What is the most flawed film in the long illustrious career of Martin Scorsese?
This is honestly quite a difficult question. Scorsese’s career is filled to the brim with immense quality boasting some of the greatest films of all time. As I have taken my own personal journey through the filmography of this great American filmmaker, I have found that I love almost all his films. He brings such a level of craft and ambition to the proceedings. They are challenging experiments when it comes to diving deeply into the human psyche. The inspections of faith and crime are deep and resonant. Scorsese has journeyed through so many different genres. Where films like Boxcar Bertha and New York, New York might be ones that I enjoy the least, they did not have the expectations like the fill that is discussed in this article. Gangs of New York…a film with so much potential and so many great ideas, is a film that can be discussed for hours on end.
Why is this film so flawed when it boasts so much greatness as well?
The biggest issue that Scorsese tries to navigate is what this film is truly about. For all intents and purposes, there are two dueling narratives begging for the full attention of the audience. Jay Cocks (a frequent collaborator and friend of Scorsese) came with this story which had screenplay efforts offered by Steve Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan added in. From the start of the film, the narrative appears to be about a revenge story. This story is told as a film as a young man vows vengeance upon the man who killed his father in combat. But the film has other focuses as well. The whole history of the city of New York through the presence of gangs in the seedier areas of the vast metropolis is portrayed with plenty of heavy lifting. But as the credits roll, the film becomes more about the full realization of modern American and New York. The blood, sweat, and tears that went into this shift became the focus (especially as the third act of the film begins). But something about how all these threads collide leaves something to be desired. You spend a whole film building up to an inevitable showdown between this young man and the murder of his father only becomes a cog in the wheel of progress.
But let’s focus on this story of revenge, shall we?
To start this tale, we must spend some time on one of the greatest introductory scenes in the history of cinema. We meet Priest Vallon in the underground of his Irish people. The Irish were segregated to the collapsing wooden constructs in the worst parts of the city and even to the underground tombs beneath the surface. The Irish gangs collect behind Vallon as they turn towards their collision course with the Native gangs led by the ruthless and towering leader, William “Bill the Butcher” Cutting. Vallon leads his people into battle with his young son at his side. What occurs next is one of the most intense and ruthless battle scenes in the film. From cleaves chopping, to sword stabbing, to knife gutting, and clubs banging, there is just about everything to see in this incredibly brutal and visceral battle to the death. The direction in this scene is a unique combination of hyper-fast frame rate which creates a blur and modern industrial score. The camera angles are wide and close-up to capture the intense feelings of these warriors on the battlefield.
Then you have the tragic death of Vallon with close-ups of father, son, and killer in aggressive succession.
Scorsese knows how to bring aggression and boldness to his filmmaking (which is more impressive after so many decades of work).
But this is only the beginning, right?
The young Vallon returns to the Five Points (his original home) with one goal…to kill “The Butcher”. The audience follows this young man as he attempts to involve himself in an initial gang. They begin to make a name for themselves until he captures the attention of who he wants (“The Butcher”). This story weaves an intriguing new relationship as Vallon (now going by Amsterdam) develops a father-son-like bond with his target. The complexity of their relationship is intriguing, and their dynamic has layers of respect and honor about it. Amsterdam is dealing with a game of deceit but struggles to not appreciate this dangerous man (who he at the moment saves during an assassination attempt). Does he really want to kill this man? A bigot and murderer but also a man who had the utmost respect for the deceased Vallon. There is one incredible scene of Amsterdam’s attempted plot that brings all the deception to light in a visceral and brutal showing where “The Butcher” leaves him battered. After more murdering and eviler acts, Amsterdam leads his men into battle against Cutting. But the narrative then takes a drastic turn of fate. No longer is this long-established feud the primary focus. In what is a well-shot and staged battle in the dust, Amsterdam falls “The Butcher” but the film feels distracted at this point by all else going on during the historic Draft Riots. All of this strong build is thrown to the side (for the most part) to tell a bigger and broader tale. This is a hard pill to swallow when you have become so enthralled by this revenge story.
But what about this grander scope of narrative? Does it deliver the intended impact that still resonates with Americans today?
Scorsese can use pitch-perfect visual storytelling to capture the world that surrounds Amsterdam and his personal vendetta. All the way back at the beginning of the film, Scorsese captures the destitute lives of the Irish in one crane shot. As the camera rises above Priest Vallon and his gangs, the frame captures a large wooden structure filled to the brim with Irish men, women, and children. There are sex workers, fighters, and so many other occupations of people captured in this shot. This encompasses the tough and hardened world the Irish came here and lived in. Later in the film, another impressive crane shot captures the terrifying life cycle of poor men who made their harrowing journey to America. The camera captures them leaving their ships, pans to a table for citizenship and military registration, then to dressed new recruits climbing aboard yet another ship, and finally following the coffins lifted by a crane as they are placed back on the dock. With one shot and minimal dialogue, Scorsese and cinematographer Ballhaus were able to capture to warped American Dream which became the reality of so many young Irish men.
But these two shots can only scratch the surface of this towering indictment of the true immigrant experience in America, right?
The burning fires of bigotry sprint across every group and street in New York City in Gangs of New York. The most overt prejudice in the film comes from the Protestant group of so-called “Natives”. The irony? We all know that these Natives are just those whose families had to be in the New World for generations. None of them are truly native to the Americas but they believe they have the right to “gatekeep” being American due to the actions of their parents and ancestors who fought for the United States. This anti-immigration perspective is unfortunately relevant still today. The presence of “true Patriots” in this country who represent true Judeo-Christian values is the exact same dated and problematic perspective. Instead of the Irish, we see this perspective leveraged against Mexicans, Muslims, and so many more. It is hard to believe that prejudice that was dangerous and harmful back in the 1860s is still present in America in 2022. But then there is the prejudice that the Irish have against the freed slaves. They saw them as enemies who were there to take their jobs. Sound familiar? This type of scapegoating is yet again so apparent in our own time that it is sad to watch it play out 160 years ago.
The screenplays can pick up on the damaging presence of prejudice in American history but what other elements do Gangs of New York explore?
One of the most biting commentaries that the film takes on is that of classism. One scene captures this perfectly. When the Irish fighter turned cop, Happy Jack takes two of the most wealthy and powerful couples in New York City to take a tour through the Five Points, we witness some interesting interactions. Happy Jack shows the “respect” he garners as a cop by leaving his timepiece hanging in the square. This power move shows the overt control that the police have on the poor and downtrodden of the city. But these wealthy upper-class citizens show a distinct ambivalence to the poor. There is judgment and disdain shown towards these people who struggle every day. The most intriguing interaction is when Cutting confronts the visitation party. A man with so much power and influence in the Points is still a nobody to the generational rich member of American high society. We witness the natural backlash to this great divide when the Draft Riots begin and the lower-class ransack the excessively ornate homes of the rich.
But Scorsese and his screenwriters could not possibly leave politics out of the equation, could they?
The character of Boss Tweed is the crown jewel of the political commentary of the film. Tweed follows the votes instead of his beliefs. He turns on Cutting as soon as he sees his future is brighter with young Mr. Amsterdam and the Irish. Oh…and Election Day. The way that this election for Tweed and Monk (hire assassin turned politician) goes is quite entertaining. They play it for laughs when they shave Irishmen so that they look different and can vote again but we hear of fraud claims in elections even today. Then when Cutting and his Natives round up all of the Chinese to vote sure feels similar to when we see political parties transporting minority groups today to political polls. But let’s hope our society stops short of killing politicians who we do agree with (like Cutting to Monk).
Can you see why this film struggles to find focus now?
Scorsese and his crew try to balance so much in this film. The most frustrating aspect of it all is that so much of it is quite compelling. There are narrative threads that feel underdeveloped and unnecessary. The love story between Amsterdam and Bill’s adopted girl, Jenny, feels underwhelming and a lot less interesting when compared to the rest of the rich themes and ideas thrown into the film. Some characters feel a bit underused, and their threads do not feel fulfilled. But to be honest, I would take plenty of underdeveloped threads of thought-provoking material from Scorsese than most filmmakers’ work.
What about the world that Scorsese creates in Gangs?
We have spent plenty of time discussing the thematic aspects of it but there is plenty to say about the physical aspects of the film. The production design of New York City is incredible, to say the least. The large wooden structures are so detailed and lived in. The underground tunnels that house the Dead Rabbits and the fellow Irish gangs are equal parts desperate and full of religious imagery (another thematic perspective that Scorsese explores like most of his projects). The costume designs are also off the charts. The immense amount of colorful checker patterned pants is eye-popping and quite impressive. The top hats and general uses of hats are time accurate and make for plenty of iconic imagery. It would be a crime to not mention the facial hair as well…especially that immaculate mustache that Daniel Day-Lewis rocks as “The Butcher”.
Speaking of…this has been a long time without discussing the performances in the film, right?
Let’s discuss the towering elephant in the room…with the fabulous mustache and giant top hat. D…D…L. This is one of the most powerful and grandiose performances in the film. There is zero subtly in his performance, but he fills up every frame with his presence. His body language from his walk to his De Niro eye squinting are all memorable choices. One of the most iconic images on film is “The Butcher” sitting in front of Amsterdam’s bed draped in the American flag which gives one of the best-performed scenes in any Scorsese film (I said it!). Honestly, it was probably a challenge for any of these actors to stand out next to Day-Lewis. Then there is our lead, Leonardo DiCaprio. This is the beginning of an era with his first Scorsese film, and he gives a good performance. You can tell he is still early in his career as he delivers plenty of raw emotion, but his performance is not perfect. The less that is said about Cameron Diaz in this film is for the best. She was a popular actress at the time, and she just felt out of place in this world. Jim Broadbent is endlessly entertaining and slimy as Boss Tweed with his shiftiness and his clever barbs. Brendan Gleeson is intimidating and powerful in his role as Monk, a barbarian turned politician who knows how to talk too. Even though he is only contractually obligated to appear for 10 minutes in Scorsese films, Liam Neeson is so endearing and brings great gravity to the small but important role of Priest Vallon. John C. Reilly even pops up for another fine dramatic turn that he doesn’t get enough recognition for. There is a laundry list of other actors who make smaller yet important roles like Henry Thomas, Stephen Graham, Eddie Marson, Gary Lewis, Cara Seymour, Roger Ashton-Griffiths, among others.
Do Gangs of New York stand tall amongst the vast filmography of Scorsese?
Can you get past the imperfect elements of the film? If so, you might feel like you have experienced yet another crowning achievement in the long legacy of one of the all-time greats.
Tweet
That is an interesting question. This film feels like it should be a masterpiece. The pure amount of ambition and depth that Scorsese injects into this film is impressive. There is so much to think about and process and discuss that you could be discussing it for hours. There are plenty of elements of the film that are award-worthy and live up to the towering legacy of Scorsese. There are also elements that feel odd and just don’t fit.
