Scorsese on Scorsese

In Editors Ian Christie and David Thompson’s introduction to Scorsese on Scorsese (Faber and Faber, London, 2003) they state that, “With Gangs of New York, Martin Scorsese has fulfilled the second long-delayed promise of his career, after The Last Temptation of Christ.” (pg. XIX) They go on to explain that Scorsese read Herbert Asbury’s collection of true crime writing–on which Gangs was based –in 1972. He announced the project some years later but, all told, the project was germinating for around thirty years. That’s a long time to have a plan. Scorsese on Scorsese is a collection of Scorsese’s lectures and interviews where the director speaks candidly, tangential references to unmade films standing, about his struggles to make the movies he wants, and to get people to like them. (George Lucas, a friend of Scorsese’s, makes several appearances in these anecdotes, mainly as a shrewd businessman who seems to have his finger on what Americans want, and how to make more money satiating them).

What’s fundamentally interesting about Scorsese, and what links these interviews and comments together nicely, is his artistic intent- sometimes ambitious and long-reaching to the point of hubris, sometimes almost quaint and pet-project-like. Scorsese sometimes seems, as Copolla once said of his own films, a hobbyist- and this is a compelling and attractive place for a career filmmaker to be. Scorsese’s ambitions trails him throughout the book: Christie and Thompson make sure we understand this from the get-go: “Most film-makers’ careers include many more projects than can ever be realized, but these are often airbrushed from the record.” (pg. XXV). But Scorsese’s plans—even those lost to history—seem to inform who he is as a filmmaker. When these plans “pan out” we are gifted to see just how much thought and craftsmanship emerges, as in Gangs of New York.

On a macro level the director speaks broadly of projects and deals floating around him as he hunkers down to shoot films like Raging Bull and Kundun. On a smaller, more craft-oriented level, Scorsese reveals his intent, his plans, his artistry, in his films. And, as stated above: these are some big, long waiting ideas hanging in the rafters while he eats. As scholars we come across a scene, or a sentence, and are asked: Did the artist/writer mean to do this? The scripted answer is always “yes.” And yet we don’t really know what the artist/writer/director was actually thinking when they painted/wrote/directed that scene. Well Scorsese on Scorsese serves as a vivid account of the pathos of an artist. And it is quite illuminating to see how Scorsese’s plans play out in his films.

Where are the Five Points? Why are they so interesting?

The streets’ names have changed over the years according to Sante, but the fascination with this infamous neighborhood in Manhattan has remained the same. In LOW LIFE, Sante tells us that,

The Old Brewery [which is a major set in Scorsese's Gangs of New York, if you remember, where Leonardo Dicaprio's character Amsterdam recovers from near-death, and before which many a battle was fought] was the magnetic center of the area called the Five Points, the intersection of Orange (now Baxter), Cross (now Park), and Anthony (also known as Cat Hollow, no Worth) Streets, the immediate area also bounded by Ryndert (now Mulberry) and Little Water (also known as Dandy Lane and since built over).    pg. 28

In his review of the Gangs of New York film Gregory J. Christiano expands on the area: “This was the Sixth Ward and became notorious for its crime-ridden streets, colorful gangs, prostitutes, petty thieves and gamblers.  There was all manner of vice, debauchery and corruption.  Even the police and fire brigades were part of this lawless environment not to mention the politicians.  (para.1)”

The Sixth Ward

I’m borrowing the above images from Mr. Christiano’s excellent essay on Urbanography called “The Five Points,” in which he comments on the Sixth Ward/Five Points area, then goes on to show us some fabulous news articles from the time (you can read it here). He begins his essay by explaining that

The name Five Points evokes images of poverty, rampant crime, decadence and despair. That’s true. The Five Points was a lurid geographical cancer filled with dilapidated and unlivable tenement houses, gang extortion, corrupt politicians, houses of ill-repute and drunkenness and gambling.  This was a place where all manner of crime flourished, the residents terrorized and squalor prevailed.      para. 1

On thing that Scorsese does in Gangs of New York is to depict the myriad tales of the New York low life. His city is filled brimful with tiny micro-stories, each played out on the streets, sometimes taking place a block off in the background of the main action. We feel the woeful living of these people as we watch them limping about, or staring out at us from their windows. Why is Scorsese fascinated with it? Why did Sante write about it?

This is open to discussion. I, for one, think it fascinating to see such a different America, yet so much like our own. I find it easy to relate to the goings on of this time period, as if it were happening only yesterday, and yet I’m removed from it enough to look at it from a critical perspective. And this goes especially for things related to New York, a city that may have changed vastly in some ways, but has remained the same in so many others.

As students, studying a place like the Five Points can show us numerous things- but I’ll start by quoting Ms. Vargas, who quoted Jacob Riis when she wrote: “The slum is the measure of civilization.” And perhaps we measure ourselves when we experience the narratives of those who lived in the Five Points. This is all just the start of such a discussion, of course. The question, again: Why do we find the Five Points so fascinating?

Daniel Day-Lewis (D-Day) and Scorsese’s Gangs

D-Day has won his Oscar for his role as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood, and I think none of us can argue with the sometimes erroneous desicions of the Academy. In our class, watching Scorsese’s Gangs of New York comes with it two distinct pleasures. The first being a glimpse into more of D-Day’s acting chops. The second pleasure of viewing would have to be the new knowledge I have of Old New York, the time period in which this film is set (during the Civil War).

D-Day is reportedly a method actor- meaning that he seeks his role from within himself, and plays that role on–and off–camera. As such, he is notoriously difficult on set, often aloof and in-character at moments that could easily make his fellow actors a little uncomfortable. His role in Gangs is that of Bill the Butcher (a real character from Herbert Asbury’s non-fiction novel of the same name as the film named Bill Poole, here named Bill Cutting). He is a ruthless Nativist who can throw a knife with great accuracy, and he can be very scary in the role (much like his role as Plainview in Blood), and I can imagine that his fellow players didn’t much enjoy being around the guy while he sat in his chair awaiting his cue to film, if he did in fact continue acting like a killer even when he wasn’t supposed to.

D-Day’s performance in Gangs holds up: he is electric in the film, and although Dicaprio does well to stand and face Bill the Butcher as both a man seeking revenge and a young actor looking to define himself as a tough guy, D-Day steals the show. He was nominated for Best Actor by the Academy, and for good reason. When he utters his final line: “I die a true American,” it is quite magical, if a bit stolid. Though his performance in no way measures to that of the nuanced and sometimes rather broad, breathtaking performance of Plainview, D-Day remains a pleasure to watch.

But perhaps even more pleasing than D-Day is Scorsese and his photographer’s shots of this magnificent set, one that the director, I believe, said may be “the last great set” or something of that sort. Here are built-in views of Jacob Riis’ 19th century photography of the streets in Old New York. One can literally pick out Riis’ “Bandit’s Roost” as Scorsese moves his camera through the Five Points–the central neighborhood where the events of this drama played out–because Scorsese asked his award-winning set designer Dante Ferretti to include them. Ferretti himself speaks in the special features of the DVD about how Scorsese shipped him all of his research: and Ferretti went to work building an entire neighborhood from the ground up. When asked whether Scorsese enjoyed shooting outside of Rome (where the film’s giant set was), Scorsese often replied: “I’m not in Rome. I’m in New York.” DiCaprio concurs in his interviews. As a passive viewer I must say it is a transporting experience. Scorsese takes liberties with his treatment of the historical material–and he is taking liberties from research like Sante’s Low Life and Asbury’s Gangs of New York, two books that most agree were taking liberties as well–but this is part of his mythos, and he speaks in Scorsese on Scorsese about such things, finally, and how he is trying to weave an American Epic, not just a period piece.

When I saw Gangs of New York in the theaters so many years ago, I was not “blown away.” Rather, I felt the script was sensational and a bit overwrought. Cameron Diaz was no choice for a leading role of such proportions, and D-Day, I thought, was pushing his accent and his character out the window. But watching the film again is a rewarding experience. It is always delightful to have a new knowledge to inform a viewing experience, and walking into such a film equipped with a new appreciation of both the actors of the film and the history that the film is based on certainly ups the ante, so to speak, in pushing on the power of Gangs of New York.