GONY

[Charles Jannuzi <b_rieux@xxxxxxxxx>]

Gangs of New York

We didn't really have very much discussion about
this film on this list, but seeing another
discussion archived at PEN-L inspired me to voice
an opinion now that I've seen it. I might have
figured: Max Sawicky loved the film.

The film is abysmal, spectacularly awful, a
turkey of unequalled proportions. That being
said, Dan Day-Lewis must have understood Jay
Cock's utterly crap story better than anyone and
went all out for the absurd superman of history
interpretation. His depiction of the Butcher was
the only character I felt any connection or
concern for at all, though a good 20 minute
prologue was needed to set up the revenge story
with the Liam Neeson character, and instead we
got 5 minutes and a flashback much later in the
film.

For making almost every scene he is in in such a
turkey compelling, Day-Lewis should be given an
annual Oscar for the rest of his life. He is
unbelievably good in an unbelievably awful film.
At least Day-Lewis and Scorcese got that right:
if you are going to miss, you might as well miss
by huge distance and leave them gasping so no
comprehension can settle in.

Some have doubted the casting of DiCaprio (I sure
did). I must say, an immediate alternative that
comes to mind would have to be Jude Law. Law
fills the screen in a way that would challenge
the older Day-Lewis. He would also have
understood how to transcend the turkey script
with his own character. And he would have saved
the budget 15 million dollars or so. Oh, and he
would have been sure about his accent, whichever
one  he chose--Irish or US NY, unlike DiCaprio,
who did far worse than even Tom Cruise in 'Far
and Away'. Usually I don't make a big deal about
accents, but I think Daniel Day-Lewis's was
brilliant and I couldn't figure DiCaprio's
out--most of the time he just sounds like
DiCaprio (fine, it's an American accent) but then
it would lapse into something that was supposed
to sound Irish--like when he was feebly asserting
himself as a leader of the resurgent Irish gang.


Scorcese, deep down detecting the turkey he was
completing, must have opted for an interpretation
of the story as being MOSTLY about (1)
Catholicism's edgy place vs. the majority US and
(2) the rise of the Catholic Irish as an ethnic
group. For example, the resurgence of the Irish
gang co-incides with the re-building of a
Catholic Church. It doesn't work because there is
no sociological detail to show us just how
important church life would have been for the
Irish working class trying to stick together.
This film has all the sociological coherence of
West Side Story or Michael Jackson's Beat It
Video. No, I take that back, they are far more
compelling.

I could go on and on and enumerate the many ways
this film just doesn't work. As a student of the
history of Jackson's and Van Buren's Democratic
Party, I can't even say the historical detail
works very well (it's about as real as if the
cast of Star Trek got timewarped back to the US
1845-1864). A similar problem came up with
Pacino's 'Revolution' (much historical detail, no
historical understanding), which, for as much of
a turkey as it was, comes no where near GONY's
level of abject awfulness.

This was a film that Scorcese should have passed
on at this stage of his career. Oliver Stone
might have done something with it, but only after
extensive re-writes. John Sayles would have
turned in ten times the film at 1/4 the cost, but
I doubt he would have had much patience with the
story Cocks had.

Charles Jannuzi
Fukui, Japan







__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.