FANDOM


Farm-Fresh balanceYMMVTransmit blueRadarWikEd fancyquotesQuotes • (Emoticon happyFunnyHeartHeartwarmingSilk award star gold 3Awesome) • RefridgeratorFridgeGroupCharactersScript editFanfic RecsSkull0Nightmare FuelRsz 1rsz 2rsz 1shout-out iconShout OutMagnifierPlotGota iconoTear JerkerBug-silkHeadscratchersHelpTriviaWMGFilmRoll-smallRecapRainbowHo YayPhoto linkImage LinksNyan-Cat-OriginalMemesHaiku-wide-iconHaikuLaconic

Bill the Butcher kills Priest Vallon in front of his son, Amsterdam. 16 years later, he comes back to where it happened. Bill doesn't recognize him, but both Johnny and Walter "Monk" McGinn do?

  • They lived with him in the Old Brewery. Bill likely only saw him once, on the day of the battle.
    • Johnny actually made a deduction based on his actions that he had to be the priest's son, rather than outright recognizing him.
  • Monk probably knew Vallon's son was named Amsterdam. Bill would have had no way of knowing that.
    • This troper assumed that Amsterdam was a nickname that he picked up in Hellgate. Surely Bill would know the name of the son of his worst enemy.
      • Monk suspected, and then smacked Amsterdam to see if he still had the childhood scar from 1846.
  • This movie was going great up until the point where Bill the Butcher captures Amsterdam and says something to the effect of , "I'll disfigure him. Eyes, ears, and nose all come off." We cut to a few days later with a shot of Amsterdam from behind as people gasp in horror while he walks through the street. We expect to see him hideously disfigured. Instead, we see the handsome, clean face of Leonardo Di Caprio as if he just stepped off the cover of Teen Beat... oh yeah, he kinda has a bit of a scar on his cheek... that's barely if at all noticeable. I was disappointed that Scorcese thought it was important for Leo to keep his good looks all the way through as opposed to telling a good story. It wouldn't have been so bad if his "disfigurement" wasn't played up so much. If Bill just flicked his blade at his cheek for a second without the monologue or anyone overreacting, it would've been fine.
    • To quote Bill later in the movie, what in heaven's name are you talking about? Bill caught Amsterdam, and said "HE AIN'T EARNED A DEATH AT MY HANDS! No, he'll walk amongst you marked with shame!" Marked. Not disfigured, no mention of lopping off ears or eyes or nose, just a mark. You may have confused Gangs of New York with another movie.
    • Bill the Butcher mentions doing something similar to McGloin, but he never actually does it. Maybe that's where the confusion stemmed.
    • The above are correct, you're mixing up Bill's teasing McGloin with talking about beating and marking Amsterdam. And he's not really all that clean and sweet-looking at that point, his eyes are sunken, he's got the scar, and is generally a bit roughed-up... Bill mostly just scarred his cheek and beat the crap out of him. A few people were staring and whispering, but it was probably because they recognized him and didn't expect to see him again, let alone breaking the taboo against displaying signs of the Dead Rabbits. It sounds like you're letting some of the ranting on the front page influence your memories of a movie you haven't seen in awhile.
  • Did anyone else actually find themselves rooting for Bill Cutting? I honestly couldn't get behind Dicaprio's character, the motive. The Butcher is Ax Crazy, but he did have a sense of honor, and did take get his mooks to see Amsterdam off in the right direction, and made sure the Priest wasn't desecrated. Cutting then took Amsterdam under his wing all over again, and tried to teach him. He doesn't even speak ill of Priest Vallam, and still obviously respects him.
    I just didn't feel the drive for revenge from Dicaprio, and he came off as more of a douche then Day-Lewis's character. I get the whole ending was about the Irish way of things [the riots, the vote rigging], compared to Cutting's sense of honor, but it was pretty weak.
    • I get where you're coming from. I think that the writer did originally intend that the moral lines be blurred overall as Bill had his Pet the Dog moments, and Amsterdam did have a few strong claims to sympathy (revenge and his wish to help the immigrants.) But Leonardo DiCaprio just didn't show enough emotion as Amsterdam to make him all that sympathetic or interesting. He just didn't seem nearly as human as Bill did. Even if Bill did horrible things to people, he seemed much more emotional, and even deeper as a person. Sometimes, a good or bad actor can make all the difference, and this was one of those times. While I can't say I rooted for Bill, I certainly found him more enjoyable to watch than the main character despite his being a nasty piece of work.
      • Glad you see where I'm coming from. Honestly, I found the whole revenge plot to be pretty forced. Amsterdam pretty much raised himself, some 20 years without dear old Dad. Cutting revealed to him in confidence (not knowing who he was) that it wasn't personal, and holds immense respect for his father. It really was just business. Faction A beating on Faction B. We know that Cutting did it honorably, gah, I'm rambling. But yeah. Bloodlines or not, I couldn't feel the alleged burning anger for revenge. And yeah, Day-Lewis is a huge joy to watch, over earlier Dicaprio. Thats a lot of it, plot aside. I said it to someone else, the film isn't enjoyable really for the plot, but just to watch DDL thoroughly enjoy his choice in career.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.