Public Enemies: Take One

I plan on seeing this again (hence the "take one" in the title), but for the moment here are my ramblings on the film after I saw it this afternoon.

Michael Mann can film a face like no one else. He loves to linger on faces, letting the audience figure out what’s going on behind those cold eyes of his characters. And it’s not just that Mann likes faces, it’s that he loves lingering there with his in-the-moment digital photography and intense music pumping in the background – here is an auteur who is interested in the un-action of action movies. Perhaps no other recent filmmaker has been able to dupe audiences more frequently than Mann has with his last three films: 2004’s Collateral about a hitman, 2006’s reboot of the kitch-tastic 80’s hit Miami Vice, and now in 2009 with Public Enemies – a gangster film about the last year of John Dillinger’s life. All three of these films (and to an extent all of Mann’s pictures) share the same trait of on the surface seeming like a commercial action film created to rake in the Summer dollars; whether it’s with big stars (Tom Cruise, Jaime Foxx, Johnny Depp) or sure-fire plots that sound exciting and seem to guarantee action (movie about a hitman, buddy cop movie, gangster film), but what’s buried beneath these seemingly simple plots is something that is always more interesting than the bang-bang, shoot ‘em up films they sound like. Mann is interested in the action that drives his subjects, here is it John Dillinger, but it could be anyone; Mann, like the French master Jean-Pierre Melville, loves to look deeply into his characters who commit crimes because that’s more interesting than the crimes themselves.

I can imagine this film taking in the same opening box office that Miami Vice did on it’s opening weekend…then audiences figure out that this isn’t a Scarface or Godfather type crime film and run away to the comforts of mind-numbing summer fair like Transformers. So be it. They don’t know what they’re missing. Public Enemies fits Mann’s oeuvre like a glove, and it’s easy to see why he was so drawn to the material. No, not because of the gun battles and the bank robberies (although those do remind us of Mann’s earlier films like Heat and Miami Vice), but because here are a two men, John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) and G-Man Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) who are on opposite sides of the law, but are driven by the same force to excel at what they do, no matter what the cost, and to only think about the present.

Bale’s square jaw is at home under his stern look and fedora, and surprisingly his morose tone works here as Purvis is a man who gets no joy in his job – believe me when I tell you that this man is the antithesis of Al Pacino’s cop in Heat. Depp is just outstanding as John Dillinger, a man who, as he introduces himself to people, “robs banks.” And that’s the Dillinger Mann showcases. There are no flashbacks into his past to try and understand why he does what he does (although in one scene he does mention that his dad beat him because he didn’t know what else to do with him), he is a man possessed, a man who is cold and calculated and can get through a bank in under two minutes…he doesn’t have time for backstory. He is also a man of the people. He understands the need to play to the people as he will no doubt be hiding out among them, and the way Depp handles the moments of celebrity are nice dashes of humor in an otherwise humorless film.

Depp and Mann decide to showcase this Dillinger as a man who is not likeable. Sure, he may have some redeeming qualities about him, but for the most part we don’t like this man, even though we’re spending the better part of two hours with him…up close and personal, too. Just like in the most recent Michael Mann pictures, digital cameras are used to great effect. Here he films Purvis mostly with film, and in a cold, detached manner; but Dillinger is filmed up close with digital – and it’s obvious that it’s digital, maybe the most obvious Mann has ever made it that he prefers this medium – but there we are, as in-the-moment as we can be, but as is the case with any Mann character, we are also kept at a distance from them, left to figure out what makes them tick and why they do what they do.

This isn’t a gangster film like that of Scorsese or Coppola. There are no family gatherings or quirky characters that make you laugh and think “hey they don’t have such a bad life.” These are gangsters who rob for a living, but never seem to enjoy themselves (except for Baby Face Nelson who takes great pleasure in shooting things up). Like most of Mann’s crime films this is a deeply existential one (again reminding me of Melville). Mann loves for the viewer to come up with their own theories on the histories of the characters and why they do what they do. Like I mentioned in my Miami Vice review earlier this week, it’s rare for a filmmaker to have the patience for this kind of thing, and it just cements what the director is more interested in. He may make action movies, but it’s the deep thoughts and pondering of the films main characters (again the shots of those faces) that he’s most interested in. And he when he does do action, he does it better than anyone else, he does arty action, comparable to anything Terrence Malick has made.

It’s funny, after reading a lot of the fine entries from the Michael Mann blog-a-thon hosted by J.D. at Radiator Heaven, I’ve noticed a lot of the same themes swirling around all of Mann’s pictures, and Public Enemies is no different. Here’s a film that seems to be a pastiche of Mann’s most famous work: Thief, Heat, Manhunter, and my personal favorite Miami Vice. The pacing, as is the case with most of Mann’s films, is not for everyone, but the man never films an uninteresting scene, and I love the way the viewer is dropped into scene after scene with very little use of establishing shots so that we may get our bearings. The film is deliberate, but felt like it went by quickly because of this decision by Mann. In addition to all of the usual themes at play, here, there’s also the usual aesthetic goodness that one finds in a Mann picture.

Dante Spinotti re-teams with Mann (he shot his first foray into digital The Insider) and evokes a lot of the classic gangster film feel. He also gives several visual nods to a lot of Mann's other crime films. What’s most amazing about the way the film was shot was that we have never seen a period piece shot with digital before. So, it’s a little jarring at first, but it also feels all the more real, like we’re there watching all of this happen. It’s so much more affective than sepia tone or muted colors. It’s yet another example of one of the many things that has always fascinated me about Mann’s pictures: his ability to make you feel in-the-moment, yet simultaneously keeping you at arms length. The film is beautiful to look at, but that hardly comes as a surprise to anyone who enjoys Mann’s work. I can't wait for the film to be released on DVD so I can take a look at some of the scenes shot by shot.

What else can I say about this film? I feel like I haven’t even really done the film critical justice. I think that’s because I need to let the film settle into my mind for the weekend, think about it some more, and then come back with some better thoughts. I know I’ll see it again (especially since the showing I went to a woman decided to treat the theater like her own living while she dealt with her baby and fielded cell phone calls in the theater.) and when I do I feel like there will be even more to say. As for specific elements of the film besides the usual Mann themes…I loved how Mann showed J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) trying to implement the Bureau in its early phases of clean-cut men in suites, and the way Purvis challenges Hoover saying he needs men who know what to do in a gun fight. I also like how they show the shift of crime towards the end of Dillinger’s life. Robbing banks isn’t sufficient enough anymore, it’s too risky for the meagerness of the reward; so, instead gangsters turned to bookies and the betting system as a way to steal money, and the scene where Dillinger finds out that his skills aren’t really an asset anymore is one of the best scenes of the movie. Conversely law enforcement was now starting to become dirtier and dirtier where it was okay to rough up witnesses in order to get information (even women weren’t above these harsh interrogation methods). Crime was becoming more organized, almost more civil, while the black and white police ethos was becoming grayer. Needless to say the action scenes were typical top-notch Mann stuff – meticulous and brilliantly executed. I also really enjoyed the Robin Hood style of bank robbing that Dillinger subscribed to. There’s a great scene where he tells one of the bank customers who has put his money on the counter for Dillinger to take to keep his money, and that they’re there for the banks money, not theirs. I thought the way Dillinger endeared himself to the public was one of the most interesting things about the movie, and especially as an anti-hero – a man who was stealing from the rich during a time of great depression.

I know there’s more I want to say, and I am sure this isn’t the last this film will be discussed on the blog. I haven’t even mentioned the dynamic between Depp (whose performance I feel like I haven't said enough about, but he understands Mann's love of actors acting with their face...he hits everything just right in this movie) and Marion Cotillard who plays Billie, Dillinger’s love interest. It’s rare for a woman to be the focus in a Mann film, but like Amy Brenneman’s Eady from Heat, Billie is integral to the story. Public Enemies above everything else is just a great entertainment, and cements Mann as a true poet of the cinema. More thoughts are sure to come, but for now, I feel pretty comfortable calling this one of the best films of the year.