*** Official "GANGS OF NEW YORK" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Paul Case]

Adam,
Wow. That was a truly excellent post. You eloquently said everything I would have said and then some! Thanks for your insight. It is most welcome!
PS: Dome, I enjoyed your post as well. I think you definitely have some valid points. I have to admit that Scorsese's use of modern music for the scene was jarring to me at first as well, but once I thought about it a little I really found myself admiring Scorsese's unexpected and unconventional scoring.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

FWIW, a member over at FilmScoreMonthly has posted saying that Bernstein said it was Weinstein who took away his original film score against the wishes of Scorsese in his appearance in the Westwood Borders on Monday.

 

[Eve T]

I thought the film might have been worth taking a look at, but as soon as I saw his mug in the trailer, it was off my list. His pretty boy looks ruin every film that he appears in.

I strongly disagree.
Ever see Whats eating Gilbert Grape? Leo CAN act, pretty boy or no.
I've never been a great fan of his, but I don't think his looks have anything to do with ruining a movie. Actually, he wasn't all that pretty in this movie. He had messed up dirty dingy teeth and wasn't as svelt as he has been in other movies he's been a part of.
I enjoyed this film and thought the closing scene was excellent.

 

[David Rogers]

I'm going to do what everyone else seems to do in threads where I like the movie and they don't, but I'm going to be nicer about it than they typically are in my threads. I'll even provide some reasons, which also rarely happens.

Didn't like the movie. In fact, I disliked it so much I'm going to be forced to hold it against MS whenever he does another. He's supposed to be a talented director, but I don't see it in Gangs.

The only things I liked were the acting and the costumes/sets, as they were phenomenal. Lewis and DiCaprio both did excellent jobs with their roles, stepping in and breathing life. Diaz was wasted, I felt; the role wasn't fleshed. Great array of supporting actors as well, led by Reilly and also Gleeson as well. The sets were amazing, both in and outdoors, and the costuming was likewise extremely gratifying.

Everything else, however, failed miserably. Story; had no idea where it was going. Why was it important to bring the Civil War and race riot stuff in? It did nothing but make it extremely confusing. I recognise, I think, it was intended to set a larger stage the conflict within the Five Points happens against, but very unnecessary and extremely counterproductive.

The point, as far as I'm concerned, was already made extremely clearly. The average citizens of Five Points weren't organising for the gang fight against The Butcher, that was the average street citizen (those in the know, the movers and shakers, not Joe Average). The CW and RR stuff makes sense for Joe Average's reasons for doing something as drastic as agreeing to fight with medieval weapons over control of part of New York. But I already understood why the new Dead Rabbits (and allies) were squaring off against Bill. Mostly it was about control, though Bill wrapped it up in patrotism repeatedly to try and pretty it up. Revenge, rage, ownership, maturity, coming of age, line in the sand, lots of excellent stuff wrapped into that fight.

The other stuff detracted and diffused the impact, and made it a mess. I like long movies, but Gangs was far too long. If it'd been cut for 2:15-2:30 I think it would work much better. The last 1/3rd of the film can mostly go save Gleeson's arc and all the DiCaprio v Lewis related elements. All the rioting and Civil War throughout was a negative and didn't aid the apparent story (that of Lewis and DiCaprio's characters).

The next time I hear about the Weinsteins at Miramax fighting with some director over a film, I'm going to lean towards their side I think. All year I've been reading about the apparently now legendary conflict waged between Harvey and Martin. And all year I kept thinking to myself "yeah, but it's Scorsese, who is a very talented director, so he must be right".

I don't think he was right anymore, and am planning to reread some of the accounts pre-release to see if they make more sense now.

The worst part of Gangs is the impact it'll have on the movie business. Period and genre films are always expensive compared to "normal" dramas and such because the setting is expensive when you have to costume and set dress everything for SF or 1890s or whatever. Most films get greenlit as simple dramas, not the other, more costly, types.

Gangs will be used as a reason to not make period dramas; a Oscar winning director failed fically at it, so how good of an investment is it, really, to try again? I don't entirely agree with the argument, but I have a feeling it will be a talking point for why not to do period projects, when movie bucks people start kicking around the go/no-go decision point on a new period project.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Just saw this last weekend and I think that the first and last half-hour are pure magic. I do think that the narrative gets a bit bogged down during the middle of the film, but maybe that is just me. I also think the ending is a bit of pandering and would have been strengthened had neither the Cameron Diaz character nor the DiCaprio character surrived.

This tended to over-romanticize the plot—it would have been very easy to accept the love story, had we not had an indication that they lived happily ever after. Up to that point I considered the love story as a part of their overall doomed lives. Still, this is a bit of nitpicking in an overall very fine film.

In Ebert’s review he makes the point that had this film been made by someone other than Scorsese, it would be the high point of their career. A point of view with which I agree.

 

[Paul Case]

Gangs will be used as a reason to not make period dramas; a Oscar winning director failed fically at it, so how good of an investment is it, really, to try again?

Except that Scorsese didn't fail fiscally with Gangs of New York. In fact, Miramax has already made its money back on it and will definitely be seeing a profit. The film is also about to become Scorsese's highest grossing film ever. So, while you may not have liked the movie, it is not a failure.

 

[Andy Sheets]

This tended to over-romanticize the plot—it would have been very easy to accept the love story, had we not had an indication that they lived happily ever after. Up to that point I considered the love story as a part of their overall doomed lives.

The impression the film gave me wasn't that they were doomed, though. It's a "nation is born" kind of story and that generally means the protagonists go off and make a start of things at the end rather than getting killed off, which thematically might indicate some kind of failure on a larger scale, as if the Irish actually hadn't gotten their feet wedged in the door in the US and had instead gotten their asses kicked back to Ireland or wherever. IMO the ending makes sense for what I was seeing in the story.

 

[Adam_S]

http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/fa/20030127.fa.01.ram
A really awesome discussion with Scorsese on the film, DAMN I can't wait for the commentary on the dvd now!
there's lots of interesting bits, including the intense amount of work that went into DDL's accent (as authentic as they could get it to that period with the info we have). Also the plan from the first script draft was to end the film on the NY skyline being built.
Favorite parts were:
about how the battles were edited together in storyboard form from the get go--and scorsese was especially influenced by Orson Welles (the movie title slips my mind right now, but he called it the best battle sequence ever), and the 1920's soviet directors in editing the sequences.
DVD and directors cut. This is his cut, he recut the film for 18 different screenings etc. there will be some cool sounding stuff on the dvd, but not an alternate cut. Personally I agree here, I could perhaps do without Vallon's narration, although it was very helpful at dispensing some period information, and the flashbacks to the people involved in the original fight that survived, but those are my only tiny, tiny quibbles with the film.
Enjoy, it's a great listen, made me want to go see the film again! If anything this interview alone should debunk any sort of suggestion that Scorsese failed in his direction of the film, or at least failed to live up to his previous films, as much genius went into GONY as into all of his other pictures, but its delivered in a way that our 'highly educated' film critics don't expect or want, unless of course it comes from an indy producer, in which experimentation is over lavishly lauded. But lord help the respected filmmaker today from trying to crawl out of the nice box critics have carefully packed them away in--so they can be safely and clinically examined and maybe ignored. That artists like Spielberg, Scorsese make films that don't fit in the genre or structure "Spielberg" or "Scorsese" currently is apparently one of the greatest possible crimes to commit against cinema, to judge by the reaction their recent masterpieces have recieved. It's so frustrating to hear "good, but DEEPLY FLAWED" over and over, but no one seems to consider that the flaw might be in the person saying that--a person unwilling to alter their conception of acceptable cinema from circa 1976.

sorry bout the rant it just slipped in there.
Adam

 

[Justin Doring]

It should be noted that the "score" for Gangs of New York was most certainly NOT Scorsese's choice. This fact greatly impacts Bill and Adam's argument regarding anachronisms.
One could indeed argue that Gangs of New York is not truly a Scorsese film. The fact that the film is a mess as it stands lends weight to this argument. But contained within this mess, along with material lying on the cutting room and scoring stage floor, is a great film. Let us thank Harvey for robbing us of art that we shall never see. Can you say “The Return of The Magnificent Ambersons?"

 

[Paul Case]

Justin:

One could indeed argue that Gangs of New York is not truly a Scorsese film. The fact that the film is a mess as it stands lends weight to this argument.

One could argue that it's not truly a Scorsese film, but not credibly. Also, the real fact is that your opinion that "the film is a mess" is just that: an opinion. What some think is a mess, many others think is an excellent film.
Adam:
Excellent post! Thanks for the NPR link! I am eagerly awaiting the dvd commentary as well.

 

[MikeRS]

Adam_S, You've nailed my feelings on the matter.
I definitely can't wait to get this puppy on DVD.

 

[Adam_S]

http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/fa/20030127.fa.01.ram

It should be noted that the "score" for Gangs of New York was most certainly NOT Scorsese's choice.

I believe in the above audio interview Scorsese talks extensively about the opening battle. One it was heavily influenced by the russian masters of the 1920s and the Krulshov editing effect, and two he initially wanted to score the opening sequence to the crash in the 1970s but prefers the version with Peter Gabriel's music.
I don't think Wienstein forced Scorsese to cut the film into a mess, I think Scorsese wanted to make a film that was accessible to everyone, a film that doesn't require a cineaste mentality to enjoy (but such knowledge/mentality should enhance the pleasure of the film for the openminded). Scorsese talks quite a lot about the editing process he went through in the interview I previously mentioned--if you listen to it, you'll hear him get quite passionate about this. I think its pretty clear that this is his directors cut and the material he took out, he did so because he felt it didn't work. He also sounded very annoyed almost angry at the suggestion that this work is not representative of his artistic vision. although you bring up the Magnificent Ambersons as an example equivalent to this, Scorsese points out, that the film in theaters is his directors cut, (the first cut he made is not his preferred cut), and there is a vast, vast difference between Peckinpah's Wild Bunch or Erich Von Stroheim's Greed than the studio versions that were cut from their visions and released to the public. Like it or not, this is Scorsese's vision, but it may not be your conception of what his vision is supposed to or allowed to be.
I also don't automatically assume that Dicaprio and Diaz turned in poor performances because they're 'diCaprio' and 'Diaz', in fact I think both performers gave the best work of their careers and some of the best acting I've seen this year.

 

[Justin Doring]

Paul: Okay, how about it's an excellent mess? Gangs of New York as it stands is a very good film, but it could be made so much better by implementing various changes (namely editing and score).
Adam: Scorsese has been through a terrible couple of years with the pre-production, filming, and post-production of Gangs of New York. The first blow was when his friend and writer is fired by Weinstein who then interferes himself and through writers he forces upon Scorsese. The second blow comes when Weinstein makes life for Scorsese miserable on the set "offering" his opinions (read: changing Scorsese's film even further). The third blow comes when Weinstein fires Scorsese's friend and composer and insists on a more contemporary (read: marketable) score. The fourth blow comes when Weinstein takes final cut away from Scorsese and chops it up and adds material to make it more accesible to a wider (read: dumber) audience. Throughout this process Scorsese is faced with two options: either he shuts up about how Weinstein has destroyed his film and make it seem as if Weinstein is a great guy and that Scorsese is responsible for the changes, or Weinstein takes Gangs of New York away from him completely. Julia Taymor suffered a similar fate on Frida, I believe.

 

[Adam_S]

The third blow comes when Weinstein fires Scorsese's friend and composer and insists on a more contemporary (read: marketable) score. The fourth blow comes when Weinstein takes final cut away from Scorsese and chops it up and adds material to make it more accesible to a wider (read: dumber) audience.

do you have any proof to substantiate any of this or are you relying on the internet equivelent of supermarket tabloids (AICN, CHUD, Dark Horizons, etc)?
and I also resent that by making the film accessible is somehow a bad thing, I did NOT know much of the information dispensed by narration in the film, and that narration helped me understand the period better and place things in context. I suppose this makes me a dumber audience than you consider worthy to view a film with; Scorsese is not the sort of arrogant artiste who makes films for the twenty people in the world capable of understanding a 'story' only after viewing it fifty times, reading thirty books and hundreds of hours of interviews so that they can appreciate how truly great and artistic the film is. The stories he tells are often not pleasant, true, but that doesn't mean that people that don't take to his films are inherently DUMBER because they might perfer a more pleasant film like Sweet Home Alabama. Scorsese is incredible true, but that doesn't mean he is the sole possession of an elitist crowd, or that by making his films as accessible to the widest possible audience means that those films are lesser because more people can understand them.
I suppose you would thoroughly agree with the following article, one of the most pretentious and ridiculous views I've ever heard, written by someone whose sole criterion of whether something is of value or not is whether or not the unwashed masses like it, if they do then its crap.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...ne_temp/2/2/3/
Sorry I got a little worked up there, not all of that is directed at you, Elitism happens to be one of my pet peeves, and tends to set me off.
Adam

 

[Agee Bassett]

If I may respond to a parenthetical remark made in this thread, I would have to say I disagree with the above sentiment. To my sensibilities, Braveheart is a serious offender at glorifying violence. The wholesale bloodletting in this film is offensively made to seem cool, exciting, beautiful, stirring, even orgasmic.

 

[Adam_S]

I can understand and even agree (to a point) with it. I hestitated before using Braveheart as an example, but it's a personal favorite film of mine and I knew it better than other examples to possibly use (I considered Bonnie and Clyde, but am really not familiar enough with it to make a strong argument, though that it glorifies crime to an extent is a plausible argument for the film). However what balances Braveheart for me, is the scenes of the aftermaths of the battle, where the survivors stagger through fields of bodies, or are given crude medical attention and so on. Braveheart was perhaps not the best example to use, but I find it to be a very powerful and well made film, and I think that part of that opinion of mine is because I think the way the violence is presented works for the picture, but doesn't offend my personal tastes or become excessive or lose meaning for me.

Adam

 

[Lew Crippen]

To my sensibilities, Braveheart is a serious offender at glorifying violence.

And to mine.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Oh yeah, to Paul Case and Adam_S for earlier. Great post. I'd forgotten all about this thread. :b

 

[Justin Doring]

"do you have any proof to substantiate any of this or are you relying on the internet equivelent of supermarket tabloids (AICN, CHUD, Dark Horizons, etc)?"

Well I have the word of the composer.

With the rest of your post you're putting words in my mouth. I don't appreciate your angry and defensive attitude, as I'm not attacking you.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Hey, I'm with Justin on the idea that GONY is a thematic mess. We have 4-5 major themes that are introduced, but they are not well tied together, they are not introduced in a well-patterned order or with a solid underlying motif. Instead the film jumps into or out of them suddenly and abandons whatever theme it was currently working on rather abruptly.

I think the final theme that MS wanted to go for was the gangs and their small place in the forming of NY, which is what we end on of course. Great. Problem is the first hour of the film is centered almost exclusively on the idea of Leo getting revenge on Lewis and subsequently finding himself brought under his wing instead.

Even in that thread there is a herky-jerky shift back into the assassination attempt after the film had spent so much solid time developing the idea that Leo is being drawn in to respect Lewis. Suddenly it's back to business as if all that other emotion can be so easily discarded.

Also, the film spends too much time moving toward that point if it intends to have that really only stand as a midpoint. It's fine for the 2nd half to be about how Leo becomes a political gang rival to Lewis, but not when you spend so long getting there that the climatic moment feels like it's just 20 minutes from the end of the film.

We do have reflections on how this world is placed within the greater Civil War, but until the last 25 minutes this is generally very spartan in it's placement. Again we have a sudden shift so that this now becomes the very center of the film leaving the audience to wonder "where in the hell did this come from?"

The same thing can be said for the class/political struggle and strategy. Why have such a long scene with the uptown power brokers as a seperate entity after you made them a very small supporting cast for 2 hours? Now they are suddenly critical?

I suggest that in his mind MS wanted all these themes to have equal weight, or perhaps have these other political ideas to have more weight than the revenge/friendship plotline. But someone, either MS or Harvey, kept that from happening. And yet the film still ends on that theme, the theme that was played as the weakest one throughout the film. Heck, had Diaz come running back in to shoot Lewis herself it would have tied into a stronger established theme than what it ended on.

This is not to say that I dislike the political angle. I think it would have been a much better main focus with the revenge aspect being played as the subplot instead (as well as the romance which was a subplot until midway when it got 20 minutes of primetime focus only to be dropped again).

But GONY is most certainly a film with more ambition than focus and there are countless examples in the narrative to back up such a claim. This isn't mindless bashing or something.

Besides, I still liked the film and thought Lewis gave one of the greatest performances EVER, ever, in cinema. I also think Leo is a great actor, including rather than excepting Titanic. And while The Beach may be a flawed film, it sure as hell had nothing to do with Leo's performance. Boyle just went for some artistic risk that doesn't play so good, but Leo's acting was fine within the film.



One other comment on a specific scene - the end battle. I'm quite surprised to hear anyone complain about that when I thought the use of smoke and the movement of the camera made for a beautiful sequence of shots and represents one of the high points in the film to me. In fact the style of shooting in that scene reminded me somewhat of the Raging Bull visual style. I found it thrilling and dramatic.