Public Enemies
posted June 25, 2009 6:53 AM
Another compromised partial masterpiece from Michael Mann
With a suave Johnny Depp making a rare appearance as an actor in a role rather than a piece of décor, there is definitely going to be a measurable constituency for Public Enemies, Michael Mann’s frequently taut but ultimately unsatisfying new gangster picture. One person who shouldn’t be cheering though (unless he has profit participation) is Bryan Burrough, whose revisionist history of the Depression-era gangster Mann based his film on. For there were two things that made Burrough’s book a radical departure from previous compendiums of gangster lore. One was an adamant refusal to glamorize stick-up men and kidnappers as much more than nihilistic thugs. The other was Burrough’s revelatory and convincing demonstration that the ’30s underworld was not populated by thrill-seeking existential anti-heroes (as so many movies would have it), but rather a seething Diaspora of inter-related and frequently improvised alliances, with the Barker, Karpis, Barrow, Nelson and Dillinger gangs all breaking apart and recombining under the pressure of federal manhunts like so many interchangeable parts.
Mann has pretty much chucked both of those insights and made instead something we’ve had at least three times before: a Dillinger picture, and one that like so many of Mann’s movies alternates between movie-movie silliness and aesthetic brilliance not just scene to scene but almost line by line. For if Mann is intermittently one of our best filmmakers, he’s also consistently one of our most contradictory—stylish and ham-fisted, audacious and cliché-driven, and torn between wanting to be an auteurist cineaste and having the crassest kind of mainstream success. Much of the violence in Public Enemies is vigorous but workmanlike, and punctuated by a handful of amazing set pieces—the opening jailbreak, say, or Mann’s exceptionally factual and fluid recreation of the FBI’s Little Bohemia catastrophe, where a carload of civilians was shot up by overeager federal gunfire as Dillinger and Babyface Nelson ran for their lives through the rural night.
There is no contemporary director, including Martin Scorsese, who understands the tropes of the crime film more intuitively than Mann; Public Enemiesis like a Strunk and White grammar manual on the form and its themes, and this means that unlike Burroughs’ book, the film traffics in glamorization and existential anti-heroics almost exclusively. And that’s fine, because movies and books are different mediums, but it would be even better if Mann had more to add to the canon then his characteristic crisp editing and stunning sound design, or the fleet and versatile cinematography of frequent collaborator Dante Spinotti—all technical excellences, but unable to fully mask the shopworn conceits that give such an irregular beat to this movie’s heart.
Maybe it’s Depp that undoes things - a likable actor striving here to be loved, and no more virile with a machine gun in his hand then he was wearing a fright wig and scissors. I find myself panning two Depp performances in a row by saying this, which is odd to me because I genuinely like him as a performer, even if he is far more the heir to the Marlon Brando who wore self-designed pig make-up as an industrialist in The Formula than he is to iconic Brando primitives like Stanley Kowalski and Terry Malloy. I like Jackie Chan too, but that doesn’t mean I’d want to see him play Al Capone. And for all his statuary handsomeness and his high Cherokee cheekbones, Depp is, like Chan, instinctively a comedian—not a Cagney, but a more eccentric Cary Grant, and just as likely as Grant was to be miscast because he draws at the box office and just looks so damn much like a leading man.
Depp has his moments, especially in the softer and more reflective passages of the film. There’s a wry and wholly invented scene of Dillinger sneaking into the squadroom of the Chicago P.D.’s Dillinger Squad, where, as Dillinger counts up his dead friends and the oblivious men tasked with killing him listen to a ballgame, Depp achieves a wordless wistful grace. Mann makes absolutely brilliant use of Manhattan Melodrama, the Clark Gable gangster movie Dillinger watched just before he died, using elliptical editing to create a kind of Greek chorus of outlaw longing, loss and acceptance out of the found footage on the Biograph Theatre’s screen, while Depp mirrors each emotion with just the subtlest shifts of eye and face.
As he did in Heat and Manhunter, Mann gives special weight to the relationship between the crook and the cop who’s following him, and so it’s useful to measure Depp against Christian Bale’s more limited screen time as FBI agent Melvin Purvis, the Inspector Javert to Depp’s Jean Valjean. For my money, Bale never hits a wrong note—he is brisk, vulnerable, decisive and overwhelmed, all by turns, and we are left intrigued by the suggestion in his tight smile that there are aspects of Purvis he can’t give to us, because so much of this man’s inner life is to himself unknown. Purvis is the soulless company man Public Enemies sees as an emblem of the conformist forces that always crush the free spirit Depp’s Dillinger is thought to be. But Bale seems to have slipped that geriatric formulation a Mickey Finn by giving Purvis a soul anyhow, even if it’s on the sly.
Would that the same could be said about Marion Cotillard’s very sanitized Billie Frechette, a ghostly vapor of a character despite the inordinate screen time devoted to the Frechette/Dillinger romance. Mann was probably obliged by market realities to squander so much running time on a relationship that is essentially static and fully established the first time Dillinger and Frechette make eyes at each other—somewhere in the bowels of Universal Studios there just has to be a memo from Ron Meyer to Michael Mann saying, when it comes to female audiences, guns don’t “test.” But Mann’s vision of the world is masculine to the core, and he compounds his fundamental disinterest in Frechette by making her into a bizarre amalgam of ’30s clichés about female dependence and the feminist clichés that replaced them. This leaves Cotillard’s Billie with little to do but resist Dillinger for a few lines when he takes her for granted, and then tumble into his arms the minute he avows commitment and says something nice. Mann only really seems comfortable with Billie when she’s being tortured for information by a villainous fed; the rest of the time, it’s enough for Dillinger to yearn for her, or for Cotillard and Depp to make goo-goo eyes.
Well, here are a couple of things we know about the actual people these two love struck high school kids are being made to represent. Billie was already firmly implanted in the outer margins of the criminal class by the time she met Dillinger. She had danced professionally in nudie clubs, likely taken various lovers and impulsively married a third-rate hoodlum boyfriend named Wellington Spark the night before he was taken away to Leavenworth to serve time for mugging a mailman—exactly the kind of mundane bush league hold-up that set Dillinger on the path to big time criminality in his earlier, less ambitious days. In other words, the historical Billie represents a far more tragic and complex vision of fringe life during the Depression era than Mann’s movie ever gets near. For if Billie went astray because she was blinded by love, it was something other than Dillinger’s smile that poked her eyes out.
Dillinger was a charming psychopath who killed easily and liked risk. He reveled in his notoriety and even played to it where he could, something Public Enemies flirts with as required but ultimately never does more than display. He is also alleged by some to have had an enormous penis, which is folklore most likely, but of an interesting caste the still-chaste world of American cinema is unlikely to pursue.
There have been a minimum of three previous screen Dillingers, and if we imagine each of them as carrying around Dillinger’s mythical endowment, here’s what could be said of them: Lawrence Tierney, the 1945 original, played Dillinger as if he wanted to beat you to death with it. Warren Oates, the rambunctious Dillinger of John Milius’ 1973 do-over, performed as if the phallus was packing him. Mark Harmon, the TV movie gangster of 1991, was a Dillinger who had misplaced it and seemed relieved by that fact. And Johnny Depp? He’s a Dillinger who would apologize before taking it out, and then ask his lover to let him know if he’s hurting her so he can behave more tenderly. He should be a big hit with “the ladies.” But just where on earth do they keep “the ladies” nowadays?
Distributor: Universal
Cast: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, Stephen Lang
Director: Michael Mann
Writers: Ronan Bennett, Michael Mann and Ann Biderman Producers: Michael Mann and Kevin Misher
Genre: Gangster Drama
Rating: R for gangster violence and some language
Running time: 140 min
Release date: July 1, 2009
35 Comments
Leave a comment
gary james said:
a lot of words,bit of advice ,throw away the thesaurus and don't disappear up your own arse with it.
June 27, 2009 8:24 AM
Anonymous said:
Was he even talking about a movie? I remember when I got my first thesaurus...seriously that was garbage.
June 27, 2009 9:25 AM
eric said:
Yet another ignorant, attention seeking review by Ray Greene. I thought I had read the last of these after your negative review of Sweeney Todd. I don't understand why your opinion matters according to rottentomatoes. Completely unreliable critique.
June 27, 2009 11:33 AM
MrPeepers said:
I like this review - I'm tired of reading reviewers whose vocabulary consists solely of snarky riffs with the occasional sprinkling of 'awesome' (or it's popular antonym, 'sucks') and the Harry Knowles-like 'jaw-droppingly'.
Kudos, Ray
June 27, 2009 1:16 PM
mr. objective said:
I appreciate your review, yet another addendum to your repertoire of intelligent pieces. My only problem with your critical perspective is that it lacks a constant standard of evaluation. Your scoring system seems based on your enjoyment in relation to expectations as opposed to the general quality of a film. I know that this attribute is true of many critics, but it is intensified in your reviews.
Anyway, I found your final paragraph to be both completely uncalled for and hilarious.
June 27, 2009 2:56 PM
Edgar said:
Mr. Greene, have you seen the movie Donnie Darko? I am interested to know if you liked that movie. I found it very intelligent. Also, how did you enjoy the films, No Country for Old Men, A Beautiful Mind, Pan's Labyrinth, and Fight Club?
June 27, 2009 3:10 PM
Ray Greene said:
To Edgar:
I love DONNIE DARKO, though I have to say it took me two viewings to fully appreciate it. Same with FIGHT CLUB -- one of the great black comedies of the last ten-to-fiften years and a film you couldn't make now because it's ultimately about terrorists and blowing up buildings (well, actually, it's about masculinity but that's a subject for another day). NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is 93 percent great -- caveat: I found Tommy Lee Jones unconvincing (he overacts his underplaying) but the rest of the movie great. PAN'S LABYRINTH I found good not great but with stunning visuals; A BEAUTIFUL MIND is a medically reprehensible film but very cinematically persuasive. Trivia note: if you have the A BEAUTIFUL MIND DVD, watch the end credits on the "making of" doc INSIDE A BEAUTIFUL MIND and you will see I was one of the picture editors on it. But I still find the movie extremely dangerous in its depiction of schizophrenia, which is innacurate as hell, and also because it encourages the viewer to believe love can solve severe mental illness (bollocks to that).
To Mr. Objective:
"Uncalled for and hilarious" strikes me as just the right reaction to the last paragraph. Thanks. RG
June 27, 2009 9:09 PM
Jan said:
Thanks for the informative review! Still looking forward to seeing the movie. :) One thing - I believe that the man who wrote the book claims that Dillinger killed one man? Your statement that he 'killed easily' is somewhat questionable.
On another note, I can't believe some people had a hard time with your language! That makes me sad. (Unless of course English is not your first language, although it isn't mine and I understood every word easily).
June 28, 2009 9:05 AM
ben said:
Transformers 2 got 4 stars and this gets 2 1/2?
Sorry but i'm not going to take this negative review to heart and neither will i trust it.
June 28, 2009 1:40 PM
baxter peanut said:
See the movie before you review it. Read the book before you draw from it. Your facts are wholly incorrect. You are an *******. It would be a nice change for you to intelligently review a movie for it's merits, not so you think you can get extra press by having a rotten tomato. Thanks for the opportunity to tell you how I feel. Go screw yourself.
June 28, 2009 2:46 PM
Edgar said:
You don't have to take any review to heart but your own... RG just gets paid to write out his opinions--- no one is obligated to align themselves with his perspective on the film.
Anyway, I might be a little worried about the film now as our critical perspectives seem fairly similar; however, I watched A Beautiful Mind for its artistic nature rather than historical/medical accuracy. It seemed like a fantasy based on reality, which is why I found it absolutely beautiful. He never recovered from the illness in the film; he simply chose to ignore the hallucinations. I guess I am an idealist, while you are probably more of a realist. Oh well... to each his own. I looked up your name on the dvd. Pretty cool!
Thanks for answering! You are truly one of the more amiable and humble critics I know of.
June 28, 2009 5:16 PM
Robert said:
Great review. I enjoy when critics start dishing out film and lit theory in their reviews. I loved the last paragraph.
June 28, 2009 9:46 PM
Terry said:
Yeah, his review is a million times better than the one from Jo Reviews that just said "It was boring" and then summarized the film.
June 29, 2009 12:33 PM
Edgar said:
Hmm... I think the frontrunners for best picture are, The Road, Nine, and Lovely Bones. Maybe Shutter Island, Avatar, or Amelia could take home the prize. Wolfman and Sherlock Holmes also look pretty good, and Johnny is sure to get attention for Public Enemies.
June 29, 2009 2:11 PM
Jette Rink said:
Why should i watch a movie, where the actor (Johnny Depp) don't even watch it.
July 1, 2009 9:11 PM
Vicki H. said:
Most movies that I watch about people that lived before my grandmother's time, and events that took place long before I was born never interest me in the slightest. I lose the plot, I forget character names, and I eventually just give up on the whole movie entirely and have nothing positive to say. But Public Enemies was perhaps one of the most entertaining, 'based on true events', edge-of-my-seat thrillers that I have ever seen. I loved every bit of this film, and would not mind paying another twelve dollars to see it again. I have no clue why this movie got bad reviews, because I can tell you this: everyone in the theatre alongside me opening night was GLUED to that screen, and people even APPLAUDED when it ended. Ignore every negative rumor you've heard about this movie, and please go see it for yourself. You will NOT be disappointed, I'm sure.
July 2, 2009 3:09 PM
Edgar said:
I really think it all depends on how you enjoyed Depp's performance. I thought he was absolutely fantastic, so I liked Public Enemies; I can see how some would not appreciate his performace (this accounts for the negativity).
July 3, 2009 9:48 AM
Steve Simels said:
Actually, this review is right on the money, although I could have lived without the penis metaphor.
:-)
Seriously, an interesting movie, but mostly a mess with a couple of impressive sequences. And I think Ray's dead on about Depp as a leading man.
July 4, 2009 9:30 AM
Steven Braun said:
that was ... by far one of the worst written movie reviews i have EVER written... Ray here should be ashamed of himself for even typing.. did you have to meet a certain word quota? you just rambled on and on and on.. about everything that didnt have a stich to do about the movie.
The movie was good, well above average. amazingly filmed. was it jaw dropping? no. Is it going to be something i talk about for days? no. was it worth paying 9.50 to see on the big screen? damn rights it was.
oh, and ray. lose the friggen thesaurus.. and if you didn't use one.. stop with the big words. ya you're smart good for you, are you writing for other university review professors OR the AVERAGE FRIGGEN PERSON.. jesus christ KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE.
July 4, 2009 8:30 PM
Lauralee said:
I loved this review. Unexpected insights. Glad to read he viewed it as a movie, not a depiction of complete reality, I mean he recognized the limits of fillm and the fact that all movies are designed with the effort to take advantage of its best characteristics. Gosh! Everyone thinks so literally. Miss a lot of entertainment that way.
July 5, 2009 3:50 AM
Ben said:
I enjoyed the review, but despite the low rating the review actually enticed me to see the movie even more. As the the constant stream of criticism concerning your vocabulary, I wouldn't let it bother me. I find it refreshing that someone is willing to raise some intellectual standards rather than making excuses for the inadequate education of the hoi polloi.
July 5, 2009 10:11 AM
Jenn said:
Take this review to heart - it's really not a good movie. I kept waiting for something to happen. Anything. The characters were weak and had no chemistry. It was a dull, dull movie with very little true action to break it up.
Just goes to show that even the amazing, talented Johnny Depp can have an off day/movie.
Save your money.
July 6, 2009 7:44 AM
Julia said:
Totally agree with you Jenn thought exact same thing with exception of Johnny Depp's performance. Heard him (Depp) say on the radio that once he has finished a film it is no longer his business, it's then all down to the director and producer how it's put together. Sounded to me like he was trying to distance himself from it, and having seen it I can't blame him. Shame it could have been another great 'bubble gum' movie in the same vein as Butch Cassidy, Bonnie and Clyde, Young Guns etc. Did love the cinematography but felt it was aiming for an award rather than drawing one into the film. Transformers definitely the better movie.
July 6, 2009 11:20 AM
Nick said:
I don't know why everyone is complaining about your vocabulary, this review wasn't hard to understand. I myself struggled more with all the references to other works that I have not seen, and the level of detail discussing the characters of a story I don't know yet, having never watched other Dillinger films. To me it seemed that you were criticizing the movie for what it wasn't, more than reviewing the movie on its own merits.
Anyway, this is disappointing, all the movies I had thought might be enjoyable to see this week received far lower review scores than I had hoped for.
July 6, 2009 3:50 PM
Anonymous said:
I think johnny depp has once again proven to a talented actor. His performance was great in this movie and made it fun to watch. I enjoyed his version of dillinger
July 9, 2009 5:26 PM
Anonymous said:
I'm a fan of movies based on a true story and I'm a fan of Depp. He and this movie did not disappoint despite this review. I would pay to see it again.
July 9, 2009 6:17 PM
Anonymous said:
If Ray Green isn't a pretentious bore I'll eat my chapeau.
July 11, 2009 10:40 PM
lil said:
Seems you had more to say about the penis than the movie. I am uncomfortable with a man/critic who has issues with masculinity. I have seen and own most of Depp's movies. He can transform into anything and does it well. I didn't know Dillinger, you didn't know Dillinger. Gangsters and criminals are not all the same color and style. Re:Osama bin Laden, Bernie Madoff. You didn't like Depp's portrayal of Dillinger? Or you just don't like Depp. It's hard for me to interpret which it is.
July 12, 2009 12:56 PM
krebbs said:
So sad when people need an interpreter for their own language. Granted it was a bit verbose(that means wordy)but I found it more informative than the obligatory and ambiguous "Sucks" or the over-used to the point of meaningless, "Awesome". Try to reserve that one for celestial bodies and natural disasters, you know...things that truly inspire awe. Just a suggestion.
July 12, 2009 1:30 PM
son of iraq said:
any thing johnny depp do it is perfect
July 14, 2009 1:57 AM
Anonymous said:
I like Johnny Depp's clever portrayal. He may not be the cliche gangsta but he certainly is intriguing and engaging... I'm talking about his performance of course.
July 22, 2009 4:54 PM
Anonymous said:
Transformer may be the better choice for those who aren't able to comprehend and appreciate a good movie. It then maybe better to just settle for a bunch of robots changing and killing each other.
July 22, 2009 5:13 PM
Ian said:
My wife and saw the movie last night and while it certainly dragged on at time we found it worth the money. By no means will it win any awards but it was failrly entertaining and save a couple of historical inaccuracies (like Dillinger visiting the FBI crime unit hunting him - yeah right) it kept close to the truth. I'd recommend the movie with the proviso of "just sit back and enjoy it for what it is: Hollywood".
July 26, 2009 3:24 PM
Carol said:
It is not that the vocabulary that was hard to understand it was the inconsistent rambling about nothing using words to try and make himself more intelligent. I thought this movie was beautifully filmed and well acted except Christian Bale's performance which I found flat. My only issue with the movie was the lack of score in scenes that I personally felt needed that build up to pull it off. Was it worth the money and would I buy it...Hell Yeah.
Would I visit this site again after today and was the reviewer fair and balanced …Hell No.
August 22, 2009 10:46 PM
strange girl said:
my forever lover johnny~
he is very nice in this movie
but the movie it self is not good
story is poor and trite
and i was put to inconvenience in that sad ending .........
August 23, 2009 4:23 AM