|
|
|
bars & clubs movie clock restaurants specials best of chicago film and video music and clubs stage sports words art features |
|
|
![]() Bringing out the dead Scorsese stumbles with "Gangs of New York"
Martin Scorsese and innumerable conspirators have struggled for almost
three decades to produce "Gangs of New York," and yet it is a terrible
movie. This hellish horror of failed ambition should freeze the blood of
any artist who has held too long to a primal obsession and fears that a
life's work will be shown up as an ineffective folly.
A respected colleague thinks it's "the best Western since
`Unforgiven,'" and I look forward to his review. But the defenders of
Scorsese's poorest pictures of the past decade, like "Casino," will
surely again sound like minions of a cult, humming Scorsese's praises
just because he's Scorsese. Those who give "Gangs of New York" an
'A' for its aspiration will be deceiving themselves about this
clotted, overproduced historical epic. This is not Sergio Leone, or
"Once Upon a Time in Nolita." As with the preposterous raves for the
undernourished "Bringing out the Dead," the improvident praise for
this clumsy, puerile picture has already begun, with Rolling Stone's
Peter Travers, the grandest quote courtesan of them all, anointing it
his movie of the year.
The violent story is both simple and unduly complicated; a
coming-of-age narrative in which a young boy enters manhood by seeking
revenge against someone who becomes a father figure to him. Personal
vendettas play out against a social backdrop that is readily footnoted,
but almost impossible to follow on screen. Leonardo DiCaprio, who is
joyously carefree in "Catch Me If You Can," is a puffy cipher as
Amsterdam Vallon, a young man who exits Hellgate House of Reform after
sixteen years into the Five Points, the nation's most reviled slum in
Civil War-era Manhattan. He has one goal: revenge on the gang boss who
murdered his father, "Bill the Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis, the
baroque character of his garb, lingo and epic hamming screaming Oscar).
They share the love of a damaged young woman, a spirited cutpurse named
Jennie Everdeane (Cameron Diaz, who gives a focused performance even
when her speeches are schematic). There's a bustle of other characters,
particularly well-acted by Brendan Gleeson and also by Jim Broadbent,
whose performance as corrupt Boss Tweed is a marvel of harrumphing
complexity.
The dandified result is of the variety David Mamet dismisses as
pageant. It preens, it postures; its streets are cluttered with props
and costumes and Dante Ferretti's lovely battered buildings, yet the
characters aren't interesting and its depiction of gang slaughter and
the decade's violent Draft Riots are more self-important than
self-explanatory. Scorsese's many interviews explicating all his sound
and fury is about as relevant as the horribly misguided, redundant
voiceover. Blood and capital was spilled, we get that point. But it is
all indicated instead of dramatized, willed instead of embodied. This is
chilly work that attempts a hot surface, wanting to be an operatic
rendition of a lost era in Manhattan's dirty, brutal history.
Whether "Gangs of New York" was cut to two hours or ran a full
three, as an earlier version reportedly did, I still cannot imagine the
jerrybuilt fiction of this epic historical disaster to have any
emotional impact. It is history as fever dream; a sweeping narrative of
revenge in which the man who seeks revenge is a barely acted nobody, and
the one upon whom revenge is wished is a glorious burlesque villain.
(It's as if Joe Pesci's sociopath Tommy DeVito was the central
character of "Goodfellas" rather than Ray Liotta's Henry Hill.)
Scorsese's visual vocabulary is seldom composed of telling
images--note Roman Polanski's upcoming "The Pianist" by contrast for
superlative use of capturing meaning through metaphor and telling
juxtapositions. Shockingly, Scorsese resorts to editing and
image-manipulation techniques that seem drawn more from the grammar of
coming-attractions trailers rather than the abundant loam of classical
cinema in which Scorsese steeps. I'm sure he could tell you what he's
quoting in each sequence, but that is the stuff of DVD commentaries and
not of the sweet mystery of competent storytelling. Yet the ending is
majestic, standing tall above the windy disaster that precedes those
transcendent instants.
After the film's lengthy riot climax, when the smoke has cleared and
the bodies have been buried, Amsterdam and Jennie are sepia figures atop
a ridge of the cemetery that overlooks the island. One last voice-over
explains and reassures and clanks like lead. They leave the frame and we
see a series of dissolves to a Berenice Abbott-style tableaux ushering
in successive eras of New York and its burgeoning architecture. The
Brooklyn Bridge arrives, its sweep across the CinemaScope frame; a 1920s
skyline, then 1940s. The eye measures, muses what final skyline we will
be left with? We know the image that would be perfect, a skyline that
will not fit the frame but that extends far enough downtown to include
it.
And there is more: the mood is just right, even if the U2 song
playing to the credits is unmemorable. The music fades. The names
continue. Sound fades up: distant street traffic. Taxi horns carom
randomly off the sides of buildings. A cross-town bus moans. A car alarm
bleats. No voices, only the taken-for-granted machines of progress. The
sounds of twenty-first-century civilization, blooming like flowers in
spring. And silence, several minutes of silence. I wish Scorsese had
made a film as beautiful as those two masterstrokes--as wistful, as
heartfelt, as wondrous, as meaningful, and I would have cried for 165
minutes instead of only five. "Gangs of New York" opens Friday.
Also by Ray Pride Tip of the Week
The J-Lo Show
Tip of the Week
DVD Tip of the Week
Time regained
My Big Fat Night
Turn into the slide
Perfectly mediocre
Tip of the Week
Imitation of Life
Tip of the Week
Purty mouth
|
|
about Newcitychicago | about Newcity magazine | advertising | privacy policy | FAQ | employment |