Jun 23 2011 12:05 pm
Posted by under ADMIN ONLY - assignments,ADMIN ONLY - featured,June 27 Assignment
Assignment due 6/27
1) Complete Chudacoff reading.
2) Read this movie review of Gangs of New York.
3) Add at least one comment to this post expressing your reaction to the review and predicting what you will learn about New York City history from the movie and whether you will enjoy it. Browse the comments and respond/add to them as much as possible.
57 Responses to “Assignment due 6/27”
ff122986 on 23 Jun 2011 at 7:58 pm #
After reading the review on Gangs Of New York it’s clear that the producers sacrificed the truth of New York City’s history for a more modern twist on the film’s plot. In an era where box-office numbers are what matters most, film producers attract moviegoers to their films with hyperbolized effects and plots, which at times takes presedent over facts. One word “Hollywood” I find it hard to think of Hollywood doing an accurate historical reenactment. Overall, I do in a way understand our era of exaggerated plots for films, on the other hand, I don’t think we are to look to film makers to accurately relay historical information more so than for our entertainment.
Looking forward to seeing the movie on Monday.
jason.zhu on 24 Jun 2011 at 1:56 am #
I agree with Felipe, for Hollywood, numbers matters most. It is hard to portray what it was really like to live in what was once the world’s most notorious slum. On the other hand, from reading the review, it seems like Hollywood does a good job portraying excitement and action with the Irish immigrants and the ongoing civil war in the mid-nineteenth century. I know in this film, there will be rich scenes of New York’s Five points. Can’t wait to see it in class.
Kate Pioreck on 24 Jun 2011 at 2:35 am #
I agree with a lot of what has been said. Scorcese does not pretend to be a historian and this film is not a primary source. If I were looking for a completely accurate depiction of the time period I would look elsewhere. However, what I took from the review were some things to be aware of while watching it that I may not have picked up on the first time I saw it. The detail that went into trying to recreate what the city looked liked during this period is helpful but I have to question how much of it is accurate and how much of it is made to fit into preconceived notions of what the city would have looked like based on well known photographs of later decades. Not everything that appears on screen can be dismissed as inaccurate and having read this review I feel I am in a better place to navigate between what is true and what is embellished.
The film is meant to be entertaining. A movie about the everyday lives of the majority of law abiding residence of the Five Points would probably not hold my attention of three hours. This film helps to give a framework to the period we are studying and helps to contextualize much of what we have already covered.
I am looking forward to watching it again.
Gabriela Serrano on 25 Jun 2011 at 1:15 am #
I definitely agree with your comment. Just like you I have seen the movie once before; I did not quite fully understood it, but I did know that it was a film related to the history of New York City. With this review and what we have learned in class I definitely have a guide in what to look for and to ask myself how accurate is this story plot, as you have said as well. Like DiGirolamo stated, filmmakers and historians have their own way in interpreting what they themselves have gone into research for. It is especially hard to make a film based on any historic events and to capture exactly how the events went about.
I guess the at the end, for films like Gangs of New York, or any other film regarding to history itself, it can leave a positive impact. It may actually inspire someone to do the research and to know what is true and what is not. I definitely look forward to see this film again, and I am pretty sure I will at least learn one more thing from New York.
Hailie J on 24 Jun 2011 at 12:57 pm #
The definition of history is ‘continuous, typically chronological, record of important or public events’. Even though some movies are about the history, it means, basically, those are ‘based’ on the fact that doesn’t mean everything the movie shows is exact truth. It happens also in documentary films that are supposed to be more precise than any other genre of movies for some reasons. One of examples the writer, Vincent DiGirolamo, mentions in his essay is “…and a bare-knuckled prize fight complete with a prancing card girl…never mind that card girls are probably a twentieth-century invention…actually occurred three decades earlier than depicted…”(pg.126) However, since film making has a few different purpose, it doesn’t have to be depicted with ‘only the truth’. To be specific, film is a sort of artwork that director can either create or fix some of background or fact in his imagination to grab people’s attention. When moviegoers watch some kind of films that are related to the history, they use films as tools to get some ideas, or basic outline of the circumstances.
All in all, like the writer emphasized, it is almost impossible historians can compete with the movies. As a matter of fact, ‘historians’ promise of greater truth, deeper analysis’ is the most important duty so that people don’t misunderstand what the ‘fact’ is.
nataliya.vynnychuk on 24 Jun 2011 at 4:08 pm #
I think that the film industry and History correlate with each other.The former takes ideas from the latter in an attempt at
recreating history that would fit the viewers expectations in an entertaining way.This tends to mean that movie makers
twist historical facts and exaggerate certain events for the pure spectacle and excitement that would come from the
viewer.On the other hand ,Historians investigate and report on facts that are derived from primary sources and by
educated guesses from secondary sources in order to recreate the reality of history, leaving no small stone unturned.
The way historical figures and characters are portrayed in a movie,such as Gangs of New York,is quite
different from what would be learned in a classroom because a movie director’s aim is to “sell” a story,not “teach”
history. For example ,according to professor DiGirolamo’s review, Bill’ The Butcher” is “sold” to the viewer as a
Nationalist thug fighting for dominance in the Five points of NYC against the immigrant horde. However, in reality the
character “Bill the Butcher” is a misrepresentation based on William Poole who was an uptown politician and
member of the Whigs party. This party was also known as the ” the anti-immigrant American or Know nothing party”.
Another misrepresentation in the movie is the portrayal of large numbers of Chinese immigrants in NYC
during the movies time frame, but according to the census records from that period of time there were no Chinese
residents settling around the Five Points.
Just as reality cannot be compared with fantasy ,historical accuracy cannot be substituted for Hollywood
imagery. I understand that the information taught in class will not be symmetrical with the movies goals,but i am still
looking forward to seeing how Hollywood depicts the diversification and social development that occurred in the area
of gang violence; how the Irish were viewed by Native born Americans and the treatment of African-Americans in the
context of politics, religion and race.
raymond.yu1 on 24 Jun 2011 at 5:49 pm #
Vincent DiGirolamo’s movie review on Gangs of New York offers a very descriptive plot and summary of the movie. He analyzes specific scenes in the movie and compares them to actual history. He argues that filmmakers and actual historians compete for our attention and it is up to us to form our own opinions on who to believe. There are vast differences between actuality and Gangs of New York. Movies have a distinct advantage that captures the viewer’s attention by drama and special effects while the historian’s account on history are supported by arguments and solid evidence. Even though there may be differences between film and history, Gangs of New York can provide us with a vision into the past, much more than words on a page. I will definitely enjoy the movie- but DiGirolamo’s review has reminded me to be skeptic.
Sujan on 24 Jun 2011 at 8:11 pm #
Vincent DiGirolamo review of Scorsese Gangs of New York presents the clear understanding about the movie. DiGirolamo gives the vision during nineteenth century about the Five Points, natives, immigrants, and most importantly how did the people lived in that time period. I think we will learn in more detail about nineteenth century New York City neighborhood from the movie. The daily routine of the boys living in the Five Points were to drink, gamble, steal, and fight; they do not work. When a conscription law that allows draftees to pay a $300 commutation fee in lieu of serving, the immigrant and the nativist brawlers in Gangs of New York find themselves too embroiled in their blood feud to notice. In the movie Gangs of New York mainly depicts slum life as nasty and brutish. I am looking forward to watch this movie.
xiaoyun.xu on 24 Jun 2011 at 8:32 pm #
The review mentions both praise and criticism for historical depictions in the film, Gangs of New York. Writer questioned the accuracy about waves of threadbare immigrants arrived in New York City and the drooping tenements of Five Points. It is true that the movie smells “Hollywood”, but the movie did a good job deliver the spiritual of Americans in that period. Just like it had been described, “America was born in the streets”. From the director’s perceptive, only eliminates the gap between various ethnic groups, integrate the conflicts and contradictions between social classes, could reach the goal to form a strong, free, and modern country. In other words, like Vincent DiGirolamo says in the end of his review, “Not just the facts, but also the story (P138)”. I would to watch the movies someday, I bet I would enjoy it.
patricia.ibarra on 24 Jun 2011 at 9:25 pm #
As soon as I read in the second paragraph the words “pathetic figure” I knew that it wasn’t going to be a good movie neither a good review. I got a bit discouraged because I was looking forward to see a great movie since I haven’t seen it yet and also for what we have learned in class so far. While I was reading further more I realized that what Vincent DiGirolamo was trying to say is, as a good critic, he did like something about the movie: the setting and decorations. He liked in especial the Five Point setting that, according to him, was like bringing back the time. As we all know all the movies bring visual wonder to the moviegoers. But unfortunately, as DiGirolamo states: “…authentic historical reality often takes historians and filmmakers to opposite directions.” In all, the movie has a bad representation of the social groups in New York back in those days (especially the Irish) as well as the historical content.
yuliya.akchurina on 25 Jun 2011 at 9:20 am #
Vincent DiGirolamo’s review is helpful in making transition from watching movie as a made up story to watching movie and compare it to real historical facts. DiGiloramo picked episodes and characters from the movie and compared them to actual history. It came out that some of them were real but some of them were fiction. I watched this movie some time ago. Then it was an interesting movie because the story showed in this movie was interesting. Now I would try to compare movie facts with our lectures. I would pay more attention to people: who were these people and why they had a conflict. I would try to be like DiGioramo and find what was real and what was made up by Scorsese.
dimitris.kouvaros on 25 Jun 2011 at 12:49 pm #
I didn’t even finish reading the review, im only 3 paragraphs in, and the I saw something I had to write about. It is said that this is a “fabulously flawed movie”. Just from this alone I could tell that this might be another great movie to watch but it has tremendously wrong historical essence. I can only hope that it isn’t like Quentin Tarantino’s version of history in “Inglorious Bastards”. In the review it seems as if they somewhat got the scenery down as they show the five points, Barnums museum, Tammany Hall, etc even though they don’t go into detail about them. Also they used historical people but they didn’t portray them as who they really were. An example was Bill Poole who is portrayed as a savage killer int he slums but in reality he was a politician from uptown. I would assume that from this review the movie leaned more for the box office numbers rather than historical accuracy but who are they to blame in this day and age fr epic explosions, epic fight scenes and just epic epics. The one thing that i think i will gain from this is the ability to see some kind of replication of the scenery to get a feel of how things were back then.
Xue Ying Chen on 25 Jun 2011 at 4:34 pm #
When I first started reading this review, I was quite surprised by the fact that filmmaking industries sometime used inaccurate histories when they were making films based on history. As I read through the review, I was surprised that he compared documentaries to Hollywood movies. He mentioned that documentaries cannot compete with the Hollywood movies, and there’s no way for historians to compete with the filmmaking industries either. I was curious about how filmmaking industries composited history into to their film, and the author, Vincent DiGirolamo had provided some facts about how history was used in this film, such as the street scenes were scripted based on really history, and some characters were shaped based real people in history as well. An example from the review was the character, Bill, who was actually a composition of two real people in history, Bill “the Butcher” Poole and Isaiah Rynders. I think I will more about ordinary people in New York City, and the struggles they had with each other.
Daniel Edward on 25 Jun 2011 at 8:04 pm #
The review shows that the history of New York City seems to be all but forgotten in the movie. The producers and writers do a great job in developing an attracting and interesting story of the time period. Although inaccurate in countless ways, it still provides a story that people want to see. That is the whole point of Hollywood. The movie must succeed, no matter what. After all, you can’t really expect a Hollywood movie to be historically accurate. After all we are talking about Hollywood.
sharmin.sultana on 25 Jun 2011 at 11:09 pm #
It is hard to give one particular point of view from the film review, Gangs of New york based on the notorious five point; situated in the Central Lower Manhattan of the New York City.
The depiction of the characters and situation is definitely being modified according to the requirement of the movie. As a result some harsh realities about the five points are missing from the movie;as mentioned in the movie review that it is shy about depicting violence against women which was rampant in the culture.The two principal issues of the era in New York were Irish immigration to the city and the Federal government’s execution of the ongoing civil war. The depiction of the three lead characters in the movie seems to be very well defined according to the review.
As mentioned in the review excellent cinematography and spectacular set is very attractive for the audience. Can’t wait to watch it!
Omar Abdel Salam on 25 Jun 2011 at 11:12 pm #
I agree with several comments above, the review discusses how the movie had difficulty accurately portraying the history during this time period. I thought it was interesting how they managed to capture the scenery and the environment during this time period in New York something i have to keep an eye out for. I am excited to see the movie as it is a great way to get the view points of two sides, the side of the historians and the side of Hollywood. We could compare what we see in the documentary and what we learned in class to what we see in the movie. We could actually get to see New York streets and how certain buildings and streets in New York looked like. I also thought it was funny how in the review they mentioned that in Gangs of New York they chose to represent P.T. Barnum as a pimp (pg. 127) showing how seriously we should take certain events that occur in this movie. Overall, I would like to see something different and new and that is what I believe I am going to see in the movie. I enjoy watching the documentary so the movie is going to be a more interesting experience.
amenaghawon.enoma on 26 Jun 2011 at 9:56 am #
I agree with most of every comment above how historical truth was sacrificed for film entertainment. But who are we kidding that is Hollywood and that is business. If we wanted historical truth we can just watch the history channel. But society itself have shown not to be receptive to that but be receptive on how Hollywood use its creativity to give us our American history. That is what Vincent acknowledged when he wrote the review. Their are many in-historical facts when it comes to movies but it is the creativity and story that we liked. Examples are The Tudors on Showtime, JFK films.
What I hope to see from the film is glimpses of Barnum American History Museum that Vincent pointed out when he watched the film. I want to see little historical sightings about New York.
rc120825 on 26 Jun 2011 at 9:57 am #
I read all of the above comments, and I am agree with them. To me, the movie review is itself a thriller while the movie fails to preserve and protect the glorious past. The movie does not focus on all of the real issues; however ,the movie review clarifies many important issues. The reason behind creation of gangs were to survive and preserve their own races from growing political discrimination and competition, and from the unsustained economy; But, “hollywood” mostly represents only the competitions (blood and violences) between gangs. There was a sentence in the movie review that “historian can compete the work”. And i think the writer already did it; Reading the review i knew many gangs’ namse: The roach Guards, Chichesters, kerryonians, Shirt Trails, Daybreak Boys, true blood American; and how their clothing and languages were; they had different accent regarding their Gangs. And I acknowledged the importance of the five points by his narrative description.
suman.amatya on 26 Jun 2011 at 10:17 am #
Martin Scorsese’s Gangs of New York seems to revel the 19th century Manhattan’s Five Points neighborhood of Irish, English, African and Chinese Americans. By reading the review of the movie, it tris to propel the audience somewhere back in time about the part of American History. It tries to show how Irish group was badly misrepresented by Natives, even from the upper and the lowwer classes which regared Irish as depraved and demoralized. That’s how the clash occured between gangs of Irish immigrants and Native born americans. It seems the movie attempts to portrayed the bloody violence, dirty and corrupted political system of 19th century. On top of that, Irish women constituted tangential to the masculine subculture, and depicted violence against them. It shows Afican American constitued a small and shrinking minority in Five Points before the Civil War.
However, I would be very much willing to see the movie and want to know how the movie actually tires to show all of the historical facts.
francesco.scalogna on 26 Jun 2011 at 10:59 am #
I agree with many of the above posts whereas we should not look for a movie to highlight specifics on historical events. Being a huge fan of the film and Martin Scorsese, I am going to look forward to seeing the details which Vincent DiGirolamo states in his review that I have recently learned through this course. I enjoy watching a film multiple times to find the small elements that are not always apparent the first time watching it. Personally, if the audience’s goal is to seek more direct and honest portrayals of such historical events, motion pictures are not reliable because it is all about what sells in Hollywood. Yes there may be key points to these events, but from my experience being a movie buff, something may not work for the overall plot of the film, even if it is historically honest. Because of this, movies cannot be proclaimed a logical primary source for history, but instead can be considered a primary source of the entertainment from the era it was released. Motion pictures tell a lot about societies entertainment interests, which could give some insight to what living during that time was like.
wencong zhu on 26 Jun 2011 at 11:06 am #
The Vincent DiGirolamo’s movie review on Gangs of New York gives us a very descriptive plot and summary of the movie. He analyzes and values from the movie, and competes them with the accurate history. He reminded us not to believe anything which movies told. As we know, filmmaker would like to use exaggeration to produce movie, so movie just can be a reference. Like above comments said, movie director ‘s aim it to “sell” , not to “teach” history. Even there may be differences between film and history, I am looking forward to watch the movie in the class .
rb115770 on 26 Jun 2011 at 12:19 pm #
Most people that commented above have pointed out that review states the lack of historical accuracy portrayed in the movie. As soon as I began reading, it was implied that “Gangs of New York” wasn’t historically accurate. “One of the most important services a historian can provide, according to my students, is to dig up good stories for the movies and then sound the alarm if filmmakers get their facts wrong” (pg. 123). I agree with Omar because I’m excited to have seen two documentaries regarding the gangs of New York, primarily between the Irish and the African Americans. Both historians and filmmakers have different perspectives about history. Now that I have already seen the point of view of historians, I am excited to see how Martin Scorsese alters New York history and his portrayal of Five Points slum. According to the review, the movie details the time period very well. I’m looking forward to watching the movie so I can see how New York looked during the nineteenth century as opposed to modern day New York. In addition, I think I’m going to learn about the relations among different races in the city as the review states how this movie is a combination of “epic love stories, explosive action adventures, and star-studded costume dramas” (pg. 126).
Abraham Lin on 26 Jun 2011 at 1:33 pm #
Like what everyone else said, this movie is going to have historically incorrect parts. In the review, he says that he does not feel imprisoned to be historically accurate. However, I still think we will be able to get a good idea and a good picture of how life was like.
el125594 on 26 Jun 2011 at 4:23 pm #
The review shows a different prospective on the life that people were living in NYC, especially the Irish prospective on things. the review also give a variety of opinions about the movie, i am sure that i am going to like the movie since its about NY and it seems interesting, at least the review makes it seem so. I am expecting to learn about the relationship between people in NYC as a diverse city and the consequences that followed. The way people interact seems to have been changing since the city had started to develope and i am interested to see how the movie is going to portray that.
Sujan on 26 Jun 2011 at 4:28 pm #
DiGirolamo review of Scorsese Gangs of New York movie visualizes period back in mid-nineteenth century New York. This movie shows notorious Five Points slum district, high-dressing, flash-talking day—who drank plentiful amount of alcohol in the streets amusement halls, flirting, fighting, and running with their fire brigades. While making this movie Scorsese with his team have done well in revealing Five Points in many languages harbor neighborhood of Irish, English, African, and Chinese Americans. The people living in poor condition with these cultural diversity lived, danced, enjoyed and died together. Actually, Five Points were more diverse than shown in the movie, as Italians, Jews, and Germans were also included. Irish are badly misrepresented. Nativists from both upper and lower classes viewed them as morally corrupt. Scorsese movie may act as a torch that light our way. However, the movie can be vague as well as illustrative to the history. I will definitely enjoy the movie.
taimoor.shahid on 26 Jun 2011 at 4:43 pm #
I think “Gang’s of New York” educating as well as entertaining film. It is not historical documentary but used some of the true events. The film tells us about historical changes from particular era. The Irish immigrants made their gang in five points and fought with natives. The only purpose was to survive and to live with honor. Although there is revenge plot and violence but after reading reviews I think we can see how much New York has change in one and half Century. The plot looks familiar as Amsterdam involved in native dealings to come closer to his enemy Bill. Overall I think it’s worthy of watching this movie.
yeungyu.tsui on 26 Jun 2011 at 4:47 pm #
I agree with some of the comments above. Vincent DiGirolamo’s movie review show Gang of New York is not entirely base on accurate history. He also point out some scenes for example. Film maker always use history as a reference and change the historian truth to make the movie more enjoyable and attract more audiences. It is true that Moviemaker produces it for profit, not for education. I believe I will enjoy this movie and check is there anything in the movie relate to what I have learned in class.
christian.robles on 26 Jun 2011 at 5:15 pm #
I agree with majority of the comments above on how historical truth was sacrificed for entertainment. What can we expect, that is how Hollywood works and always will, it’s a business. Movies are made for entertainment purposes not history lesson as someone already said “If we wanted historical truth we can just watch the history channel.”
xiaoyan.chen on 26 Jun 2011 at 5:24 pm #
I agree with people said that the film “Gangs Of New York” is not a primary source. But it through the main character’s revenge, it skillfully puts a list of historical events into the movie, and it truly reflects how the social life in the “Five Point” in New York City. I saw this movie a few years ago in China. Because I was not familiar with the American history I didn’t understand the background of the movie, the first reaction for the movie at that time was that this movie was kind of violent. But years later, I read the movie review as the homework assignment and watch the movie again, I find this movie is not only for entertainment, but also can be used as a secondary source for people to know about the American history, especially for the New York City. During the movie, it depicted the social life in the “Five Point”, it just liked what we learned during the class. 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. In the movie, it also depicted the event “Draft Riots”, from the scenes, it truly described how the riot took place in the New York City, how the American Civil War effected to the different level class of people. In some way, the movie gives us some idea about the social life during the 19 century in New York City.
Dmitriy on 26 Jun 2011 at 8:17 pm #
I’d like to start off by saying that the review is a major spoiler, and is in fact the longest movie review i ever read… well skimmed at least.
Something I concluded from the review is that the director is extremely sensitive towards women. Both the sex scenes and violence to women are underplayed severely. Another different but just as equally interesting point I found in the article is the extreme level of research that actually goes into a movie like this. While a historian can give the events how they happened, the movie crew goes into every detail all from the stances in a bar-fight to the individual costumes..
HuiLing Liang on 26 Jun 2011 at 8:28 pm #
I agree with previous comments that said that the film “Gangs of New York” is not based on accurate history, but it put some historical facts into the film. The film mentioned about
African Americans that constituted a small and shrinking minority in Five Points
before the Civil War, and they are represented as minor characters in the movie as
well. And no group is misrepresented as the Irish. Nativists, from both the
upper and the lower classes, regarded them as depraved and demoralized. And I believe in tomorrow’s class I will learn more about Five points in lower Manhattan.
Magdalena on 26 Jun 2011 at 8:39 pm #
After I’ve read the review I’m aware that some situations presented in the movie actually didn’t happened or are presented slightly different than the past. Even though it may sounds as paradox, the whole idea of creating a movie, which cannot be treated as primary source due to discrepancies between what happened in the past and what was presented in the movie, can be beneficial and help people learn and explore a real history.
Usually when I want to see a movie I try to read some reviews to get an idea whether it’s worthy to spend the money. I’m pretty sure that other people did the same thing before watching “Gangs of New York.” Once they get info that the movie doesn’t reflect history accurately, they did their own research. By getting different information from different sources, probably they learned more because they took into account many perspectives and they could create their own vision and opinion based on facts. If they movie would illustrate situations according to history it still would be the vision of one director which might be very subjective. To prove my theory I want to recall situation with Sarah Palin, when she was confused about Paul Revere’s ride. After her “interpretation” everybody started to look for facts. Everybody wanted to recall the story of what happened in Boston in 1775. So the society probably learned more because of her mistake. So creating a production which doesn’t present facts might be inconvenient for people who want to learn from the movie but it might be a trigger for some people to explore a real history.
heng.yu on 26 Jun 2011 at 9:06 pm #
“Gangs of New York” was based on the Irish immigrants that lived in New York during American Civil War. From the movie review of Vincent DiGirolamo, I learned that the word “New York” is bigger than the word “Gangs”. The movie wanted to give out a message that how New York was formed by a lot of conflicts of different races. I could use one of the famous quotes from the movie: “America was born in the street.” I agreed with my classmates that some of the historical events in the movie were not accurate. Some were makeup. That made the movie more interesting. I am looking forward to see the movie on Monday and trying to pay more attention to find out what is real or what is not.
Crystal Garris on 26 Jun 2011 at 9:13 pm #
I believe that the movie review was one of many that shine light on fact that not many historically based movies have their facts correct and the events are sometimes added to further dramatize the film. However, I think that the directors are only doing their job which is to entertain people, especially with a fictional movie, even though it is based on a historical time. This is the reason that we receive our information from textbooks and other factual documents. The review also leads me to believe that the movie will be entertaining even though it may not all be true.
jiada.chen on 26 Jun 2011 at 10:17 pm #
After reading Vincent Digirolamo’s review of Gangs of New York, I realized the difference between a filmmaker and a historian, or a movie and a historical fact. In China, many Chinese movies of historical stories are actually more or less different from the actual facts. However, these movies still act as guides, revealing the stories to many people with little knowledge, and drawing their interests of the history events, encouraging them to do their own research on the theme. Moreover, many parts of the movie are still real. Just as these Chinese movies, Gangs of New York includes both real historical facts and fictional plots. The movie discovers the worst slum in the world—Five Points in New York City. It concentrates on different immigrants, including Irish, Germany, Chinese and Jew. The civil war is also included in the movie. These contents mirror the knowledge I learned from my history class. Even though some details are misguiding, I believe it would be a good resource by which I can learn about the history of New York City and I would like to apply what I learned in class to judge what is real and what is fictional in the movie.
auvee.bhattacharjya on 26 Jun 2011 at 10:21 pm #
After reading the movie review by DiGirolamo, it’s clear that Gangs of New York is not an entirely accurate representation of the Five Points area during the mid 19th century, but this is not unlike other re-enactment productions. In order to create an engaging film, certain sacrifices always have to be made, and in the case of Gangs of New York, it’s historical accuracy is the sacrifice. As someone who has yet to see the movie, but has a brief historical account of the time period through textbook readings, I think the movie will provide an interesting perspective on the era and provide insight into what New Yorks’s five points was truly like during the mid-19th century.
Kevin Persaud on 26 Jun 2011 at 10:46 pm #
I also believe that the directors are only doing their jobs to entertain their audiences. Many of the directors of historical based movies probably want to put more historical facts into their movies, but the audience wants to see something most likely a tad more exciting than just the plain facts. Another issue that was brought up was that the problem with budgets. Since Hollywood movies have higher budgets they are able to show certain scenes a little differently that historians are able to in documentaries.
This review also leads me to predict that while the information in this movie will be historically based, the exact scenes will not live up to historians’ expectations.
Rodrigo Rodriguez on 26 Jun 2011 at 11:22 pm #
I agree one hundred percent with Kevin on how Hollywood films have higher budgets compared to documentary’s and how they are not up to par with historical facts. Hollywood is here to entertain to and send a message on how the director wants this message to be perceived. Also after reading the review it shows different perspectives of people in NYC. I am really looking forward to watching this clip to see how the it is going to portray the diversity and how people interacted in NYC.
gregory.heath on 26 Jun 2011 at 10:49 pm #
Unfortunately, I’ve seen Gangs of New York twice. While it’s clear that Hollywood took some creative liberty with this movie, I believe that much of it’s historical value is preserved. If it does nothing but increase the desire average people have to know about the time period, it has succeeded. Alot of the little things in the film (The way people dress, speak, interact, the buildings, streets, slums) come about as close as one can imagine to being true to form. DiGirolamo makes it perfectly clear in his review that the movie isn’t 100% historically accurate. In a movie, however, where time, entertainment value, and profit are all MAJOR issues, accuracy is an afterthought. Hollywood doesn’t make movies to please historians, or the people that movies attempt to describe.
andrew.hahm on 26 Jun 2011 at 11:12 pm #
Upon reviewing the review by V. DiGirolamo, it is easily said to have both agreements and disagreements with parts of his review on the movie Gangs of New York. The author addresses many issues of both hollywood film attributes but certainly draws light on the actual historical aspect of both the film and New York City. One part that I disagree with the critic was how the movie “didn’t drag on”. I remember watching this movie a long time ago but cannot remember any part of this film except from Daniel Day Lewis being a lead actor and Leonardo Di Caprio. If you ask my friends and family, they would easily describe me as a movie freak; in that I tear apart a movie in its depth and filmography to a distant analysis. I love to watch movies whether it be classics, modern, foreign or even old black and white Hitchcock’s film; and if I can’t recall a single scene in a movie that I watched probably five years ago, it tells me something…it wasn’t a very good film. I’m a die hard of Scorsese films but by far Gangs of New York wasn’t his best. It didn’t have the Goodfellas or the Departed type of style that Scorsese emits in his films. The movie certainly dragged and the image that I portrayed of actual gangs in New York was certainly a conflicting one. All in all, I think it would be best to watch it again, now knowing a little bit of history about the Five Points and maybe have a fonder memory of it in the future.
Rebecca Somers on 27 Jun 2011 at 5:07 am #
I agree with Andrew’s comment. I too am a huge Scorsese fan and when I saw this movie a a few years ago, I vaguely remember their really intense costumes, and minor details about the plot, but that was about it. After reviewing the critic of this movie I am more aware of the amount of effort, money, and knowledge that has to go into the production of a historically based film. I had no clue how many costume changes and designs and historians were on set during this production. It also makes sense why directors would ‘change’ certain events in history to match a different time period for the drama, “hollywood” affect, or to make order with the scene and characters when none existed. In addition, the film directors have to match the idea the audience has of a historical era or time period, with how it really was. As DiGirolamo said, “[Film Directors], seek to confirm their audiences’ sense of the past, whereas the best historical writing tries to disturb readers’ presumptions and make them see the past with new eyes and understand it in new ways. This, it seems to me, is the most significant difference between filmmakers and historians.”
I was glad that the critic didn’t include too many plot spoilers because no matter how good or bad a movie is said to be, I like to be surprised and unbiased when I watch it. The last thing I’d like to mention about the review is how hard it must be for historians to portray the accurate picture of our history since DiGirolamo touched up on the boring power point presentations and dullness in certain historical visuals. All of which is the opposite of what special effects and a much higher budget can do in Hollywood movies rather than documentaries.
This weekend I spent walking around the 5 Points area so as cliche as it may be, I know have an interest in checking out one of the Tours that were inspired by the film.
Mendo on 26 Jun 2011 at 11:29 pm #
Both the movie “Gangs of New York” and it’s review by Vincent DiGirolamo shows the most destructive and violent period that occurred during nineteenth century among an Irish immigrants and Native Americans. “Gangs of New York” directed by Martin Scorsese. This film was organically inspired by Herbert Asbur’s 1928 nonfiction book, It’s a drama based of a real life.
In this movie, director Martin Scorsese captures a surrounding of New York City lower manhattans (Five point) in mid 1800. A surrounding that is filled with Irish immigrants and a Federal government’s execution of ongoing civil war.
Movie starts with a deadly conflict between two of the gangs supporting their own rights and style over controlling their own town and their people.
Scene begins with a bloody battle between a “Natives White Irish” American born VS a recent arrived Irish Catholic immigrants. “Natives” are led by “Bill Butchers”- played by Day Lewis also known as a head of Native whereas the Leader of the “immigrant Irish the priest Vallon” is played by “Liam”.
Even though both gangs were originally from Irish. White American Irish hated the newly immigrant Irish. Both of these gangs had their own ways of controlling their people and their different views of protecting their culture. Both of these gangs respected their own style, which led to a conflict on proving one is better than the other.
Hitakshi Sharma on 26 Jun 2011 at 11:29 pm #
DiGirolamo presents a very detailed review and a summary of the movie. After reading the movie review, it’s understood that the movie won’t do complete justice in presenting the audience with the accurate history of New York. This movie is simply made to entertain people, but at the same time try to provide a basic understanding of what happened in New York during the 19th century. We just need to remember not to believe in everything that the movie tells us because it’s just a Hollywood re-enactment. However, having learned the history of New York in class, it would just be interesting to watch how the movie projects its own perspective of the history.
glejdis.xamo on 26 Jun 2011 at 11:46 pm #
It does not take long for an audience to lose focus very quickly. Just like a book, a director must grab the attention of his audience in the first few paragraphs; but in his case in the first couple of scenes. Historians present facts that’s depicts a certain time and place in history. Directors take these facts and present them in a way that it will be appealing to an audience. Martin Scoresese’s Gangs of New York portrays an nineteenth century disturbed New York City. As mentioned by my classmates and the review by V. DiGirolamo, Hollywood presents historical characters with fictional stories. This way the audience will be more intrigued by the film and it will keep them hanging on their site until the last minutes. By using these techniques it is understandable how historians and movie makers have conflicts of interests. There is a thousand ways to tell a story, it just depends who is telling it.
ka.lo1 on 26 Jun 2011 at 11:49 pm #
In my opinion,films as Primary Sources for History.
In the study of history, the usage of movies as primary sources is controversial. Motion pictures are more commonly well-known as sources and created for entertainment purposes. Film is a creation of a reality. This has some valuable resources for the study of history in many respects. They may or may not be representational such as Vinvent DiGirolamo’s movie and many of Hollywood movies, and some may include writing or printing Some can be categorized as fine art, others as documentary record.
Originality may or may not be important, and the content may or may not be the primary focus. The important part is that they are making huge money on those films.
Natalia Abramov-V. on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:04 am #
I agree with those comments that states that the movie is not a primary historical source, but it could be both, educating and entertaining. However, reading the movie review by Vincent Digirolamo, I was intrigued and inspired to watch the movie and so I did. Though some details were not accurate the movie was able to propel me back in time and it helped to visualize the historical facts, places, people and their life style and mentality of that period of time. While the movie depicts drama, history and romance, it portrays general information about Five Points, conflict between Irish and Natives, discrimination against ethnic classes, political corruption and New York City draft riots.
yutik.lam on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:05 am #
It is true that movies distort the historical fact in order to build up the drama. With a limited budget, the filmmakers have to make their choice and decide how to tell a story in one or two hours. It is not like making a documentary and they also need to use their creativity. Some historical events may be oversimplified and some may be portrayed in an exaggerating way. From the review of “Gangs of New York”, the writer DiGirolamo believed that the movie didn’t provide us the correct information, but at least it showed us how the force of history dramatize ordinary people’s lives. In addition it depicts American values as base, politics as corrupt and religion as hypocritical. It’s a dark view of the melting pot boiling over and mopped up by the Union Army. I agreed with some comments above. We can sometimes forgive historical inaccuracies in the movie if overall the movie gives us a correct sense of that time period. Probably it could arouse our interest to figure out more about the past. Anyway the Hollywood movies are not the best interpretation of history, but I’m still interested in watching “Gangs of New York” and know more about New York’s notorious slum district Five Points in the mid-nineteenth century.
Junko Todoroki on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:08 am #
After reading the review, I learned that the movie, “Gangs of New York” is not entirely base on accurate history and historical truth was sacrificed for entertainment. Actually, I didn’t expect the movie was made based on real historical truth. It’s “Hollywood Movie”. It’s not made for educating but entertaining viewers. It’s business, and their concern is about making a profit. I believe that viewers also expect the movie if different from the actual history in some degree. If people want to learn the history, they will watch some other educational movies but not hollywood movies. Even though the movie is not based on accurate history, I believe that I can enjoy watching some perspective on the era. I’m looking forward to watching the movie tomorrow.
kenji.ueno on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:18 am #
In my opinion, the main purpose of the filmmaking is about how to entertain the audience and to make as much profit as possible out of it, and that’s what I believe the Hollywood movies are trying to do. I agree with most of the comments above and the movie review by DiGirolamo that the movie “Gangs of New York” is representing the history of New York in an inaccurate way, and I think it’s almost impossible to make a great “Hollywood” movie which is based on accurate historical event; it’s gonna be a documentary. But I’m kind of interested in watching how they portrayed the historical events in the movie, such as how the movie director captured the Five Points and other historic places and events. Looking forward to watch the movie in the class tomorrow.
jennifer.yu1 on 27 Jun 2011 at 1:07 am #
After I have read the previous posts, I think we can all agree on the fact that if a movie is “based on a true story” it creates more excitement and anticipation among the viewers. There are movies out there where directors have entirely tweaked and coated the basic “true story,” greatly dramatizing what happened simply to attract more movie goers. The author in the article talks about how the historians do not have much power over directors in making their education even slightly more interesting than movies. History in the first place is not taught with a purpose to entertain, but to educate. It is definitely more meaningful if they can do both but the dramatic affects of a Hollywood film are definitely unnecessary. In the writer’s own words, we should rely on historians for their promise of “greater truth, deeper analysis, and college credit”. Later on, the author goes on to talk about the film does not depict all the ordinary families that lived in the Five Points as well, disregarding the archaeological evidences. Getting historical facts absolutely wrong is one thing but failing to include every aspect of the historical era is another. I don’t think it is the director’s job to include every aspect of that time in the film. I look forward to seeing the film as the director’s renderation of that time.
cheokhong.yu on 27 Jun 2011 at 1:09 am #
I agree with most of the comments above,the movie does not depict the past New York History with 100% accuracy. For example, the movie the film inaccurately portrays gang warfare and gender and race relations of the time. But it reveal some historical fact too like the movie depicts the persecution and discrimination of Irish immigrants and the immigrants‟ fight for a better life in America. However, as the filmmakers, they would try to make profit. I think the most important thing is to attract as many as audiences to watch the movie. In Hong Kong, the dramas and movies are not usually based on historical facts. However, it provides a clear background for us about the historical knowledge even though it is not 100% accurate. If you are really interested in certain kind movie like “Gangs of New York”,you would definitely eager to do some rearch after you finish watching the movie. Then you are able to find the difference between the historical fact and plot of the movie.
jianping,Gao on 27 Jun 2011 at 1:22 am #
When I read the Vincent DiGirolamo’s movie review on Gangs of New York, I see that it points out that the movie is lack of historical accuracy. I don’t think this is a very bad thing. I believe that not everyone is interested in history since it is boring some times and also because people think it is unrelated to their lives. So a movie about history wants to get most people’s attention is not an easy thing. Considering this situation, a kind of Hollywood’s movie is not a bad choice. Even though a Hollywood movie can’t expect to be historically accurate and provide entertainment, it still bases on history and reflects history in some kind. Thus people who not really care about history can learn something new from it and those who do like it can find the differences between the movie and the history and learn more. I think the intention to make a movie should include both teaching knowledge and making fun. The only problem is how to balance these two things and make a movie more meaningful. I am look forward to watching the movie on Monday and to find the answer.
natalia.tatishvili on 27 Jun 2011 at 10:40 am #
I agree with most of the comments about the difference in movies made for profit and made as a historical documentary. Unfortunately or fortunately I have seen this movie before and I am looking forward to see it again since now I know more about the history behind the movie I will see it from different point.
audrey.ryals on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:12 pm #
After reading the reviews and my classmates responses I could pretty much visualize the effectiveness of the movie. Most of the reviews were more positive and deemed this movie as being a cult classic. I feel Scorcese is a brilliant filmmaker and sunk a lot of money into making this movie as accurate and historically correct as possible. I’m sure his team worked around the clock to manifest the poverty and grim conditions of NY is this period and entertain us as well. History can be a bit dull and it is a filmmakers job to keep is informed and awake at the same time. The opportunity cost of keeping us entertained, however, is historical authenticity. They need to make profits at the end of the day. In order to make profits you need to please the historians who are looking diligently for errors in the facts, and people who want to be entertained. Its hard to please everyone because they are on 2 ends of the spectrum. If you want cold hard facts just read a book.
John Fernandes on 27 Jun 2011 at 10:48 pm #
I have yet to watch a movie based in an historical era to do justice to its historical facts. On deeper thought… maybe that is why they are called directors and screenplay writers and not historians. It’s like my aunt coming down from India and complaining that the Indian food in America is not the real Indian food… duh its made to cater a different market. I am sure when Martin Scorsese made this movie, he wasn’t intending it to become a teaching tool in an American History class.
But that said, I think Vincent DiGirolamo does an outstanding job with his review. He has shown a pleasant open mindedness and willingness to give many aspects of the movie the benefit of the doubt. Although, personally I would prefer if the review was at least 17 pages shorter, I think it is an interesting read. I read it after watching the first half of the movie and it has now cleared so many things to me, that the filmmaker’s brilliance and my ignorance had led me to believe as true. I am glad that the review confirms that the sets created by Dante Ferretti depicted the five points as they really were because the scene in the first few minutes – when Liam Neeson was walking through the building on his way out, and the camera zooms out to show the over crowded building with no walls or rooms – was really awesome.
I cant wait to see the remainder of the movie tomorrow to compare it with the rest of the review.
ml086070 on 29 Jun 2011 at 2:41 pm #
I have watched the move previously a few times because my husband loves it. It is not intended to be a documentary, just a regular movie that tries to bring something from the past to the present time and make a lot of money with it. The fact is that there were gangs, there was racism, there was a lot of killing, there was a lot of corruption, so they decided to make a movie presenting all the points mentioned before. If the critic wanted to see the Tammany Hall, Greeley’s Tribune, etc. He should have rented out a documentary showing those places. Really and truly the review was boring in my opinion. It didn’t leave anything to the imagination. He pretty much told the whole movie right there. there was no need for us to watch it (pretty much).
The bottom line is that the movie is great. It’s fun to watch. It keeps you alert. It was nice to see certain people and places that we have studied in our class.
carpet steam cleaners on 29 Jun 2011 at 3:55 pm #
I’d like to start off by saying that the review is a major spoiler, and is in fact the longest movie review i ever read… well skimmed at least.
Something I concluded from the review is that the director is extremely sensitive towards women. Both the sex scenes and violence to women are underplayed severely. Another different but just as equally interesting point I found in the article is the extreme level of research that actually goes into a movie like this. While a historian can give the events how they happened, the movie crew goes into every detail all from the stances in a bar-fight to the individual costumes