Category Archives: Irish

Movie Review: The Guard

Brendan Gleeson seems like an easy guy to underestimate. Yet, his snarl can be as furious as his slow yet subtle comic timing. It is this element of surprise that makes him such a vital, unforgettable part of “The Guard.”

In “The Guard,” Gleeson plays Sergeant Gerry Boyle, the only uncorrupt cop in a small Irish town where most of the residents speak Gaelic, pub visits are routine, and murder and drug rings usually aren’t recurrent. That is, until the day Gerry investigates a car crash that leads him to a huge shipment of cocaine into the country. The FBI comes to investigate, and Gerry is teamed up with the more traditional Wendall (Don Cheadle) to break up the drug ring. Wendall comes from a privileged midwestern African American family. Gerry gives off the notion that he’s never been within ten feet of a black person in his life. “I’m Irish. Racism is part of my culture,” Gerry quips. This certainly is not the immediate start of a beautiful friendship.
Make no mistake, “The Guard” is not some social commentary against racism. Ignorance is simply a part of its humor. It’s funny not just because Gerry has such a warped perception of other races, but because he can’t even get his racial stereotypes straight.
Yet, even in his meanest, most unaware moments, Gerry is never a detestable character in the slightest bit. In a position like he is in, his unenlightened views can only hide an immeasurable amount of brains.
“The Guard” works like most comedies today don’t by never dropping a joke. Every punchline, every small scene in a means of leading to another joke later on. You didn’t think those prostitutes were for nothing, did you?
“The Guard” is written and directed by John Michael McDonagh. He is the brother of Martin McDonagh, the theater and screenwriter who made “In Bruges” (which, probably not coincidently, Gleeson also starred in). John took some notes from his brother’s style and incorporates that same pitch black humor, self-awareness, and ambiguity that made “In Bruges” a modern classic. “The Guard” doesn’t exactly reach the life-pondering depth of “Bruges” but it nearly achieves the sly mystery of that film in its ending.
In their efforts, the two brothers have created what can be defined as the Irish lifestyle and humor. The lives of both cops and criminals revolve around the happening of the pub. This is their version of a coffeehouse. That is, a coffeehouse where people can drunkenly embarrass themselves as well as share ideas. Irish men also seem to come with preconceived perceptions of others, as well as street smarts. These traits may be defined both by the rural landscape in which they inhabit, and the unholy amount of Guinness and whiskey that they drink.
Like “Bruges,” “The Guard” ends up being both a fish-out-of-water and a buddy comedy. “The Guard” is a film that rewards those who wait and by the end their partnership isn’t just a means of solving this crime; it has involved into a full-fledged unorthodox friendship. Those are truly the best friends you can find in life: the ones that are nothing like you and yet in those differences, you find something you can hinge on to.
“The Guard” plays as a crime thriller comedy with a straight face almost the whole way through. Unlike say, “Hot Fuzz” this is not a giant sendup on the action movie genre. It seems more of a tribute to how hilarious it can be to step away from all PC boundaries. However, it does go meta for a moment, when a character suggests this story become a movie. Going meta is never a bad touch.
Despite being a comedy, “The Guard” does right in not going for the easy ending. I won’t say what it is, but all I will say is that you are not dumb if you can’t figure it out. Either way that it could go would make sense for completely different reasons. Either way it is definitely life affirming.
When they first meet, Wendall says to Gerry, “I can’t tell if you’re really fucking dumb, or really fucking smart.” Besides the hilarious racism, that’s what makes Gerry so memorable: perhaps he is a little bit of both.
I don’t normally impose upon my readers to see a movie. But this has been a particularly weak summer for movies. If “The Guard” is playing in a theater near you, you’d be really fucking dumb not see it.

Movie Review: Gangs of New York

Of all of the stunning images from “Gangs of New York,” one that sticks out is a shot that starts off on street level, and continues to go higher and higher until the 19th Century style buildings become the shape of the island of Manhattan. Here is a city that, over the years, I’ve grown to know and love. Here it is, in a form like we’ve never seen before.

“Gangs of New York” is Martin Scorsese’s latest vision of the mean streets of his beloved New York. However, it takes place 100 years before the days of “Mean Streets” and “Taxi Driver,” during Civil War ravished America.
The film starts off during a vicious gang war in 1848. Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the son of respected Irish immigrant Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson). On the opposite side is Bill ‘The Butcher’ Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis). Bill is the glass-eyed son of a Revolutionary War soldier who gushes with patriotism. He’s known as The Butcher not just for his day job, but for his weapon of choice.
As tensions rise between the Irish and the so-called ‘Natives,’ Bill murders Priest. Many years later, Amsterdam returns to a corrupt, Boss Tweed ruled Five Points and seeks revenge.
“Gangs of New York” shows Scorsese’s recent fascination with American culture wars, as this film can be seen as something of a counterpart to his recent “The Departed.” However, this film explores the roots of American diversity. It’s about the earliest days of bigotry, much of it rising from immigration. In a way, much of the situations and dialogue sound frighteningly similar to the current national conversation on immigration.
Adding on to this is the near accurate version of history portrayed. While Hollywood will often portray history through a myopic lens of clean precision, Scorsese takes no shame in showing the filth, the blood, and the anger that shaped this era. Extra special attention is paid to the stunning sets. At times, it can distract from actual plot depth, but it definitely helps raise the story’s level of believability.
Of course Scorsese’s direction is excellent, but what stands out most is Day-Lewis’ performance as Bill the Butcher. He is truly the best actor of this generation, and the carrier of the method torch. He steps into the character and makes him both a blood-thirsty savage and a patriot feeling betrayed by a country he helped defend. He may be racist, but his feelings can be understood. Not to mention, all he has to do is sharpen a knife, or just squint his eyes to become the most intimidating presence in the film. He basically steals all chance for any other actor in the film to shine.
Now, back to Scorsese. What makes Scorsese one of the great directors of cinema is that he knows how to handle violence better than any other director. Of all of his films, “Gangs of New York” may be his bloodiest. While most directors might show someone being stabbed and barely show the consequences, Scorsese slows things down and allows us to see the horrible, dehumanizing consequences of each kill. Later, after another major battle, the cobblestone streets turn into a red river. To Scorsese, violence isn’t something to cheer on or admire, but rather something to be sickened by. Meanwhile, the aerial shots of the war dead are reminiscent of the sprawling images of the dead in “Gone with the Wind.”
Upon its release, “Gangs of New York” divided audiences right down the middle. I believe it is a minor masterpiece; it doesn’t reach “Goodfellas” or “Raging Bull” heights, but its certainly no sign of a Scorsese downfall either. The film runs over two and a half hours yet races by as Scorsese explores his favorite themes of honor, religion, and family. Like in any Scorsese film, the backdrop, cinematography, editing, and score of “Gangs of New York” is extremely well detailed and masterful. They portray the chaos of the era in the same way that each room in “Goodfellas” distinguished when exactly Henry was doing well or doing poorly. And while some have criticized that too much is covered at once, it all serves to cover the chaos.
Part of the problem could be in the story itself. While Scorsese at first creates the interesting idea that while Bill hated Priest, he had a deep respect for him. Once the conflict between Bill and Amsterdam arises that inexplicably seems to disappear from the film together with little explanation. Many scenes also seem pulled right out of the revenge film playbook. For example, the scene where Amsterdam saves Bill’s life so he can later murder Bill himself is pulled straight from “Once Upon a Time in the West.” A little clarification is never a bad thing.
But, these are just minor flaws. Overall, “Gangs of New York” exceeds its epic counterparts (mainly “300″) in creating a vision of the past that’s exciting and fascinating without actually losing a grip on the history part. It’s a beautifully made history lesson about the birth of a nation and a bitter love letter to a city that spawned one of the greatest directors of all time.