To: Buckeye Bomber
The movie glossed over what was essentially a pogrom of the blacks by the Irish rioters. Few, if any, rich Anglo-Protestants were lynched by the mobs while dozens of blacks were, even the inhabitants of a black orphanage. Scorcese gave the riots a Marxist class warfare spin when such was not the case. Had the riots truly been class warfare, why would the Irish not have allied with the blacks and working class Anglo-Protestants (and not just German and Polish immigrants) to overthrow New York City's elite?
Some of the Irish in New York City were sympathetic to the Confederacy, as Ireland's desire to break away from the United Kingdom resembled Dixie's desire to secede from the United States. Also, Southerners saw themselves as the successors of the English Cavaliers, who were allied with the Irish Catholics on the Royalist side during the English Civil War. The Anglo-Protestants of the Northeast were, to a considerable extent, the descendants of Puritans who sided with the Roundheads, the Royalists' opponents. None of this was depicted. Indeed, the nativist leader played by Daniel Day Lewis was shown as anti-Lincoln and pro-slavery while DiCaprio's Irish gang boasted its very own "token Negro." In fact, most Know-Nothings became Republicans after their movement collapsed.
There are other examples of PC thought in this movie. "Faith based" social help is shown as hypocritical and obtuse, as reflected by DiCaprio's snotty attitude toward it (tossing a King James Bible he received at an orphanage into a river; telling a Protestant minister running a charity dance to "go to hell" when he mentioned when services were held). When Cameron Diaz engages in theft, or Leonard DiCaprio and his friend steal the prized possessions of a fellow Irish immigrant whose home caught fire, their poverty and oppression, of course, justify their thievery.
What production qualities were in the movie, as well as Daniel Day Lewis' performance, are outweighed by the miscasting of DiCaprio and Diaz, the historical inaccuracies, and the leftist ideology in the story.
To: Wallace T.
"None of this was depicted."Why would Scorsese want to depict 17th and 18th century trends?
To: Wallace T.
Thanks for answering my question in post 12 even though not directed at you. I had assumed the original poster had seen the movie.
I like Scorsese's texture and non-stop momentum (usually) but expected he'd give it a PC washover and a lefty slant.
Too bad....worse still is that average ignorant Joe and Jane America will view it as historically sound.
I did hear that Lewis's performance is monumental.
DiCaprio should stick with Gilbert Grape type roles...they are better suited to his "gravitas". Diaz?...yep..miscast I'm sure.
BTW....I saw Mel Gibson on O'Reilly tonight...seems Hollywood and the print media are incensed over his positive portrayal of Christ in his upcoming flick with Jim Caviziel as Jesus...Caviziel is a devout Christian too. If those folks hate it then it must be good....I better brush up on my aramaic and latin....I hope it's subtitled.
Juxtapose that with Scorsese's abominational Jesus film in the 80s....yuck..hurl.
28 posted on
01/14/2003 9:58:37 PM PST by
wardaddy
(gravitas?....is it ok to use that word again now in proper context?)
To: Wallace T.
Thanks for answering my question in post 12 even though not directed at you. I had assumed the original poster had seen the movie.
I like Scorsese's texture and non-stop momentum (usually) but expected he'd give it a PC washover and a lefty slant.
Too bad....worse still is that average ignorant Joe and Jane America will view it as historically sound.
I did hear that Lewis's performance is monumental.
DiCaprio should stick with Gilbert Grap type roles...they are better suited to his "gravitas". Diaz?...yep..miscast I'm sure.
BTW....I saw Mel Gibson on O'Reilly tonight...seems Hollywood and the print media are incensed over his positive portrayal of Christ in his upcoming flick with Jim Caviziel as Jesus...Caviziel is a devout Christian too. If those folks hate it then it must be good....I better brush up on my aramaic and latin....I hope it's subtitled.
Juxtapose that with Scorsese's abominational Jesus film in the 80s....yuck..hurl.
29 posted on
01/14/2003 10:25:19 PM PST by
wardaddy
To: Wallace T.
(and not just German and Polish immigrants) THIS WAS A TOTAL LIE!!! The Germans DID NOT participate in the draft riots and were, in fact, staunch supporters of the Union cause (which got them in trouble when they settled in places like Kerrville, Texas). As for the Poles, THERE WAS NO LARGE POLISH POPULATION IN NEW YORK IN THE 1860s. The few Poles that were in this country were in Panna Maria, Texas. The large wave of Polish immigrants came in the 1880s-1920s and, in any case, preferred places like Chicago, Cleveland and Pittsburgh (to say nothing of Northern New Jersey, where Clemenza's paternal family settled) over NYC.
46 posted on
01/14/2003 11:16:46 PM PST by
Clemenza
(East Side, West Side, all over town. Tripping the light fantastic on the sidewalks of New York!)
To: Wallace T.
Some of the Irish in New York City were sympathetic to the Confederacy.... None of this was depicted. WTF? The movie included repeated clear depictions of the Irish mob disdain for the Union (e.g. the vegetable bombardment of the Uncle Tom's Cabin stage play).
67 posted on
02/10/2003 5:17:57 PM PST by
steve-b
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson