Reading the rumors and speculations regarding how maverick director Martin Scorsese’s long-awaited dream project, Gangs of New York, suffered from heavy edits and budget overruns, one cannot help but feel skeptical while watching the damn thing. My primary fear was that Mr. Scorsese’s epic vision, an existing 3-hour plus version of the film, would not reach our local multiplexes this year. And as fate would have it, or, as Miramax chief Harvey Weinstein would have it, that vision is bludgeoned by rough cuts and insipid voice-overs that reveal the renowned filmmaker’s desperation and/or frustration resulting from nearly two years of post-production.
Shot
in Rome, at the famous Cinecitta studios, the production value put in Gangs
is as stunning as it looks authentic. From the 1800's-era garments to the
crumbling wooden houses, the cash invested in the production was well spent. But
did Scorsese really have to shoot this film in Italy on a budget of over
$100-million dollars? This is a director who has never made anything that cost
(or grossed) over $50-million clams. He makes powerful, small-scale films that
win the hearts of critics and film-snobs who appreciate fancy camerawork. And
barring a few spiritual detours, such as The Last Temptation of Christ and
Kundun, this consistent formula has brought forth some of cinema’s most
revered motion pictures.
Film-buffs
who go in to Gangs believing the hype and think it is supposed to be the
pinnacle of Scorsese’s career will be gravely disappointed. Heck, I went in
thinking this film was going to be one gigantic serving of sloppy joe and was
disappointed (not in a good way, though). Usually I don’t get this personal
when expressing an opinion, but it’s not every week a film of this magnitude
is released to such disappointing results. If Gangs were released when it
was originally slated to come out (Christmas of 2001), and the hype was quelled
a bit, maybe we’d get a purer version (like the Oct. 2001 cut), but, as is
evident in the final product, this film has been raped and pillaged by editors
for far too long.
Beginning in the year 1846, before New
York became a city of wealth and commerce, the film opens on Priest Vallon (Liam
Neeson, in a bit part), an Irish immigrant who is preparing for battle against
his ruthless enemy, Will ‘Bill the Butcher’ Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis). Bill
considers himself a Native American and despises the “foreign hoards”
shipped to America, none more so than the Irish. As he tells Jim Broadbent’s
corrupt Mayor Tweed, in a matter-of-fact tone of voice, “If I had a gun I’d
shoot each and every one of’em coming off that boat”.
And so the film opens with two tribes
(Bill’s Natives versus Vallon’s Dead Rabbits) clashing in a battle of
knives, fists, bats and other barbaric weapons. There is even a cartoon-like
female fighter, with Freddy Kreuger claws attached to both fists, who resembles
a 19th-century Catwoman. The opening battle is beautifully shot, but only for so
long. A modern pop-rock score starts thumping on the soundtrack two minutes into the battle, and then the camera’s speed shifts between hyper and slow
motion, but at least, for the most part, the footage cuts together smoothly.
Although the modern camerawork seems out of place in a mid-1800’s battle, this
sequence is one of Gangs’ finest.
After Priest Vallon is slain by Bill in
the opening battle, the central story focuses on the dead Priest’s grown son,
Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio), who, after having spent 16-years in a juvenile
correctional facility, wants nothing more than to avenge his father’s death.
Amsterdam’s tale of vengeance is set to the backdrop of the Civil War and
political corruption in New York. Halfway through, the film becomes an
historical epic, a revenge flick, and, once Cameron Diaz’s miscast pickpocket
character enters the picture, a muddled romance. Combining all these genres may
have worked for Titanic, but Gangs lacks the proper elements to
engage audience members in any of its uneven storylines.
GRADE: C
-Copyright 2002 by
Shaun
Sages