Gangs of New York

[Kyle] Summary of the Movie
     The film Gangs of New York opens with a tremendous battle between the Dead Rabbits, led by Priest Vallon, and the Natives, led by Bill Cutting. After fighting ensues, Priest Vallon is eventually killed by Bill Cutting and the Natives prevail. As a result, Vallon’s son Amsterdam is taken away to a different part of New York for his own safety. The main action of the film takes place when Amsterdam Vallon returns to the Five Points district after years of being away.

     For the duration of the film, Bill “The Butcher” Cutting, a ruthless man with a glass eye, is the leader of the Natives. When Amsterdam returns to the Five Points, he runs into an old friend Johnny Sirocco who informs Amsterdam about the existing gangs, all of whom report to Bill Cutting. Amsterdam decides to join Johnny’s gang but keeps his past a secret so he can pursue his father’s killer more discretely.

     As Amsterdam spends more time in the Five Points, he eventually develops feelings for a beautiful pickpocket named Jenny Everdeane. Johnny is already obsessed with Jenny but Amsterdam begins to lose interest after he learns that she was a ward for Bill Cutting and still sees him. By becoming further involved in the gang and even saving Bill from an assassination attempt, Amsterdam is able to gain Bill’s trust. Amsterdam’s good standing does not last for long however when Jonny reveals his true identity to Bill because he was jealous of Amsterdam’s relationship with Jenny. That same night, on the anniversary of Vallon’s death, Amsterdam tries to kill Bill but Bill defects his blade and injures Amsterdam instead. Bill allows Amsterdam to live with shame, burning the side of his face with the hot blade of his knife.

     After being nurtured to health by Jenny, Amsterdam eventually returns to the Five Points and begins raising hell against the Natives again. In order to quash Bill’s influence, Boss Tweed offers Amsterdam to back an Irishman for sheriff in return for the Irish vote. The Irishman they put on the ballot named monk eventually wins but Bill is so infuriated that he murders him out of rage. This causes tensions between the new Dead Rabbits and Natives to escalate. Tensions come to a boiling point just as the draft riots for the Civil War break out and the city is torn into chaos. During the battle, Bill is killed by Amsterdam and numerous other gang members die. The movie ends with Amsterdam going to San Francisco with Jenny and the buried bodies of Bill and Priest Vallon being overgrown and forgotten.

 

[Hugh] Movie Reception
     This section discussing the general reception of the movie Gangs of New York directed by Martin Scorsese in 2002 is a compilation of the most significant aspects from the New York Times, Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, The Guardian, and an independent review by Robert Ebert, a well renowned American film critic.

     Based on feedback and reviews by the general audience (Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes), the movie received a generally positive reception. However, many of the harsher critics commented on the very aspects that others enjoyed, its blown out Hollywood style plot. Many critiques commented on how the film focused less on the historical aspects and issues that revolved around the development of different gangs in New York, specifically Five Points. In reference to the audience’s’ reception, it is clear that the question becomes whether to regard this movie as a historically accurate documentary, or a Hollywood interpretation of the Five Point gangs for the purpose of entertainment.

     It would be irresponsible however, to solely rely on the critiques on just anybody (similar to citing a scholarly essay with only Wikipedia). In order to have a better understanding of how the movie performed and why it received the criticism it did, sources such as The Guardian, Robert Ebert, and the New York Times offers more in-depth, constructive feedback regarding the film. The Guardian although commenting on how the film was a “1846 New York reimagined as a hyperreal wild west of the east”, greatly praised the acting and actual quality of the film itself. From discussing various actors and applauding their performance, to complementing the director on his success with the movie, The Guardian spoke little of its historical accuracy and reviewed the film as a film, rather than a documentary. Robert Ebert noted how Gangs of New York showed its considerable criticism for democracy during that time period, where if the wrong person became mayor, they were swiftly ‘taken care of’. Ebert in his review, strongly praises the film in retrospect of the director Scorsese. While discussing the director’s relationship in developing the different characters of the gangsters were like, he also refers to the film as “a revisionist history linking the birth of American democracy and American crime. Praise and praise again, Ebert speaks of how little there is of this aspect of American history in Hollywood films, and reminds everyone that “America was forged not in quiet rooms by great men in wigs, but in the streets, in the clash of immigrant groups, in a bloody Darwinian struggle”, by Ebert’s own words. The New York Times continues a similar pattern of praise by stating that the director “wants not only to reconstruct the details of life in a distant era but to construct, from the ground up, a narrative of historical change”, as a means of communicating how the modern New York citizen came to be. Based on the general consensus. It seems like many agree that the film deserves recognition for both its artistic value as well as the focus it puts in its historical context.

 

[Kyle] Seminar Theme 1
     One seminar theme this film dealt with was the social unrest in New York City during the 19th century. The Five Points district was run by gangs and was notorious for being a place of crime and poverty. The Natives were the largest gang in the district and were against the widespread immigration into New York City, particularly by the Irish. The unwillingness of the foreigners to accepted the prejudices directed at them resulted in a number of conflicts between natives and non-natives. The most obvious of these conflicts are the battles between the Natives and the Dead Rabbits at both the beginning and the ending of the film.

 

[Hugh] What is art and what is its purpose?
     As observed in the general conflicting reception of the movie, an important question arises from the film;

Mona Lisa Funny

Gangs of New York. Is this film to be viewed as a historical documentary regarding the situation of the Five Points gangs during the early years of New York City, or is it simply a Hollywood interpretation of such events only to be watched for entertainment purposes? In terms of the previous section, it is obvious that many of the general audience viewers perceived one of the biggest weaknesses of this film to be its overblown proportions in its action, drama, and violence. These are not simply any random viewer make such comments, but are likely individuals who in one way or another, are informed about historically accurate facts about the topic. With this in consideration, it is then important to consider the perspective of the viewer rather than the film itself. While many people may simply watch the movie as another sort of action movie, it is evident that certain people came in watching this movie, fully expecting completely accurate facts within its historical context. Such criticism is present in many other forms of art and media, one major source being video games. An example is the company Activision producing war games based on World Wars 1 and 2. While some enjoy the game, many are quick to criticize every single historically inaccurate factor. From how certain soldiers would not be able to sprint because they had heavy equipment, to how the lack of gun jamming broke the sense of realism (although who would want that in a shooter game), forms of art (games, literature, movies, photography, music, etc.) are always victim to ruthless criticism such as the type described above.

     But when reading reviews from more scholarly sources, it is evident that the perspective in which Gangs of New York was viewed, is quite different. For starters, movie critics tend to focus on the movie as an individual and critique mechanical aspects, from specific application of film techniques to the quality of acting, historical accuracy is usually the last mentioned and quickly dismissed. From this, it seems as though that both sides of the argument are not illogical. If one was to expect a historical documentary, then Gangs of New York can be seen as a Michael Bay fiasco of an interpretation of what truly was the Five Point gangs. However when viewed as a form of art and as a movie/film, then the film has been greatly praised. In an “at least they did this” argument, many reviewers appreciate the simple fact that the movie remotely followed the topic of early New York City and its emergence of gangs.

 

[Hugh] Movie Reception Bibliography

Metacritic. “Gangs of New York.” Metacritic, Miramax Films, 20 Dec. 2002, www.metacritic.com/movie/gangs-of-new-york.

A. O. Scott. “FILM REVIEW; To Feel A City Seethe.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Dec. 2002, www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9e06e4d8103df933a15751c1a9649c8b63&mcubz=1.

Cocks, Jay, et al. “Gangs of New York.” Rotten Tomatoes, Rotten Tomatoes, 12 Mar. 2017, www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gangs_of_new_york/.

Ebert, Roger. “Gangs of New York Movie Review (2002) | Roger Ebert.” RogerEbert.com, Ebert Digital LLC, 20 Dec. 2002, www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gangs-of-new-york-2002.

Bradshaw, Peter. “Gangs of New York.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 9 Jan. 2003, www.theguardian.com/culture/2003/jan/10/artsfeatures2.

 

[Hugh] Image Bibliography

Murano, Grace. “13 Coolest Mona Lisa Parodies & Recreations.” Oddee, Oddee, 19 Aug. 2009, www.oddee.com/item_96790.aspx.

Scorsese, Martin. “Gangs of New York Movie Poster (#5 of 6).” IMP Awards , IMP Awards, 15 Apr. 2007, www.impawards.com/2002/gangs_of_new_york_ver5.html.