Comments 
25th-Aug-2009 02:28 am (UTC)
if it weren't for all the naked boobies this movie would be shown in every history teacher's classroom.
25th-Aug-2009 01:49 pm (UTC)
Even with all the violence? I guess we're more okay with that culturally than we are with female areolae.
25th-Aug-2009 08:58 pm (UTC)
sadly i can overlook the violence because it was a violent time. the costumes and scenery are spot on. to me that is what makes it so wonderful besides a "truthful" historic story.
25th-Aug-2009 01:34 pm (UTC)
Lurker
Aw man. Way to go, writing all good and shit. Now I gotta watch this movie again.

My memories of this aren't this good. I just remember hearing Bono in the opening sequence and feeling really embarrassed for Scorsese. I loved certain aspects of the movie but I felt much of it was a big bloated mess. I think maybe I should revisit it. I'm not always right.

25th-Aug-2009 01:35 pm (UTC)
That was me.
25th-Aug-2009 02:16 pm (UTC)
Maybe, but bear in mind that the messiness of it is part of what appeals to me. And I'll concede that I'm being somewhat self-contradictory in admitting that since there are plenty of times that I'll dismiss a movie because of that very quality. I think the difference is that, right or wrong, the messiness, the sprawl, the bloat feels like as integral a part of Scorsese's vision as anything.

And, admittedly, I'll take Scorsesian mess over most directors' tightly controlled visions any day.
25th-Aug-2009 02:41 pm (UTC)
With you there on Scorsese's mess are better than most movies.

The experience was a clear case of me, the viewer, having an expectation of what I thought it would be and then being disappointed at how much it wasn't. You have to admit this is his most bombastic crazy effort. It's really unlike any of his other movies. Not that that's a bad thing, I just wasn't ready for that.

I was hoping for "more realism" as opposed to the cartoony, also WWE acting approach that many of the characters had. Again, I need to see it one more time.
28th-Aug-2009 04:00 pm (UTC)
Will drop off our copy for you, when i bring back "Children of Men" of yours that i just discovered in our (old?) house.
28th-Aug-2009 04:05 pm (UTC)
Cool.
This page was loaded Dec 7th 2009, 2:06 pm GMT.