At 2:44 PM -1000 1/1/03, Ralph Johansen wrote:
with a break for lunch, yes, at the York Theater in SF about 15 or
20 years ago. And btw not a bad format as precedent, for a film that
has it all
I would enjoy watching it, and it would have a guaranteed spot in
film history and perhaps find a
: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 10:48 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:33562] Re: The ideological implications of Scorcese's latest
film
At 2:44 PM -1000 1/1/03, Ralph Johansen wrote:
with a break for lunch, yes, at the York Theater in SF about 15 or
20 years ago. And btw not a bad format as precedent, for a film
At 5:17 PM -0800 12/31/02, Dorman, Peter wrote:
This is an unsatisfying view, one which undermines the subversive --
and realistic -- history-telling pretentions of the film. A better
film would have placed the gangs within the larger structural
formations of mid-19th century society: the
At 10:09 PM -0500 12/31/02, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
Peter criticizes the oversight about people at work and the
political implications of that. I noted that as well. But the film
implies that for the working class, the gang structure superceded
all other social attachments. Right or wrong,
-L:33546] Re: The ideological implications of Scorcese's latest
film
At 5:17 PM -0800 12/31/02, Dorman, Peter wrote:
This is an unsatisfying view, one which undermines the subversive --
and realistic -- history-telling pretentions of the film. A better
film would have placed the gangs within
yoshie == Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
yoshie The film sure reminds us what the term race riot meant until
yoshie the 1960s. -- Yoshie
I recently started working on a review of a book called *When Whites Riot*
by Sheila Smith McKoy, which studies the representation of race
At 10:20 AM -0600 12/31/02, Kendall Grant Clark wrote:
But, no, it's mute about the degree to which such white riots were
typically called forth (McKoy calls this 'ululation') by whites
(perhaps especially by business leaders and other elities,
particularly by white newspapers), as happened in
yoshie == Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
yoshie At 10:20 AM -0600 12/31/02, Kendall Grant Clark wrote:
But, no, it's mute about the degree to which such white riots were
typically called forth (McKoy calls this 'ululation') by whites
(perhaps especially by business leaders
Title: RE: [PEN-L:33540] Re: The ideological implications of Scorcese's latest film
I apologize if I'm reworking old ground. I just saw Gangs, and I avoided all the discussion on this list until I did, to go in with as few expectations as possible.
It's interesting that the review in the NYT
Peter D. said:
. . . Yes, the divisions within the ranks of the poor (Nativist, Irish,
Black, Chinese, etc.) prevented them from successfully uniting against their
common enemy. At the moment of insurrection, white violence was turned
against blacks rather than against the true source of
Title: RE: [PEN-L:33463] Re: The ideological implications of Scorcese's latest film
for what it's worth, I read that before Daniel Day-Lewis starred in G of NY, he had dropped out of acting to work as an Italian shoe-maker.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Yoshie Furuhashi
To: [EMAIL
At 2:33 AM -0500 12/28/02, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
the raging critique -- via a style of reportage
without any didacticism -- of U.S. society
being born. The city government is corrupt
to the core. The Civil War is a charnal house
for the working class that the wealthy are able
to forego. Civil
The point about state violence is well-taken. I did
gloss over it. It is overwhelming and indiscriminate,
as far as ordinary people go.
But its use is not limited to protecting the wealthy. It
is also to establish order. The mob violence reflects
oppression but it has no consciously
At 12:16 PM -0500 12/28/02, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
But its use is not limited to protecting the wealthy. It is also to
establish order.
Visually, though, the film doesn't dwell upon the establishment of
order very much. After the riot and its suppression, the film
creates a vast scene of
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
At 2:33 AM -0500 12/28/02, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
I'd say the best thing about the movie from the standpoint
of how it would strike a politically untutored person is that
it raises a million questions.
Well said.
One point about the film I haven't seen mentioned:
I saw it tonight. It's an incredible movie.
If you haven't seen it, you might want to read
this later (if ever). I don't give away much
story, but there isn't much to give away.
Some of the comments by reviewers and LP's
friend reflect disapproval for failure to
find the good guy/bad guy fault
I just watched _Gangs of New York_.
Jonathan Rosenbaum (Chicago Reader) writes:
And is it churlish to ask why, after making so many allusions to
nativists, Scorsese couldn't allude even once to Native Americans to
throw some ironic backlighting on the label? But who knows? Maybe
some real
Blood on His Hands
Gangs of New York
Directed by
Martin Scorsese
By Jonathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader
For almost the first two-thirds of Martin Scorsese's 168-minute Gangs of
New York, I was entranced. I felt like I was watching a boys'
bloodthirsty adventure story -- a blend of pirate
I dare guess you don't agree with Rosenbaum, Louis. I've not seen the
film yet, although see it I shall. But I'd not be surprised if
Rosenbaum has a point when he writes the film's 'blockbuster dimensions
... tend to overwhelm ironic subtexts and morose afterthoughts'.
Producers can do that to
It's all about balance, of course, and Rosenbaum may have hit that
particular nail on the head for all I know, but I'm even keener to see
the film now than I was half an hour ago.
What's your take?
Cheers,
Rob.
I haven't seen it yet, but plan to. In any case, here's something that John
Cox
20 matches
Mail list logo
