Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Gangs of New York Misses
City Journal ^ | January 14, 2003 | William J. Stern

Posted on 01/14/2003 3:57:12 PM PST by aculeus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

1 posted on 01/14/2003 3:57:12 PM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Happygal; dighton; general_re
Fascinating Irish in America history.

From John Hughes to Bernard Law ... ugh.

2 posted on 01/14/2003 3:59:48 PM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I'M BACK!!!

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com


STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

DONATE TODAY
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate here by secure server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794



3 posted on 01/14/2003 4:09:43 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
The movie was pretty poor. For $70 million, Martin Scorcese produced what was essentially a "spaghetti Western." Even some of the background scenes looked similar. With that kind of money, even adjusted for inflation, Sergio Leone could have produced over a dozen spaghetti Westerns. Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef (as they looked 35 years ago) would have been far better in the roles assigned to Leonard DiCaprio and Daniel Day-Lewis. Eli Wallach would have been a far better two-timing cutthroat than the lightweights they hired. (No doubt his Irish accent, overlaying his real life New York whine, would have been funnier than his Mexican one.) Ann-Margaret or Ursula Andress (again, circa 1965) would have been better as the "soiled dove" than Cameron Diaz was.

On top of that, the movie had a gratuitous "token Negro," class warfare nonsense, and blatant Protestant bashing. FReepers, save your money by avoiding this horrid movie and contribute to the latest fund drive for this Web site!

4 posted on 01/14/2003 4:13:59 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
I guess I¡¦ve been around here for about 5 years or so now. Time sure flies!

When Jim Robinson started this site, it was because he was fed up with the liberal media, and how they would not let people worldwide know about the corruption of the Clinton Administration. A few of us, equally concerned, (with great luck) found it fast.

In the early days, FR was a day-to-day operation, always on the brink of bankruptcy. Jim kept on, and we chipped in when it became too much. We knew how important this site was, and is. Sometimes, it came down to the wire, and we wrote checks, and sent them in, as best we could.

Look at it now. We all get our best information from this site. It is huge, with thousands of posters, and millions of readers. Yet Jim still keeps it alive because of his conviction, and he is absolutely NOT making a profit on it. He just believes. As do we.

BTW, did you know that the founder of this site is in a wheelchair (sorry Jim; I know you think it doesn¡¦t make a r*ts a$$ difference. Hey, some folks out there need to come down a peg¡Xlike I have.).

Think of it! In the darkest days of the Clinton Administration, there was a lone internet site where people with integrity, brains, and sheer gumption could discuss the dangers faced by the US. Not on CNN, for sure.

Earthmovers like Drudge, Ann Coulter, Rush, WFBuckley, his brother, Savage, Buchanan, both houses of Congress (many) check in to see what we think.

The opposition checks it out, too. Like the NY times staff, CNN, etc. Trust me, they all come here to read. Even YOUR post. You know by now how they are whining about Rush? We¡¦re next, as soon as they figure out how they can trash this site without it getting a million hits.

I¡¦ve been broke; I¡¦ve been not broke. I¡¦ve slept in my car. I know how it feels to be squeezed tight with bills. You¡¦re not alone, and you have friends here. ƒº

If you love this site as much as I do, please, please sign up for automatic payment of just $3 per month. Don¡¦t be embarrassed if you think this is too little. It absolutely is not. You $3 a month folks are our grassroots movement heroes. Be proud. We¡¦ll thank you for it, and are so glad to have you on board.

I know things are rough out there. But you are tough, and a member of the greatest grassroots freedom movement in 100 years. Together we are making history, and will change the world, as we already have. The best is yet to come. Would you please, please consider signing up for just $3 a month? Please? You will make a world of difference, to, well, the world. Be proud.
5 posted on 01/14/2003 4:15:42 PM PST by MonroeDNA (What's the frequency, Kenneth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happygal; dighton; general_re
For more of Stern on Hughes go here
6 posted on 01/14/2003 4:19:56 PM PST by aculeus (Why do so many of my posts become boob bait?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
Ditto all that. This movie sucked, and hard.
7 posted on 01/14/2003 4:24:08 PM PST by martin_fierro (WHO DAT EATIN' DAT NASTY FOOD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
I thought the movie was really well shot and the story was decent. Daniel Day Lewis's performance was fantastic, although Cameron Diaz and Leo left something to be desired.

You complain about there being class warfare, but that's what happened. The draft riots actually did happen, roughly in the manner they were depicted. If you tell the truth, is that bad? I'd rather see the hard truth than the comforting falsehood. I think it's valuable to see how far we've come, and how far we will continue to go if we let the Capitalist system do its work.

And honestly, Protestants didn't want Catholics in New York. Are you denying that? Al Smith was defeated for president largely due to his Catholicism. I ask once again, is the hard truth worse than the soft comfort of myth?
8 posted on 01/14/2003 4:32:30 PM PST by Buckeye Bomber (Justice, not vengeance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Haven't seen the movie yet, but plan to this week this time. I'll get back to ye, when I have.

Thanks for the ping :-)
9 posted on 01/14/2003 4:40:18 PM PST by Happygal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Bomber
I ask once again, is the hard truth worse than the soft comfort of myth?

Yes. Next question, please.

10 posted on 01/14/2003 4:43:55 PM PST by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Michale Barone has written a very instructive book about immigration to America: The New Americans

The chapter comparing the Irish experience in the nineteenth century to the AfricanAmerican in the twentieth century is quite thought-provoking.
11 posted on 01/14/2003 5:01:56 PM PST by maica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Interesting. I haven't seen the movie...2 in diapers makes it difficult for sitters for movies.

I know it covers the WBTS draft riots, does Martin gloss over the massive lynchings of black freedmen and escaped slaves by NYers?
12 posted on 01/14/2003 5:09:20 PM PST by wardaddy (whaddaya mean funny??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
I'm a big Scorcese fan, I like his visual style and I love his use of music. And I was looking forward to this movie until I saw a preview that included a scene with a bunch of people wearing stovetop hats squaring off for a rumble, almost fell out of my chair laughing. That might be historically accurate but it just looks damn silly, I would expect a director of Scorcese's calliber to know when to ditch accuracy for the sake of the movie.
13 posted on 01/14/2003 5:25:33 PM PST by discostu (Life sucks, humans are fallible, feces occurs... deal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Due to my own boycott of Hollywood I have only seen two movies in two years. The Count of Monte Christo and Gangs. If anyone has read these books by John Updike ,the first two Rabbit series set in 1958 and 1968 in Pennsylvania. (Rabbit Run and Rabbit Redux), they may compare this criticism.

The story may be sordid, it may even be slightly degenerate to some extent. One saving grace though,both in these books and the film, is that what they have in common is that the imagery is absolutely superb . It is many, many years, since such a re-creation of a scene long gone, has its equal in movie making.

Worth seeing for that alone. Yes, the Irish have come a long way. I seem to remember as a kid a 1940's movie, with the St Patricks Day parade. Judy Garland gave it all she had, singing. It's a great day for the Irish. Fortunately we were given a legacy by the photographer Jacob Riis (sp) which tend to bear out something of the despair of the immigrant, even thirty years or so later.

14 posted on 01/14/2003 5:53:34 PM PST by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter Libra
To self. Hollywood hokum and family fun movie. "Little Nellie Kelly" is the film(1940). This film more contemporary than Gangs does show the vibrancy of the Irish,and their little family troubles. Does Garland ever belt out, It's a great day for the Irish!

Jacob Riis, spelling is right, chronicled life in New York of the 1890's some thirty years after the draft riots. Gangs should be seen, be prepared though for a lot of violence etc.

15 posted on 01/14/2003 6:31:21 PM PST by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Stern: "...the Civil War was... an intensely moral struggle to free the slaves, in which Americans of all backgrounds gave their lives."

Stern may know about the history of immigration, but needs to catch up on Civil War history. From Paul Craig Roberts --

    The War Between the States was not fought over slavery. Lincoln fought the war to preserve the Union. In the second year of the war, Lincoln told the abolitionist Horace Greeley, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”

    The South wanted out of the Union because the tariffs that protected Northern manufacturers were a drain on Southern agricultural incomes. It is true that there were bloody-minded abolitionists in the North and hotheads in the South, but the Civil War was not fought over blacks.

The war was more than half over when Lincoln, reluctantly and under great pressure from the Radicals, issued the Emancipation Proclamation, a lukewarm document that freed only certain slaves in certain states. Freeing the slaves was a special project of the Radicals and abolitionists, a goal they accomplished only after the war's end. But "historians" like Stern will perpetuate the same myths forever.

16 posted on 01/14/2003 6:37:09 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happygal
I may see the film sometime but I found Stern's account of John Hughes role in early NY history (ignored apparently in the movie) most fascinating.

17 posted on 01/14/2003 6:39:58 PM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Bomber
I was happy to read what you wrote. We were going to see it this weekend but never did. I want to and still plan to and I never, ever go to the show so that says a lot. Thanks.
18 posted on 01/14/2003 6:41:21 PM PST by ShadowDancer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

19 posted on 01/14/2003 6:43:01 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Peter Libra

Bandits' Roost, c. 1890
Jacob A. Riis
Hand-colored glass lantern slide
The Jacob A. Riis Collection, 90.13.5.59

20 posted on 01/14/2003 6:44:45 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
I enjoyed that read, thanks.
I'll wait for cable, mostly because my movie $$ are reserved for the really great stuff like LOTR.
The teasers didn't much make me want to see this, except for DD-L. At the very least I expect his performance to be intense, as always lol.
As dramatic and provocative as the gang wars may have been, I do think are far more interesting movie would indeed have been the story of the Irish (and other) immigrants who made great strides in a relatively short period of time. Really a lesson to be learned there, and reminded of as often as necessary.
21 posted on 01/14/2003 6:50:36 PM PST by visualops ("..we could give it all back to you, and hope you spend it right.." -Clinton on the surplus, 1-20-99)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
"None of this was depicted."

Why would Scorsese want to depict 17th and 18th century trends?

22 posted on 01/14/2003 6:54:10 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Bomber
And honestly, Protestants didn't want Catholics in New York. Are you denying that? Al Smith was defeated for president largely due to his Catholicism. I ask once again, is the hard truth worse than the soft comfort of myth?

I think you're the one propagating a myth. Smith swept the states of the Old Confederacy, where Catholics were about as plentiful as hen's teeth. Hoover kicked Smith's crooked butt in the rest of the nation (including the heavily catholic Great Lakes states and Northeast.

23 posted on 01/14/2003 7:07:35 PM PST by Castlebar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Castlebar
Smith showed his true colors after he was "cheated" out of the 1932 nomination by FDR. He endorsed Roosevelt's Republican opponents in 1936 and 1940. Principle and party came a poor last to the fishmonger's personal ambitions.

NB. Of course, the Klan intensely disliked Smith, but by the 20s, they were strongest in the midwest, not the South. And there were a few southern states that Smith lost in 1928, but in general, your observation is right.

24 posted on 01/14/2003 7:35:15 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I know it covers the WBTS draft riots, does Martin gloss over the massive lynchings of black freedmen and escaped slaves by NYers?

I posted this not as a movie review (and cut a couple of paragraphs that referred to it) but because of Stern's comments on John Hughes. His other column, linked in #6, gives more details about this man, an under-appreciated hero.

25 posted on 01/14/2003 8:22:55 PM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Saw the movie.

It was a confused mess with no point of view except anarchic violence.

As the writer makes clear: some things never change. Don't look to the fourth estate (the press) for wisdom, nor to the fifth estate (or fifth column) i.e. the entertainment industry.

But where are those men of God and the streets like John Hughes or William Booth ?

26 posted on 01/14/2003 8:34:23 PM PST by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
Most of the movie is set in the 1861-63 period, so 17th and 18th Century trends are not relevant. However, "Gangs of New York" did not show the considerable body of pro-Southern sentiment among Irish immigrants in the North. It did exist in part because of the Cavalier-Catholic alliance in support of the Stuart dynasty. Historians like David Hackett Fischer and social commentators like Kevin Phillips have written on the roots of American culture and social conflict even in our time in the controversies of the British Isles in the 17th and 18th Centuries.
27 posted on 01/14/2003 9:35:31 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
The N.Y. Post flamed this latest Scorsese movie. It's historically inacurate, most of the acting stinks, and doesn't even use much of the book's material. Pure Hollywood drivel; so says the N.Y.P. ! Read the book; I did ... long ago.

BTW, you have mail. :-)

30 posted on 01/14/2003 10:31:53 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
Re your graphic reproduction of the Jacob Riis photograph. Wow, this will certainly speed me on my way across to Michigan and my donation to FR. Great!
31 posted on 01/14/2003 10:33:26 PM PST by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Thanks for the mail...I just got it. I have had trouble logging on tonight....I loathe my cheap 1.2 gig AMD processor....it's shakey and prone to freeze up....and my cable company server seems to let a lot more flotsam up the pipe than my DSL does at work. I need my techie to come over and bail me out.

I sort of figured Scorsese would make this into a lefty class warfare thing....is that close?

I did hear Lewis was quite good in his role?

Wasn't the old 5 points area around the Bowery and the old old Police Station?....I should have read up and studied it more when I lived there.

Warm Regards.
32 posted on 01/14/2003 10:40:05 PM PST by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
The posted colored Riis picture is of one of the places in the Five Points, at a somewhat later period of time and that's one of the gangs ( Black & Tan ? )which followed those mentioned in the movie. Yes, it is near the Bowery. Even as a tiny child, I knew a little about that area. Ever hear the old song : " THE BOWERY " ? It's about the gangs, etc. and what went on their. I've read a great deal about this area ; it's fascinating stuff. :-)

Sorry to hear about your server. :-(

I don't know WHY Scorses fiddled so with the facts. It didn't make this movie " better ". As to the cast...there aren't any good American actors/actresses anymore. BTW, DD-L REALLY got his nose broken, in one of the filmed fight scenes and went right on fighting. SOME OF THE GORE IS REAL AND NOT MAX FACTOR PANCROMATIC BLOOD #5.

There's a new book out " THE FIVE POINTS ", which I am going to get and read ASAP. :-)

33 posted on 01/14/2003 10:48:32 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza; rmlew; Cacique; firebrand; evilC
Gangs of New York ping.

This article appears in the current issue of City Journal, published by The Manhattan Institute.

34 posted on 01/14/2003 10:49:39 PM PST by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I do need to read up. Right now I'm reading Kitchen Confidential (vulgar but good), Bias (McGowan's book is much better), and Fortunes, Fiddles, and Fried Chicken (a post-bellum history of Nashville Gentry....pretty entertaining since I know a fair number of the descendents).

35 posted on 01/14/2003 11:00:16 PM PST by wardaddy (sometimes....I admit it....I miss Manhattan....in the rain with my apt. or loft windows open)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: aculeus; nutmeg
“Dagger” John Hughes

In addition to defending poor Catholics, the future Archbishop Hughes was also founder of Clemenza's alma mater in the then rural Bronx. There is a nice statue of him in front of the old Rose Hill Estate (now the administration building). Although the neighborhood around it has changes, the university remains a "green" campus just as it was when Dagger John founded it (the dorm I lived in was built shortly before the Civil War).

In the university's early years, a frequent visitor to John Hughes and the other Jesuits was a writer who lived in a small cottage nearby, one Edgar Allen Poe.

36 posted on 01/14/2003 11:04:09 PM PST by Clemenza (That's my Fordham History lesson for today. Next week: Robert Gould Shaw, Fordham Alumnus...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Wasn't the old 5 points area around the Bowery and the old old Police Station?....I should have read up and studied it more when I lived there.

OK. The Five Points was cleared for an early version of "urban renewal" in the 1880s. The northern boundary of the neighborhood was where Columbus Park is now, at the end of Mulberry Street between Little Italy and Chinatown. The courthouse marks the southern boundary of what was once the neighborhood. The Bowery is a little to the East of where the five points once were.

37 posted on 01/14/2003 11:08:29 PM PST by Clemenza (East Side, West Side, all over town. Tripping the light fantastic on the sidewalks of New York!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; nopardons
For a good history of "street" life in New York from the 1790s to the 1910s, check out Luc Sante's outstanding book Low Life when you get the chance.
38 posted on 01/14/2003 11:09:59 PM PST by Clemenza (East Side, West Side, all over town. Tripping the light fantastic on the sidewalks of New York!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I'm trying to get out of London/England in the 18th century. That's what I've been reading lately and I'm sick of it ! If there was ever a time period, that I would NEVER want to live through, this one is VERY high on my list. A few of the books I've been reading are : " A CONSPIRACY OF PAPER "," CARABOO "," LONDON HANGED ", " THIEVES' OPERA ", and just finished " JOHNSON'S LONDON ". They're all fascinating, full of hard , cold facts ( though the first two are fiction, based on historical facts ), and well worth the read. Anyone, who thinks that 18th century America ( or any other place at that time period ) was a good time to live, doesn't know much, if anything at all, about what life was REALLY ,?B> like back then.

What's " KITCHEN CONFIDENTIAL " about ?

39 posted on 01/14/2003 11:10:37 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Read that when it was first published. That's a fantastic book and a great read. :-)
40 posted on 01/14/2003 11:11:37 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: aculeus; All
As I have stated on other threads, I LOVED the movie, despite some historical inaccuracies. The 1863 draft riots are rarely talked about in high school history classes (especially in the early 1960s, when my parents were in school), despite the fact that they were the most violent civil insurrection in American History (other than the "War of Southern Arrogance" of course).
41 posted on 01/14/2003 11:12:15 PM PST by Clemenza (East Side, West Side, all over town. Tripping the light fantastic on the sidewalks of New York!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons; Wallace T.; martin_fierro; Happygal; discostu; Peter Libra
THIS MOVIE SUCKS, REALLY SUCKS, and I loved Scorcese with Taxi Driver etc. However, I don't care if the libs screwed up the history or not, it just isn't worth a spit! This one has lots of colors and camera shots of gratuitous fighting, and we usually love gratuitous fighting, but this baby face boy, with a sorry Irish accent, and fighting?... nope.... it doesn't work...we 3 guys walked out after 45 minutes... save your money...came home and watched CONAIR... again!
42 posted on 01/14/2003 11:13:31 PM PST by carlo3b (Tell your kids you love them today, tomorrow may be too late....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Thanks...I got it now. I know Mulberry well.....used to take visitors to Luna's for Rollatinis(sic) and Ferraras afterwards for Shfotellas (sic again) and espressos.

And yes I knew even then that the best Italian food was in Brooklyn but everybody wanted to see Little Italy and stuff like that joint where Joey Gallo got clipped.
43 posted on 01/14/2003 11:14:44 PM PST by wardaddy (I think Manhattan.....I think Roxy Music's Avalon...strange eh?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
The riots WERE taught, just a few years ealier, in the '50s.
44 posted on 01/14/2003 11:15:22 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
bookmarking...
45 posted on 01/14/2003 11:15:56 PM PST by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
Thanks, dear friend, for the review. I'll wait for it to come to cable, so that I can yell at the screen, add historical data, and hoot at little Leo, who can't act his way out of a wet paper bag.
47 posted on 01/14/2003 11:17:19 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
It's written by the head chef at Les Halles in Manhattan and is sort of an expose of kitchen culture and his own perilous route through it all. He started out as a prep school kid.

He's the chain smoking tall skinny guy (40s)on the food channel who travels all over the world eating at strange places. His dad was from the SW French coast(south of Bordeaux) and he's had an unusual and rather self indulgent life but seems to have recovered. Lots of jaded irony of course...he is half French...lol
48 posted on 01/14/2003 11:21:47 PM PST by wardaddy (a fair amount of gutter kitchen banter...you've been warned...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
I tend to find that the people who dislike this movie 1. HATE historical films in general (unless its a war movie) or 2. Don't give a damn about New York. Since I saw the movie while visiting parents in Boca Raton, FL (aka New York South) those who did not like the film tended to be in the first camp. I'd say that the consensus regarding the film was about 60% in favor with 40% disliking it (no middle ground on this one).

BTW: Taxi Driver is my favorite movie of all time. As for Con Air what a bombastic load of Jerry Bruckheimer produced sh-t!

49 posted on 01/14/2003 11:23:06 PM PST by Clemenza (East Side, West Side, all over town. Tripping the light fantastic on the sidewalks of New York!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Oh dear, I loathe him; he's so smarmy on that show. Maybe the book is better ? ;^ )
50 posted on 01/14/2003 11:26:08 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson