8
votes
Movie of the Week #18 - Gangs of New York
Second Martin Scorsese movie is Gangs of New York from 2002.
Besides any thoughts any thoughts on this movie, now that we have done this little comparison between Scorsese and superhero movies, what do you think sets these types of movies apart and are they really as opposites as it is sometimes made out to be?
The schedule for March is:
- 4th: There Will Be Blood
- 11th: Life is beautiful
- 18th: High Noon
- 25th: Saving Private Ryan
I think fighting over the definition of "cinema" is rather pointless and I don't believe Scorsese has anything but respect for superhero movies. It seems like his point is that they are something different. Not better or worse, but it is different. Movies deal with emotions in one form or another, and superhero movies are really really efficient at delivering a spectacle of excitement - but it will be a loss if we have learned a whole generation of movie-goers that that is practically the only type of movie.
I watched this movie right before watching Killers of the Flower Moon. And watching Killers right after made me think it was a spiritual sequel to this film. Gangs examines America's violent past in the 19th century the same way Killers examines it in the 20th century. I also feel like the form of Killers shares its DNA with this moreso than all the other Scorsese movies.
From what I understand this movie suffered from Weinstein's intervention in the final cut. Scorsese is not happy with this as is and would prefer his much longer cut be released instead. Even with that though I still think it's really good. The most often criticized part of this movie are both Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz. You all know how I like DiCaprio, but I thought Diaz gave a good performance here. I'm not entirely sure what the problem people had with them was. Maybe it's because they were young, hot, and popular at the time that they didn't feel at place?
I thought the characters' relationship started too late in the movie for the amount of narrative real estate it occupied for the rest of the runtime. The established character relationships before then feel intricate and interesting, and the romance angle is sort of forced and simple which felt jarring. Not bad per se, just the worst part of a fantastic character drama. I remember feeling the mood and pacing of the movie start to fall apart once Diaz's character was introduced.
I agree. I think that the movie has some odd pacing around Diaz's character. She is a compelling character but yeah, introduced a little too late and it almost feels like studio interference and "needing a romance" for the sake of broadening appeal.
I also hear the critique of her performance, but I don't get it myself. I'm not saying she gave an Oscar-worthy performance, but it was certainly a fine job. Cloud_loud might be onto something with the young, hot, and popular theory. I can also understand in the era thinking about how odd a choice it was to cast Diaz in a large, character-driven, period piece. She had just starred in Charley's Angels and Shrek after all.
I like westerns and the period around the American civil war, so it was interesting to see that time period taking place in the city of New York. The basic plot even resembles many westerns with a big gang lord killing a rival in front of his son and that son coming back for revenge years later. However that is barely half of what is going on here against the historic backdrop of conscription and politics of the time.
America's very violent history is good movie material, but with this also a bit frustrating because I found it to be a bit unfocused. I was more interested in all the stuff that happened in the background than the main characters played by DiCaprio and Day-Lewis. There were definitely times when in dragged a bit with its long running time, but it makes up for it with some spectacular individual scenes - especially the beginning and the end.