For 13 months in 1933-34, John Dillinger was the name on everybody's lips. Simultaneously the most dangerous man in America and the most popular, Dillinger and his gang ran roughshod throughout the country taking anything and everything they wanted. Throughout that time, Dillinger the man still remained something of a mystery. Only the legend and the persona were brought to the forefront, and that's exactly what Michael Mann decides to run with here. And the film's all the better for it.
Johnny Depp stars as the enigmatic Dillinger. All quiet charm and muted energy. Depp is perfect for capturing Dillinger's charisma, and it's easy to see why people would follow him. I've not been a big fan of Depp's recent work, but I applaud him for doing something rarely seen when it comes to gangster flicks and that's to create an entirely new character. He's not talking like he's straight out of Dick Tracy or sneering at the camera. In that way Depp's Dillinger is a refreshing change. I wish I could say the same for Billy Crudup's J. Edgar Hoover, sounding more like he should be standing in the middle ring at a circus. It's annoying, to say the least but atleast he's wearing pants this movie. Oscar nominee Marion Cotillard, an actress I've really been diggin' lately, doesn't have much to do playing Billy Freschette, the supposed love of Dillinger's life. Supposed, because in truth Dillinger had tons of girlfriends and never focused on any one except for the brief time he was married, and that was before he became the icon he later became.
For the second time I find myself disappointed in a Christian Bale performance. Again, it feels like his part is too sparse and not particularly deep. Perhaps it's not his fault and it's a script issue, but I found his Melvin Purvis completely devoid of the motivation that must've driven him. He seems sorta aloof and understated, not in a cool way. The performance isn't bad, but I think I expect Bale to be a bigger part of the show. As it stands I was more interested in the hard nosed tough as nails Texas Rangers who really seemed to be running the operation. They kicked much ass.
At no point does Mann take the time to glorify any aspect of Dillinger's life. It's straight forward and to the point. Dillinger says early on "I rob banks". And that's it. That's all he's about. The actual robberies are less than exciting and seem almost to be an afterthought. One can imagine most of Dillinger's heists probably went smoothly and according to plan given his reputation. The shootouts, however, are where Mann really let's it all hang out. The melodic sound of tommy gun fire is probably what you'll remember most, and it's certainly the most prevalent sound emanating from this picture. The firefights are intense, brief bursts of violence that never feel gratuitous. Mann plays loose with some of the details regarding these fights(particularly one near the end involving Babyface Nelson), but it's not distracting.
I wish they had spent just a little bit more time on the public reaction to Dillinger's crime spree. As it stands we only get a couple of minutes of people cheering him in the streets, and a little bit of press coverage making him look like a hero. We never really get a taste of the circumstances that would make people root for a killer. Normally I wouldn't care, but that problem extends to his relationship with Billy as well. In real life she was just another girlfriend, but the film tries to expand their relationship to something it simply wasn't, and it doesn't quite work. There's no real reason given as to why she would follow a man like Dillinger. Perhaps this is all part of the idea that nobody really knew him, and so neither should we. I can run with that to a certain degree, but when trying to establish a believable love story on screen it doesn't really work.
On the other hand I do think they did a good job pushing the idea that the FBI was a bunch of buffoons, and perhaps Melvin Purvis wasn't the man Hoover tried to paint him to be. In fact a very good case can be made that perhaps Dillinger wasn't truly Public Enemy #1, but that Purvis and his crew was. Their tactics were equally brutal to the men they were after, up to and including torture of suspects. They were always a step behind despite their supposed technology. Purvis is painted out to be a man living off a single action, being the man who took down Pretty Boy Floyd(which he didn't actually do singlehandedly), and elevated to a job he probably wasn't qualified for. That proved to be just as dangerous as any bank job Dillinger ever pulled.
Every scene looks authentic, right down to the double breasted suits and cooper colors. Mann's camera swoops in and out of each battle in stunning clarity. It's almost like we're in the gang side by side with Dillinger. We're always right there along for the ride, swept up in this exciting and unpreditable time. That is the film's biggest credit, making me feel as if I was there.
Public Enemies isn't perfect, but who cares? It's not historically dead on accurate, but so what? It never feels like a documentary or a simple retelling of easily researched facts. There were enough dramatic flourishes to keep me on my toes. So the question is never really answered: Who is John Dillinger? And that's just fine with me. The legend will just have to suffice.
7/10
Posts
"Mann's camera swoops in and out of each battle in stunning clarity. It's almost like we're in the gang side by side with Dillinger. We're always right there along for the ride, swept up in this exciting and unpreditable time. That is the film's biggest credit, making me feel as if I was there."
ReplyDeleteThis was my least favorite part of the film. In real life, our vision does not bounce and shake all over the place like Mann (channeling Greengrass) with his faux-documentary shaky cam. This so-called cinema verite does not reproduce what it would be like to be a member of the gang, it reproduces the video you would capture if you had a hand-cam along with you and posted the stuff to Youtube.
It destroys one's ability to understand a scene, assess its actors and elements, form expectations about what will happen, and then have those expectations surprised by an inventive storyteller. In some of his other films, Mann excels at this kind of cinematic storytelling. It's a shame he decided to devolve into such puerile filmmaking this time around.
It doesn't always work. Sometimes the digital camera feels woefully out of place given the time period presented, but I felt like during the gun battles it was perfect. I actually enjoy the shaky cam during times like those, but not necessarily during the quieter moments.
ReplyDeleteI might disagree with you a bit on how to use it, but it sounds like we might agree that the handcam style is most effective when interspersed with other techniques. I think of Rushmore, for instance, where there are just a few scenes where it's used, and it's really effective. (Think of the scene where Herman Blume runs up and blocks a shot of a kid playing basketball.)
ReplyDeleteI think SOME of that feeling of running along with a person can be really good, but we need lots of careful scene setting and establishing shots to anchor that technique. Maybe sometimes an action scene is just supposed to make us feel helpless and disoriented, but if that's true all the time, I'm just bored.