Neither fish nor fowl as history or drama

Rating: Null/10 (26 December 2002)

I enjoy documentaries. I also enjoy dramas. There have been absoluting astonishing works in both formats.
The problem with "Gangs" is that it attempts to be both. That is extremely difficult to do well. A fairly straightforward revenge tale - and who from the first few minutes does not know how this ultimately will turn out? - is made to appear "important" by weaving in known historical figures and events, with a few invented events thrown in for good measure. The attempt ultimately fails, and it is a shame.
For some reason, director Scorcese chose to turn a rather pedestrian story about a gang leader's son who seeks revenge on the man who killed his father (under inherently fair circumstances, I might add) into a far more sweeping story about the "immigration experience." This topic may or may not be one that has personal significance to Mr. Scorcese and his family, but whether it does or not it should not have found its way into this film. Every single scene with characters such as the famous Horace Greeley ("Go West Young Man", also a losing presidential candidate) should have been cut, for they have nothing to do with the central characters. The camera notices some immigrants coming off a ship - and we are suddenly treated to completely pointless (in terms of the story) comments about when they will get fed. Endless time is spent on repetitious character development when we already understand the characters in question and it is time to move on already.
In a sense, the movie this most reminded me of was "How the West Was Won." Personally, I liked that movie, but less due to the story and more because it had some stunning performances by legends such as John Wayne, James Stewart, Gregory Peck and George Peppard. The actors in "Gangs" are talented, but hardly in that class (sole exception Day-Lewis, who is brilliant). If the narrator in "West" wanted to wander off topic about how people traveled to the Midwest, that was fine, it made the story seem more important despite depersonalizing the movie. At least that movie stayed true to historical facts. Here, by way of contrast, Scorcese has naval cannon firing into the city to set up his climax when that manifestly NEVER happened and, believe me, would be very well known if it ever did. Oh, and the Five Points was not all the way downtown, but instead up around Union Square, though that is a minor detail (that should have been gotten right anyway).
Here, the movie does not just wander off track, it gallops. The main characters are engaged in a battle to the death- but we suddenly break away to ten minutes of documentary-style shots (and breathless voiceovers) of draft rioters breaking into Horace Greeley's friends' houses. The rivalry between the main characters gets cooking - and then we spend time watching Boss Tweed talk about building sewers. I am a student of history, but I would rather see a straight documentary for facts and a tight movie that sticks to the plot for a fictional tale. This wound up doing both poorly when, if it had just focused, it could have done either fabulously.
So, I was disappointed. Daniel Day-Lewis was fabulous, just astonishingly good, and lit the screen up every time he showed up in his preppy pants or wielding his butcher knife. He was the one thing that made the movie worth my three hours. Leonardo DiCaprio was ok, frankly I thought he was miscast, never convincing me that he had any kind of vendetta going. He rather seemed merely to be just going with the flow of the moment. Cameron Diaz gives a wonderful performance that winds up going nowhere - or, strike that, she winds up going to San Francisco when that has nothing to do with anything.
There were a few things I loved. The final shots are breathtaking to anyone who loves New York City, as I do, and especially sentimental due to recent events. Day-Lewis showed me something with his acting despite a lame script. It was nice seeing a depiction of New York City from that period, even if it is only the seediest parts. And the period atmosphere felt right, although it had a bit too much of an "Oliver Twist" or "Satyricon" air to it for my taste (the conceit that the lower class back then lived like animals is a bit insulting and almost certainly inaccurate, though it makes for nice dramatic vignettes).
Overall, "Gangs" was worth seeing, but not as good as I expected. It also is extremely violent and not for the squeamish. An important film that should have been much, much better, especially from talent of this caliber.