![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dotintheskyGangs of New York works as the direct opposite of The Age of Innocence. While Gangs of New York has a triangle formed by two men and a woman, The Age of Innocence has a triangle formed by two women and a man. The first is a story that was written by a man (someone appropriately called Jay Cocks), and which largely follows the themes that some men like to use: revenge, war, prostitutes, fights, anger, politics, corruption, blood, fatherhood, brotherhood, booze, protection of weak women. The Age of Innocence, on the other hand, was written by a woman and although one could claim that it was a girly man movie, it's perhaps a more sensitive take on the relationships between men and women in high society. Both movies are set in New York during the 19th century, but one is centred on the lowest scum while the other tells the story of the elite.
Shakespeare is the theme, in particular Hamlet. Amsterdam wishes to revenge the murder of his father (Pastor Vallon) by Mr. Cutting, but ends up becoming his protege (i.e., Mr. Cutting is his Stepfather.) Even one of the characters says to Amsterdam "How much like Shakespeare. Do you know who is Shakespeare? He wrote the King James Bible." Instead of calling him Amsterdam, they should have gone ahead and called him Denmark. Another typical Shakespeare motif: blood baths and fights "on stage" with plenty of dramatic deaths. Sadly, they don't follow the Shakespeare line until the end... because there's a happy end.
Gangs of New York seems to be more concerned with trying to pass itself off as a historical movie. Scorcese cares more about going into detail about the period, the various historical personages, rather than concentrating on the fictional characters (which is what he did in The Age of Innocence.) Because of that, the movie is long (and feels long) and there's less sense that a story is being told (you know from the beginning where it's all going to end, and you are disappointed.)
The movie's final message is simplistic: "These people contributed to New York!" those fading gravestones want to say.
Characters are not coherent. Amsterdam throws the bible in the sea and yet he's a devout Catholic who carries a saint's medallion and helps protect a church (and if we are supposed to believe that he shifts into that devoutness then I want to see where exactly that happens!!) His prostitute girlfriend Jenny is a sketch. And Mr. Cutting is overblown and over-the-top (too bad he didn't get an Oscar for all that work - maybe he should have thrown in a gimpy leg for more effect.)
Scorcese explains too much and tries to fit everything about the city at that particular time. The movie would have been better if he just let those things come through during the story and left it up to the audience to find out more if they were really interested. Or make a documentary as a tie in to the movie.
The soundtrack sucked. It starts out pretty badly with the first battle scene, which includes an electric guitar solo!? And the sentimental dross shows up again with an old irish ballad about the civil war while we see those "moving" scenes of the Irish conscripts. And, just to make sure everyone in the cinema pukes, the credits roll with Bono singing.
The final, and most horrible, sentimental scene comes with Mr. Cutting's tomb being shown right beside Pastor Vallon's - meant to reinforce the idea that they were "different" but equal in their "important" shaping of New York. And why did Scorcese show New York changing through the years and end with the Twin Towers? (the movie was released in 2002.) Is there no history after the Twin Towers? Did he do it out of respect (or maybe because that was a horror not caused by the Irish?) Or perhaps the editing was done before the 11th of September. If he had shown the Twin Towers gone it would have fallen neatly with the melodrama played out throughout the movie. Who couldn't cringe at Amsterdam killing his buddy with the prostitute's gun? (eventhough he had just kicked his buddy out of town and had every reason to wish him dead?)
The kind of movie that this girly man will never see again.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
The fact that Amsterdam throws his Bible in the sea is probably a very important detail in Scorsese's version of the construction of New York.
I don't think Amsterdam's a devoted Catholic. He can't be, and doesn't even want to be. He's grateful to the monks for having taken him under their wings when his father died, but it's more out of respect for his father than for religion that he carries this medallion. Plus, if he's Irish, he'll believe in God without having to follow the dogma side to side. Amsterdam has a goal : that's the only thing he'll be faithful to. Until he has killed Cutting, he won't think about anything else.
Then, according to this movie, New York owns everything to the Irish. That's a cool kind of legacy, but a bit reductive in my eyes. Nonetheless, it would be stupid to forget the immigration that followed the 1860's great famine. The mind of the New Yorkers, impersonated by Cutting's racism, doesn't fit the hope and the devotion of the Irish. So they fought, it's as simple as this, the good old Irish way, with your life, with solidarity, and with respect. Blabla, insert here some U2 song as a soundtrack (yes, it's U2 with Hands that built America, the song says it all and maybe there's no need to see the movie unless you're a Daniel Day-Lewis fan) and you've got the whole package.
Other than that, it was maybe a good idea to specify that New York's history had been constructed over blood and over gravestones. Now that it is what it is, post or pre 9/11 - I think of New York as New York, not as New York as a political setting - no one could have known. Seriously, the first thing I got when I was in New York was this feeling of open-mindedness, of tolerance, of multi-national atmosphere, of peace, of hope, and of entertainement. This is the window of the United States, this is its best window shall I say, but once again even the nicest city in a decaying world has some deep secrets. Whatever you think is great, whatever you think is an accomplishment, whatever you're proud of has some blood-shed in its history.
Even more, it seems to say that not only they made New York, but New York is what it is right now specially because of these gangs. How ? That's of the viewer to say, but as for me, I felt it was intense, and it did have an echo in me, maybe because it reflects so well the paradoxes of the world : the beauty has a price. And what's nice had to be painful, and what was painful can be turned into peaceful. New York knows the price of life and it doesn't want more to add to its list. I'm probably finding in this movie more than Scorsese ever wanted to say, but he is so attached to this city that I do believe in the story he wanted to tell. Because I'm attached to New York as well.
no subject
on 2005-04-11 02:46 pm (UTC)Everything you said about New York, and what Scorcese wanted to show, is true. But my criticism is that he tried to show it in a very obvious way, not trusting that his audience would understand it anyway. There was no need, for example, to have Bill the Butcher and Vallon's tombs right beside each other (something that wouldn't have happened in reality, because of their different religions, because Amsterdam wouldn't have wanted it) - that scene was included so the audience could be hit on the head with the final theme.
I really enjoyed the historical side of the movie. I never knew about the riots, the gangs, the sort of life that was led by the poor in New York. I think Scorcese was spot on with that, very meticulous in the details.
no subject
on 2005-04-11 02:53 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2005-04-11 03:04 pm (UTC)Do you know this person, Jay Cocks, who wrote the script? I don't think he did a good job. I think it could have been tighter. Interestingly enough, I just found out he wrote the screen adaptation for The Age of Innocence... now I'm confused! I came to the Gangs of New York interested in learning about this particular moment of the city's history, but I really wanted more emphasis on the main characters rather than the large brushstrokes that took in so much of all the people of the time. I suppose it was impossible to separate the two, since their lives were so mingled with the lives of all the gangs, the politicians, the arriving Irish, etc... so that is why I was dissatisfied in the end.
no subject
on 2005-04-11 03:13 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2005-04-11 03:34 pm (UTC)Tb tenho o Age of Innocence em vhs, e desse eu gosto bastante. Tb assisti qdo passou na TNT outro dia :)
no subject
on 2005-04-11 07:48 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2005-04-11 07:06 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2005-04-11 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2005-04-11 08:18 pm (UTC)Now all they have to do is work out how to write a decent story around it...
no subject
on 2005-04-11 08:22 pm (UTC)his left foot
on 2005-04-12 03:45 pm (UTC)-dig the reference.
Re: his left foot
on 2005-04-14 02:34 pm (UTC)Re: his left foot
on 2005-04-14 05:23 pm (UTC)Re: his left foot
on 2005-04-15 12:47 pm (UTC)Re: his left foot
on 2005-04-15 11:34 pm (UTC)Re: his left foot
on 2005-04-17 11:03 am (UTC)