It is clear by now that Martin Scorsese's films are as misunderstood as most
other directors. This is not a man prone to happy endings, optimism, redemption
or clear-cut morality. In that respect, "Gangs of New York" represents some of
the director's finest work since "The Age of Innocence." It is a crossbreed of
"Age's" meticulous reconstruct of a long-lost era with the savage tendencies of
people from the mean streets as witnessed by "GoodFellas" and "Casino." This is
not a pretty picture postcard view of American history during the Civil War, nor
is it a morally sanctionable one. "Gangs of New York" is as sadistic and brutal
as one can imagine - a time of corruption and hateful violence where a glimmer
of humanity still exists.
Set in 1863, Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a young lad arriving in New
York City by ship. The New York back then is not the New York of today, or for
that matter the New York of "Age of Innocence" (the latter set only seven years
later). The city is a breeding ground of sin, squalor, sex, drinking,
prostitution, pickpockets and outright mayhem on every corner. Women are
practically naked in bars, severed ears are used as barter for liquor, pig
carcasses are used for target practice, hatchets, butcher knives and any other
blunt weapon are used for attacks, cavernous dwellings exist as hideouts, dogs
maul rats, bareknuckle fights ensue for money, and so on. There is also the P.T.
Barnum Museum in town with its gallery of freaks, a club called "Satan's
Circus," and the Chinese stage their own operas for entertainment.
The political game is run by Irish Catholics, especially Boss Tweed (Jim
Broadbent), the highly corrupt boss of Tammany Hall (an Irish political
machine). Votes for politicians are fabricated (nothing new there). The police
and the fire chiefs are like gangs themselves, trying to make the peace in a
volatile town where corpses litter the road and nobody gives them a second look.
Pickpockets, like Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz), pass themselves off as maids
in upper class homes of bigwig politicians and steal jewelry by the handful.
Amsterdam's place in this hell is suspect, particularly by those who discover he
is Priest Vallon's son. Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson) was the Irish leader of the
town twenty years earlier, later maimed by a rival gang leader. Amsterdam's
intentions are to seek revenge against Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis), who
had slain his father in that very same ugly battle. Amsterdam worms his way into
this sick society by engaging in bareknuckle fights. Bill is so impressed that
he takes him in as a surrogate son. Then there is Jenny who manages to steal
from street toughs like Amsterdam yet shows some degree of warmth and love (she
has a history with Bill the Butcher). Jenny and Amsterdam fall in love and
compare the scars on their bodies. Will Amsterdam ultimately seek revenge on
Bill or will he decide not to intervene? After all, Bill takes him under his
wing and uses him for betting bareknuckle fights. A war is also brewing between
the North and the South and soldiers are needed to fight. With all this chaos
ensuing, how can Amsterdam expect to ever leave this city? Or does he plan to?
If any flaws exist in "Gangs of New York," it is mostly centered on Amsterdam, a
character who thrives on his toughness yet is no match for Bill. The question
is: what is Amsterdam's purpose, outside of his vengeful mind? Who is this
recalcitrant kid and what does he want from this hellish New York? As played by
Leonardo DiCaprio, he exudes all the qualities of a young, foolish mind who is
thinking more with his heart than his mind. DiCaprio does as well as he can with
the thin character, and shows the charisma and talent that felt shorned in
"Titanic" ever since. What is missing is Scorsese's subjectivity, favoring
objectivity this time to tell the story of a time and place. This way we see how
characters behave in the era portrayed rather than feeling their internal
emotions. That is not to say that we still don't feel those internal emotions.
The real star of this violent world is Daniel Day-Lewis as the vicious,
humanistic, compassionate, racist, hypocritical Native-American who rules New
York with a fist. "I am New York," says Bill, and he means it. He is cruel and
sadistic, uses knives with a natural ease, but can also appear like a wounded
animal. Most films show villains to be so devoid of humanity that their savagery
is all that matters. The fault lies in presenting such villains as cartoons,
assuming that audiences could never accept them as human beings. Ah, but
Scorsese is too smart to allow such one-dimensional savagery, witness "Taxi
Driver," "Raging Bull" or the organized crime figures in "GoodFellas" and
"Casino." Consider a truly powerful scene where Bill is draped in the American
flag and confesses to Amsterdam that he plucked one of his eyes out after his
initial fight with Priest Vallon. He also says that in a war, one man can stand
out and make a difference, like his father had. It is an amazing scene that
makes us feel some sympathy for Bill.
Bill the Butcher is one of the great villains of cinema history, on par with
Henry Fonda's cold-blooded killer in "Once Upon a Time in the West" and Joe
Pesci's uncontrollable Tommy in "GoodFellas." One of the executives of this film
called Bill the Butcher "the meanest man in film history." It is possible
considering that Bill can snap from a violent mode to a soulful to a sarcastic
mode, depending on what triggers his moods. He can stab a man in the hand
without much provocation, head butt anyone in his way, throw out equally potent
words with wicked relish, and show some affection and fake tears over a dead
rabbit. It is a shrewd, deftly controlled performance, and I would be remiss if
I said he is not the main character of "Gangs of New York." Everyone acts in the
film according to Bill's motives or plans, and nothing ever happens without
sensing Bill is involved in some way.
There are two major gang battles, one at the start of the film and the other at
the end. The first battle implies much of the violence between two gangs, the
Native-Americans and the Irish-Americans. We see one character, known as
Hellcat, sever an ear from one person, and mostly we hear the crushing of bones
and knives thrust into bellies. The fight ends with an omniscient long shot
where we witness the blood covering most of the snow-filled streets.
Interestingly, the opposing gangs stand around and gather the corpses, as if the
violence was their way of acting out their rage yet they are able to communicate
for more than twenty years without raising a fist. Another later scene shows
Bill having some kind of conference where he discusses what kinds of weapons
should be used, asking the opposing gang (known as the Dead Rabbits) and other
rival gangs if guns are objectionable. They will kill and maim each other as
part of their control of New York's Five Points, but they can sit and discuss
anything else without resorting to violence. Interesting to see this dichotomy
of attitudes. The final battle, known as the Draft Riots, is an orgy of violence
unprecedented on film where New York becomes a stage of bloodletting that may
sicken and twist your stomach into knots. We see hangings, cannon blasts, rivers
of blood, elephants running from Barnum's circus, buildings on fire and other
unwatchable atrocities.
"Gangs of New York" can be seen as a historical piece or as an exceedingly
violent melodrama of a past that many may want to forget. It is purely cynical,
suggesting that New York's and America's foundations of democracy and racial
attitudes were intensely corrupt to the core. Nobody could be trusted and
politics was a mere fiasco where votes could be bought and selected politicians
could be easily dispatched and replaced. In all this hate and racism emerged the
New York of today, but can we truly say that those antiquated attitudes and
values have not carried over to the present? Do we believe votes can still be
bought? Is racism still a factor today or has it really disappeared? And what
about drafts? If poor people then could not afford to pay the $300 to avoid the
draft, then what about the possibility drafts of today to fight the war in Iraq
when the country is in a recession? (As of this moment of writing, drafts are
not likely to occur).
Powerful, compelling, riveting from first frame to last, "Gangs of New York" is
one of the great film epics of all time. The New York of the 1840's and 1860's
has been meticulously and believably recreated, minus the use of CGI. This is
Scorsese's "Intolerance" for the 21st century, a fabulous walk into the past to
a long forgotten historical footnote. DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz and Daniel-Day
Lewis give extraordinary performances, though like most Scorsese films, these
are not characters I would ever want to meet. Jim Broadbent as the quiet Boss
Tweed, David Hemmings as an upper class politico who knows nothing of what is
really going on, John C. Reilly as an Irish cop who knows he is not the mainstay
of order and Henry Thomas as a childhood friend of Amsterdam's who betrays him
contribute highly to this eclectic production. And the ending is one of the most
moving sequences of all time, placing emotion in a vast canvas of violence and
chaos showing that men of strength could be weakened and destroyed. When such a
vicious bastard like Bill the Butcher elicits a smidgeon of sympathy from me,
then I know I am in the hands of a director who can place a human face in the
face of inhumanity. "Gangs of New York" is one of the seminal masterpieces of
the 2000 decade, and surely one of Scorsese's greatest triumphs. You may never
look at New York the same way again.
Copyright © 2002 Jerry Saravia