If there is one thing Gangs of New York is already famous for, it's the level of anticipation it has garnered. Directed by Scorsese, his first since the low-key Bringing out the Dead; starring Di Caprio, on his return from a temporary sabatical from the movie business, and the famously reclusive Day-Lewis (who hasn't worked since 97's The Boxer); and also coming off the back of an amazingly long production process which suggested all sorts of problems with the finished article. All in all it has managed to remain both well above and surprisingly below the radar, but expectations were high that they'd all got it right and that what we were in for was a shocking yet magnificent piece of cinema.
Well, they got it half right. The film IS shocking, but not quite in the way Scorsese's films normally are. It all starts well enough, the opening sequence is a terrific set piece of visual bloodlust which gives us a slight idea of what it is we're supposed to be seeing. The Irish invasion of New York in the late nineteenth century has caused the 'natives' to get restless and fight back, and the scene is set for a climactic showdown to decide who controls the 'Five Points', a squalid little area of south Manhattan ripe for gang culture. Into the fray steps Priest Vallon (Neeson), leading the Irish settlers, and Bill 'the butcher' Cutting (Day-Lewis), who wants them out of the way completely. During the melee, complete with eye gouging, throat slitting and all sorts of no holds-barred hacking and slashing, Cutting attacks Vallon and kills him, ending the fight in favour of the natives. As such the Irish gangs are subjugated and Cutting gains complete control of the area. Seeing all this though is Vallon's young son, Amsterdam, who in trying to attack Cutting is swept up and removed to some kind of young offenders institution. All is well so far.
However, the film completely fell apart after this rather exciting start. We shoot forward 16 years to see Amsterdam Vallon getting out of the institution and quickly forgetting everything he learned about being good there. Returning to the points he finds everything is different. Cutting rules completely with an iron fist, his old friends and his father's comrades have either fled to obscurity or switched sides, and nobody seems to know who he is. Through a series of petty acts he somehow wangles his way into Cutting's gang and into the old man's select group. This is the film for the next hour and a bit, and at this point I remember turning to Richie and tutting very loudly as the critical middle section was weighed down with unnecessary scenes and contradictory characterization. Amsterdam does nothing, yet is feted by Cutting as his successor, and not one of his highly suspicious lieutenants ever bothers to unmask this new intruder or take him out.
The romance between Di Caprio and Diaz is pathetic, and goes rather too quickly from dislike and downright hatred to passionate love making. This isn't helped by both looking quite out of their depth and Scorsese's direction completely lacking focus on the main issue of Cutting and Vallon junior, moving constantly between the problems Irish immigrants faced in the 19th century; the Civil war raging down south, and the subsequent Draft Riots; Jim Broadbent's shyster politican attempting to do SOMEthing (we're never quite sure) with whoever leads the majority group in the points, and the important but utterly understated issue of Vallon reconciling his past with his present. Scorsese is well known for his ability to tell bits of a story well, and his marvellous set pieces, but in this he utterly fails to convincingly present a 2 hour film as something worthy of the subject matter.
On the upside however is Day-Lewis's performance, almost certainly a shoe-in for the Best Supporting Actor award at the Oscars. With a huge and historically accurate moustache hiding half his face he gives an astonishing performance as local hard man Cutting, mixing the man's ruthlessness and desire for supremacy with his parallel role as a man of learning and thought, someone who isn't afraid to show his respect for other strong men and who you can't help but feel is actually half good on the inside. He outshines Di Caprio with an ease which is worrying for a young man on a comeback, and is ably supported by the always brilliant Gleeson and Broadbent, who has carved something of a niche in the serious yet amusing supporting role. Diaz is, to be fair, a joke, and the rest of the cast stick rigidly to their stereotypes, betraying friend, on-the-take copper, upper-class toff etc etc. It's astonishing to think that in all this time no one noticed this rather bizarre fault, one strong character (not the lead) effectively embarrassing everyone else in this, allegedly, serious film.
If anything at least a lot of money was spent, wisely, on creating the sets and period detail (in Italy no less) but everything else simply failed to step up into the same bracket of lavishness. The performances, bar the ones noted, were very poor, the direction aimless, the story wandering, the nudity breathtakingly unneccessary and the accents generally atrocious. Diaz, Di Caprio, Stephen Graham? They have VOICE coaches now you know, there really is no excuse. As with everything else, it was just so very, very disappointing. |
