WARNING: Contains Spoilers
Plot. Based on a non-fiction book of the same title by Bryan Burroughs chronicling the Midwestern crime spree in the U.S. in the early thirties, Mann chooses to focus primarily on ‘Public Enemy No. 1’, John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) at his height as both celebrity and bank robber (1933-34). Like any film ‘Based on a True Story’, liberties are taken, however this film appears more accurate though still playing with the chronology and true events. As mentioned, it begins with him at his height, rather than beginnings, as criminal showing robberies, break-outs, and his relationship with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard). We also see the reshaping of the FBI into a the efficient federal police force we know how by J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) who sends Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) a top agent to hunt down these public enemies, particularly Dillinger. Characterisation & Development. Unusual, but not original to Public Enemies, is it’s introduction. Real historical figures are presented without a back story, bluntly throwing us into the narrative. Naturally this is jolting for some people. We’re presented with people, an environment and a story that does not explicitly explain itself. This is one of the biggest criticisms, the argument being that it’s not engaging. I disagree. The introductions of three of the main characters (Dillinger, Purvis, and Hoover) are done separately and in different, but important, contexts. Dillinger is heading a prison break, Purvis is pursuing an escaping criminal, and Hoover is at a Congressional hearing. Dillinger is organized and quick on his feet, Purvis is the field man, dedicated to his job, while Hoover is no more than a glorified bureaucrat. It’s sudden and abrupt, not merely guiding you into this world. You’re simply there. I believe that since this is not a biographical film, though the people are real, no background is necessary. We see them the way they were, already fully-realized with an opening that creates a sense of ‘continuity’, that there’s more to what is shown but that our concern should be with what we see. The reason that none of the characters develop, is that they simply didn’t. In this period of little over a year, Dillinger robbed banks, Purvis chased him, Billie loved him, and Hoover got impatient. In lacking ‘development’, Dillinger shows depth. He is not a soul-searching figure in a Bergman film, though there are moments of reflection, which is different from what we tend to see in films about actual people. So the question we ask is, ‘Who is John Dillinger?’ We can expect the film to leave out or gloss over various things, such as his motivation, but it eschews most narrative clichés such as narration or conversations where a person seems to just spill their guts out. I don’t see explanation as Mann’s intention; rather to create a portrait, in the literal sense, an impression of the man rather than primarily the criminal. There is neither judgment nor justification. And he sees to this by keeping the audience from observing little more than the casual bystander. In doing so, he makes it necessary for the audience to pay attention, the dialogue doesn’t tell us everything, the lines merely pieces of puzzle. The rest can be filled in by watching body language in all the gestures and expressions he makes and how he acts in certain situations or around particular people. This is why the camera is intimate and up close, to capture these subtleties that in real life would normally go unnoticed. Without it, Dillinger would be even more of a puzzle than he is made out to be in the film. This shows us that he, like most people, cannot be summed up in a single moment. To know a person is to experience them. In this, Mann succeeds. What people see in Dillinger after the film will be different from one another. Things picked up by one may be missed by someone else. This is what I see him as and also, some things others have mentioned or pointed out. He is only concerned with the present, never thinking beyond the next day. He robs banks because he can, not his upbringing or to grab a few $100,000 and flee the country. Serious, professional, but not cold and emotionless. He is concerned with public image, not approving of kidnapping and treating hostages well. The public loves him for standing up to banks, though ironically it is ‘their’ money he steals. He has a strange charm, making jokes and banter with the press after arriving in Chicago which furthers his image as the Depression-era ‘Robin Hood’. As a criminal, he relies on planning. He uses the same time-tested strategy and only shoots when necessary. Compare this to Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham) who lacks any and all discipline. While Dillinger is confident he does seem to acknowledge the possibility of failure. In an early scene, when he arrives in his hotel room and tosses some keys on a table; on the chain, we can see a rabbit’s foot. For him, luck is just as important as anything else. His relationship with Billie, despite its relative briefness, brings out a different side. After some of her initial hesitations and with a combination of the notoriety and strange charm he gives off, blunt and direct like the ‘press conference’, he wins her over and almost becomes another part of him altogether. Apart from crime, she appears as the only other thing he cares about. With her, his guard comes down and is more distracted at time goes on trying to balance his career with his relationship with her. With her he begins to think about the practicality of his lifestyle, questioning whether he should give it up and leave or not. There is likely more that I am, either willingly or to keep from babbling on, leaving out. The fact is, that far from shallow, Dillinger does indeed have depth but that it requires us, as an audience, to find it. The Players. The acting in this film is very accomplished. Each performer, from the leads to supporting roles fulfills the purpose of each of their characters perfectly. Depp brings Mann’s vision of Dillinger to life perfectly, not reflective enough for that ‘insight’ nor too brutal to be off-putting. He comes off as an engima, yet an understandable one. Cotillard is beautifully down-to-earth as Billie, creating a real chemistry. Her voice is great to listen to, with it’s Midwestern and French-Canadian mix. Arguably, the only weakness in the casting is Christian Bale as Melvin Purvis. Opinions on him, just as anything else, are split. However, considering the role, his way was the right way to play Purvis. He is not the focus on the film and only viewed in a professional light. If given more intimate scenes of private life, he would still be serious and emotionless on the job ‘cause that is what he must be. As a federal officer in charge of the whole Chicago branch of the FBI and under pressure from Hoover, he cannot be distracted or have his judgment clouded. But we can still see the dedication and his progressiveness in the use of new policing techniques and concern for keeping his men safe. Rather than wooden, he is focused and determined individual. The supporting roles, as mentioned, are also extremely well done; with most, if not all, being actors I have not seen previously. There are a couple of particularly noteworthy performances I’d like to mention. First, Billy Crudup nails it as the bureaucratic and slightly oblivious Hoover, a man whose ideal men are pencil pushers with guns. Stephen Graham as Nelson is over the top, in the very best way. He’s psychotic, short-tempered, and self-destructive. Stephen Lang puts in a good turn as a member of the Texas Rangers recruited by Purvis. He has an undeniable presence and when he speaks he brings a seriousness and gravity to his words [particularly at Little Bohemia]. Photography. If there was nothing else that any one person hated coming out of this film, it was the digital photography. Now, I have to say I enjoyed it very much. Film is beautiful in it’s own way, the grains and so on, but there is something great about digital too. I thought there was a great ‘clear’ quality to the image. It’s been a long, long time since I’ve seen a film in theatres but when I saw this it didn’t seem as though there was a barrier between the image and the audience. As mentioned, it’s intimate. Detailing slight things that add to characters, so long as you notice them. The colours are very rich too, dark but warm and give the year 1933 a present-day feel. However, this film has launched hundreds of comments describing it as ‘amateurish’, that it looks like it’s shot by a ‘film school student’ [which, in it’s intention, is a bit harsh on film students]. To them it’s horrible, ugly, blurred, disengaging, and even disgraceful. To be clear, it’s not digital itself which has caused the outrage, but the handling of it. Some hate the use of it period and can’t stand seeing anything filmed that way and others say it was inappropriate at certain times or for a period piece. To be honest, I could see some people not liking it, but I think many people have been too worked up over it. Everything in every scene can be seen clearly and so long as you pay attention you shouldn’t be lost. It’s never extremely blurry and the shaking of the camera isn’t as if someone kicked it around like a soccer ball. While very unusual for a film, let alone a period one, to be shot this way it is not inappropriate in my opinion. I don’t see how shooting in this style would be any less appropriate in one scene than in another. Soundtrack. The soundtrack is a combination of original songs and music, all period except for Otis Taylor’s track and an original score by Elliot Goldenthal. Mann has been criticized for some of the music choices in previous films. Since this is my first film by him, I wouldn’t know but I had no problem at all with the music itself. Listening to the score on it’s own, it is very good, particularly the tracks ‘Plane to Chicago’ and ‘JD Dies’. But it’s played too loud at times and is more scenery chewing than Daniel Day-Lewis. Particularly the final scene of the film, which is a bit schmaltzy, that would’ve done better without the music. As well, when I think of scores for films like There Will Be Blood and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, it seems a bit tame for what this film tries to achieve in every other way. Conclusion. Public Enemies is a very good film, I may even call it a great one in the future. However, all the commotion and expectation that was and has been placed upon it made the split response inevitable. It is not a bad film, but then again it isn’t perfect. What people dislike about it differs, but it’s flaws are outweighed by it’s strengths and the ambition to bring something unique to an old genre. It’s raw and abstract, like a folk legend in contrast to the mythic, otherworldly quality of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Those open-minded about the use of photography and narrative will likely enjoy this very much. Because, as mentioned, the purpose is solely to provide a portrait of Dillinger, not necessarily explain and detail. These extremely divided reactions are something I think happen only every so often in film. It’s not merely a matter of ‘I liked it/I didn’t like it’, but it actually creates questions, discussions and thoughts as to our conception of what makes ‘great’ cinema. Public Enemies is a film that is both entertaining and beautiful to watch. It’s not Citizen Kane of the 21st century, but it’s different which can both work for and against it for viewers. In all, I agree completely with what was said on the forum, that this is an art film in disguise. It goes beyond what’s expected for a ‘gangster film’ while not trying to completely alienate the audience. Like many films on their initial release, this has gotten more than its fair share of bashing but in the future I hope people will come to Mann’s work for what it is. Josh Siler |
|||
Mann’s latest film, one of the most anticipated of the summer, has been extremely divisive. Reactions vary from unimpressed or outright hating it, thought it good but flawed, or describing it as an innovative masterpiece. I want to address some of the main issues cited and address them, giving my own opinion as well as delving further in them.
Post new comment