| [BACK]
GANGS OF NEW YORK by Tom McCurrie
Why are the settings in today's movies so blah? Everything seems to take place in generic-looking suburbs or been-there done-that cityscapes. Even the "exotic" locales of jungle, mountaintop and desert have been overused to the point of cinematic nausea. That's why I was looking forward to GANGS OF NEW YORK, since its setting is highly unusual -- the Big Apple of the 1860s. Unfortunately, after seeing Scorsese's latest opus, it becomes clear that fresh settings do not a movie make.
(Warning: Spoilers Ahead!)
Written by Jay Cocks, Steven Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan, GANGS OF NEW YORK is a brutal depiction of "Native" and Irish street gangs battling for control of the Five Points neighborhood in 19th Century Manhattan. This is a wonderfully novel setting -- and an eye-opening view of American history. After all, Five Points in the 1860s makes today's inner-city neighborhoods look like a ride at Knott's Berry Farm. Dirt-poor immigrants live in caves, "Native" Anglo-Saxon Protestants keep New York beautiful by knifing every Irishman in sight, and anyone who doesn't have 300 dollars to their name is forcibly conscripted into that lovely meat-grinder known as the Civil War.
An utterly fascinating backdrop for a movie. Why? Because it puts to the torch the notion that there was anything remotely resembling the "Good Old Days" in this country. Too many movies whitewash and distort America's past, usually to distract us from the problems of the present. But Scorsese correctly notes that freedom and opportunity have always gone hand in hand with corruption and violence (especially racial violence) from the Mayflower onward. Only by recognizing this can we ever hope to mature as a nation.
Wow -- all this thematic heft from a well-chosen setting. That means GANGS is perfect, right? Not quite. No matter how compelling the backdrop, a movie still needs a strong script -- that means characters, plots and twists to keep us gripped from first frame till last. And GANGS comes up woefully short on that account.
First of all, there's the revenge plot that drives the story: "Native" Daniel Day-Lewis kills "Irish" Leo DiCaprio's pa, so Leo swears revenge. Frankly, this is as stale as the setting is fresh. It's also wafer-thin, with almost no subplots to give it variety. All we get for our trouble is a trite love triangle between DiCaprio, Day-Lewis and Cameron Diaz.
And then there are the borough-sized plot holes. Why does DiCaprio wait so long to kill Day-Lewis? The script wants us to believe DiCaprio can only whack him at a special dinner celebrating D-L's victory over the Irish. Since that dinner is a ways off, he puts his assassination plans on hold. But why wait till then? Is the dramatic effect of this dinner so important? Couldn't DiCaprio simply shoot Day-Lewis from across the street and be done with it? This would certainly be easier than going undercover in the "Native" gang for weeks on end, trying to avoid detection long enough to grease the boss. The way it is now, DiCaprio embarks on his quest so slowly he makes eternally wavering Hamlet look like speed freak. He actually goes Hamlet one better and saves Day-Lewis' life -- why, so he can kill him later?
DiCaprio spends so much time waiting to kill the bad guy we begin to wonder whether he's forgotten his quest -- this causes the story to sputter and lose momentum. All in all, the "wait till dinner" scenario is just too flimsy to work, an excuse to pad the picture out to two-hours-plus.
The story is padded further when Day-Lewis finally discovers DiCaprio's true identity -- and allows him to live anyway! Why, so Leo can come back to mess with him another day? Even an electrifying portrayal by Day-Lewis can't pull this moment off.
The final script faux pas has the villain's defeat taken out of the hero's hands. Union soldiers putting down the Draft Riots march through Five Points, liberally spreading lead in every direction. Day-Lewis gets crippled in the Union fusillade, so DiCaprio just finishes him off. Very frustrating. We're waiting the whole movie for these two to tango and then some deus ex machina strolls in and stops the fight before it begins. DiCaprio's easy win also stifles our emotions; it's hard to root for someone who doesn't have to fight for his victory.
Though I love Scorsese, I think he missed an important point here: a fresh setting may catch the eye, but only a strong drama can catch the heart.
*****
Last but not least, here are the results from the Screenplay Poll:
Best Screenplay: ABOUT SCHMIDT
Worst Screenplay: BALLISTIC: ECKS VS. SEVER
To all of you who took part, thanks!
Responses, comments and general two-cents worth can be E-mailed to gillis662000@yahoo.com.
A graduate of USC's School of Cinema-Television, Tom McCurrie has worked as a development executive and a story analyst. He is currently a screenwriter living in Los Angeles.
|
