GANGS OF NEW YORK (2002) *** It's a unique picture. I think that most of my problems with it have to do with the fact that it's neither realistic nor sci-fi. Instead Martin Scorsese sets out to draw up an extensively alternate universe tied in summary and serious ways to our own past, and that's a treacherous path, my friend. I was trying to figure out who might have done it with success, and the closest I could come up with was...well, I couldn't come real close, I mean, I guess it's what Goddard's done, but he's willing to let go more. Set in an authentic historical time-New York in the anti-draft riots of the mid 19th century-it just doesn't look that way. It's theatrical, like Gone With the Wind. Ladies occasionally wandering through squalid marketplaces, singing folk songs about death. I know that Scorsese was wanting to do this film forever, but for me it feels like someone who's done endless and exhaustive research and is now ready to make their grand statement, but isn't sure what it is. The acting is very good, but tentative in that same limited understanding of the word. Only Daniel Day-Lewis, a circus ringmaster of a gang lord if there ever was one, replete with flaws so blatant as to nearly preclude any perspective of his virtues, gets particularly close to what I think Scorsese was shooting for. Leonard DiCaprio, Liam Neeson, and Cameron Diaz all get around complex characters without apparent difficulty, but they feel like they're in a straighter, more sensible film, one that might be made by someone else. Not someone working with these sets, anyway. Fiery red hair fits Cameron, though, I have to say, it looks absolutely natural. Actually, come to think of it, I don't have any idea what color her hair is supposed to be, she just has one of those versatile faces. There are a lot of things that really, really work. The simple drums, yeah. The scenes of absolute violence are spectacular, but Scorsese backs off the ultra-realism that worked to such profound effect in Goodfellas, and instead creates...cartoon and comic book aren't right, because the scenes are very effective...but again, it's all very theatrical, and so removed from the audience. It's a very good film, entertaining, it's not short but it never even hints at starting to lag, but there are just so many incongruent parts. Like the U2 song blaring on during the closing credits, I mean, what the fuck does U2 have to do with any of this? They're a fine band, and they've cut out a rather large hunk of the musical perspective to call their own, but what could they possibly have to do with Irish gang fights in New York 150 years ago? Plus it's a lousy song. My lasting impression of the film-one only metaphorically related to anything represented-will be of Day-Lewis striding upon the thing like a lost vulture, or a jester at a Grateful Dead show, a subtle but absolute mixture of power, condescension, and remorse. Yeah, yeah, I know, what could the Grateful Dead possibly have to do with...but, in a way, I think that they do. They're more openly flawed.
back to Brilliant Observations on 1776 Films page, or Index
go back home, or send me email
Reviews won't do it any more! I need sustained brilliance! I want to buy your novel!