Gangs of Snowpiercer
The Gangs versus The Railcars
When class divisions and ones cultural identity are pushed to the limit things can get violent, both Scorsese's Gangs of New York and Bong's Snowpiercer are prime examples of what happens when the lower class has motivation for change. When this motivation is sparked what is the outcome, and is there hope for change?
Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York (2002) is the story of Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio, Titanic) and his quest for revenge against Bill "the Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis, The Last of the Mohicans) after Amsterdam witnesses Bill murder his father 'Priest' (Liam Neeson, Schindler's List) as a young boy.
Amsterdam and his father are Irish Catholic immigrants living in Five Points (Lower Manhattan), New York in the mid eighteen hundreds and are part of the gang "The Dead Rabbits"(Which is also now an awesome Irish Bar on Water Street, part of Five Points). Five Points is full of gangs with the largest and most dangerous being "The Natives" aka "The Bowery Boys" led by Bill the Butcher. "The Natives" do not take kindly to immigrants and thus wage war against "The Dead Rabbits". Amsterdam returns to Five Points after living in an orphanage for most of his childhood and plots his revenge on Bill, and eventually succeeds.
 |
| "Priest" Vallons last breaths |
 |
| Amsterdam returns to Five Points in search of Bill "the Butcher" |
 |
| "This is the Snowpiercer, one thousand and one carriages long, carrying the last of civilization through the endless wastes..." |
This train has 1,001 cars and each one is divided into it's own social class. Curtis (Chris Evans, Captain America: The First Avenger) lives on the last car and is considered to be the lowest of the low by Wilford
,the creator of the train. Curtis doesn't believe that social class should dictate where and how you live and seeks to find answers from Wilford, who lives in the very front of the train. Snowpiercer follows Curtis' journey from the last car to the front, with many twists and turns along the way, culminating in a conversation with Wilford himself.
,the creator of the train. Curtis doesn't believe that social class should dictate where and how you live and seeks to find answers from Wilford, who lives in the very front of the train. Snowpiercer follows Curtis' journey from the last car to the front, with many twists and turns along the way, culminating in a conversation with Wilford himself.
Cultural Identity versus Social Class
Cultural Identity can be defined many different ways, but the most relevant here is "The self-concept of a person who belongs to a particular cultural group. Also refers to our sense of belonging to a particular culture or ethnic group."(Among Us) Also, "The definition of groups or individuals (by themselves or others) in terms of cultural or subcultural categories (including ethnicity, nationality, language, religion, and gender). In stereotyping, this is framed as terms of difference or otherness."(Oxford Reference)
Social Class can also be defined many different ways, but again relevance is key and Oxford Reference's definition fits perfectly. "A system for classifying the population according to social status." (Oxford Reference)
While both cultural identity can be seen in both films, you do see a dominance towards one in each film. Gangs of New York focuses heavily on cultural identity with some underlying issues regarding social class, and vice-versa for Snowpiercer.
Gangs of New York: The Natives versus The Immigrants
In Gangs of New York cultural identity is the main underlying factor of the film. We understand this from the opening sequence with the (mainly) Irish immigrants "Dead Rabbits", "Priest" Vallon and his son Amsterdam versus "The Natives" led by Bill "the Butcher" Cutting. These cultures were made obvious through clothing, money, and as pointed out by Amsterdam, accents. Anything other than theirs was considered foreign.
While Amsterdam is seeking revenge, he would not have to if it was not for the hatred of immigrants that 'The Natives' had. While Amsterdam has to be undercover for the majority of the film he is still proud of his cultural background, where he came from, and his family.
On the other side of the story Bill the Butcher is just as proud of his cultural background and where he came from. He wants to defend his Country from immigrants and
While Amsterdam is seeking revenge, he would not have to if it was not for the hatred of immigrants that 'The Natives' had. While Amsterdam has to be undercover for the majority of the film he is still proud of his cultural background, where he came from, and his family.
On the other side of the story Bill the Butcher is just as proud of his cultural background and where he came from. He wants to defend his Country from immigrants and
"at the heart of Cutting's contempt for and hatred of his immigrants is his pride in being American; to him, immigrants are not and cannot be American like him"
-Sean Mattie, Gangs and Citizens: A Review of Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York
When Amsterdam first returns to Five Points his is informed by an old friend, Johnny Sirocco (Henry Thomas, E.T. The Extra Terrestrial) that a lot of gangs have come to Five Points each with their own identities and backgrounds. When Amsterdam asks about the "Dead Rabbits" Johnny reveals that no one is to even speak that name as they'd be outlawed.
Another culture that is not represented by our two title characters, but is vitally important to the story and time period this film is set in, is the African American population. At this time Lincoln was in the process of abolishing slavery which "The Natives" were also against and incredibly verbal about. We see this with Amsterdam's friend Jimmy (Lawrence Gilliard Jr., The Machinist) and how he is treated throughout the film.
Snowpiercer: The Back versus The Front
Similar to Gangs of New York we see the class divide from the opening shot of the film when the PSA says "Everyone has their proper place." This PSA gives us a quick glimpse into what we are about to experience, but to a first time viewer this may not be apparent especially to ones who are not familiar with the graphic novel or film. The first time it becomes all too real is during "Mason's Speech" and we see the cruelty in which the back of the train is shown from the front. We also are given an incredible analogy involving a shoe, in that the members of the back of the train are shoes and shoes do not belong on the head (the front of the train) but on the foot (the back of the train). While this analogy is great it doesn't explain what is waiting on the cars ahead, but Claudia Puig does perfectly with one sentence,
"aboard the train is a microcosm of society...the elite in the front of the train live as if perpetually on a decadently luxurious vacation, feasting on expertly prepared sushi and steak, pampered with pedicures, and dancing nights away in discotheques."
-Claudia Puig, Stylish 'Snowpiercer' takes a cold look at class divisions
Our title character Curtis knows something must be done as living in the back of the train may be worse than not living at all, and being outside the train perished may have been a better idea. So he and his friends start a journey to the front of the train.
The back of the train has survived solely on what is known as "protein blocks" which look like black gooey rectangles, and in their journey to the front they come across a former friend who know is in charge of making the protein blocks. This is a great representation of the social class that this train represents in that it is possible, but not likely to "better yourself" and move up the train. However, when they find out what they've been eating the entire time, he may not have moved up after all.
Towards the end of the film the remaining members that began the journey to the front come across a car with fresh sushi. They sit down and Mason tells them the important of balance on the train. An analogy is used in regards to the fish tank as a closed ecological system and it must maintain a proper balance, thus sushi is only served twice a year.
Gangs and Snow
Similarities
These two films are more similar than they are different. We have the back of the train and the immigrants, the front of the train and "The Natives", the other cars and the other gangs, and most importantly social class and cultural identity.
The back of the train and the immigrants share many common bonds. They each have pride from where they are from, who they are, and what they stand for. They each are considered the lowest on the totem pole, but they do not see it that way and they both believed it was time for change.
 |
| The Back and The Dead Rabbits |
The front of the train and "The Natives" also share many common bonds. They also have pride from where they are from and what they have built. They consider themselves to be untouchable and come to find out that they are not.
 |
| Wilford and The Bowery Boys (The Natives) |
An interesting similarity is the middle cars and the other gangs. While in Gangs of New York we do not see too much fighting or drama between the other gangs you can tell it is there, from Johnny explaining it to Amsterdam to smaller scenes involving these gangs. In Snowpiercer however, Curtis and his crew encounter many different people, challenges, and fights along the way through the other cars. Each of these cars and gangs are doing the same thing that the rest of them are, standing their ground and fighting for what they believe in.
 |
| "The Others" |
Social class and cultural identity are found in each film, however as stated before one dominates the other. Snowpiercer's social class is obvious in that each car is broken up into a different social class and the entire train is one class system. We do see some cultural identity with certain cars being 100% one nationality. In Gangs of New York cultural identity is the main factor of the entire film, "The Natives" versus the immigrants. However, there are some social class differences thrown in such as the immigrants are seen as the poor and "The Natives" the wealthy.
"Gangs of New York vividly shows how difficult it can be for different peoples to live together peacefully, without resentment or the desire for revenge."
-Sean Mattie, Gangs and Citizens: A Review of Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York
You could remove Gangs of New York from this sentence and replace it with Snowpiercer and it would work just as well. Not only does this show the incredible similarities of these two films, but also points out that time may not always change things.
Differences
A major difference is that Gangs of New York, was based off a book. Since Gangs of New York is based off of "real events" and a non-fiction book, you would have to assume there was some historical significance in the film, right? Or does Hollywood and "The Left" misuse American History.
"I saw this film in Spain. The Spanish audience emerged visibly shaken by the violent scenes. In their discussion about the movie I overheard and read in reaction to the newspapers, many viewers reflected that the film "confirmed" their anti-American sentiments regarding American foreign policy in Iraq, and the old prejudice still deeply held that America had been "anti-Catholic" as well as anti-negro, anti-immigrant and simply anti-poor. This is rewriting history by the Left is an art-form in its own right, one that pays absolutely NO attention to historical fact... The film is homage to how low an art form can sink and what happens when Hollywood teaches history. Rarely, if ever, has an historical film distorted the truth in such a consistent and flagrant manner."
-Norman Berdichevsky, Scorsese's Gangs of New York: How the Left Misuses American History
The book focuses heavily on The Draft Riots and the events that take place after them but one interesting fact that comes from the book and history is the Bill "the Butcher" Poole (not Cutting) was killed by an ex-cop named Lewis Baker with a handgun. (Asbury, 89) Most notably, Bill's death happened in 1855, seven years before the film began and eight years before his "death" and the start of The Draft Riots.
This then points the focus unto what Scorsese had to say about the book.
This hour long interview is incredibly interesting to watch, but he does discuss the book at the five minute mark for about four minutes. Some points that stood out were that Scorsese said that Asbury's "The Gangs of New York" led to all of his other books and the Scorsese wanted to incorporate all of his books into the film. Scorsese exclaimed, "I didn't know where to stop!" Scorsese also mentioned that he also based the film off of Luc Sante's Low Life: Lures and Snares of Old New York. The basis of that book being "people trying to live together and testing democracy" according to Scorsese. This was interesting to learn and may explain why it is so different from the book.
That being said, the biggest difference between these two similar films is how they ended. You would think, classic heroic stories, classic heroic ending. The good guys win and all is well. Both endings did not end this way and are both vastly different from each other.
Gangs of New York ended with two important parts the first was that The Draft Riots of 1863 started and is shown through telegrams and explaining that every African American is being targeted and/or killed. The other it helps to keep in mind that the film came out in 2002 not long after 9/11 and that is something to keep in mind when looking at the way Scorsese chose to end the film. Amsterdam ends up finally avenging his father's death and killing Bill "the Butcher." In doing so he buried Bill right next to his father on a hillside overlooking the New York skyline. Then Amsterdam walks away from the two graves with one last resonating word "friends or foe it don't make no difference now" and we are shown a time lapse of how the city changed over time and eventually ending with a shot of The Twin Towers. The soundtrack is equally important with U2's "The Hands that Built America" appropriately named and playing at the same time.
Snowpiercer ended with Curtis finally making it, alone mind you, to the front of the train and finally meets Wilford. After finding out that way too much information, including that they consume humans on the train, the survivors that did not make it to the front help derail and demolish the train. Two survivors emerge from the wreckage and set out onto a snowy landscape to encounter a polar bear staring right at them, and fade to black.
What does this mean? Is this a new world with an Adam and Eve type scenario or is that polar bear going to eliminate the last two remaining humans on Earth?
These two endings are completely different and leave many questions to be answered.
Is there hope for change?
When class divisions and ones cultural identity are pushed to the limit things can get violent, both Scorsese's Gangs of New York and Bong's Snowpiercer are prime examples of what happens when the lower class has motivation for change. When this motivation is sparked what is the outcome? Are they all screwed or is their hope for change?
What we can learn from these two films is that the outcome of change sparked by differences of social class and cultural identity is more often than not is war. When a revolution happens and cultures clash wars are started and thus the death toll rises. When wars happen deaths follow along, but different conclusions happen in each of them. Whether there is a clear victor or not everyone still loses when war happens. However, is there hope for change?
 |
| Everyone loses in war |
"At first glace it seems to be saying that violent, brutal revolution is the only way to achieve radical social change. In order to advance through the train close to the engine, our protagonists main and kill with knives, hatchets, pipes, crowbars, etc. However, this can be justified as self- defense because their government flat-out murders its lower class citizens as a means of population control. If liberty and a chance for social mobility were taken away from you, would you accept the status quo? If the power structure threatened you and your family with sharp metallic objects and you did nothing, would you be a good citizen? Or would you fight fire with fire?"
-Curtis Parvin, Are Social Classes on the Right Track? A Review of "Snowpiercer" (2013)
Do the end of wars actually bring about noticeable change? Did the end of the gang wars bring about change or did they just ignite the fire that became The Draft Riots? Did the end of the front of the train ruling the back of the train end in victory? Those are both hard questions to answer and are left open-ended by our filmmakers. However, in the real world have the end of wars led to noticeable change? At the end of World War II did everything just fall into place perfectly, and everything that was being fought for fixed? The answer to that question is also left open-ended and the answers you will receive will be mixed.
 |
| Victory? |
In sticking with the theme of open-ended questions I will leave you with one more, does one's cultural identity or social class really matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment