Johnny Simmons

They say that retrospection gives way to perspective which gives way to the most effective view of things. I’m not sure that always applies to the cinematic world, though. If retrospection doesn’t precipitate nostalgic remembrances, it gives way to unnecessarily harsh points of view on certain films and Gangs of a New York is a fine example of that. Perhaps, it’s because a retrospective view at its ten Oscar nominations and zero wins suggests a less than impressive awards’ tally but by now you’d think that we’d stop using Oscar wins as a barometer for quality. All of Scorsese’s films this side of GoodFellas are befallen with the misfortune of being compared, unattractively, to his early work and next to The Age of Innocence, Gangs of a New York is the one accused most often of gratuitous style over substance. (Incidentally, both star Daniel Day Lewis, whose birthday is today.) I’m neither here nor there on whether that commendation holds up, but now is as good a time as any for a retrospective look at the 2001 “epic”.

I don’t know what is about Scorsese, he’s almost always regarded for his meticulous attention to detail but even in the consistency of his films – thematically – I’m always impressed with the scope of his imagination. In more ways than one Gangs of a New York is an ideal predecessor to The Aviator. It’s not just the presence of DiCaprio, Scorsese’s interest in history is potent as is the expansive epic style which he puts to more careful use in The Aviator. Scorsese’s films are always notable for their technical prowess and Gangs of New York makes extensive use of that – Michael Ballhaus photography in particular belongs to that specific school of lush which is so often mistaken for gratuitousness. Of course, that’s probably why it’s often cited as one of the leading examples of style over substance.

I won’t deny that I have massive nepotism when it comes to Martin Scorsese, and I’d be the first to admit that Gangs of New York has a story which has its issues with structures but I can’t criticise it for its actual story which I’m impressed with. Zaillian is a bit of a hit and miss with his screenplay credits, but Gangs of New York for me falls in the realm of the hit. The film is defined by its grittiness and it’s easy to give that credit to Scorsese because it’s a coarseness that a number of his films are marked with. But, Zaillian deserves a significant amount of credit for what exists as an impetus for the entire film. The important word there is impetus, though, because like so many of his films Scorsese’s scope overshadows the written word.

I mentioned Daniel Day Lewis in my opening paragraph, and his Bill the Butcher defines the entire film. I hate that memory of the supporting cast is eviscerated because they do turn in good work. But, it is Lewis’ film and he turns in what’s arguably the greatest performance of 2002 – which is significant considering the great work turned in by actors that year. This isn’t my favourite performance of his, but on his birthday today I can’t help but turn to Gangs of New York to remember him by. Lewis is an masterpiece, Gangs of New York is bit too flawed to be one. But, where they can shake hands is in their scopes. Love it or hate it, it’s difficult to deny the majesty of Scorsese’s intentions here, same goes for Daniel Day Lewis. The film, like it's main actor demands your attention at first glance and then it surprises with you with some distressing moments of poignancy.

       

Yes, I'm back with this again. It's really a never ending feature, though I wrapped up with my favourite casts, actors, actresses, music and costumes the sky is the limit and there's more I could ruminate on...and with nothing to do, why not?

           

Dan’s own list has inspired me to revisit my Decade in Review feature. I did have some categories I didn’t touch on, and what better time to reassess? The question of memorable characters is a tough one…my guess is as flawed as yours, but here goes…what makes them memorable for me? It’s not really the performances, though I’d say each performer does a good job. It’s really about how ready I am to recall the character as a complete entity with just the slightest hint – like a key phrase…or an article of clothing, a wisp of hair or an important weapon.

                

Runners Up: Fifteen (Aragorn, Elizabeth Bennett, Erin Brockovich, Deirdre Burroughs, Benjamin Button, Frank Costello, Bob Dylan, Robert Ford, Katharine Hepburn, Bridget Jones, Velma Kelly, Clementine Kruzinski, Mrs. Lovett, Tessa Quayle, Briony Tallis)

Key Token: Proficiency in language (and other things) which is, naturally, “a bingo”

See how objective I am? Though I’m neither here nor there on Inglourious Basterds, I’m not so fickle to leave Waltz’s Landa off the list. It’s difficult with recent characters to decide whether or not they’ll endure, and I suppose there’s a possibility he won’t. I was tempted to put Helen Von Bismarck on the list instead of him, but I knew that was just nepotism for Kruger’s excellent performance and not really any objective longevity precipitated by her character’s brilliance.

          

Key Token: The gun (but, of course)

I find it so difficult to believe this man has been acting since the mid eighties. He just burst on to the scene with The Lord of the Rings and has just been improving consistently. Still, it’s this 2005 performance that stands above his other creations (and above a majority of actors). It’s two men, and yet it’s one man. They’re both deliberate, they’re both smart and they both have a way with guns.

           

Key Token: The costume

Yes, Tarantino again. Ironic, since I’m less than fond of him. I will admit that I consider Kill Bill to be his strongest venture and a considerable amount of that lies in Uma’s Bride. Of course it’s more than Uma’s performance; the Bride has just endured as one of those iconic characters – from the jumpsuit, to the moves to the van.

        

Key Token: The hair

Apparently the tuft of white hair was Depp’s decision, which doesn’t surprise me. From the guttural growl to the permanent scowl it’s all very individual (and judging from the videos I've seen unlike any characterisation of Sweeney Todd before). Depp is not as unoriginal performer as many have decided.

                    

Key Token: The voice

Perhaps it’s because I have not internalised There Will be Blood as much as Gangs of New York or perhaps it’s because Bill’s bloody ways scare me more than Plainview. Either way, I consider this to be Day Lewis’ most iconic role. The violence, the determination, the patriotism – no matter how misguided, and of course that voice. He played a lover, and then a butcher (both excellently) – I want a third Scorsese pairing.

           

Key Token: The hair

Nicole back when she was a redhead. I was tempted to note the pale skin, or her long legs or perhaps even her voice but it’s the long red tresses that remind me of Satine the most...and I just love that look on Nicole's face above.

         

Key Token: Drunkenness

A bit of an obvious choice, but that’s why it’s iconic.

          

Key Token: “That’s all”

Oh, Streep. Her ubiquity exasperates me, but she was served up a delicious role here and milked it for all it was worth. I do love my comedy subtle and though she’s not my favourite performance in the film, she is the character we return to time and time again. Whether we remember her well tended hair, her immaculate wardrobe or her imperious glance, she was a true woman of the ages. That’s all.

     

Key Token: Skin colour

Must I really justify this? A franchise that has worn thin? Surely. But Shrek is an iconic, not the best animated character of the last decade but easily the most memorable for me.

       

Key Token: The hair

This was too easy really. I did cite the performance as one of the decade’s best, and after a while it became difficult to say where the brilliance of McKellen’s performance ended and the iconicity of Gandalf began. From his quotable lines, to his enigmatic stares, his magical prowess and his commanding voice no character from the last decade leaves such a lasting impression on me as Gandalf, whether he be Grey or White.

              

I just wrote about the birthday of a lovely lass, known to lovers as La Pfeiffer. Jose just recently posted a nice piece about the union of that lovely lady and this man, the master of all things acting. Daniel Day Lewis doesn’t work quite as often as I’d like him to, but when he does he’s exceptional. Yes, that includes his Guido Contini from last year, it was imperfect but entertaining. These are my five favourite performances from this genius (as said by Maria Elena)

                 

"Stop crying, you sniveling ass! Stop your nonsense. You're just the afterbirth, Eli"

                      

"I'm an innocent man. I spent 15 years in prison for something I didn't do. I watched my father die in a British prison for something he didn't do. And this government still says he's guilty. I want to tell them that until my father is proved innocent, until all the people involved in this case are proved innocent, until the guilty ones are brought to justice, I will fight on. In the name of my father and of the truth!"

       

"You see this knife? I'm gonna teach you to speak English with this fucking knife! "

       

"You gave me my first glimpse of a real life. Then you asked me to go on with the false one. No one can endure that."

       

"All is nothing, therefore nothing must end. "
            

I’m nothing if not consistent. There are actors who continually work for me, regardless of the role they take or the film they star in. When you view an actor as the finest of his craft I suppose it’s a bit weird when you have to make lists like these. I do consider this man to be the best actor below sixty at the moment, even if my favourite performance of his last decade doesn’t top the list. I know everyone continues to praise his Plainview, which was excellent even if it was outside the top 15. The Day Lewis performance that really impressed me last decade was this – unfortunately snubbed – piece.

              

If any actor can be referred to as a chameleon it’s Daniel Day Lewis. I’m uncertain who Daniel Day Lewis – the man – is. But he has the ability to become so many different characters that it’s thrilling even disconcerting at times. In Gangs of New York he plays Bill the Butcher – a man as charismatic as he is dangerous. In the thrilling prologue we watch as he kills the father of our protagonist. As I write the word protagonist I wonder if Amsterdam really is the central character of our story. Perhaps, a bit like The Departed dually centred piece Gangs of New York exists in the same realm. Bill is a thrilling character, and he’d probably show up high (higher than Plainview I think, even) on a list of iconic characters. But the iconicity of Bill doesn’t lie completely in the writing – it depends centrally on Day Lewis.

                 

I began my admiration of Day Lewis after this film, and this is actually the first searing memory of him I have. I remember when I first saw the man (out of character) I was uncertain if it really was him. It’s not just the makeup, because the use of cosmetics is slight in unearthing Bill’s character. But every movement from Day Lewis seems to be from someone completely different. His swaggering walk, his laconic manner of speaking and the little tics in his movement are all completely different from Daniel Day Lewis, as he appears normally. Gangs of New York is recalled as the last important Hollywood epic and though the film is not absolute perfection, like all of Scorsese’s films it’s well worth your time. Ostensibly Day Lewis is at his most exhilarating in the first third of the film. As he tears through the film, even though the cast (particularly DiCaprio, Diaz and Broadbent) do good work there’s no one that equals his excellence here. It’s a total immersion in character that’s almost frightening to behold. Even though the theatrics diminish as his character develops Daniel doesn’t become any less satisfying.

                 

Bill is a beast of a man, but it’s to Daniel’s credit that we never think of him as a monster. His devotion to Amsterdam is interesting to watch as is his reaction when Amsterdam’s identity is revealed. His barbaric swipe at DiCaprio is chilling as we watch the glint in Day Lewis’ eyes. He is never the hero of our story, but he continuously looms over the narrative like a bad dream of unnerving spectre that we cannot avoid. His final scene opposite DiCaprio is a poignant moment. We’ve spent the entire time waiting for this moment, and when it comes it’s not as satisfying as we hope it would be – no fault of Scorsese. It’s actually the point of it really. Bill is a terrifying creation, but he has his ethics and his reasons for why he lives. Even though the narrative never delves too deep, Daniel’s excellent performance always keeps us aware of this.

             

Here are my final thoughts on 2002, taking a look at the top categories. I can't say that I really saw that much. I'm yet to see Talk To Her, which seems like a criminal act. I also need to see Igby Goes Down, Secretary and Punch Drunk Love. Still, take a look at what I did see.

              

An embarrassingly weak year in this category. Far From Heaven is the easy winner here, and not having seen Talk to Her I can't say whether The Academy made the right decision was made.

Minority Report

There were quite a number of good contenders here. The Hours and Chicago both did great things with difficult things to adapt. Minority Report particularly should have seen some love here.

             

Todd Field for Far From Heaven

Paul Greengrass for The Bourne Identity

Sam Mendes for Road to Perdition

Roman Polanski for The Pianist

Steven Spielberg for Catch Me If You Can

             

Stephen Daldry for The Hours

Peter Jackson for The Two Towers

Rob Marshall for Chicago

Martin Scorsese for Gangs of New York

Steven Spielberg for Minority Report

So Rob Marshall takes it for his film debut followed by Stephen Daldry with his sophomoric effort.

               

Fs [#67-#58]

I have a feeling that I’m a bit too harsh on a couple of these [The Ring, perhaps] but the grades don’t lie. And really I have no desire to see any of these ever again.

 

D-s [#57-#55]

Each is horrible. They have a slight something preventing them from being complete failures. There’s still horrible, though.

D [#54]

What’s there to say?

D+s [#53-#44]

All are not quite good. But some I’m partial to, for easy watching.

C-s [#43-#38]

I know Signs is hated. It’s not very good, but I don’t think it’s terrible. Same goes for the others.

C+s [#37-#22]

Whew. That’s a lot. As it I didn’t get in to Adaptation at all. I’m thinking that C+ is too much. Eh. The Good Girl juxtaposed goodness with terribleness. Sweet Home Alabama and yes, Two Weeks Notice are surprisingly entertaining but ineffective baubles and Chamber of Secrets remains as my least favourite of the Harry Potter Films.

B-s [#21-#18]

The Birthday Girl is a bit of an unorthodox, and sick ride. But I like it for the most part, as I like The Sweetest Thing. It's a pleasure, and not one that I feel guilty about.

Bs [#17-#11]

I don't think I'm being hard on The Pianist. Perhaps you were fans? I don't know. It didn't strike a resounding chord with me. And White Oleander was criminally ignored that year. Pity.

#10 - Far From Heaven [B+]

An exceptionally smart film. I do want to like it more than I do, but I like it enough, so it's okay. Julianne Moore is luminous here as in The Hours and offers up a beautiful performance. The atmosphere is so strong here, which is uncommon in most period pieces. It's beautiful to look at, and thought provoking.

            

#9 - Spiderman [B+]

There’s always something good about the first one. I’ve never been an overt fan of the genre, but Spiderman was a well made and enjoyable genre picture. MaGuire, Dunst, Franco and Dafoe. Sure it's a popcorn flick, but it's done with so much integrity. How can I resist?

         

#8 - The Bourne Identity [B+]

I can’t deny that the sequels were good too, but the first in this trilogy has always been my undivided favourite.I remember seeing this time and time again, and Matt Damon really seemed cool here. That was a first for me.

       

#7 - Road to Perdition [B+]

Mendes' film is another underrated one. It's a harrowing piece, and it's so tautly directed. Jude Law and Hanks are exceptional here. Like Far From Heaven, it's a film where atmosphere is particularly important. It's nothing if not affecting. 

     

#6 - Catch Me If You Can [B+]

This is a light almost comedy film and yet it's able to examine some deeper issues. DiCaprio is able to sell his character in more ways than one and Hanks and Walken are strong supporting players. Spielberg's direction is just so much fun, you can't help but be entertained.

              

#5 - Gangs of New York [B+]

This was somewhat maligned. I'm partial to Scorsese, but who knows. It's period piece with a different. It's gorey like any other gangster film and it all looks so majestic, you're enthralled, astonished and interested at the same time. And, damn, Daniel Day Lewis is something.

         

#4 - Minority Report [A-]

It’s arguably my favourite Spielberg film. Tom Cruise, who I am usually not fond of, impresses me loads here and anchors the film with his solid performance. Spielberg

Chicago [A]

The Hours [A]

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers [A]

I’m not really going to rank these three. Although if I were to base it on my top 100 it would be just as it is –Chicago, The Hours, The Two Towers. However, I don’t really care to rank them. Each of these films have their merits and together they make up the trimester of the goodness of 2002. There’s the musical, the drama and the fantasy. Each skilfully directed, with smart screenplays and top notch actors.

The men were pretty matched. There were a few outstanding ones, a couple of fair ones and then the rest.

                   

Runners Up: Jeff Bridges in The Hours, Tom Hanks in Catch Me If You Can

Chris Cooper in Adaptation

Ian Mckellen in The Two Towers

Paul Newman in Road to Perdition

Dennis Quaid in Far From Heaven

John C. Reilly in Chicago

Cooper should have been nominated for American Beauty, maybe. But I wasn’t too hot on him in Adaptation. Still, I wasn’t that mad at him for getting his Oscar and stuff. It was cool seeing Newman and Reilly nominated, though absent from my five both did good jobs.

          

Stephen Dillane in  The Hours

Ed Harris in The Hours

Jude Law in Road to Perdition

Viggo Mortenson in The Two Towers

Christopher Walken in Catch Me If You Can

It was surprising that Jude didn’t pick up traction for his Road to Perdition performance. It was a haunting performance in a good film. It was no surprise that Dillane was ignored, but he was the perfect ally to Kidman and gave a solid performance. One reason the train scene works is because of the reaction shots of him. Viggo does his best work of the trilogy in The Two Towers and it’s a pity that no acting nods came his way. Christopher and Ed had the top two spots for me. I know many felt Ed was a major hambone, but he was my favourite. Figures.

          

Adrien Brodey in The Pianist

Leonardo DiCaprio in Gangs of New York

Hugh Grant in About A Boy

Tom Hanks in Road to Perdition

Guy Pearce in The Time Machine

Brodey is the best of this bottom five, but I still didn’t see what exactly the hubbub was about. And I’ll always be miffed that he has the title of youngest winner in this category. I don’t know how Leo picked up no traction for either of the performances he gave that year.

             

Tom Cruise in Minority Report

Matt Damon in The Bourne Identity

Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York

Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can

Jack Nicholson in About Schmidt

Leo wasn’t my favourite of the bunch, but it was an excellent performance that went completely ignored. There is no other actor that could have creditably sold the teenage and adult life of his character, and it goes to show that he’s been better than people give him credit for. No one could top Daniel Day Lewis’ monstrous turn in Gangs of New York, and when it looked like the SAG were on to something it’s a pity that Oscar couldn’t follow suit. Tom Cruise gave what is arguably my favourite performance of his in Minority Report where he brought all his assets to the table. Damon and Schmidt didn’t exactly take stretches, but both performances were effective and the single most important performance in both pieces.

It’s almost becoming second nature doing these year in review posts, so I’ll just oblige myself and move on to 2002. After that it’s on to 2000 and 2001, and then 2009. All three are years where I’ve seen few of the good films, so I’m not exactly looking forward to them. 2002 is battling it out with 2007 and 2001 as my favourite years of the decade. So today we’re going to be looking at the technical achievements of the year and continuing as usual with the acting, writing, directing and of course the top categories.

              

"Lose Yourself" from 8 Mile

"I Move On" from Chicago

"The Hands That Built America" from Gangs of New York

These are three good songs, and I remember that at the time I was a moderate fan of Eminem. However, as much as I find Bono to be a moron I can’t deny that I was a big fan of their number from Gangs of New York.

            

It was almost offensive that the immaculate score from Phillip Glass earned no love from the Academy. Sure, Road to Perdition was impressive but The Hours’ score was just flawless. Oh well. At least he won an Encore Award.

            

As far as technical achievements these three films were golden. The Time Machine in particular was a bit underrated in truth. Of course, with the wonderfulness of Tree Beard The Two Towers took this easily.

         

So The Time Machine took this. Of course the happenings of Middle Earth demanded epic sound control, but for such a spotty film the sound was spot on in The Time Machine.

             

Each of these had formidable cinematography, but the edge went to Chicago. Obviously it had the edge with all the imaginative scope of the script and whatnot. It’s an easy winner here actually.

          

As much as I appreciated Chicago [obviously that was much] I had no idea how it picked up this award. It was almost ridiculous given the great work done by set designers that year. But when you love a film, you really love a film apparently.

         

The Lord of the Rings and Gangs of New York were my two frontrunners for this and eventually it went to the latter.

        

Minority Report wins this for me. It was easily the best edited film of the year done with extreme prudence.