Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Public Enemies: Take One



I plan on seeing this again (hence the "take one" in the title), but for the moment here are my ramblings on the film after I saw it this afternoon.

Michael Mann can film a face like no one else. He loves to linger on faces, letting the audience figure out what’s going on behind those cold eyes of his characters. And it’s not just that Mann likes faces, it’s that he loves lingering there with his in-the-moment digital photography and intense music pumping in the background – here is an auteur who is interested in the un-action of action movies. Perhaps no other recent filmmaker has been able to dupe audiences more frequently than Mann has with his last three films: 2004’s Collateral about a hitman, 2006’s reboot of the kitch-tastic 80’s hit Miami Vice, and now in 2009 with Public Enemies – a gangster film about the last year of John Dillinger’s life. All three of these films (and to an extent all of Mann’s pictures) share the same trait of on the surface seeming like a commercial action film created to rake in the Summer dollars; whether it’s with big stars (Tom Cruise, Jaime Foxx, Johnny Depp) or sure-fire plots that sound exciting and seem to guarantee action (movie about a hitman, buddy cop movie, gangster film), but what’s buried beneath these seemingly simple plots is something that is always more interesting than the bang-bang, shoot ‘em up films they sound like. Mann is interested in the action that drives his subjects, here is it John Dillinger, but it could be anyone; Mann, like the French master Jean-Pierre Melville, loves to look deeply into his characters who commit crimes because that’s more interesting than the crimes themselves.

I can imagine this film taking in the same opening box office that Miami Vice did on it’s opening weekend…then audiences figure out that this isn’t a Scarface or Godfather type crime film and run away to the comforts of mind-numbing summer fair like Transformers. So be it. They don’t know what they’re missing. Public Enemies fits Mann’s oeuvre like a glove, and it’s easy to see why he was so drawn to the material. No, not because of the gun battles and the bank robberies (although those do remind us of Mann’s earlier films like Heat and Miami Vice), but because here are a two men, John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) and G-Man Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) who are on opposite sides of the law, but are driven by the same force to excel at what they do, no matter what the cost, and to only think about the present.

Bale’s square jaw is at home under his stern look and fedora, and surprisingly his morose tone works here as Purvis is a man who gets no joy in his job – believe me when I tell you that this man is the antithesis of Al Pacino’s cop in Heat. Depp is just outstanding as John Dillinger, a man who, as he introduces himself to people, “robs banks.” And that’s the Dillinger Mann showcases. There are no flashbacks into his past to try and understand why he does what he does (although in one scene he does mention that his dad beat him because he didn’t know what else to do with him), he is a man possessed, a man who is cold and calculated and can get through a bank in under two minutes…he doesn’t have time for backstory. He is also a man of the people. He understands the need to play to the people as he will no doubt be hiding out among them, and the way Depp handles the moments of celebrity are nice dashes of humor in an otherwise humorless film.

Depp and Mann decide to showcase this Dillinger as a man who is not likeable. Sure, he may have some redeeming qualities about him, but for the most part we don’t like this man, even though we’re spending the better part of two hours with him…up close and personal, too. Just like in the most recent Michael Mann pictures, digital cameras are used to great effect. Here he films Purvis mostly with film, and in a cold, detached manner; but Dillinger is filmed up close with digital – and it’s obvious that it’s digital, maybe the most obvious Mann has ever made it that he prefers this medium – but there we are, as in-the-moment as we can be, but as is the case with any Mann character, we are also kept at a distance from them, left to figure out what makes them tick and why they do what they do.

This isn’t a gangster film like that of Scorsese or Coppola. There are no family gatherings or quirky characters that make you laugh and think “hey they don’t have such a bad life.” These are gangsters who rob for a living, but never seem to enjoy themselves (except for Baby Face Nelson who takes great pleasure in shooting things up). Like most of Mann’s crime films this is a deeply existential one (again reminding me of Melville). Mann loves for the viewer to come up with their own theories on the histories of the characters and why they do what they do. Like I mentioned in my Miami Vice review earlier this week, it’s rare for a filmmaker to have the patience for this kind of thing, and it just cements what the director is more interested in. He may make action movies, but it’s the deep thoughts and pondering of the films main characters (again the shots of those faces) that he’s most interested in. And he when he does do action, he does it better than anyone else, he does arty action, comparable to anything Terrence Malick has made.

It’s funny, after reading a lot of the fine entries from the Michael Mann blog-a-thon hosted by J.D. at Radiator Heaven, I’ve noticed a lot of the same themes swirling around all of Mann’s pictures, and Public Enemies is no different. Here’s a film that seems to be a pastiche of Mann’s most famous work: Thief, Heat, Manhunter, and my personal favorite Miami Vice. The pacing, as is the case with most of Mann’s films, is not for everyone, but the man never films an uninteresting scene, and I love the way the viewer is dropped into scene after scene with very little use of establishing shots so that we may get our bearings. The film is deliberate, but felt like it went by quickly because of this decision by Mann. In addition to all of the usual themes at play, here, there’s also the usual aesthetic goodness that one finds in a Mann picture.

Dante Spinotti re-teams with Mann (he shot his first foray into digital The Insider) and evokes a lot of the classic gangster film feel. He also gives several visual nods to a lot of Mann's other crime films. What’s most amazing about the way the film was shot was that we have never seen a period piece shot with digital before. So, it’s a little jarring at first, but it also feels all the more real, like we’re there watching all of this happen. It’s so much more affective than sepia tone or muted colors. It’s yet another example of one of the many things that has always fascinated me about Mann’s pictures: his ability to make you feel in-the-moment, yet simultaneously keeping you at arms length. The film is beautiful to look at, but that hardly comes as a surprise to anyone who enjoys Mann’s work. I can't wait for the film to be released on DVD so I can take a look at some of the scenes shot by shot.

What else can I say about this film? I feel like I haven’t even really done the film critical justice. I think that’s because I need to let the film settle into my mind for the weekend, think about it some more, and then come back with some better thoughts. I know I’ll see it again (especially since the showing I went to a woman decided to treat the theater like her own living while she dealt with her baby and fielded cell phone calls in the theater.) and when I do I feel like there will be even more to say. As for specific elements of the film besides the usual Mann themes…I loved how Mann showed J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) trying to implement the Bureau in its early phases of clean-cut men in suites, and the way Purvis challenges Hoover saying he needs men who know what to do in a gun fight. I also like how they show the shift of crime towards the end of Dillinger’s life. Robbing banks isn’t sufficient enough anymore, it’s too risky for the meagerness of the reward; so, instead gangsters turned to bookies and the betting system as a way to steal money, and the scene where Dillinger finds out that his skills aren’t really an asset anymore is one of the best scenes of the movie. Conversely law enforcement was now starting to become dirtier and dirtier where it was okay to rough up witnesses in order to get information (even women weren’t above these harsh interrogation methods). Crime was becoming more organized, almost more civil, while the black and white police ethos was becoming grayer. Needless to say the action scenes were typical top-notch Mann stuff – meticulous and brilliantly executed. I also really enjoyed the Robin Hood style of bank robbing that Dillinger subscribed to. There’s a great scene where he tells one of the bank customers who has put his money on the counter for Dillinger to take to keep his money, and that they’re there for the banks money, not theirs. I thought the way Dillinger endeared himself to the public was one of the most interesting things about the movie, and especially as an anti-hero – a man who was stealing from the rich during a time of great depression.

I know there’s more I want to say, and I am sure this isn’t the last this film will be discussed on the blog. I haven’t even mentioned the dynamic between Depp (whose performance I feel like I haven't said enough about, but he understands Mann's love of actors acting with their face...he hits everything just right in this movie) and Marion Cotillard who plays Billie, Dillinger’s love interest. It’s rare for a woman to be the focus in a Mann film, but like Amy Brenneman’s Eady from Heat, Billie is integral to the story. Public Enemies above everything else is just a great entertainment, and cements Mann as a true poet of the cinema. More thoughts are sure to come, but for now, I feel pretty comfortable calling this one of the best films of the year.

18 comments

  1. Nice review! I agree with you on all points, especially the look of the film which will no doubt the most divisive element among fans.

    You write:

    "This isn’t a gangster film like that of Scorsese or Coppola. There are no family gatherings or quirky characters that make you laugh and think “hey they don’t have such a bad life.” These are gangsters who rob for a living"

    Exactly! Well said. For these guys, robbing banks is a job, plain and simple. And Mann draws a sharp contrast between Dillinger and someone like Baby Face Nelson (wonderful played with sadistic glee by Stephen Graham) who gets his kicks terrorizing people and stirring things up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nicely thoughtful analysis. Didn't you think Mann was making a point about our contemporary debate about torture? At times, as Dillinger's character becomes clearer and more sympathetic, I wondered if Purvis was really the villain of the movie (until he carries out Billie to the bathroom, making him something of the villain (who implemented the torture) and her savior simultaneously).

    Perhaps the lack of a backstory goes along with the lack of establishing shots? I figured that Mann was so secure working within the tradition of gangster films, he didn't need to explain things as much for that reason. He wants us to learn about Dillinger through his actions, and as Dillinger says, he's more interested in where he's going than where he's been.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You are eloquent in your enthusiasm for this film. I wish I could be as enthusiastic - because I love Mann's films. There were two masterful sequences: the shootout in the woods and the Biograph sequence, but by the time I got there I wanted to feel that Depp had taken me through substantially developed episodes - but I felt he hadn't taken me anywhere. I felt detached and uncaring - unlike how I feel for McCauley and his men when they go into the excellent bank robbery in Heat.
    You say -"Mann loves for the viewer to come up with their own theories on the histories of the characters and why they do what they do." For me, I guess, this didn't work.

    As for the digital video sequences - that was very strange and I don't know how I feel about it. The quality was almost like videotape from the 70s -not even digital. I guess, sometimes, it made it look like old news footage from the 30s - but they didn't have videotape then. For me it wasn't a plus - it was another element that distanced me from this film.

    Cotillard's performance is the film's best strength. I certainly cared about her - but she wasn't the famous gangster shot after coming out of the Biograph.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FilmDr:

    Yeah, I can see what you mean about Mann commenting on torture technique and perhaps positing the question, do the ends justify the means? The FBI bully and beat-up Frechette but it's clear that she's never going to give up Dillinger.

    As for the lack of establishing shots, as with MIAMI VICE, Mann seems to really be interested in dropping the audience right in the middle of something and challenging them to figure out what's going on. Unfortunately, that's going to piss off a lot of people who want to backstory or some sort of context spelled out for them. I think that Mann is attempting to push narrative filmmaking into new areas but in doing so he's risking losing his audience in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  5. J.D.:

    I loved this movie. And as I stated in the review, there is still so much I want to talk about. I need to head over to your site and check out your thoughts...I've been out of town since Thursday so I am just now catching up with things.

    Thanks as always for your constant commenting and frequenting of this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  6. FilmDr:

    Perhaps the lack of a backstory goes along with the lack of establishing shots? I figured that Mann was so secure working within the tradition of gangster films, he didn't need to explain things as much for that reason. He wants us to learn about Dillinger through his actions, and as Dillinger says, he's more interested in where he's going than where he's been.

    Wonderfully stated. I couldn't agree more, and I think that this is the kind of stuff I want to think about more when I go back for a second viewing. As I told J.D. I will be headed over to your blog shortly as I've been out of town since Thursday, and I want to see what you thought of the film.

    I really like how Mann doesn't use establishing shots to give the film a sense of urgency, and like you said, it correlates with Dillinger's character always talking about where he is going and not where he has been.

    I also like your thoughts on Mann's take on torture. I definitely felt that Mann was going for that. As the film progressed it was almost the criminals who were becoming civil (robbing banks to setting up bookie scams) and the cops who were becoming more monstrous (the great line of "take off the white gloves" sets the whole thing in motion). And yes, I think Purvis is kind of set up as a man obsessed with his job, but I don't think that makes him the villain...in fact one of the things I love about this film is how Mann shows Dillinger as a bad guy. This isn't one of those gangster films where we sympathize with the gangster and despise the cop who is really no better than the people they are chasing. I liked that Mann played it straight on this one in regards to his characters...there was no revisionist history here to try ad convince us that Dillinger was a misunderstood person.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hokahey:

    Thanks for stopping by. I've enjoyed your comments here and on the Open Range post, so I hope I continue to see you around here.

    As for your dislike of the digital...it's understandable. The first thing I thought of when I saw the film use it was that it was SO obvious he was going for the digital effect. Whereas in Collateral and Miami Vice you lose yourself in the digital instead of being so aware of it.

    However, I like the digital effect Mann implement in his films, so it didn't bother me to the extent that it sounds like it did for you, but I certainly understand it, because I just laughed when I saw how obvious it was. And you're right, there are times (like when Billie is sitting in her apartment by the radio towards the end of the film) when it doesn't even look like digital.

    Again, I understand what you are saying about the lack of depth to the Dillinger character, but I like that about Mann's characters. His gangsters in Heat and Thief were exceptions to the recent Mann rule: he loves to keep his viewers at arms length in regards to his main characters and what makes them tick. And I kind of like that about him...instead of over- explaining things (which I'm not saying is what you're looking for, but what I think could happen). Again though, I understand this about people who dislike Mann's films. I'm a Mann apologist, so I will almost certainly find something interesting in any film of his.

    The scene at the end set at the famous Biograph was certainly as tense as anything I've seen in awhile. And that's with knowing what happens! So kudos to Mann and his team to create a scene that is shot, edited, scored, and acted to perfection. Watching Depp's face during while he watches the movie is some great acting, and I love the way Mann paces that scene. It's pure perfection.

    Thanks again for stopping by and for supplying some great thoughts and criticism of the film.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As for the lack of establishing shots, as with MIAMI VICE, Mann seems to really be interested in dropping the audience right in the middle of something and challenging them to figure out what's going on. Unfortunately, that's going to piss off a lot of people who want to backstory or some sort of context spelled out for them. I think that Mann is attempting to push narrative filmmaking into new areas but in doing so he's risking losing his audience in the process.

    Nicely stated J.D. In fact...I don't have anything to add to that really. It's a great observation you make about Miami Vice using the same approach. It's definitely a polarizing approach to filmmaking, but I personally love what Mann is doing as it doesn't feel cookie-cutter or by-the-numbers at all. I love filmmakers who trust their audience to follow what's going on without being spoon fed establishing shots and expository dialogue to move the narrative along.

    In the hands of a master like Mann, there is no fear from this filmgoer; however, if this catches on, and other filmmakers adopt it, it could turn ugly as there is a difference between what Mann does and what someone else might do by just simply throwing scenes together that look neat.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for your lengthy response to my comment. I am a fan of Mann's films. I love Collateral, Heat, and Last of the Mohicans. I felt some tension in the Biograph sequence, and while I could acknowledge the brilliance of its composition, I felt a distance from it - and, again, I think that was due to Depp's performance and the screenplay. I never felt that distance from Cruise's character or from De Niro's character - I was with them through the end. And, for me, the Biograph sequence isn't nearly as gripping as the bank robbery in Heat.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yeah --- I see your point. Mann is getting more and more detached from his subjects with each film. Cruise and DeNiro are perfect examples for what you're speaking at: evil characters who are made interesting by the way they talk about what they do. They almost justify it in a way, because after all, it is their chosen vocation.

    I don't know where Public Enemies will ultimately fall in my ranking of Mann's films -- it's way too early for that -- but it does seem to lack those moments of humanism found in the most unlikely of characters, both in Collateral and Heat. It looks like the only difference here is that I kins of like what Mann is doing right now with his "arms-length" approach to character development (or lack thereof), but as J.D. pointed out above, we'll see if he's going too far, because the potential is there to alienate the audience.

    It'll be interesting to see what the second week numbers look like for the film. It did what I expected it to do for an R rated film opening on the same weekend as Ice Age and second helpings of Transformers (although that took quite a hit in second week returns, too), but the proof will be next week: if the film totally falls off the map, then word of mouth will have killed the film dead and Mann's approach to telling a story will prove to cater only to fans and cinephiles -- and not even all of them like it that much as you have so eloquently stated your case against it here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am no fan of Michael "style over substance" Mann and both this film and MIAMI VICE are hugely problematic. But at the end of the day what blogging is really all about is the manner of expression between fellow movie lovers and how the same work can bring about disperate reactions. While the film has a sizable negative minority, and is barely passing at RT, it's fan (like yourself) have pointed to a number of exquisite stylistics, and a portrait of an illustrious figure within the crime pantheon. My dear friend Kaleem Hasan of "Satyamshot," one of WitD's esteemed blog sites (like your own) is a huge fan of the film, and we've politely discussed and shared our differences. I have decried the surface examination of Dillinger's character, the subsequent and uncharacteristic remote performance by Johnny Depp,(perhaps the worst performance Depp has given in his entire career; Bale is also somnabulent) and the use of digital video, which strips the film of its 'larger than life' context to achieve the realism that Mann has strived for in this and other films. There is no question that the film is beautifully mounted with its decor, clothes, and recreation of Depression era architecture, and Ms. Cotillard, a powder-keg of emotions, gives the film its most persuasive performance, but for me these are exceptions to the summary judgement. Regardless, you have given this film a review that must surely rank among your finest ever, and I site these passages as proof parcel:

    "This isn’t a gangster film like that of Scorsese or Coppola. There are no family gatherings or quirky characters that make you laugh and think “hey they don’t have such a bad life.” These are gangsters who rob for a living, but never seem to enjoy themselves (except for Baby Face Nelson who takes great pleasure in shooting things up). Like most of Mann’s crime films this is a deeply existential one (again reminding me of Melville). Mann loves for the viewer to come up with their own theories on the histories of the characters and why they do what they do."

    "So, it’s a little jarring at first, but it also feels all the more real, like we’re there watching all of this happen. It’s so much more affective than sepia tone or muted colors. It’s yet another example of one of the many things that has always fascinated me about Mann’s pictures: his ability to make you feel in-the-moment, yet simultaneously keeping you at arms length. The film is beautiful to look at, but that hardly comes as a surprise to anyone who enjoys Mann’s work."

    But the entire piece is magnificent. I don't need to agree with it, I only need to marvel and appreciate it.

    As far as the film's box-office take, I am not sure whether you felt it did well or not. It took in around 22 million, which was only half of what that lame ICE AGE and equally reprehensible TRANSFORMERS took, but it may still gather momentum in the upcoming weeks as you apparently believe may happen.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sam:

    As always your endurance to sift through these thoughts that are so different than yours is a testament to your love of all things film. Like you I enjoy reading contrary opinions about film, and you biring a calm, intelligent discourse from the "other side" here. It seems like you're in the same camp as Hokahey.

    I would call myself a Mann apologist, sure, but I also think he is just as good as Malick at creating visual poetics. It's interesting that you and I had a different opinion on Depp's performance, which I thought hit all of the right notes...especially the Biograph scene at the end where he is watching the Clark Gable/Myra Loy film. He is essentially saying goodbye to Billie through the characters in the film, and I found that to be a poignant moment in the film and a lot of that was due to the way Depp is watching the movie. Again, this fits perfectly with what Mann loves to do: film faces.

    My enthusiasm may waver upon second viewing, but we'll have to wait and see. It won't be for a while that I get to go see it again as I hope to catch the new Woody Allen movie this week and a smaller film called Sugar that I am really excited to see.

    As for Public Enemies box office take...I think it did fairly well all things considered (R rated, Transformers, Ice Age, etc.), but the real proof will be in how it does its second weekend. I get the feeling that it might do a better second week take than Miami Vice solely due to the Johnny Depp/Christian Bale factor (who are bigger draws than Collin Ferrell/Jaimie Foxx) as there were a ton of 18-20 girls in the showing I went to...I don't think the Miami Vice cast had the capability of bringing that demographic to the theater. So we'll see.

    Thanks for stopping by!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just clicked on your link here from Wonders in the Dark, and I must say a really comprehensive look at this film from different eyes than Sam's. I'll have to see this over the weekend. I do like Mann, and thought highly of Miami Vice.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Peter:

    Thanks for stopping by and taking a look at my jumbled thoughts on the film. I am definitely going to be seeing this a second time, at which point I hope to have more thoughts on some of the films deeper aspects.

    Thanks again for the kind words and for taking the time to stop by and check out the review. I hope to see you around here again.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's never too late to leave a comment, is it?

    First off -- this is a great review. Your love for Mann's films is quite apparent and makes for a fun and insightful read.

    Just watched this last night. For me, it was a little too much like MIAMI VICE, which never really did it for me. In the end though, I'm not a Mann apologist. I appreciate and enjoy his style, but I'm not able to look past or reimage the flaws that I see.

    One fun thing about Mann, though, is how polarizing he is without being so via some shock inducing method (I'm thinking Von Trier here). With Mann, it's more of an aesthetics debate than a philosophical one, which is at least different.

    I'll be writing something up shortly, so I won't waste too much of your space here on my thoughts, but I had "issue" with one of your comments on the film:

    "Depp and Mann decide to showcase this Dillinger as a man who is not likeable. Sure, he may have some redeeming qualities about him, but for the most part we don’t like this man, even though we’re spending the better part of two hours with him…up close and personal, too."

    I'm not sure I can agree with that -- it's Purvis that is obviously unlikeable whereas Dillinger gets all the emotional scenes -- with Billie, with his dying buddy, being portrayed as Robin Hood with the public, and down to the final bravura scene at the Biograph. Plus, he played by Johnny Depp, a person who just can't play "unlikeable". I was just curioius if you cared to share more on your feelings toward that comment, as it surprised me a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I need to watch it again maybe, but I think what I'm getting at with that comment is that Purvis is meant to be looked at as the bad guy at first. There's no other characterization about him except for the fact that he'll get his man. There's nothing for the audience to grab onto to claim he's a hero. By the same token Dillinger is the same way. Sure he's portrayed slightly as a Robin Hood type criminal (I'm thinking of the line where he says his crew is there for the bank's money, not the money of the people in the bank), but he really isn't painted in that great of light, either.

    Mann showcases a Dillinger who is always willing to leave everything at any given moment...it's like DeNiro's character from Heat...at any moment these characters are willing to pick up and leave to save their own ass. That isn't anti-heroic behavior, that's just plain selfish, hehe. He's not the lovable criminal that the media made him out to be, and yes, even though Mann attempts to humanize Dillinger a little bit, notice how it's all through the lens of the media and their view of him. Mann isn't making any statement about Dillinger except for the fact that he never lived a single moment thinking about what was around the corner; yet notice how Mann doesn't showcase this Dillinger as a free-wheelin', care-free criminal...this is a man, like Purvis, who is deathly serious about his job.

    I think the lack of back story, too, in regards to Dillinger's character paints a different type of character than what audiences are used to seeing in these types of gangster films. So, even though Dillinger isn't the ugliest of criminals (that's nicely juxtaposed with the ending where the cop is beating up Billie), he's still not a "great" guy in the classic anti-hero sense.

    The people of the depression may have loved him as a Robin Hood-like character, and Dillinger may have reciprocated that (as evidenced by his knack for joking around with the media despite being handcuffed), but never once did I get the impression that this was a person who cared about anyone except themselves. His audacity in the final scene where he meanders through the police station is a perfect example of his narcissism, which is what one would need were they to be willing to just pack up and leave everything at a moments notice should the cops come looking for them.

    I personally didn't feel any empathy for the man, and I guess that's why I said upon my initial reaction to the movie that I was shocked they didn't make this Dillinger a more likable character. I think Depp does a good job of teetering between being likable (in his scenes with Billie) and being a cold-hearted son of a bitch.

    Dillinger may get all the emotional scenes, but he doesn't show any emotion...ever...and I think that's what I liked about the film. This wasn't Mann's attempt to mythologize Dillinger and make him into some kind of lore or anti-hero legend of the depression; he didn't make him into a metaphor for what's going on in our country now...which he could have done. THAT would be a "likable" Dillinger...instead we get someone who is all business, who really is no different than Purvis...the man we're not supposed to identify with at all.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'll reply to your comment tomorrow, but I'm distracted right now by TANGO & CASH on Ion.

    ReplyDelete