MovieChat Forums > Gangs of New York (2002) Discussion > The Various Problems With This Movie

The Various Problems With This Movie

posted 11 years ago by fylmphony
6 replies | jump to latest

Hi. After having watched this movie three times, I feel ok about expressing this opinion. First, of all, it isn't that the movie fails on every level, but I feel it is more watchable from the residual fumes present of Marty's directing style than for what is really in the movie. If someone else had directed it (impossible, I know) it would not have been well received at all. These are my reasons

1) thin characters. Who are these people? What are they like? What do they like to do? The movie presents all characters as having behaviors which act as functions of their class. The uptown people play billiards and act fussy, while the downtown people like to fight, drink, and ƒuck. Really? All of them? None of them have any characteristics that distinguish them from any other, except for Monk , who is given a few zen-like phrases to utter, which only make us more aware of the sameness of everyone else. Admittedly, to give the characters more *ahem* characteristics would have entailed all of them having their own stories-- but I thought that was the point of historical fiction: to learn stories about people from other eras. To test my theory think about how much you cared when the various characters started dying. Not much, I guess.

2) Acting doesn't cohere. I see a lot of debate on these boards about who is giving a great performance and who is ruining the movie. Everyone seems to be agreed that something is off. I don't think you can narrow it down to DDL being over the top or LDC having an annoying accent. What is going on here is that Scorsese had a disparate group of actors, all talented, all having very different approaches to their characters. It was his job, through rehearsal or some other means, to get the actors to seem like they were all existing in the same world. Sadly, they just don't mesh. Every time DDl or Leo or Diaz or Broadbent say something to one another it feels false and takes you out of the action.

3) Historical inaccuracy. Ok, marty is not a historian, but a big chunk of the movie involves this chinese pagoda and even he admits that there weren't any chinese people in new york at this time. He just wanted some visual distraction from the misery of the slums, which actually don't even look that bad. It sort of looks like an Old West set, rather than old New York.Also, listen to all the ALan Lomax style roots music that Scorsese has playing in the background. Its great, music lovers rejoice, except that its not even from the same century as the setting it is supposed to support. The navy firing canons into the five points? Didn't happen. Just a fakey deus ex machina device used to disable Bill so Vallon can stab him. It's ok to play with history if it adds to the drama, but don't send in a fake cavalry to rescue yourself form writing a real end to your movie.

So, in sum, bad writing, acting is all over the place (rushed shoot?), and historically it just feels lazy and wrong.

Amazingly, the movie is STILL watchable (but only just) and I would give it a 6/10.

BTW Scorsese still blows doors on any modern director.

[–] Chason_S 11 years ago

What is going on here is that Scorsese had a disparate group of actors, all talented, all having very different approaches to their characters. It was his job, through rehearsal or some other means, to get the actors to seem like they were all existing in the same world. Sadly, they just don't mesh. Every time DDl or Leo or Diaz or Broadbent say something to one another it feels false and takes you out of the action.

In my opinion that is absolutely absurd. Not only do all of the characters look and feel as if they exist in the same world - they all look and behave like they are in the same movie.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

1) thin characters.

In a close to 3 hour production? You only have to look at many of the threads on these boards that complain about the opposite, namely Scorsese spending too much time developing the characters. I feel he achieved the perfect balance. For me, characters both real and imagined come alive and are brilliantly realised in a unique visual setting.

2

... acting is all over the place (rushed shoot?)...

In a 3 year production? Simply a matter of opinion there I guess, but suffice to say I don't believe it was a rushed shoot and IMO many of the performances, from the leads, deep into the cast list are simply riveting.

3 Historical accuracy. Ho-hum! The day I don't see an historical epic such as this, accused of historical inaccuracy, will be the day I win the lottery I reckon. Suffice to say this is a fictional story based on non-fictional sources. The film's visual imagery, as well as the persecution endured by the city's immigrants and underclasses is accurate, although the deaths and amount of bloodshed is overdramatized for effect.

You said it yourself.

It's ok to play with history if it adds to the drama ...

And that what Gangs of New York does.🐭

[–] crakatoot 9 years ago

your right in every single point except one.
this movie is not good. Ambition certainly, and an interesting failure but a massive failure none the less. If Scorsese had directed this under a fake name, the critics would have ripped it a new one. to me it all amounts to this. In that final battle, I didn't not care in even a little bit, who won.

it had no emotional engagement of any kind, that's the worse thing a movie can do.

i told you not to stop the boat. Now lets go. Apocaylpse Now

[–] !!!deleted!!! (9347176) 9 years ago

it had no emotional engagement of any kind, that's the worse thing a movie can do.

"Emotional engagement" as you term it is 100% subjective, based on the individual being emotionally engaged. You cannot say that there is none when obviously plenty of folks who saw this film were emotionally engaged by it. If you weren't emotionally engaged by the film, then that is a you problem.

In that final battle, I didn't not care in even a little bit, who won.

No one won. You aren't supposed to care. The visual epilogue of the movie drives home the point that, in the end, it didn't matter who won. No one remembers. The graves of the dead are left untended, the city grew, the Five Points and its gangs were all but forgotten. The United States Army won the final battle, further demonstrating the futility of Bill's nationalist hatred of the Irish and how superfluous all the gangs really were.

-Rod

[–] crakatoot 9 years ago

We'll of course it's subjective. Every opinion any one has ever given about a movie is subjective. I'm not going start everything I say with "I know I feel this way but I also accept that others might feel different". Isn't that kind of a given every time u say something online.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (9347176) 9 years ago

Isn't that kind of a given every time u say something online.

No, not at all. That's why internet acronyms like "IMHO" and "FWIW" are so prevalent, so that readers won't misinterpret as fact what is actually opinion, without the poster having to be overly wordy with a preface like you mentioned.

Anyway, I get what you were saying but I tend to disagree. Especially during my first viewing of this picture, when I was very much engaged emotionally by it. On subsequent viewings however, the raw emotional impact of that initial screening has certainly diminished. I tend to watch the movie now just for the manic insanity of DDL and also for the underrated performance of John C. Reilly. He's outstanding in his supporting role as Happy Jack.

-Rod