Martin Scorsese made one compromise in the making of “Gangs of New York” — casting Leonardo DiCaprio as his lead man. If viewers can get past that sizable setback, they will recognize the film as a major cultural achievement in filmmaking.
Scorcese spared no expense in the producing of this film, from the beautifully crafted costume designs to the even more aesthetically astonishing sets. The number of extras cast is astronomical in the current, CGI-infested industry. This movie is a rootsy, gutsy cinematic move and has cemented Scorsese’s place in film history among the greats.
Though the aesthetics put this film over the top, the narrative is not to be forgotten. Set in 1846, a fight is brewing between the Irish immigrants and the white Anglo-Saxon “natives” for control of Five Points, which is known to be the most violent part of the world at the time.
In this fight, Amsterdam (DiCaprio) witnesses his father’s death at the hands of Bill the Butcher. Amsterdam escapes and we fast-forward 16 years to find a post-adolescent man full of rage and vengeance. In the classic “Braveheart” and “Gladiator” style, the theme of revenge dominates and propels the protagonist to victory alongside his dame in the end.
This film differs from the typical epic in the root of Amsterdam’s revenge. He comes back to Five Points, works his way into Bill’s gang and becomes Bill’s right hand man. Amsterdam battles with his comfort, being so close to the man who killed his father. “It’s a funny thing being took under the wing of a dragon. It’s warmer than you think,” he says in the film.
Because Amsterdam walks side by side with Bill, the film shows the villain in a different light. Bill opens up to Amsterdam in an unforgettable scene in his bedroom, spilling his weaknesses and motives concerning fear and regret. Daniel Day-Lewis’ acting is outstanding as he stands, saying, “Civilization is crumbling,” as if walking away from DiCaprio because he is revealing too much but can’t stop himself.
This film is not one for a crowd demanding a fast-moving plot and constant action. Rather, viewers should enter the theater looking to sit back and actively absorb an epic film. Most negative feedback on this film is rooted in an impatient desire to be given immediate gratification. Audiences have to go and get it.
As an overall work, this film deserves recognition from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which distributes the Oscar awards every year. It may not be the biggest money-making, booty-shaking flick that woos popular culture for a week or two, but one can only hope the Academy will come through, as it has in the past, with films such as “American Beauty” and “The English Patient.”