Sergio Leone meets Charles Dickens in wild west/victorian/medieval New Yawk...

Rating: Null/10 (30 December 2002)

I'm not sure if this is a great film, but it is a blistering, forceful, insanely ambitious one. Generally speaking, the story itself contains conflicts and tensions familiar to just about any epic of any kind: of tribe against tribe, poor against rich, and of impassioned youth out to usurp corrupt elders. But it isn't the nature of these conflicts which makes this film so astounding. This film's powerful originality instead comes from its wild rendering of a mid-nineteenth century New York context, centered on the slums of the "Old Brewery," that presents striking flourishes of historical details set against hazy Manhattan mythology. It's this crazy juxtaposition of people who really lived (i.e. Boss Tweed and Horace Greeley) and stuff that really happened (i.e. the Draft Riots) squaring off against Scorsese's immense cinematic (and literary) learnedness and imagination that has cooked up this pastiche setting that feels part Sergio Leone (and not Ford or Peckinpah) western and part Dickens social allegory. It's also obviously so damn original because I can't think of a single other film that has taken on the subject of New York gangs in the 19th century.
But does this Leonean and Dickensian feel (among other "feels"), mixed with fact and myth, seem authentic? I'm not sure I care. I like this postmodern feel of presenting the past in clearly established style(s) and tropes of the medium(s) -- which is hardly new. But this is very different for a director like Scorsese, whose signature films to date have generally felt as authentic and immediate as a mugging in Times Square (I mean the old Times Square, before Giuliani cleaned it up for us tourists).

This Leonean feel of "Southern Italy meets America" (sorry, but this film feels much more Italian than Irish) in the form of vicious survivalism and vengeance within an impassioned Dickensian 19th century urban consciousness of tribe and class is the thrust behind this simple story of Irish boy versus "nativist" mob boss. It's not at all the story itself that stands out. Instead it's the vivid setting and all the every day junk that goes on there. I think Scorsese -- and of course Daniel Day Lewis -- pull it off brilliantly.
The importance of Daniel Day Lewis' presence in this film can not be overstated. The man makes the film work as much as Scorsese's gifts as a director do. Lewis is phenomenal. By the end of the film DiCaprio suffers in his presence. Other posters have complained about the casting of Leonardo DiCaprio in the lead role, and I am inclined to agree that the request of his services is rather uninspired (fiery overachievers like Matt Damon or Colin Farrell would perhaps have fit the bill better), but Leo is not bad in the film. At times Leo is very good; it's just that it's hard to suspend disbelief when Leo is required to be a gang leader to a gang that rivals that of Bill the Butcher.
There are some other flaws as well -- mainly in the script. The romance between Leo and Cameron seems a bit tossed in -- here paying a greater homage to the Dickensian love interest over Leone's (and Scorsese's) usual universe of killers and broads. But I find a flaw like this almost charming -- as if there is a sentimentalist in Scorsese that is more willing to show itself, even if it is a little awkward in its footing.
SOME MILD SPOLIERS:
By the end the draft riots have exploded in a grand vengeance. The lead characters lose their way and their identity as the mob and the military moves in; the individual leads are wiped out as the people of New York overtake the setting. A brutal story gives way to even more brutal history. These selfish, vicious, vengeful characters fade into a fog of violent Manhattan legend and the film becomes as murky as the tradition of tales that inspired its making in the first place. I think this is part of the point of Scorsese's film: that if we choose to live in our times concerned only about ourselves and our immediate gripes and hatreds, then, as a people, we can only become part of a corrupt body or be part of a deadly mob. While other filmmakers romanticize the murderous the individual gangster and outlaw, Scorsese prefers to crush him with some kind of angel of vengeance, here in the form of deadly riots (TAXI DRIVER was an exception, where the murderous protagonist was himself the angel of vengeance).
Scorsese seems to have become a great historical (and mythical) filmmaker without anyone even noticing it. Beginning with RAGING BULL, and carrying through with GOODFELLAS and CASINO and now GANGS OF NEW YORK, -- all true stories or based on true stories -- Scorsese is now one of our greatest historical filmmakers. But can he continue to make films like this which also are so reliant on myth, and on the play of genre(s), and on firmly established traditions set down by other directors and writers over the past century? Who knows? It's nice to see him go back to this 19th century Manhattan again -- to someone else's place -- and this time take it out to his turf -- the streets.