I saw the movie Gangs of New York last night and I have to say it was a film that went well beyond the hype. This was one movie that packed a powerful punch.

I found that it was historically accurate. This film illustrated the conflict in the min 1800s between native born americans and (cheifly Irish) immigrants. It particularly showed the sordid political violence between these groups.

In the film we see the Nativist gang leader and neighborhood butcher, "Bill the Butcher" played by Daniel Day Lewis in probibly his best performance who rules the neighborhood of the "five points". In the beginning he fights a pitched battle with his comrads against a group of Irish rabble led by a priest. In the battle he kills the priest with his own hand leaving the priest's son played by Leonardo DiCaprio to seek revenge.

The film continues some time later as the nation is in the mids of the Civil War. Here we see immigrants being recruited and later conscripted for the army. The fact that rich citizins are able to buy exemptions from service for $300, a sum impossible to Irish immigrants leads to tensions and political violence.

This film shows the complexities of New York gang politics. This is illustrated on many levels. The City is ruled by its corrupt mayor and democratic leader, "Boss" Tweed. Tweed uses Bill the Butcher to use the gangs loyal to him to further his means. In kind, the Butcher is allowed to commit any act he sees fit.

Beneith the nativist gangs are the Irish gangs.

When the climatic anti conscription riot does break out we see the entire tinderbox errupt as the police and later federal troops fight the rioters while the nativists fight the Irish while the angry mobs beat and lynch blacks throughout the city. Its probibly the films ugliest yet most powerful scene.

I would strongly recommend this film to anyone interested in the untold history of the New York underclass.

sounds interesting, i saw a few articles in irish newspapers about it

what religion was the priest that led the irish gangs, do you know?

Interesting. Over here it took a pummeling...

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21060

The best responses seem to be lukewarm, and a bunch of folks actively hated it.

I saw it, and liked it, as an entertainment. However, I'm not so sure the history is accurate, or even close to being accurate.

I thought Daniel Day Lewis was great. I thought Decaprio and Cameron Diaz were wooden, as in automatons. I also liked the guy who looked like a red-headed Benny Hill. :p

SPOILERS FOLLOW











SPOILERS FOLLOW




http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08677a.htm

The Nativist movement had actually largely petered out by 1860, per the Catholic Encyclopedia. There was resentment, but it wasn't really organized. (And, if one organization is likely to be unsympathetic to them....it's doubtless the Catholic Church.)

The riots went on for five days, not the one presented in the movie.

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2002/12/20/gangs/index.html

The above review at Salon.com even faulted the costumes, that they weren't correct for the period. I have no idea if they're criticism is correct or not, but accusation is made. I'm assuming the reviewer knows what they're talking about.

http://www.vny.cuny.edu/riots.html

Nineteenth century political chroniclers and journalists, for example, interpreted violent disturbances such as the Bowery Boy- Dead Rabbit riot of 1857 and the Draft Riots of 1863 as mindless actions of faceless mobs of New Yorkers, outbreaks of savage, often random violence, with little meaning or purpose.

This link indicates the Dead Rabbits were around in 1857? The were supposedly unseen and "outlawed" from 1846 to 1863, per the movie. (It's also the best synopsis of the riots I've seen on-line, FWIW.)

Gunboats firing into neighborhoods and levelling them? I see no evidence of this from what I've read.

Elections in 1863? That's when the riots occurred, and it appears a very short time elapsed between the elections and the riots. Or, are supposed to think we skipped from November 1862 to July 1863? Very confusing, if nothing else.

In my view, it was a decent entertainment. But, accurate history, I just don't see it.

I was in a conflict on this one. I cant stand Leo at all , but Diaz I love so I have decided to just ignore leo and watch the movie anyways. Hope it is as good as you say Criminal. It looks pretty interesting to me honestly. But hey I am irish too so I can sympathise..:D

Originally posted by IFF
sounds interesting, i saw a few articles in irish newspapers about it

what religion was the priest that led the irish gangs, do you know?
I would assume he was Catholic as most Irish immigrants were back then. What would seem odd in that case was that he had a son. Probibly the son was ether 1) adopted or 2) from a previous marriage and his wife died. Its also possible that the Author of the book or Screenwriter did not have knowledge of the Catholic Church.

I hate Leonard DiCraprio, I ain't gonna see that movie.

Originally posted by GHOST 13
I hate Leonard DiCraprio, I ain't gonna see that movie. I cant stand the dude ether. I actually cheered for Daniel Day Lewis in the film.:D

Originally posted by Shelter
I was in a conflict on this one. I cant stand Leo at all , but Diaz I love so I have decided to just ignore leo and watch the movie anyways. Hope it is as good as you say Criminal. It looks pretty interesting to me honestly. But hey I am irish too so I can sympathise..:D
Irish scum! Get back on the boat where ya come from!!!:D :slap: