Talk:Gangs of New York

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

"resonates with a depth and intricacy is so profound that it is literally impossible to fully grasp it on a first viewing."

This is POV.

     I think the article just needs a few more headings to separate the large blocks of text.

Also, an increas of paragraphs will make the readability better.

Maybe another picture or the film? User:Tim_teddybear on March 6 2006

You guys just put U2 in there, for "the hands thnat built America"


Comment-- I think that Benjamin Justice's criticism is meritless. There are clear depictions of black people being lynched. There's also a radio voice over that states that black people are being attached all over the city.

Contents

[edit] Length

What happened to all the info in this article?161.181.53.10 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

They used to be much more, not all of it irrelevant or unverified so I guess someone deleted it all? Does Wikipedia have a page backup or something?

[edit] "Edit"

Removal of the Edit button needs to be achieved.

I tried, but now we have two 'edit' links by the picture of LEo and others.

User:Tim_teddybear

I found "_NOEDITSECTION_" (it's actually 2 underscores on each side), which does what you want... but across the whole page. Not sure this is really a good idea though, as it's handy for editors, especially on a long article such as this one. I'd recommend removing the Leo, Cameron and Mike picture actually, as it's not much to do with the film. Maybe a film still a little further down the page? --Estarriol 18:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of the removal? What is the point of the cleanup tag when the article has been improved to adequate standards? --Antrophica 01:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The point of the removal of the Edit links was that the links looked very "messed up" due to the positioning of the images and sections. A better solution would be to rearrange the images to fix the problem and remove the NOEDITSECTION. As for the cleanup tag... not sure it's still necessary. --Estarriol talk 18:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll get rid of the cleanup tag and attempt to have everything laid out properly with the edit buttons still intact. --Antrophica 04:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No information on the various law enforcement problems/offcials.

Mention was made of the Municipal Police, the state legislated Metropolitan Police, the elected Sheriff and the Constables, and even Marshals were mentioned throughout the movie. There is little in the way of history of those offices in New York City, save the police department that became today's NYPD. Does anyone have any information of the role of those offices in that time period, both by the movie and how it played out vs. the actual history?

[edit] One-eyed knife thrower?

I heard a radio review at the time that criticised the idea of someone with only one eye being able to accurately throw knives. Anyone know anything definite that could be added in the criticism section? Amo 22:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A person with one eye would have no binocular depth perception. I don't know much about knife throwing, but it may be that the accuracy of the line of the throw is more important than judging the distance of the throw. IJB 11:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
To be more precise, a person with one eye would have no stereoscopic vision, the "pop-up" effect of depth perception that comes from binocular fusion. There are other means of achieving depth perception, the simplest of which is simply relying on the relative size of objects. Turning the head (and moving in general) can also provide depth perception through parallax-- this is why pigeons bob their heads. I have no idea at all of whether Bill could actually have managed as difficult a task as knife-throwing with the other (more limited) sorts of depth perception, especially having been born with two eyes. Another issue with this scene is that most knives are thrown end-over-end rather than straight ahead, although some knife throwers do use this (much more difficult) technique for show. Nitpicks aside, I loved the movie. Daniel Day Lewis is a genius. Kajerm

[edit] Regarding other ethnic groups not mention in the movie=

The reason these groups was left out in the movie was a historical fact. The first wave of immigrants came from Ireland, Germany, and Western Europe before the Civil War. The main group of immigrants coming to New York city was mainly Irish due to the Irish Potato Famine. The main large wave of Italian and Eastern European ethnic groups, mostly of Jewish descent didn't arrive to the United States until the late 19th century. Like their Irish counterparts, They too began to form gangs such as the Italian dominated Five Points Gang and Jewish Eastman Gang who fought with the Irish Gopher Gang of the late 19th and early 20th century in New York City.

This doesn't address the point made about the Chinese community.--Jack Upland 09:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image in the plot synopsis

Does that image of the actors and directors really belong there? It really takes away from the synopsis.

[edit] Racism

"The film has been criticized for playing down the explicitly racist nature of the Draft Riots"

I don't think this really captures the issue. The racism is shown, with scenes of lynching, equation of the Civil War with black people, the symbolic burning of the picture of Frederick Douglass etc, but it is treated sympathetically because the oppression of blacks is ignored, the issue of the draft is foregrounded, the "city fathers" are depicted as corrupt or insensitive, and fundamentally the perspective of the movie is that of the poor whites who rioted.--Jack Upland 09:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The way the movie did it was much better because the racism, while present, was less important than the fact that they were being forced to fight in a war they didn't care about.Iwanttobeasleep 00:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, but a very significant reason that they "didn't care about the war" in the first place was out-and-out racism towards those poised to benefit, and the percieved indignity of dying for not just the rich, not just politicians, but for a race of people who were commonly deemed little better than animals at the time and could possibly, if freed, present a direct economic threat to already desperate and impoverished white immigrants. While the racism was addressed in the movie, it's definitely framed in a manner (for instance -- in addition to the sympathetic tone mentioned by someone else -- making the protagonists less racist than the villains, when in reality, odds are they both would've been thoroughly racist by modern standards) that would be less threatening & discomforting to modern American audiences than authenticity would allow. 129.119.187.242 (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Circular Reference Needs to be Corrected

In the opening paragraph, the reference to the book that this film was based on (The Gangs of New York) is linked back to this article. Therefore this article should be re-named "Gangs of New York (film)", which would automatically repair the reference. A disambiguation introduction should then be added.--Jstreutker 14:35Z 2007-02-23

[edit] Page Title

Why isn't this page titled "The Gangs of New York (film)" as per usual practice? "The Gangs of New York" should be allocated to the (not yet existant) article on the original book —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.247.160 (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed, that's how I came across this article, looking for the book's article for more information on the beginning of organised crime.

[edit] Errors in Awards section

The Awards section contained a couple of errors I've now corrected. First, Lord of the Rings did not overshadow Gangs... at the Oscars for 2002 (the only two awards that year's Lord... movie won were in categories where Gangs... was not nominated); though Chicago did. Second, it is not the movie with most nominations without a win; that "honour" is shared by The Turning Point (1977) and The Color Purple (1985), with 11 nominations. Information taken from List of films receiving ten or more Academy Award nominations, double-checked with www.oscars.com. -- OMHalck 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Accuracy Section

I'm not seeing a legit argument here (other than it being POV). There are some that argue that the movie was very accurate and that gangs of that time were very brutal, and there are some that argue otherwise. This should be cleaned up (with citations from reputable sources added) or removed. user:kageskull 164.214.1.55 14:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Priest Vallon

Is Priest Vallon supposed to be a priest or is it just a (nick)name? --Error 20:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Error - It's just a nickname. On his memorial picture, you can see "Priest" is in quotes. There are also other references to it being a nickname. It's discreet, but it's there. There's no indication as to a real name; in real life, the Dead Rabbits were led by Barry Sanders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.46.148 (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coppola

Why is Coppola referenced twice in this article, in place of what is presumably meant to be Scorsese? Francis Ford Coppola (nor any other Coppolas) seem to have anything to do with this film, nor do the citations linked for these statements contain Coppola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riph (talk • contribs) 05:06, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Because I had a headache and typed the wrong name. Thanks. Wildhartlivie 06:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Gangs NY.jpg

Image:Gangs NY.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Dead rabbit origin

On this page it says that the dead rabbits wouldve translated into very hulking men, but on the dead rabbits page it says it means to be feared. which one is it? --Steinfeld7 (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Steinfeld7: I came to this page to write something that concerns that... this is from the page: "In his book How The Irish Invented Slang, Daniel Cassidy claims that the film misrepresents the true meaning of the gangs name "the dead rabbits". He claims this name has nothing to do with the deceased animal at all, as repeated images in the film implies, but that the word "rabbit" is an English speakers misinterpretation of the Irish word "ráibéad", meaning "a hulking person, a big man". Adding the English slang word "dead" which was used as an intensifier (like very) the translation of "Dead Ráibéad" would've meant "very hulking men"." Apparently, Daniel Cassidy is either misrepresented here, or didn't do very good research, because the Dead Rabbits, whose name does come from the Irish word "ráibéad", meaning a very strong man, or a man to be feared (yeah, it's the same word), did adopt the practice of carrying dead rabbits on stakes as their symbol in riots. The movie isn't wrong about this in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.46.148 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)