MovieChat Forums > Gangs of New York (2002) Discussion > Do you think this film would have been b...

Do you think this film would have been better if

posted 14 years ago by Benprogfuse
27 replies | jump to latest

They had taken out the part when Johnny Sirocco tells Bill the Butcher that Amsterdam is Priest Vallon's son? It would have made the scene where Amsterdamn attempts to throw the knife at Bill while drinking from the fiery glass more climactic.

Then the viewer would also have to wonder if Bill had known who Amsterdam really was all along. Especially during the scene where Amsterdam wakes up next to Cameron Diaz and Bill is sitting in the chair watching him, then brings up how he killed the Priest.

(Also, if they had re-cast cameron Diaz with somebody else..)

[–] fang123horn 14 years ago

That's a thought, probably would.

[–] dyahrmarkt 14 years ago

Funny, I was just thinking about this exact thing the other day. It seems to me if Johnny was not shown to "play" Amsterdam false, they could have him confess it while strung up in the town square. That way it makes the moment of his death all the more juxtaposed in the mind of Amsterdam - first of all running to save his true friend, realizing he's going to die, then hearing his confession and simultaneously forgiving his sin by shooting him - classic Scorsesean Catholic-redemption stuff. It might have worked. Still, I think the film plays out well enough and Johnny's death still packs a whallop.

As far as Diaz, I think she did a good job with a rather annoying role (let's face it, in just about EVERY Scorsese film, aren't the lead women characters positively annoying in some way or another?) To Scorsese's credit, he wanted to cast an unknown in the role and needed to make the deal in order to secure the film's massive budget. Such is life as a filmmaker.

"There is no inner peace. There is only nervousness and death." - Fran Lebowitz

[–] brotherfease 14 years ago

They had taken out the part when Johnny Sirocco tells Bill the Butcher that Amsterdam is Priest Vallon's son? It would have made the scene where Amsterdamn attempts to throw the knife at Bill while drinking from the fiery glass more climactic.

What's wrong with the way it was presented? The assassination attempt was pretty dramatic/intense to start with, as well as the aftermath, when Bill head-butted Amsterdam and started to beat you know what out of him.

I don't like the Olive Garden. They treat me like family.

[–] Benprogfuse 14 years ago

There was nothing wrong with the way that it was represented. I was just asking if it would have made it better. Because, while the viewer is watching the scene of Bill preparing to drink out of the glass, they know that Bill knows who Amsterdam really is and that Bill had been warned that Amsterdam was preparing to assassinate him. I think that it would have been more of a surprise to the viewer when Bill dropped the glass and deflected Amsterdam’s knife. There would also be questions as to whether Bill knew who Amsterdam really was all along. Instead of showing that Bill was surprised and didn't have a clue when Johnny told him.

[–] brotherfease 14 years ago

No, it would be a DIFFERENT path, not necessarily a better one.

You don't have to create a "surprise scenario" in every scene.

If you take out the Johnny confession, then you essentially erase the love triangle and hierarchy envy (Johnny resents the fact that Amsterdam rose up Bill's ranks faster) aspect of the story.

I don't like the Olive Garden. They treat me like family.

[–] Benprogfuse 14 years ago

I thought that the love triangle / Johnny envy thing was a very minor part of the movie and could have easily been removed and not missed. The reason Johnny was beaten and left to die hooked up to the fence, was in retaliation of them killing the police officer.

[–] DonMachiavelli 14 years ago

Diaz and Leo were innappropriate choices. Killed the entire bog Irish feel of the movie.

[–] brotherfease 14 years ago

I thought that the love triangle / Johnny envy thing was a very minor part of the movie and could have easily been removed and not missed.

The love triangle between Johnny, Jenny, and Amsterdam, and the "Johnny Envy" was a minor part of the movie, but so what? You needed to introduce Amsterdam to Bill somehow, and you needed somebody who would help turn the Amsterdam-Bill relationship in a different direction. I don't think it is easily removed.

And if Bill didn't know Amsterdam's identity, then I would think that the assassination attempt would have been a success. Bill was keeping his eye on Amsterdam the entire time, and used Jenny (the knife throwing scene) to toy with Amsterdam's emotions.

So what's your point? You didn't like the movie? You want Hollywood to produce a re-make?

I don't like the Olive Garden. They treat me like family.

[–] Benprogfuse 14 years ago

i think that you are missing my point entirely.

I had not seen this film in 9 years and for some reason, that was the way that I had remembered it. When I saw it the other night, the movie was playing along well, then the scene came where Johnny told Bill about Amsterdam and Bill was surprised to find out, like he had no idea. To me, it seemed like that scene should not have been in the movie. If you remember, about 10 to 15 minutes earlier in the film, there was a scene where Amsterdam wakes up next to Cameron Diaz's character and finds that Bill is sitting in a chair, starring at them. Amsterdam and Bill start in a conversation and Bill tells Amsterdam that he thought of him as a son, then immediately starts talking about the priest. Which brings up the question of wether Bill knew who Amsterdam really was. Of coarse Amsterdam's intensions were clear to Bill once he threw the knife at him, but I was referring to the scenes leading up to that. It is my opinion that the scene would have been more climactic, if they had left the scene where Johnny tells him out of the movie.

They would not have to re-shoot the movie, just take out a few scenes and move a couple around.

I think that the film was just fine, but would have been better that way.

[–] bear022013-588-696101 14 years ago

THIS FILM IS WELL DONE,BUT FOR ONE REVOLTING SCENE AFTER ANOTHER WITH HORDES
OF IRISH WARRIORS AND A BLACK MAN AT AMSTERDAM''S SIDE.I AM CONVINCED THAT SCORSESE IS INSANE.WERE THERE BLACKS IN 1940;S GODFATHER?
THE SIGHT OF A BLACK MAN AS AMSTERDAM'S SIDEKICK IS AN INSULT TO THE IRISH AND THE BLACKS.

[–] Statutory_Ape69 12 years ago

FO SHO! HE GONNA BUS A CAP IN YO ASS! };-)

[–] hordman8 13 years ago

I agree with your assessment, it would have made the scene with Johnny really cool, if Amsterdam thinking Bill had just killed his friend, then Johnny telling Amsterdam that he told Bill who he really was.

[–] wab-3 13 years ago

Aw, I was hoping you'd suggest he recast di Caprio's role.

I think Diaz could have pulled it off if Scorsese had given her better technical help. I've noticed that when he casts actors without formal training, especially in period films, they're inconsistent in voice and movement. Diaz's semi-Irish accent was plausible in some scenes, and then gone in others. She moved way too lithely than a woman of that period ever would.

[–] SausagePourVous 13 years ago

Taken out...? You mean not shown it or as in,it didn´t happen?If it´s not shown,then we would later here Johnny say,"It was me who played you false" and get it then...since Bill reacts like someone who is prepared to be assassinated.

I don´t know why we should wonder...Bill never had a clue.Which you can see from his reaction when he finds out.So it´s likely that Amsterdam would´ve been able to kill him if Johnny hadn´t talked but the screenplay of course wouldn´t allow it that early...feels a bit like you´re talking about an alternative version of the film.

And the scene by the bed....where Bill tells him how the Priest spared him cause he wanted him to live in shame.Amsterdam is unconcious when it takes place but that´s why Bill spares Amsterdam,so he can be as noble and "get even" with his idol,except he does it to his son.Spares him.

So i do not quite get your post,I´m honest about that.

[–] Benprogfuse 13 years ago

I don't understand what you don't get, because your last response almost sounds like you are agreeing with me.

[–] SausagePourVous 13 years ago

Yeah...I don´t know if you mean that the film might have been better if we as an audience weren´t shown the scene where Johnny rats Amsterdam out...or if you think the film would be better if Johnny didn´t rat him out,thus the,"maybe knowing who he was all along" part,which from his body and facial expression when he hears the name Vallon he didn´t and I can´t imagine that he would say the things he said and allow himself to be in the presence of Priests son with a"maybe he´ll try to kill me,maybe he really likes me" mentality,since a big point here is that he naturally never had a clue....So I guess maybe the way you expressed yourself threw me a bit.

[–] Benprogfuse 13 years ago

I am saying that it would have been better either way. If it was never shown or hinted that Johnny betrayed him, it would leave the audience to wonder whether Bill knew who Amsterdam was long before (Not initially, but maybe he figured it out somewhere along the way.). Bill is supposed to be clever and if he did figure it out, he may have continued to keep Amsterdam by his side using the Sun Tzu methodology of "Keep your enemies close".

Either way, it would have been more dramatic to the audience during the knife throwing scene.

[–] minhas4 13 years ago

I agree with you completely. There doesn't need to be any change to the storyline whatsoever. Just cut out the scene where we, the audience, see Johnny snitching on Amsterdam.

The only reason I didn't like the scene is because it became obvious that Bill would survive the assassination attempt as he already knew of Amsterdam's plot.

The scene where Johnny sees Amsterdam sleeping with his love would've provided
great foreshadowing that Johnny would be capable of betraying Amsterdam.
There would then be some level of mystery as to how Bill knew of the attempt.

The scene where Johnny later admits to Amsterdam that he had told Bill the truth would have sufficed.

I will say this about Scorcese's choice to reveal the betrayal: It accentuated the level of loyalty and trust Bill felt for Amsterdam when he gets enraged by the very idea of Johnny speaking ill of Amsterdam. The scene itself was important in its own way.

I'm okay with the way it was shown to us, but I would have been more excited by the assassination attempt if I hadn't known of the betrayal beforehand.

[–] bear022013-588-696101 13 years ago

Why? Why? Why? must a film bout the Irish have a bunch of colored kids playing in the Irish hideout in the beginning?
The movie is stupid whem DiCapprio{Catholic Irish Caucasian}kid hangs around with{a black kid}It insults the viewer!
Black guy in an Irish gang....in 1880 or whatever.
If a black director makes a movie about black people and I was black and went to see it..I would be angry if a bunch of tough little Irish kids was the first thing I saw....I would think are we{coloreds}not good enough on our own.
If the lead black actor...say the great Billy Dee Williams was the Reverend's son and my constant sidekick was an IRISH GUY!
Scorcese blew this one big time.
In Ireland,where I love to go and a gang of "bloods"was walking around Belfast ...you would never see them again.

[–] paulalexburns 13 years ago

Absolutely agree with the OP.

http://www.imdb.com/list/X6KH2AZjg30/

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mistedshadow 12 years ago

yup would've been better