Gangs of New York

I saw this film recently, and it definitely had its moments. First, the good:

The cinematography, musical score, and basic storyline were all good. The actors performed competently, especially Daniel Day-Lewis, in the role of the main villain. He made the movie, as far as I'm concerned, and his acting was a sight to behold. The sets were pretty incredible, as well--and extensive.

In many ways, this was a politically incorrect movie. The director (Scorsese) didn't try to sugar-coat the Civil War setting. Nor did he glorify the Yankee soldiers, which I liked. Rather, he portrayed it as a grim, horrible affair that corrupted and ruined everything it touched. One sequence showed the famous Draft Riots in all their butchery and chaos. It was pretty clear to me that the film looked down upon the draft, which I think is the appropriate response. Finally, the wanton and evil abuse suffered by the Irish as they stepped off the boats was shown accurately. This is a side of racism and bigotry most people know little about. It was not unusual for the Irish to labor for slave wages--earning less than many other immigrants.

The movie had some problems, though: I realize it takes place in a bloody, violent time, without a doubt. But some elements were exaggerated, in my opinion. If New York City had been as violent and corrupt as the movie shows, it's hard to imagine the city surviving into the 20th Century. So what I'm saying is that real events were dramatized, but made larger-than-life, in some areas. For example, in an opening scene, two gangs do battle in the streets. We know from newspaper clippings that people died in these turf wars, but not in vast numbers, all at once. Yet the scene I referred to was like an epic battle scene lifted from Braveheart, with blood, brain matter, and other assorted bits of anatomy spewing and flying everywhere. Again, an embellishment on known facts.

Another problem was the main character--the protagonist, if you will. Played by DeCaprio, he was not a very likeable character. He frequently did stupid, foolish things, and his face was etched in a permanent scowl throughout the movie. DeCaprio did his best with the character, but he was just not very empathetic.

The worst problem I found was the anti-Christian bent in the film. DeCaprio spends a good deal of his childhood in a Catholic-run reformatory, and I know these places were tough on kids. But he acts as if he likes the priest who runs the place, hugging him goodbye and thanking him, when he strikes out on his own. The man gives him a Bible as a gift, which he immediately chucks into the Hudson River upon departing. Later in the movie, a preacher treats him kindly and invites him to Sunday services. He impolitely tells the man to go to Hell. However, the film does show him revering and practically praying to a medal with St. Michael the Archangel on it, as his father had done. So for some reason, the director shunned Christianity and opted for paganistic elements for his focus. This disturbed me more than anything else in the movie, because it seemed senseless and unjustified. Of course, what should I expect from the man who made The Last Temptation of Christ--a piece of sickening heresy and blasphemy that never should have seen the light of day?