A Disagreement: Erika and James on Public Enemies

(This week at redblog, we're sharing a head-to-head discussion between Erika Olson and James Rocchi about Michael Mann's Public Enemies -- and their very different views. After James and Erika make their case, please feel free to share your thoughts on the film. ...)

Usually I’m right there with you on your reviews, James, but when I read what you had to say about Public Enemies I felt as though we’d seen two different movies.  I left the theater not only disappointed, but also completely befuddled as to how Mann and his fellow screenwriters (Ronan Bennett and Ann Biderman) managed to make a film about the final years of John Dillinger’s life — as well as the storied “War on Crime” era at the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover  — so... well, boring.  

Sure, there were prison breaks and shoot-outs and getaways, but not once was I swept up in the action.  Not once did I care whether Dillinger pulled off another heist or Purvis got his man. Instead, I spent the bulk of the film’s two-hour-plus running time (way... too... long) trying to figure out who was who among Dillinger’s men (I know not everyone can look like Depp, but seriously, I couldn’t tell the other guys apart), who was shooting at whom, what in the heck they were doing/planning overall, and why they were so popular among normal folk — celebrated, in fact — for holding up banks in the middle of the Great Depression.

That’s why I have to ask, were you already familiar with Dillinger’s story before watching Public Enemies?  Because I wasn’t — I knew he was a bank robber and that he was shot in front of the Biograph Theater here in Chicago, and that’s it. Therefore, since Mann neglected to set the stage with how Dillinger and his fellow gangsters rose to infamy or give so much as a hint as to why in the world the public loved him so much, I was in a constant state of Waiting For An Explanation while watching the film.  Little did I know that I should’ve read up on my 1930s American history before settling into the theater.  So while I agree with your statement that Johnny Depp made it easy for the audience to like Dillinger, I definitely don’t think he helped us understand the man anymore than we’d already naturally understand the fact that criminals generally try to avoid getting caught.  

My other major beef with Public Enemies is that otherwise decent romantic and/or tension-filled scenes were ruined (ruined!) by a ridiculously overwhelming dramatic score. (I was shocked you didn’t mention this in your review —  I actually laughed out loud more than once when cheesy horns and violins sprung up at the most inappropriate times.)  I’m not saying that composer Elliot Goldenthal’s work was flawed in and of itself, but how it was put to use was comical; it was like Mann wanted to shout to the audience, “This part is serious and important, people — can’t you hear the mournful music???”  

When I wasn’t trying to figure out who was underneath all of the trench coats and dapper-looking hats or shaking my head at the not-so-subtle score, I did enjoy bits and pieces of the movie.  My favorite parts revolved around the stubborn (and increasingly desperate and clueless) J. Edgar Hoover and tough-guy agent Purvis’ attempts to outsmart the band of merry, gun-wielding men.  Once again, however, I was left wanting more, especially with the character of Purvis.  I think Bale gave the best performance in this film (yes, better than Depp’s because I found it nearly impossible to look at the screen and not think “That’s Johnny Depp” rather than “That’s John Dillinger”); he completely disappeared into his role.  I just wish we had been treated to more on Purvis The Man rather than Purvis The FBI Agent so that his ultimate fate (revealed through a note on the screen after the final scene wrapped) made a little more sense.  

I’ll end by saying that while I didn’t love Public Enemies, I didn’t hate it, either.  I’m simply sad because, as a Chicagoan, I feel that Mann missed a huge opportunity to make a simultaneously educational and engrossing film about my city’s colorful past.  

Yours,

Erika

Erika -- thanks for the implicit compliment, but I'm still going to disagree with you about some of your specific points. I mean, I know you found Public Enemies boring, but I found it fascinating -- and one of these movies that's going to sneak up on me for a while, I think. I actually liked how flat and matter-of-fact it was -- how day-to-day - and I felt like that was part of the appeal of the film. Of course, that doesn't mean it's going to work for everyone, and especially not during the high summer; can we at least agree that whoever opened Public Enemies in the summer was nuts? Open this film in November, you have a movie people will see as a serious drama; open it in the summer, it's a damp squib of an action film that never ignites.

And again, I don't feel like the film was short on information -- or, rather, I don't mind it when a film leaves me wanting to know more, do a little research, figure a few things out. I joke that bad historical films try and tell you everything -- "That's supercop Melvin Purvis, sir! He's the bureau number-one man, top of his class at Harvard, 8 years with the bureau; the only thing he loves more than the bureau is his wife of 8 years, Dottie, and their two children, Jack, four, and Mary Elizabeth, 2. ..." and that Public Enemies, like Mann's other historical dramas (of recent years; we'll overlook the Nazis-vs.-Vampires early film The Keep, shall we?), more about the era it takes place in than the lives it depicts. A lot of people didn't like Ali, but once you get that it's not a film about a boxer's entire life, but, rather, a film about America through the lens of a few years when a boxer was boxing, it that step back in perspective turns it into a very different film, and an amazing one.

And, while I think you're right that Public Enemies isn't a great film about crime in Chicago in the '30s, I also think that's not what it's about, in and of itself. It's kind of about moral confusion; it's kind of about public relations (both Hoover and Dillinger are obsessed with looking good and getting headlines) and I seriously think in many ways it's about what's going on now. The scene where the Bureau essentially tortures Billie Frechette to get her to talk; where Hoover declares war on "Crime" in the way other administrations have declared war on abstract ideas like "Terror" or "Drugs"; as Purvis gets pushed further and further out in the pursuit of justice, so far he loses sight of it; as Dillinger's perfectly honest criminal gets pursued while bigger, more institutionalized criminals, with better connections and bigger takes, go free.

And, unlike you, I didn't mind the music -- and I also liked the use of digital. (I still think the contrast between the '30s gangster movie up on screen in the film's closing moments and the movie about a gangster shot around it - one big and stagy and fake, the other close and nervy and real, may be one of the most interesting moments I've seen all year.) And I didn't notice the score, frankly -- I guess I was either not hearing it or its clumsy charms worked on me since I was enjoying the film. (I'm sure that if I didn't like it, I would have found plenty of things to hate -- I think that now and then, watching a dull film, we tend to focus on details to snap ourselves to attention, to find something to do; I have a friend who can tell you what kind of shoes Sarah Jessica Parker is wearing in every scene of Sex and the City: The Movie, because she hated it and had to find something, anything to care about.)

And, like you, I wanted more of Purvis -- more of his life and who he was outside of his work; at the same time, if Mann had done that, it'd make Public Enemies feel even more like Heat, which was already a concern Mann had in mind, I'm sure. (Also, I can't imagine Purvis yelling at Xander Berkeley that he can't watch the ballgame on his TV, only in part because TV hadn't been invented. ...) And again, walking out of a movie wanting more now and then just tells me it made me want something, which is pretty rare in and of itself. And wow, we haven't even talked about the camera work -- and considering that most movies barley inspire grunts, let alone conversations, I still think Public Enemies is one of the the most interesting films we've had all summer, right alongside Moon and The Hurt Locker and Up and Away We Go. In an age when most movies provoke a shrug when they're done, a movie that can sustain an argument feels like a gift too rare to ignore.

Yours,

James

(What did you think -- were you annoyed by Public Enemies, or did you dig it? Did you like the at-arm's-length tone, or find it chilly and cold? Let us know below!)

Comments

[Sean Luhks]

To paraphrase an old saying: if you walked into the movie theater with expectations and a sombrero with rainbow-feathers, then the hat would be the second-silliest thing you brought with you. The main complaints around Public Enemies seem to be: I expected/wanted to see A, B, and C, but instead they gave me something else. I hope if you come back to it after a while, you can appreciate the film for what it did offer, rather than criticize it for what it did not provide. For me, Public Enemies was the best new release I've seen in the past six months. I enjoyed its unique, decidedly non-Hollywood, approach to the material.

On a side note, though, I agree the score was terrible. The tone of the music did not match the film. I think many scenes would have been improved if they used no score at all, or with some diegetic 30s-era music, or with something like John Williams' Munich score or Hans Zimmer's Batman Begins score: low-key, methodical, repetitive, matter-of-fact. The film was depicted as a drama, but the music was written as a melodrama.

[millar74]

I will say that I went into this movie with no expectation other than seeing a darn fine movie starring Johnny Depp AND Christian Bale. I was very disappointed. This movie was boring. I wanted to be entertained. I would've settled for being educated but neither of those things happened. I was left wondering why there were weird cameos by known actors with little or no lines and wishing he (Dillinger) would get back to Chicago so he could be shot already. It's sad when the best performance came from a fat guy beating a woman. I just wish I had saved this movie for a redbox rental with friends. We could've split the dollar cost amongst ourselves. And I still would've overpaid.

[Fiirvoen]

"...a movie that can sustain an argument feels like a gift too rare to ignore" So Transformers is a gift?

[Miah]

I watched it last night and must say... was disappointing.The marketing campaign was great, but the film didn't match the commercials I saw.

I too found myself wondering why this guy (Dillinger) was so popular to the masses. He was charming at points, but the were few and far between. And the character of Purviss was almost non-existent. He was silent most of the film. I found it hard to identify with either of the leading men.

I also would have liked to see more on the depression. I didn't think that the movie really gave a true account of the times, unlike say Cinderella Man.

But that was my take...

PS: I am glad someone else noticed the score, because I thought it was awful. Granted I'm a musician so I pay attention to such things.

[Sandra]

I was not "thrilled" with the movie. The part where the cop slapped Billie, in the 30's this would not have been accepted. The officer would and should have been reprimand in the movie and released from his duties immediately. I know it seems I dwell on this one issue, but it just made the movie seem more "unreal". My grandmother was at the Central National Bank in Greencastle, Indiana when Dillinger walked in. Her story wasn't the same as what the movie portrayed. (I believe my grandmother).

[SpikeBrain]

I looked at the trailers, and thought the movie would be an old looking very classy-ish film, that had a good meaningful story... Sadly to say I was very disappointed. The story had a lot to offer, but it seemed to drag on.
The soundtrack or score was the worst I have ever heard in any movie I have ever payed for. Loud dramatic classical music would just fade very abruptly and quickly in the middle of a section just in order to end a scene. This happened several times. Also, the filming was terrible. I don't mind using cheap cameras, or shaky cameras, it's a style. But only if it's consistent. I was perplexed because one scene would look beautiful, and then the next shot in the same scene looked like it had been shot on a 500$ sony handycam at 30fps. Also, I the acting and scripting in some sections just seemed terrible. The lighting really through me off in parts too, and just screamed the word cheap at me.
I know that I am fairly picky when it comes to movies, and maybe they were trying to achieve this effect, but all these things bothered me far too much and distracted me from the story.
This is just my opinion though, some friends enjoyed the movie that were with me in the theater.

[Locke Peterseim]

I liked Public Enemies quite a bit.

I certainly agree that the last act, the last third did drag when it didn't need to, but overall I was really drawn in and enjoying the usual Mann balance between blazing shoot outs and introspective mood.

And it was nice to see huge, loud, intense gun battles that MEANT something, to the story, to the characters.

Oddly, I didn't mind or really notice the soundtrack music everyone is complaining about--in fact I did notice at first that it was the same cool, dreamy style (and composer) as Heat, and loved that.

I was also really admiring the digital camera work up until the very end, at the Biograph. I LOVED Mann's use of digital in Miami Vice and Collateral--the way it gives the night that nice, grainy feel. Wasn't sure it worked ALL the time for '30s-era Public Enemy, but those Indiana prison skies looked amazing. Thing about digital is it gives the director and DP so much more freedom and flexibility and lets actors work more naturally. But I did wonder about the death scene outside the Biograph, why suddenly the digital image got so "videoy" and burned in.

Of course, I also have The Assassination of Jesse James as my favorite film of '07, so I LIKE moody and introspective...

[TWheeler]

For me the best part of the movie was seeing Johnny Depp in a serious dramatic role. I could watch him all day.

Otherwise, I found the movie disappointing. I learned little about John Dillinger (he was a megalomaniacal murderer after all) or Melvin Purvis (who evidently had depth that the movie did not pursue). I found the love story hard to imagine. At points in the movie, I found myself being reminded of much more successful films: For a better gangster movie, see Bonnie and Clyde (I cared when they were gunned down!). For a better 1930s flick, Oh, Brother ... is head and shoulders above. Dark Knight is much better at depicting chaos that the authorities cannot control.

But this movie boasted Johnny Depp, so it was not a total waste. If you are not a Johnny Depp fan, just watch the trailer.

[Mila]

Sadly this film lacked in character development. Thus making it near impossible to care about the characters. My friend turned to me and asked "why did they tell us about Purvis at the end? How is that connected to the film?" Another friend said her husband is so in love with Mann that he excused the fact that there was no character development. Why? Do we now claim that films that graze inaccurately over a period of time are quality, just because we like the director?
I went expecting a good film, a good drama. But either decide to make a mostly factually correct film or don't tell me it's based on someone's actual life. Glaring problems like the huge FDIC sign during a bank robbery or Dillinger being in another jail while his friends were being broken out of jail (but in the film he's the escape ringleader!)...not cool.
Tragically, Mann took several interesting characters and lost them in this slow film. It doesn't click, even if you claim that the film is more about the era...hello? You must be kidding. The 30's were a fascinating era, this film was not.

[Vanna]

Like some, I really did not notice the score, which is actually pretty unusual for me (I’m the type that looks up soundtracks after I watch a movie).

Overall, I thought the movie was acceptable. I had no strong desire to see the film, actually watching it stemmed from a deal I made with a friend. However, I was entertained and it spurred my curiosity. I think Depp portrayed a likable arrogance that in the end had me pulling for the bad guys, especially after the second prison escape. I could feel the desperation of Purvis, which also kept the film going for me. I didn't really need to know about his life outside of law enforcement. He was a man on a mission with little distraction.

It was my impression that general public liked Dillinger because he was “sticking it” to the rich folk who could actually afford to keep large sums of money in a bank. Although it could’ve just been me filling a gap so I could continue with the story.

I will agree that towards the end Dillinger became Depp to me when there seemed to be a distinct change in the character’s style (or at least the addition of the glasses).

Would I want to watch this movie again? Not anytime soon, but I wouldn’t completely disregard it as a decent film.

[Tracy]

In one word boring, I dosed off several times and felt like depp and bale were used to sucker us in to watch an incomplete film about bankrobberies. I really didn't notice the score ,that's because I was to busy wondering why I paid to see this in the first place,bale did a great job for the most part but depp had me wondering who really was dillinger. This movie could have been a summer blockbuster,but it never connects with the audience and instead makes you feel like they just wanted to cash in on big name actors.

[maria wray]

I have not seen the movie yet. The trailers make the movie look awesome. Reading all of this makes me want to go see it, matinee of course! So Im not spending ten bucks if it stinks. Erika and James nice work very specific liked reading both.

Either way Im looking forward to seeing it.
Thanks for the info!!!

[Locke Peterseim]

I agree with James that part of the problem is releasing this film IN the summer -- it's not a summer blockbuster and, as James has pointed out, the trailers and the use of the stars lures viewers in expecting a taut, action-filled gangster movie.

Mila asks "Do we now claim that films that graze inaccurately over a period of time are quality, just because we like the director?" Well, in a word, YEAH. ALL "historical" films are full of inaccuracies and Public Enemies is no exception. But yes, when I like and trust a director, I want to see HIS or HER vision--Mann made the film he was interested in making. Mann was going for a mood, and I for one bought into that atmosphere and enjoyed it for the most part.

No, it doesn't get much into why Dillinger was considered a heroic Robin Hood character (including to my own grandmother who always forgave Dillinger his crimes because he used the money to buy his mother a washing machine), and it doesn't spend much time painting a picture of Depression-Era America. But I was okay with that--just as I was okay with leaving both Dillinger and Purvis a bit of ciphers.

(One interesting historical inaccuracy in regards to Purvis -- he was kind of a wash-out. When the Texas Rangers were brought in to help out, it was NOT because Purvis demanded their aid, but because HOOVER had no faith in Purvis and basically usurped Purvis's authority by bringing in more seasoned lawmen to take over.)

(As for the FDIC sign, I did notice it and wondered about it--the FDIC had just been formed, so technically the sign was POSSIBLE and it was SO up front and noticeable that I doubt very much it was an accident or an oversight. But yes, it did seem glaringly modern.)

[Andrew Robarge]

Public enemies is worth renting for ONE (1) dollar, if you are bored and have nothing else to do. If you want to see how good this movie could have been rent "the untouchable" which I think accomplished a much more entertaining gangster picture.
Dont rush out and spend 25 bucks at the theatre like I did.

[Mila]

Hi Locke...
My father worked for the FDIC. It was signed into existence in June of '33, board of directors chosen 11 Sept. '33...it takes forever to get a brand new government agency up and running. The sign is inaccurate. The signs of the time looked very different. I'm not sure when the first signs were up, but I'm still betting it wasn't before Dillinger was killed in July of '34.
It looks like at most a Temporary Federal Deposit Insurance Sign could have been posted. But it looks DRASTICALLY different from the one they used in the film, which looked more like the ones we see today.
I recognise that the film I went to see was not a documentary, but some actual facts would have been appreciated. I actually find the time period and characters interesting. I'm sorta sorry Mann didn't or if he did, it sure doesn't show.

[Amy Jones]

Fully agree with Erika's comments. My two teenage boys & I went to see this last weekend and at different points in time BOTH boys were asleep in their chairs!

Snooze-fest! What a shame, because we we all looking forward to this one.

[Catherine]

Accurate, schmaccurate. It's JOHNNY DEPP!

I don't care if I ever see Bale in another movie. I can understand wanting to be good at your work, but for a guy who gets paid a gazillion bucks to play make-believe, he takes himself WAY too seriously. Sheesh. (Reference his obscenity-filled rant on youtube.)

[Brooke]

I liked the film. My sister, mom and I followed the filming all around Wisconsin and Chicago. So I can appreciate all the scenery in the movie and it was interesting to see a place in the movie and know you had been there. So only getting to see the movie once I feel as if I was just looking for all the places we had been. So i think I am going to see it again so I can appreciate it as a movie.

[Luz]

I think that the movie was greate I watched it 4times already!! Johnny looks hot like always and I'm falling head over hills for the movie and guess what I'm going to watch it again!

[Yamilette]

I totally agreed that base on true story this movie was very well made...Not only has two of the best actors Johnny Depp and Christian Bale but was real on what really happend to the real character.

[sam]

This movie was boring and there is no reason it should have been. It was action packed which I think was the problem. It went from prison break to bank robbery to prison break and bank robbery without even giving you a chance to get to know the characters. I didn't even learn the names of some of the characters like stephen dorff who was in most of the film. It's hard to care about a character when you don't even know his name.

[john T. Walker]

This movie was terrible. The characters had no personalities except Baby face! Otherwise a waist of time and money. Cinematography was horrible. Its time to change ur style Mr. Mann. Give Me My Money Back! Peace!

Old School PE was ten times better with Eric Roberts.

[LLJ]

I actually saw this movie twice. Once to notice where things were filmed and the 2nd time just for the pleasure of watching the movie. I live in Wisconsin and went up to Manitowish to catch a glims of filming.
The fist time I picked out so many things that just didn't seem right with the films timeline. The lamp shade while Dillinger was resting in the cabin or room at Little Bohemia...it was todays shade with pine branch and pine cone rustic look...don't think they had that back then? Also when the film started, the prison; Were there octaginal look outs with metal roofs back then in prissons? Also wondered about the FDIC sign in the bank...I agree with all of you and yes, if it was developed back then,they could have found an authentic sign to put up from that timeline.
I think the film could have put some information in there about Capone...he was also involved in alot back then with or around that time of Dillinger. Also, the film made it seem as though he spent only one time up in Manitowish Waters- Little Bohemia...in fact the area was a big "hide out" for him.
I just think there was way too much shooting in the film. The banks that he robbed, there wasn't a ton of shooting in real life at them at all..plus when he left the banks, he'd throw some money to the public and that is why the public liked him. This was not shown.
It's just amazing how he was a very "wanted" person by the police and yet he was right out in the public eye for all to see. Even infront of the cops in in their office and yet, they didn't recognize him? How stupid were they? The mug shots of him were all over!
Anyway, everyone has a story of Capone and Dillinger and they are all different. Unless you know someone who lived in Chicago and Wisconsin or you live in these areas yourself, you will not understand the story so much. There is plenty of history about it all and if you know some of it you will understand the film.
I liked it the 2nd time around and no I'm not a big Johnny Depp fan at all...I was just intersted in the story line itself. I think there was alot more that could have been included to pack it with more interest to keep the flow going instead of jumping around so much from IL to WI but that's how it was back then...he never stayed in one spot for long.
I left the theater the second time feeling the movie was good.

[Lee Magnus]

I think Dillinger was a enigmatic character despite his profession. I think he had enormous tenacity and his love for Billie was as touching as any love scene I,ve seen Depp play. I just think he truly thought he was immortal by some of his illogical actions towards the end i.e. his visit to the Dillinger headquarters and the movie theatre scene. I think Depp is an incredible actor and made the challenge of playing a complex character very real. Christian Bale was of course excellent but he is not Johnny Depp.

[Fred]

There's nothing like enjoying a "flat and matter-of-fact" movie with great actors who turn in flat and matter-of-fact performances. This movie was bad and I looked down at my watch probably three times during the movie wondering how much longer I had to sit through that nonsense. The dialogue was generic, Depp made Dillenger seem like a wuss and at no time did I think that Dillenger was as bad as he was in real life, when actually, the movie makes him look like a big teddy bear who robs banks. Bale's performance was very mediocre and as Ericka alluded to, the score made me feel like I was watching a chic-flick at times with all the melodrama. Mann did wonders with Heat, but I wonder how much of that had to do with Pacino and De Niro, because this movie was long, boring and poorly written.

[Merry]

Wow, I am not a movie critic but I know what I like. I thought the costumes and cars were great. Where do they get those old cars that they used? Also the score, I thought it was all very appropriate to the times and loved Billie Holiday and the use of her songs. I guess it does not take much to entertain me. I liked all of it.

[Mariann Montgomery]

I'm with Ericka......I think I would like to have been somewhat "acquainted" with some of Dillinger's "gang" before they got shot. I could only recognize the main characters. Not necessarily boring, but I've definitely see better "shoot 'em up" movies and when I think about other Michael Mann movies, this just doesn't measure up.

[SHARMON]

I HAVE NOT SEEN PUBLIC ENEMIES YET, BUT WHAT I HAVE SEEN IS (THE PREVIEW). I THINK IT WILL BE A GOOD MOVIE WHEN I SEE A PREVIEW OF ANY KIND OF MOVIE I USUALLY CAN TELL BY THE THE PREVIEWS THAT THE MOVIE WILL BE GOOD OR NOT. SO I THINK THAT PUBLIC ENEMIES WILL BE A GOOD MOVIE AS FAR AS ACTION AND OTHER SCENES. I ALSO THINK THAT IS ALSO TRUE ABOUT STATEMENTS PEOPLLE MAKE ABOUT MOVIES, ETC., THAT SOMEONE HATES...,THEY WILL ALWAYS WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE COMMENT ABOUT IT. I THINK I WILL ENJOY THE MOVIE.(PUBLIC ENEMIES)

[Roger]

Why wasn't Purvis portrayed as the incompetent agent he really was? Dillinger never thought about Billie again once she was arrested. He was completely smitten with Polly Hamilton. The real facts would have made the movie better and more interesting. I guess the screen writer wanted a sappy version of Dillinger.

[VERONICA]

TOO MANY HATERS HERE...WE REALLY ENJOYED THE MOVIE !!!ENOUGH TO COME HOME AND LOOK JOHN DILLINGER UP ON THE INTERNET ......... IT WAS A GOOD MOVIE !

GOOD WORK JOHNNY DEPP !

[matt]

i love the movie. and that's all i need to say.