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

[Edwin-S]

As for CMIYC, Frank Abagnale, Jr. was basically a college kid out on a lark. High school kid, actually. He was an extremely intelligent teenager who decided to take advantage of the system and make some money for himself while living an adventurous lifestyle.
------------------------------------------------------------

I checked the review thread for CMIYC after I had posted my remarks and realized I had put my foot in my mouth. I was not too familiar with the case and made the assumption that the perp was an older man. In the case of CMIYC, the casting may have been better than I thought. However, concerning this:

"The casting was excellent for the movie, something just about every major critic agrees on."

I really don't care what critics think. I have read rave reviews about movies from "major critics", gone to see the film and been left thinking, "why the hell did I ever put any stock in critics opinions". Quite a few movies recommended by critics as "filmic masterpieces" turn out to be nothing but "filmic borefests". If I had listened to some of the "criticism" regarding "Gosford Park" that abounded on this board, I would never have rented the film and would have missed seeing a pretty good movie.

As to the idea that "beautiful people" should be limited to certain roles, I do not think that should be the case. However, if a "beautiful person" is cast, that person should at least look like they match the role. To me Leonardo DiCaprio did not look like he fit the role. That being said, my impression about him resulted from the trailer. In all fairness, a trailer is an inaccurate method to gauge the quality of the story or the actor. The only way to really tell is by going to the movie, itself. However, after the disappointment that was "TITANIC", I am unwilling to spend 10 dollars at the theatre to see any movie that stars Leonardo DiCaprio. I am willing to wait for this film to arrive on DVD. Wasting 5 bucks is less hurtful than wasting 10.

 

[Vickie_M]

As to the idea that "beautiful people" should be limited to certain roles, I do not think that should be the case. However, if a "beautiful person" is cast, that person should at least look like they match the role. To me Leonardo DiCaprio did not look like he fit the role. That being said, my impression about him resulted from the trailer. In all fairness, a trailer is an inaccurate method to gauge the quality of the story or the actor. The only way to really tell is by going to the movie, itself. However, after the disappointment that was "TITANIC", I am unwilling to spend 10 dollars at the theatre to see any movie that stars Leonardo DiCaprio. I am willing to wait for this film to arrive on DVD. Wasting 5 bucks is less hurtful than wasting 10.

You haven't even seen the film? So you're here because you hated Titanic and want to make sure everybody knows you're avoiding Gangs and CMIYC because Leo DiCaprio is in it. Since your mind is so closed, it won't help if I tell you that LDC is excellent in both movies, but hopefully you'll find out on your own when these films come to DVD. In the meantime, there is a thread for you.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=108624

 

[Vickie_M]

If I had listened to some of the "criticism" regarding "Gosford Park" that abounded on this board, I would never have rented the film and would have missed seeing a pretty good movie

Oh, and most of the critics praised Gosford Park, so I have no idea what you're talking about here.

 

[Edwin-S]

You haven't even seen the film? So you're here because you hated Titanic and want to make sure everybody knows you're avoiding Gangs and CMIYC because Leo DiCaprio is in it. Since your mind is so closed, it won't help if I tell you that LDC is excellent in both movies
------------------------------------------------------------
First of all I never said I hated "TITANIC", you did. I said I was disappointed with the movie. Secondly, I'm closed minded because I am not an unabashed admirer of Leonardo DiCaprio? I have disagreed with some of your posts, but I have never made assumptions regarding your intellect based on those posts. Please afford me the same respect. I stated that I am most likely going to rent this movie when it comes out on DVD; therefore, I reserve the right to change my opinion on any aspect of the movie. Right now, my impression from the trailer is that Leonardo DiCaprio, FOR ME, looks out of place. I am unwilling to spend 10 bucks at the theatre, only to find out that, for my personal tastes, I was right. However; I may modify my opinion upon a fuller viewing. Am I still a closed-minded lout?
------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and most of the critics praised Gosford Park, so I have no idea what you're talking about here.
------------------------------------------------------------
I was not referring to professional critics when I mentioned "Gosford Park". I switched tracks and was referring to the criticism that abounded in the thread dedicated to the film. Sorry for the confusion. I should have been more clear.

 

[Paul Case]

I am unwilling to spend 10 bucks at the theatre, only to find out that, for my personal tastes, I was right. However; I may modify my opinion upon a fuller viewing. Am I still a closed-minded lout?

Edwin, I hope you will at least consider going to see Gangs once it hits the second run discount theaters. This movie is a great example of epic filmmaking and deserves to be seen on the big screen. I'm not trying to sway your opinion on DiCaprio, but I think you will be doing yourself a disservice if you wait to see Gangs of New York on the small screen. Of course, the choice is yours, but some films just need to be seen in a theater to be fully appreciated. Anyway, I hope you like the movie once you eventually see it, regardless of the format you view it on.
Oh, and any problems you may have with Dicaprio will surely be offset by Daniel Day-Lewis's brilliant, iconic performance as Bill "The Butcher" Cutting. Hell, I'd pay $10 just to see the parts of the movie with him in it!

 

[Nick C.]

I can't make the same recommendations on GONY as others, Day-Lewis aside, but as various folks have noted, DiCaprio is quite an actor, especially relative to those in his generation. Scorsese, Spielberg, Baz Lurhman, and Woody Allen can't all be wrong, right?

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I saw Gangs of New York earlier today, and I'm still letting the film sink in.
Personally, the only thing I found wrong with this film was the choice of musical score during the first gang fight between the "Priest" and "The Butcher". Electric guitar in the 1800's? :rolleyes
Otherwise, I was totally blown away, and if I had seen this in 2002, it would've been my second favorite film of the year, with Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers the only film besting it.

 

[Vickie_M]

Quote:

Like this. What films are you talking about? Do you think he was too "pretty" for This Boy's Life? Or What's Eating Gilbert Grape? Or The Beach? His looks were perfect for Titanic beyond being a romantic lead. Just as in CMIYC, good-looking people get away with being ingratiating drifters better than hardened ugly people, who would probably be more likely to garner distrust. Is being too pretty a deterrent for playing any role for a man? I guess I just don't understand. (For one thing, I don't think he's very good looking at all, let alone pretty, though he was a cute kid. I just think he's a really good actor and have a lot of respect for him.)
This reminds me of complaints that Kim Basinger was too good-looking to play Eminem's mother in 8 Mile, as if all poor trailer-dwellers have to be ugly and gross.
I'm also reminded of a line in About Last Night when James Belushi's character tells Rob Lowe's character that women are scared of him because he's too good-looking and the best thing that could happen to him is an industrial accident. Short of that, the best thing that will happen to Leo is getting older and outgrowing pretty boy looks. Since he's 28 and convincingly played a 16 year old in CMIYC, that might take a while. All he can really do is continue to take these great roles and leave the people who have their biases in the dust, missing good movies because of them.

 

[Bill J]

Personally, the only thing I found wrong with this film was the choice of musical score during the first gang fight between the "Priest" and "The Butcher". Electric guitar in the 1800's?

Ever hear of an intended anachronism?
Personally I thought it was a wise attempt by Scorsese to display the relationship between 19th century street violence to that of the 21st century.

 

[Edwin-S]

Vickie_M quoted:


Maybe that is the problem with the film.....he is in it. 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.

and

His pretty boy looks ruin every film that he appears in.

in relation to being closed minded. Well, all I can say is OUCH!! Hoist on me own petard. However; I did qualify those remarks by stating later that I was being somewhat facetious. The original remarks were in regards to why the movie wasn't doing boffo box office and I took a couple of cheap shots. :b

Anyway, I may go and see this in the theatre. The movie, however, hasn't made it up to my neck of the woods yet. Apparently it won't be playing in the local theatre until sometime later this month. I guess if I can spend 10 bucks to see something as mediocre as "Star Trek: Nemesis", then I can give Leonardo DiCaprio the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Bill J said:

Personally I thought it was a wise attempt by Scorsese to display the relationship between 19th century street violence to that of the 21st century.

As interesting as that may sound, and as true as it may be, I can't see how that works, or at least for myself in this case. Why go for that anachronism to display such a relationship? For all we know, Scorsese might've missed the mark, and the audience might've seen a relationship between 19th century street violence and mosh pits!!! Okay, that's stretching it a little.
Sonically speaking, I have a hard time associating eletronic guitar riffs with 19th century melee combat. The uber bagpipes and strings had a much better lyrical quality in conveying the violence in the gang fight. The heavy metal antics were rather distracting.

 

[Bill J]

Why go for that anachronism to display such a relationship?

This may sound kind of strange, but I don't think Scorsese had faith in the intelligence of the viewer. This is fairly obvious because of the flashbacks of the gang members as Leo encountered them almost 20 years later. They were unnecessary in my opinion, but Scorsese probably felt that this visual aid would help make the connection. However, I don't feel that Gangs of New York is any less of a film because of them.
I think Scorsese's main goal was to show how the corruption, intolerance, and violence of 19th century New York City and how it developed into what New York is today. (Which is clearly reinforced by the closing shots of the film.)
Re: the music- In the end it comes down personal preference, so your opinion is definitely valid, Dome.

 

[MikeRS]

Scorsese's original plan in the late 70s was to score the film to THE CLASH.
Now that would have been radical.

 

[MikeRS]

NickNC:

The Guardian

 

[Adam_S]

Sonically speaking, I have a hard time associating eletronic guitar riffs with 19th century melee combat. The uber bagpipes and strings had a much better lyrical quality in conveying the violence in the gang fight. The heavy metal antics were rather distracting.

Listen to the words you're using yourself as you describe your experience of the violence as relates to the music: 'disturbing'=modern music, and in relation to the classic music (what cinematic precedent has taught us to expect) you use 'lyrical'. I think one of the effects of using anachronistic music is to force us to SEE the violence instead of just accepting it. Consider Braveheart, Gladiator: the violence is glorified because (in part) of the music that plays along with, we're supposed to cheer like mindless rabble at the blood spilt, and in movies like the Matrix we're supposed to be astonished and full of wonder at the martial arts skill the characters disply--essentially artfully killing each other. The net effect (and the music is only one factor) is that violence is placed on a pedestal, and instead of horrifying us, we admire it. People are KILLING each other! It may be makebelieve but we're still frighteningly accepting of those deaths. What Scorsese does, especially in the opening battle, is he forces us to reevaluate how we are accepting that violence, and he consistently shoots and edits the violence in a way that we absolutely cannot admire it, we revile it--it sickens us--it's real, brutal, shocking, and gut wrenching; few people other than Scorsese could, or even would accomplish this. So consider, did Scorsese's music choice interfere with "the lyrical quality of the gang violence" or was that your expectation, unfulfilled by the movies deliberate subversion?

--

Two things surprised me about GONY today, one was the 8 million or so Gangs pulled in this weekend, as well as its still good per screen average, it Catch Me and TTT are all showing outstanding legs, it looks like Gangs will easily make the 55 million it needs.

The second was the death of Conrad Hall, the one award I had figured was a near lock for Gangs was Cinematography, I don't think Lesnie will get the award again this year, and the other big contender is Far From Heaven, but now I think not only will Conrad Hall be nominated, but he'll win as well. THat's not meant as a mean comment, I think that Road to Perdition has the best cinematography of a film I've seen this year, but I expected it to be overlooked in this category the way AI was overlooked last year (last years best cinematography as well).

Adam

-(edit whoops I misread distracting as disturbing, sorry it was not intentional, proably a case of me seeing what I want to see :p))

 

[teapot2001]

I did not know Conrad Hall died. :frowning:
~T

 

[Paul Case]

Listen to the words you're using yourself as you describe your experience of the violence as relates to the music: 'disturbing'=modern music, and in relation to the classic music (what cinematic precedent has taught us to expect) you use 'lyrical'. I think one of the effects of using anachronistic music is to force us to SEE the violence instead of just accepting it.

That is a very perceptive and accurate comment, Adam. In fact, Scorsese presents violence exactly as it really is: brutal, ugly, and repulsive. He intentionally avoids ritualizing the violence or making it seem "lyrical" in nature. He does not want the viewer to find any poetry at all in the violence. As Adam says, Scorsese wants it to be real, in your face, brutal, and, most of all, unsettling. By using the instrumental backing track of that Peter Gabriel song for the opening battle, Scorsese breaks the conventional rules of the the epic and forces the viewer to feel displaced and unsettled by the action as opposed to identifying with it on the primal "violence is cool" level that so many movies pander to these days.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Adam_S said:
.)
I respect both (or all three since you're in it too, Bill J ) your opinions, and they're certainly valid and well-thought out. I still stand by my guns though, and say I was distracted by the electric guitar riffs and confronted more by the mismatch between music and violence on screen (what kind of music I expected to hear to match the look and feel of 19th century) than I was being confronted or disturbed by the brutality of the violence itself. Personally, I think the brutality of violence speaks for itself.
As an aside, I'm quite ashamed at myself for not having perceived this at all. As a matter of fact, I should've seen it coming from a mile away. I was the one who started a thread about Goodfellas a while back and asked why Scorsese decided to use the the "Layla" coda as a background music to a montage of mob violence. He's obviously done it before, and it just flew over my head this time.....again. :b

 

[Greg_M]

"Gangs of New York" wasn't a bad film, but I don't believe it is one of the best of the year. The story got off to a strong start but somewhere in the middle it fizzled out. I also felt the film was a little too long with many scenes repeating themselves, and I did have a hard time buying the fact that one of the main characters survives a major knife wound to the gut (especially with no hospitals or antispectic anywhere in sight) even with the "pigs" gut lesson explaination in the beginning of the film. And that WAS! some C section!

Why aren't films running longer than 2 1/2 hours given an intermission anymore? (multiplex or not, this film sure could have used one. I attented a screening at the Mann's Chinese which is a single theater)


The performers were all first rate and Daniel Day-Lewis did an excellent job playing Robert DeNiro playing "Bill the Butcher". At times I did feel that Scorsese wanted DeNiro to play the role but had to settle for Lewis who had the voice and mannerisms down pat.

I did like Daniel Day-Lewis's performance though, and felt without him the film would have sank. I would expect him to receive an Oscar nomination for his impersonation.

DiCaprio and Diaz were both very good (better than expected). Supporting roles by Jim Broadbent and John C. Reily were also very well played. (Reily's in all the good movies this month and I would bet he would win the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for "Chicago" based on that film, his past work as well as "GONY" and "The Hours") Costumes and production design were worthy of Oscar nominations.

 

[Adam_S]

damn, he's a good fighter... wait a second shouldn't there be more blood on his weapon after cutting through so many people, why is this slow motion, I'm just seeing that there's no blood on the weapon all the more clearer. Of course Bill is just a smooth fighter, one sweeping blow here moving perfectly, nonstop into the next attack and on to a third then fourth... ahhh Scorsese is trying to emphasize his prowess as a fighter, calm in chaos and all that

all this I thought in the first 30 seconds or so of the battle, and then--literally--all hell broke loose. Suddenly there are electric guitars in the score, and the editing seems insane and wrong--like Moulin Rouge. At the same time the violence becomes more realistic, blood begins spraying, the snow turns pink, people are savagely tearing, ripping, clawing at each other--no longer human, they're wild animals. I understood only a little of this at the time, it was more of a gradual realization as I examined myself, and especially how that initial battle affected me. So for me I was expecting to see 'cool, glorified' violence, but instead, because of the way Scorsese presented the violence, I saw the violence for what it really was. There was nothing honorable or clean or magnificent in it, but it was awful and horrid, I'd read such things before in stories that involve war, but that full realization had never really impacted me the way that opening battle has. I liken it to the above the cieling tracking shot at the end of Taxi Driver, We've just witnessed this incredibly swift and brutal succession of violence by Deniro (ostensibly to save a child prostitute), and it took little more than a few minutes, it was exciting, one man--heroically--taking on the evils of NYC, standing up for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Then bam, Scorsese gives us an overhead backwards track on his path of destruction, revisiting each death, slowly, this shot (faded over each other, so not unbroken but it seems the same shot) takes perhaps as long, if not longer as the entire previous 'action' sequence, and it gives us pause, nearly forces us to reflect on what we have just witnessed.

I'm sure it's entirely possible that a segment of people that sees Gangs of New York will get a kick out of the electric guitars, however, these are probably the same people that think Goodfellas is one of the laugh-out-loud funniest films they've ever seen (and if you've never seen Goodfellas with one of these 'black-humor' types, don't!), and while it may be a valid interpretation, I don't think it may have been Scorsese's intent.

The effect of music is a double edged sword. Just using one type of music is not an absolute determinate of how we digest violence--it is only one factor among many possible factors that affect how we're affected onscreen. Preformance, editing, sound effects/design, composition, color pallatte, all of these can affect how we percieve the film just as much as the score of the film.
And Classical music can convey the horrors of violence, its not excluded from that.I think because of the precedent of so many films, that it is imbedded in our psyche to expect classical music in certain situations; just as we expect filmmakers to obey certain rules, such as continuity editing or avoiding ananchronistic elements in a 'serious historical epic'.

I think this would be a good point to bring up Braveheart, a personal favorite of mine. I think Braveheart strikes a very good balance between glorifying the violence and actually being horrified by the brutality (Bonnie and Clyde finds the same balance). The film sets you up with definite good guys and bad guys--the good guys are the underdogs, and the bad guys are repressive aristocrats that take vicious advantage of all those under their social strata--already a perfect set up to strike a chord with Americans. The battles themselves are kinetic and frightening, and more than a little brutal--there is a sense of honor and majesty in the man to man fighting (consider how your own, or people in general's reactions to the archers in the battle of Falkirk (I believe) they getm ore upset by the long range attacks than the hand to hand limb chopping). But Braveheart also takes the time to present the aftermath, we see the few lonely survivors staggering through a sea of corpses, finding friends, sometimes alive and sometimes dead. We cheer because the bad guys have committed some very awful crimes "400 years of rape, theft, and murder" which we got to see examples of, and the downtrodden are finally fighting back, and most importantly, they're winning! WE see the aftermath to William Wallace's rebellion as well, he was betrayed for political reasons, more than once, and died for his beliefs. WE are truly horrified at the torture he undergoes, but that is because we've spent a 170 minutes getting to love this character, we understand his motivations, his history, his life--and the James Horner's music at "Freedom" is, in my opinion, the finest marraige of film and music from the 90's decade; a musical orgasm. Braveheart, I think, does an outstanding job of finding a happy medium in it's portrayal of violence.

Gangs of New York, depending how you view it, takes a strong stand against violence. Clearly the characters in the film, The Butcher, The Priest, and Amsterdam all revel in the violence, they find a primal pleasure in it. Only Cameron Diaz and Monk seem to be opposed to the violence. But this adoration of violence seems to be a mcguffin more than anything, it's something the characters care about, but because of the way that the film is presented, we take a starkly different view on the violence. Characters, and performance, are some of the key factors in determining how we take a stand about issues and ideas films confront. In a film like Braveheart, Performance determines, I'd say, about 50% of how we feel about the violence from moment to moment, editing and sound play the two next biggest roles, consider how much our emotions are affected by seeing the little girl at the execution and hearing the 'Gift of a thistle' motif begin a reprise. However with Gangs of New York, the characters believe in the honor of the battle (Bill is all about honor!), so the audience is set up to view the violence and battle as honorable as well, performance is the most powerful tool in reaching an audience, because they will identify with human characters much, much easier than with anything else. I think that Scorsese wants to (AT LEAST) have another option open of viewing the battle and the violence, it opens the text of the film to more interpretations I believe. So he presents things much differently. Every canted angle, horizontal, vertical, diagonal, or jagged composition is intentional. Each movement of the camera, each edit from one thing to another and the sudden explosions of brilliant color are finely crafted. The relation to the music and sound is just as important to all these things. But you're not disputing this. This is not to say Braveheart is not carefully crafted--Scorsese just has finer command of the tools at his disposal than Gibson does--one is a journeyman the other a master. I do believe that there is more going on, cinematically in that first battle of GAngs of New York than in all the battles of Braveheart--it's more richly textured.

Adam