Public Enemies Review [2]

Posted by Erik Luers on 07.08.2009

In my previous life, I too was a fugitive from a chain gang.......

Johnny Depp ... John Dillinge
Stephen Dorff ... Homer Van Meter
Michael Vieau ... Ed Shouse
Channing Tatum ... Pretty Boy Floyd
Christian Bale ... Melvin Purvis
Billy Crudup ... J. Edgar Hoover
Geoffrey Cantor ... Harry Suydam
Marion Cotillard ... Billie Frechette
Giovanni Ribisi ... Alvin Karpis








The cinema, as we all know it, is a visual medium. This much we can hopefully agree on. Imagery prompts and connects the story, and the sound design comes in much later to complete the package. With this said, seventy-five percent of Michael Mann's new film, Public Enemies, is quite ugly to look at. I mean, almost embarrassingly so. Shot with HD cameras that I'm sure Mann believes does more good than harm, most of the film's imagery is blurry, unfocused, unclear, and undefined. In some scenes, far too much sunlight is exposed, distorting an otherwise serviceable image. In others, handheld moments turn this documentary approach into distracting, off kilter, and amateurish visual setups. How I prayed for a standard Dolly shot to pop up just once in a while. Is it possible I just didn't “get” this movie? Well, I would argue that the cinematography simply didn't allow me to. Is film dead? No, not if this is the result.

And yet what makes this production even more upsetting is that there are some good people involved. Johnny Depp is a good actor, Marion Cotillard is a good actress, and Christian Bale is....well, he picks his projects wisely. Michael Mann? His stuff is usually satisfactory, right? Public Enemies, however, is bland and dull, as if the film was nothing more than a big studio experiment (and an unfinished one at that). The film starts in 1933 during the Great Depression, and we follow legendary Chicago bank robber, John Dillinger. He is sent to prison, escapes from prison, gets sent back to prison, and on and on. Dillinger is a popular character in American history for a number of reasons, some of which I must admit I am not sure of. This film doesn't help explain why he's such a big name, either. He's a legend among men, and we are all just his Robert Fords. Dillinger robbed a number of banks and became public enemy number one. Some people feared him and some envied and desired him (a woman on a farm used as a safe haven asks Dillinger to take her with him). Sometimes he would turn his gun on a man and take a life, but other times he'd just tie him to a tree and promise that he'd be loose within ten minutes. I suppose you try to make your work as fun and creative as you can.

But what made John Dillinger tick? What was his upbringing like? Yes, he has a scar on his face but his name is not Tony Montana. Some may see him as an enigma, but this film labels him as all smoke and mirrors, always one step ahead of the police that we are to lead to believe were so dumb. I guess you could call this a cat and mouse sort of flick, but which is the cat and which one's the mouse? Who's chasing who? In Heat, Mann gave us both an interesting protagonist and antagonist. In Public Enemies, he gives us one of the two and hopes that will suffice. The G Men in this film are robbed of personality and are shamefully faceless to the viewer.

Let's look at one of our co-stars for example. Christian Bale plays Melvin Purvis, the man hot on Dillinger's trail. Armed with a Southern accent more hokey than authentic, Bale practically sleepwalks through the role, reciting his lines so solemnly you would think we were butting in on a meandering soliloquy. Bale is an actor who works from the outside in, and that's fine, but it doesn't mesh with the other performers in the piece. He doesn't give the “good guys” an identity to root and cheer for, so of course we side with Dillinger.

And then there's Johnny Depp. Mr. Depp, a three time Academy Award nominee, will probably not be getting a fourth nomination for playing the man of the hour, J. Dillinger. Although never bad, Depp's performance is a little too theatrical for the screenplay to handle; his jail cell confrontation with Purvis shows Depp trying too hard to be manically witty. There are some scenes where Depp nicely shows restraint (most of his scenes with Cotillard's character, Billie Frechette, although unnecessary to the movie, strike a nice connection between the two thesps), but he seems to be channeling a more wild, unhinged performance style than is necessary. The scene in which Billie is arrested shows Depp overusing his facial expressions to indicate fear—this is Depp's first performance in awhile that doesn't exude confidence, and this may be the role that requires it the most.

And Cotillard, although beautiful, is still unsure of her mastery over the English language. Her brutal interrogation scene strikes a couple of false notes, one being due to the overtly devilish detective in the darkened room, and the other being Cotillard's shoddy pronunciation. She does what she can, but she doesn't appear very comfortable throughout. In time she may become an international star, giving great performances both in English and her native tongue, like the Madrid native, Penelope Cruz. That time has not come yet, but who knows, it may be just around the corner.

Let's get back to Michael Mann for a second though. The idea of shooting a 1930s gangster drama with a lot of handheld HD cameras is a courageous idea. Perhaps wanting to make his shots appear more hectic and even frantic, Mann lets his actors get too close to the lens, as they run past us this way and that way, etc. It's also a little disorienting, which may be the effect Mann was going for. Then again, maybe it wasn't. Contrasting these scenes lacking detail are ones filled with beautiful colors and shades, giving the film a more polished and expensive look. The brief scene at the racetrack is filled with a serpian tint that gives off an old, dusty glow to the image, and it reminded me of those early silent films glazed over in an orange gel. Here the film looks stylized, but in an old fashioned, 1950s sense. The camera is steady and put, and it stands out for this very reason. The movie opens up much the same way, calm and still. The chained prison men march towards us, and the camera remains low to the ground. Many wide shots of the prison site greet us, and Mann looks like he's trying to evoke an old western. Needless to say, it looks great.

The problem is that these scenes do not match up with the handheld shots we are so frequently assaulted with. It's too extreme a contrast for the viewer to adjust to. Is Public Enemies verite or old Hollywood? When the handheld cameras take over the extended chase sequence through the woods, the images lack weight and clarity. Mann also blasts classic pop songs throughout that throw the viewer off even more. Is this a low budget documentary with music? Is it a mockumentary? A satire? Mann abandons 35MM so that he can play digitally, but then he wants to use the best nondiegetic sound equipment available. As the movie plays out, the score feels like should be in an entirely different picture, like an Untouchables or something (as Depp and his cronies ascend the bank stairs early in the movie, a Battle at Odessa vibe is eerily present when it really shouldn't be). Mann tries to balance out the old with the new, but winds up with visually confused, uninteresting cinematography.

There are some good moments in Public Enemies, however far and few between they may be. Two involve Dillinger in a movie theater, the first with old news reels alerting the public that criminals are among them, and the second involving Manhattan Melodrama, a 1934 film starring Clark Gable. The first is very tense (and slyly comedic) and the second is more procedural, allowing Dillinger's impending doom to escalate as the detectives wait for him outside. You may expect a chaotic Day of the Locust type ending to take place, but nope, this one is pretty low key, and that works just fine. The CGI blood that spurts out from a particular bullet wound, on the other hand, does not. There's also a moment which many have talked about which involves Dillinger walking into the office of the squad that was assigned to capture him. They acknowledge him but do not realize that he is the man they are after. It's an effective moment, even if in retrospect I questioned its legitimacy.

At the end of the day, Public Enemies has its heart in the right place, but it doesn't try to be anything more than faithful to the facts (as to whether or not it is faithful is another story for another day). There's no urgency throughout the scenes and thus the film seems overly long; the presentation is muddled and lacking a dramatic arc. At times I wondered if the actors just wanted to play dress up (Billy Crudup's performance, as J. Edgar Hoover, is....odd). Though the action standoffs are well staged, Mann has traveled down that road many times before and has done it much better. When the film comes to a close, you see, John Dillinger is more of an afterthought, and all we wonder about is that darn blackbird.

The 411: Public Enemies is a very mixed bag. It's look is not my cup of tea, and its narrative is somewhat by the numbers and dull. The performances range from decent to misguided, and I question Mann's intentions for making this film at this time. It's a classic gangster picture that isn't. We can feel it going through the motions and wanting to break out and become something more, but it never does. Depp overreaches to try to make Dillinger's story matter, but the screenplay just isn't there to support it. And boy oh boy, what questionable cinematography.

Final Score:  5.0   [ Not So Good ]