Film
Scorcese offers us a wayward glimpse into the birth of America.
America: "born on the streets." In the land of opportunity, they say, those streets are paved with gold. Not so the streets of 1860s New York. Magic for the silver screen is not Scorsese's game - he has attempted a gritty epic exposing the murky seed of America's great city. But he fails, or forgets, to grasp that elusive love child that is New York, probably because New York is all about magic, and this tired battle cry decidedly is not.
As we should expect from Scorsese, a director who films the subterranean, violent world underneath the American consciousness, Gangs of New York shows us the entrails of a city's street birth. The actual entrail parts are great - the film has the bright idea of making its big villain 'The Butcher', which means, children, that we can have lots of blood and accurate removal of organs. But, amazingly, GONY makes the bloody bits seem few and far-between, so dull and sprawling is the plot.
Daniel Day-Lewis plays the Scorsese staple, a gangster who unspokenly rules the city streets with violence. He kills the young Di Caprio's father in a gang battle to drive out Irish immigrants. Leo returns, an adult, to wreak his revenge in the midst of Civil War riots which are taking over the city. On the way he falls in love with Cameron Diaz. And if that was it, the film would be so much stronger. Unfortunately, the director doesn't have the courage for simplicity and ruins the film with his forced inclusion of corrupt Civil War politics.
If Scorsese wanted to show how gangs and anarchy can take over a city, all he actually needed to do was deploy the great weapon at his disposal: Daniel Day-Lewis. The Butcher's real source of power is obvious within ten minutes of glimpsing Day-Lewis. He has a silly accent and an even sillier moustache, but his charisma is near-nuclear and makes the screen magnetic. Di Caprio and Diaz are sweet but predictable, but it is left to Day-Lewis, in spectacular bright checks, to carry the movie.
And this is an impossible task. He tries hard - the moustaches quiver and the checks dance - but, sadly, he is sidelined as the film goes on. Scorsese chooses to focus on Di Caprio and the Civil War riots, to the detriment of his film. Not intelligent enough to be political or passionate enough to be tragic, Scorsese's New York is caught in a no-man's-land, robbed of its foundations.
Oh yes, the New Year brings plenty of good cheer for the film world. Not only can we bid farewell to 'The Santa Clause 2' and other insults to cinema, but we are greeted by a possible gem (ha! -Ed)- Gangs of New York - directed by one Mr Martin Scorsese. In fact, 2003 marks 30 years since the release of Mean Streets, the first Scorsese/Robert De Niro collaboration. But what makes Marty's movies so eagerly anticipated?
Scorsese's direction was undoubtedly influenced by his upbringing in the Lower East Side in Manhattan; hindered by bad asthma, Marty watched New York City from his bedroom window. Inspired by Italian cinema, Scorsese enrolled at NYU to study Film and put these observations to good use.
In 1976, in Taxi Driver, he examined the self-destruction of loner Travis Bickle in downtown New York. Despite being low budget, unpolished and violent it has become one of the most influential films of all time; Scorsese's direction was gritty and real to an extent never seen before.
1980 brought Raging Bull - shot entirely in black and white, it featured incredibly realistic, slow-motion fight scenes - another directing ground-breaker. In 1988, Scorsese received another 'Best Director' Oscar nomination for The Last Temptation of Christ.
The 1990s saw the release of his legendary mafia movies Goodfellas and Casino in which Marty shows both the glory and corruption of organised crime in America. Lest we forget, Scorsese also made Quiz Show and Bringing out the Dead before the century was up - both well received.
So with such an outstanding contribution to cinema, is the frantic build-up to Gangs of New York any wonder? In response to Travis Bickle's infamous question: "Are you talkin' to me?" "No, Marty. We're just staring in admiration."
A 'consummate highlighting of the solitude of the basic human condition' according to the Phoenix, Monday Morning received two prizes for Best Director and the International Critics' Prize at the Berlin Film Festival last year.
So, waiting for the film to begin, I had hopes of an extraordinary cine atic experience. Which was unfortunate, because the film is not very good.
The director relies on a subtler language to relate the relationships and feelings of the characters. And, to give him credit, this technique works - the audience gains a good enough understanding of the characters to be at least interested. The film observes the characters going about their daily routine with a detached irony and an understated humour that has a charm.
Comic highlights include the director's cameo role as a miserly count and, quite randomly, the appeareance of a rogue crocodile in the family's garden. Sadly the comedy was slightly marred for me by a guy next to me laughing like an idiot at anything remotely funny.
The film is not in any sense dramatic: the climax of the story involves the main character going for a holiday and meeting a nice Italian man, although they do get drunk and have a bit of a sing-song. A comedy doesn't need a gripping plot, but, as the film isn't particularly funny, the lack of any narrative drive makes it easy to get bored (though I'm hoping that's not just my inability to watch anything without explosions and death).
Monday Morning is interestingly different, but if you have a spare couple of hours, do something else. Like seeing City of God.
9th Jan 2003