Public Enemies

For me, Michael Mann is one of the finest filmmakers in the world today, let alone Hollywood. Although working inside the often somewhat restrictive perimeters of the Hollywood studio system, Mann has sought to push the boundaries of cinema and pioneer new technologies. I would offer that David Lynch and Steven Soderbergh are the only directors rivalling him for him for Hollywood's most experimental filmmaker. It's no coincidence that these three directors have pursued a more documentary, lifelike aesthetic with the aid of digital cameras. He's made a career out of meaty, dramatic crime movies, reaching an artistic peak with 1995's Heat. His most recent films, Collateral and Miami Vice have made superb use of the HD cameras, allowing the audience an exhilarating foray into the seedy neon lit cities.

Public Enemies, his latest film, takes a step back to the 1930's and the gangster John Dillinger. The film focuses on Dillinger's hectic life as a serial bank robber, beginning with his release from a long prison stint, and ending on his infamous death outside a movie theatre. Dillinger was alleged to be something of a Clark Gable figure, dashing and charismatic, a modern day Robin Hood. He was known to be very media savvy, infuriating the FBI and the police force. Dillinger's main foes were FBI director J Edgar Hoover, a calculating, glossy man, and Melvin Purviss, the determined cop on his tail. As always, there is a romantic thread involving Dillinger's girlfriend Billy Frechette, who gets entangled in Dillinger's dangerous affairs.

I've often thought that Johnny Depp could never really cut it as a dramatic, dark figure. This does nothing to assuage that belief. In Donnie Brasco, Depp played a drug smuggler in a wannabe gangster epic. Like the film, Depp was passable in the role, but never really convincing. Never electrifying. Never really dangerous. Depp suffers the same fate here in Mann's film. I don't think we ever really get a good sense of why he was such a charismatic, or dangerous figure. To be honest, I think Johnny Depp is almost bland in straight roles- he comes to life in comedic roles. Instead of a Gable-alike, we get a surly, self absorbed criminal. His relationship with Billy (Marion Cottilard) also falls flat because we don't a get of sense of why it's so important that they should be together. If we compare this to Heat, the obvious reference point for a similar heist movie, that managed to juggle three different romantic threads, and each one seemed pertinent. De Niro's romance in particular was poignant, and yet there was little screen time dedicated to it.

If you want to make a believable romance, if you want the audience to care what happens to the relationship, then dedicate some time to developing it. The screen writer obviously wanted to eke some drama out of the situation, and make it an important part of the film, but forgot to make it relevant. It's by the numbers, cliched relationship drama. Either put some effort into it, or diminish it.
Christian Bale fared much better as Purviss, the rigid cop. The only main player who really convinced in his role, Bale brings in a steely eyed stubborness to his performance. I actually left the cinema almost unable to distinguish Bale from his role, such is the vigour with which he threw himself into it. It also helps that we recognise Bale as an extremely committed professional, so the role isn't such a stretch of the imagination, like nice guy Depp playing a cold hearted criminal. Billy Crudup is slightly odd as Hoover, although one suspects that was part of the plan. His rigid mannerisms and clipped voice are unnerring, but leave a good impression of the character.

Visually the film is, for me, inferior to previous works in that the muted, pale colours of the 1930's world do not lend themselves well to the digital cameras. Whereas Collateral and Miami Vice utilised the neon lights and the moody blue skies to great effect, creating a sense of city life, vibrant and uncertain, Public Enemies feels just a bit grainy. The roaming, hand held camera work also worked so much better in the previous films- is a period film the right platform for this edgy, almost ramshackle style? The most obvious answer would be to implement a stately, intricately composed aesthetic, similar to The Godfather or The Untouchables. Yet it served Mann so well on his previous films that I can't fault him for experimenting this time. The score was very hit-and-miss. Some might balk at the use of a rollocking, modern guitar piece in a 30's set film, though I thought it was well suited in the context of the car chase scenes. I had more issue with the correlation between visuals and sound at more mundane points. Basically, the composer didn't seem to take into account the type of film they were scoring- not the particular genre, but Mann's particular style. So often we were treated to great big orchestral sweeps set to....a few guys walking through a forest. It was almost like John Williams soundtracking an episode of Dispatches.

Despite all these faults, Public Enemies is far from a bad film. It's evocation of the era is impeccable, the acting is decent, and the gunfights are terrifically exciting and real. It's just nowhere near what Mann is capable of, and must be considered something of a disappointment because of this.

6/10