Just watched Gangs of New York for the second time. If not for that mid part of the movie in which Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz fall in love this would be one of the best movies I have ever seen. It would be a top fiver for sure.

Several things to note:

The opening sequence in which the leader of the Dead Rabbits , the Irish gang, marches through a labryinth rallying his gang for the impending melee with the nativist gang all the while an Irish half-jig-half-march plays in the background is probably the best opening to a movie I have ever seen. Offhand i can’t think of another movie that has a stronger opening. Can anyone think of other movies with strong openings for the purpose of comparison?

There is a scene when the movie is very rapidly movings towards the crescendo. In this segment of the scene we see the protagonist, antagonist, and some ancillary character all praying to their god. We get to hear them beseech their lords for assistance in the upcoming calamity. Whats interesting is how the words each character uses to speak to god vary as a function of their current position within the movie. Of particular interest is that both the protagonists and the antagonists beseech the same god in assistinance in killing the other. Its a subtle way of showing the realization that same god is invoked by sworn enemies.

In the opening scene we see the antagonist, Bill the Butcher, kill the father of the protagonist in a massive melee. These two are archenemies since they were the leaders of two opposing gangs. After the father is killed, Bill honors and shows reverence towards his fallen enemy. Bill considers the opposing leader a worthy enemy, which gives dimensionality to Bill by showing that he is capable of seeing value in others and respecting those values even when he must kill that person.

This last bit reminds me of several discussion I have had recently. I have noticed in argument or conflict some have a tendency to explain their opponent’s dissent as a function of callowness or ignorance. When one dismiss an argument in this way they imply that their opponent’s dissent is not based on a well reasoned rationale but rather on immaturity or deception. Provided their opponents were mature enough or knowledgeable enough they would agree with their position. I dislike this kind of argumentation. I’m much more willing to grant that my opponent’s position is derived from a developed rationale and thus I treat their argument on equal grounds to mine. While I will treat their argument as a function of some rational faculty if I disagree with the position I will bring to bear the full force of my intellect in showing that position to be false.

This is how I see a parallel with Bill the Butcher. This character treats the other leader as as an equal. His enemy is an equal with a dissenting opinion and he must be killed for that reason. I treat my opponents arguments as equal to mine. Nevertheless when that position dissents with mine it must eventually be proven wrong.

But then again, I always do things the hard way.

This entry was posted on Friday, April 13th, 2007 at 8:25 pm and is filed under Movies. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.