Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Cde.
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#126 Post by Cde. » Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:48 pm

Foam wrote:I am not an anti-digital crusader in all cases; I think some films like Inland Empire and Collateral are better because of it, but it distracted me in this one. It's not so bad in scenes when there's a lot of movie-like artificial lighting, and when a lot of 1930s artifacts are on screen, but when the lighting looks more natural (especially in daytime scenes) I couldn't help thinking: "this looks like it happened yesterday" or "this looks more like something from a making-of DVD extra than it looks like a film". It's not an altogether logical reaction but it's one I kept having.
Without having seen the film yet, I think that's the point. We're used to looking at the 1930s through the filter of film, and here Mann instead seems to be breaking down our standard perception of the time to show us an old subject through a new perspective.

I think he wants a period to feel alive, like it really happened and one could have experienced it, rather than being a fantastical setting, frozen in the golden amber of film.

User avatar
Foam
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:47 am

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#127 Post by Foam » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:58 pm

Maybe he should have given us a new perspective by not having Depp do a standard cool/calculating gangster with zingers going all over the place instead. For me the golden amber of film is familiar and invisible, while the digital was a distraction. I became more aware of it as a film. By thinking that what I saw occurring onscreen "happened yesterday" it does not make me feel closer to the action or the characters (who don't seem to me to behave like real people anyway) because through it I do not see these events that took place in the 1930s happening yesterday with stunning immediacy but see them acted out and filmed yesterday for a movie. I stop seeing John Dillinger doing stuff and start seeing Johnny Depp doing stuff in a room with a dude who has a digital camera. All of this is subjective of course. My dad didn't notice it at all.

James
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:11 pm

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#128 Post by James » Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:37 am

Cde. wrote:We're used to looking at the 1930s through the filter of film, and here Mann instead seems to be breaking down our standard perception of the time to show us an old subject through a new perspective.

I think he wants a period to feel alive, like it really happened and one could have experienced it, rather than being a fantastical setting, frozen in the golden amber of film.
Yeah, I haven't seen the movie yet either, but I couldn't have said it better myself. Mann's digital experiments — between this, Collateral and Miami Vice — seem like they're going to leave their mark on modern Hollywood filmmaking (or should I say, digitalmaking? But really moviemaking in general), whether people like it or not.

Cde.
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#129 Post by Cde. » Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:41 am

I just read the review from Matt Zoller Seitz, and as expected, he put it a lot better than I ever could:
Matt Zoller Seitz wrote:He’s virtually unique among A-list auteurs shooting in high-def in that not only does he not try to make it look like film, he goes out of his way to call attention to the fact that it’s video. Why? A theory: besides indicating a true artist's respect for the properties of the medium he’s chosen (painters don’t break their backs trying to make watercolor resemble oil paint), Mann is looking to amp up immediacy and shatter the usual subliminal reassurances that we’re watching a movie and it’s not “really” happening. Film is about things that happen to other people, usually people who are a lot richer and prettier than we are. Video is about what happens to us, at a birthday party or memorial service, in line at the bank, on the sidelines at a news event. The video-ness of the video in “Public Enemies” is discombobulating in a good way; when we look at all these handsome men and women in their period clothes, driving their period cars and speaking their period slang, we’re not seeing something that happened long ago, something safely removed from our own experience. It’s happening right now, live, right in front of us.

User avatar
Foam
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:47 am

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#130 Post by Foam » Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:05 am

I hope I'm not just repeating myself but I'm not sure if I've made clear why I hold my position and am still unconvinced despite reading that bit. I understand the reasons for the approach, or at least what this guy assumes are Mann's reasons, but that doesn't mean the approach has its intended effect. I agree that there is a disruption, but I don't at all think it's a disruption of the sort Seitz describes. Since video makes the actions look like they occurred recently and what is being filmed is dressed up in the style of the 30s, the video just creates a dissonance, drawing attention to the fact that these are only actors in costumes. You feel like you are watching an extremely well shot and edited video of an extremely well-done reenactment that occurred a few days ago rather than you feel like someone was there back in the 30s catching all the real stuff. I don't buy that film distances us from an old era--we're so accustomed to it that it's invisible where video is garish. The theory backfires and it would have felt much more "live and right in front of me" had I not wound up thinking about the fact that it's shot on digital at all. This is why, for me, digital isn't suited to a 30s film like this one, but it was okay in Collateral, Miami Vice, and Inland Empire--instances where it absolutely did lend immediacy. Perhaps in the years to come more and more A-list directors will use digital and it will become invisible like film has, but for now I reject this use.

Cde.
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#131 Post by Cde. » Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:45 am

I hear what you are saying and you raise an interesting point. It will indeed by interesting revisiting this work in the decades to come. If the video medium becomes invisible to viewers, will Mann's decision to shoot in that format continue to have any bearing on the picture outside of aesthetic concerns?
Last edited by Cde. on Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

karmajuice
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:02 am

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#132 Post by karmajuice » Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:08 pm

I saw this last night and liked it. I don't think I liked it a whole lot, but I liked it. Some of the sequences were just astounding -- I like how we feel the weight of death every time one of Dillinger's gang dies. They don't glaze over it, Mann lingers on those moments. It's also interesting that people have talked about Depp's performance and how it compares to other gangster performances (whether it's genuine or borrowed from gangster films) because the movie seems very much concerned with the gangster as celebrity. This is most obvious in the cinema at the end, where Manhattan Melodrama is playing, but other moments point to it as well: Dillinger self-consciously considering his publicity and public image ('the public doesn't like kidnapping'), people lining up along the road to watch him ride past, the flashbulbs and crowds whenever he's arrested and put on trial. New mass media like film, radio, and wider newspaper circulation nurtured the folk hero gangsters the same way it nurtured (and continues to nurture) celebrities. Mann is equating the gangster not only with celebrity, but with movie stardom. The two seem interchangeable. I read Depp's performance as very self-conscious, but in a good way: not Depp being self-conscious, but Depp as Dillinger being self-conscious. He's very concerned with his image and the movie mimics that concern. It straddles a fine line between historically accurate drama and an investigation of gangsters and gangster movies (I'm thinking of the over-dramatic shooting at the end with its indulgent slow motion and extreme close-ups; not sure how I feel about that scene but it alludes to other similarly romantic gangster movie endings).

As for the digital versus film argument, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I pivoted between the sentiment Foam expresses and the idea the others have mentioned -- at times it feels artificial (in such a way that I become aware of its artificiality) and at times it feels more immediate, realistic. And then at times I couldn't even tell it was digital. Some of the cinematography in this film was gorgeous, the camerawork was often engaging and occasionally inspired. The orange glow of the scenes with the flares, the gang members hanging onto the car as it drives away, the tour de force shoot-out in the forest (and the fantastic shot of Depp in the extreme foreground adjusting his gun while the agent approaches from the background). So the use of digital video seldom bothered me.
On the other hand, I think digital video will rapidly become a relic (as it exists now, in the sense that the technology will rapidly improve), so while Mann's technique of using digital as an attempt to obtain immediacy (in the sense that it recalls home video, etc) is effective now, I don't think it will be for long. Ten years from now, we won't be accustomed to digital video so much as digital video will gradually progress to the quality of film. Leaving films like this to look a bit antiquated, in the sense that silent era films or home movies from the 50s look antiquated, though obviously not to that extent.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#133 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:14 pm

Saw it this afternoon. I'm not good at giving a thorough review right after seeing something, but there were a few things that stuck out. My favorite shot in the whole film is the one where Dillinger is in the theater and the light above him turns on. Another one that stuck out was the dissolve from the Junior G-Men conference to the newsreel it's being shown in. Elliot Goldenthal's score was a nice change from the techno and Audioslave that was all over Miami Vice. Stephen Lang is stoic as a motherfucker. That's it for now, but I'm sure there'll be more.

rs98762001
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:04 pm

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#134 Post by rs98762001 » Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:59 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Elliot Goldenthal's score was a nice change from the techno and Audioslave that was all over Miami Vice. Stephen Lang is stoic as a motherfucker. That's it for now, but I'm sure there'll be more.
I thought the score was way too heavyhanded and portentous. Aside from that one bluegrass-y theme, it could have come straight out of The Thin Red Line.

Agree with you about Lang. Fantastic.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#135 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:40 pm

Foam wrote:Maybe he should have given us a new perspective by not having Depp do a standard cool/calculating gangster with zingers going all over the place instead.
So, basically, you object to Dillinger being played like the actual Dillinger?

I don't understand why so many people here want to idly nit-pick the movie to death, as tho' from an a priori decision to find any and every reason to undercut it.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#136 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:03 pm

Amen, sausage. That's like the comment someone in the Heat thread made about Pacino's performance being too over-the-top in certain places (the scenes with Ricky Harris and Hank Azaria pop to mind). After reading into the choices Michael made and the research he had done into the construction of that character, it makes perfect sense for Al to go full-blast in those scenes not to mention realistic. The minute any L.A. cop acts like Woody Allen around a bunch of gang-bangers, he'll come home feet first.

User avatar
Foam
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:47 am

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#137 Post by Foam » Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:21 am

Mr_sausage wrote:
Foam wrote:Maybe he should have given us a new perspective by not having Depp do a standard cool/calculating gangster with zingers going all over the place instead.
So, basically, you object to Dillinger being played like the actual Dillinger?
You are probably right and I am probably wrong. I don't know much about Dillinger. I think Depp did a really great job for the type of thing he was going for. Probably one of the best standard slick-cool seemingly-untouchable gangsters I've seen. But I still felt like I had seen that type one too many times before. If Dillinger indeed did act like a typical sort of silky movie gangster (I think some suggested that he sort of tried to base his personality on William Powell?) then it probably isn't a valid criticism.
Mr_sausage wrote:I don't understand why so many people here want to idly nit-pick the movie to death, as tho' from an a priori decision to find any and every reason to undercut it.
This would be like me saying you decided to single out my post because you don't like me personally rather than because there's actually something wrong with it. Unlike (I assume) a lot of people here I cannot prolifically see movies in theaters. I would not have spent 10 dollars to see a movie on the day of its release in an annoyingly-jam-packed theater just so I could come on here and complain about it. I anticipated this movie and wanted to enjoy myself. My enjoyment was kinda sorta disrupted. Thus complaining.

Still, point taken I have so far only detailed what I don't like about the movie without explaining what I do. I really loved all the action sequences. As someone said, it was here when the digital ceased to be a problem. I've always thought that Mann's action sequences are coherent, composed and followable without sacrificing their intensity--this opposed to many of the action sequences in another Depp, the third Pirates movie. And though I was sort of bored with the way he spoke (aside from 5 great lines), Depp certainly moves gracefully through this picture and does a good job at the
SpoilerShow
moment they nab Billie right in front of his's face. His reaction is a good one.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#138 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:50 am

Kermode Uncut Review: Public Enemies

He makes a good point about Michael treading water, but I don't feel that he did to the extent of which Mark is accusing him. I did feel at certain points like I've seen certain things before, but I've come to accept that from him or any other director who I admire. Plus, it's those trademarks (the extreme POV-shots, the use of digital cameras, etc, etc) that make any film of his more interesting. I don't think I ever felt during the entire movie that Purvis and Dillinger are two sides of the same coin. They both act with professionalism, but Melvin comes out ahead in that regard because he's not at all bogged down by personal issues like John is when it comes to Billie.

hot_locket
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:39 am

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#139 Post by hot_locket » Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:08 pm

I haven't yet had a chance to read a lot of the discussion going on about the video look of the film, but while I personally found it at it's most noticeable (natural lighting, nauseating handheld footage and sloppy editing etc.) to be distracting and aesthetically unappealing (to put it lightly), I admire the bold move on Mann's part to experiment on a major production like this. Also, the positive effect this could have on opening up people's minds to films with lesser budgets that don't really have much choice in looking that way is something to think of (as long as said films attempt some artistry specific to the format, that is, which I'm not convinced Public Enemies did).

I guess I'm not very familiar with past such experiments by major directors-- it the first of it's kind? How does something like Inland Empire (which I've yet to see), for instance, compare? I do suppose there's something to be said for the cultural and technological (if the two aren't one and same yet) relevance and value the video aesthetic bears to cinema; on the other hand, I certainly DO NOT want to see this winding up as the next Hollywood trend...ugh.

P.S. Is the movie really supposed to sound like that, too? I'm honestly wondering whether the screen I saw it on didn't have a blown speaker speaker or something...
Last edited by hot_locket on Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#140 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:45 pm

The sound was fine as far as I could tell watching it the other day.

By the way, did anyone else read what Harvey Weinstein said about the movie?
Last edited by flyonthewall2983 on Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Elegant Dandy Fop
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:25 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#141 Post by The Elegant Dandy Fop » Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:55 pm

hot_locket wrote:Is the movie really supposed to sound like that, too?
I had the same issue at the theater I went to. I'm not sure if it's because the one I went to didn't display it digitally, but the sound was the type of quality you get when you record with lower end cameras.

It's strange, because I've seen Miami Vice and Zodiac, both shot with digital, and didn't get this problem. Did Micheal Mann not use the Viper camera this time?

User avatar
Fiery Angel
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#142 Post by Fiery Angel » Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:09 pm

That settles it: Harvey and Manohla love it (and Armond hates it), so it must be a masterpiece!

Cde.
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#143 Post by Cde. » Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:41 pm

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:
hot_locket wrote:P.S. Is the movie really supposed to sound like that, too?
I had the same issue at the theater I went to. I'm not sure if it's because the one I went to didn't display it digitally, but the sound was the type of quality you get when you record with lower end cameras.

It's strange, because I've seen Miami Vice and Zodiac, both shot with digital, and didn't get this problem. Did Micheal Mann not use the Viper camera this time?
Mann used any different cameras on this film, with the lowest grade ones being high level prosumer/low level professional quality. This should have no impact on sound, though, since it's recorded separately. Or at least, I hope to the heavens that Michael Mann is not using a prosumer camera's on-board microphone.

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#144 Post by Jeff » Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:12 am

For me, Public Enemies was one of those films that approaches greatness, but somehow amounts to slightly less than the sum of its parts. Depp and Bale are suitably stoic as Mann's antagonists. I don't feel like he portrays them as two sides of the same coin the way he portrayed DeNiro and Pacino in Heat. There is no mutual admiration here. In fact, none of the themes that pervade Mann's other work are present here. He seems emotionally detached from the work. What we have instead is a sequence of great setpieces involving robbery, capture, escape. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Despite the complaints, I think the cinematography works rather well. Mann doesn't rely on grain or sepia to evoke the period, instead striving for heightened realism.

Marion Cotillard acquits herself well in her first English-language performance, though she and Depp exhibit little chemistry. She has a powerful encounter with a cowardly federal agent near the film's denouement. Billy Crudup is predictably hammy as J. Edgar Hoover, whom he portrays with affected, clipped speech and an implacable accent.

The film naturally offers little in the way of narrative surprise. We know what is coming, but there is still the fleeting pleasure of seeing familiar events played out with aplomb. I loved the way a final setpiece brilliantly used clips from Manhattan Melodrama.

Though it's difficult to connect emotionally with any of the characters, the film ultimately feels elegiac. The fact that Mann seems unsure if it is an elegy for heroes, anti-heroes, or a bygone era is the only thing that keeps it from making a lasting connection with its audience and taking its place among Mann's best work.

User avatar
jbeall
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:22 am
Location: Atlanta-ish

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#145 Post by jbeall » Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:29 am

But if you're after heightened realism, why have a non-diegetic score at all? Mann avoids music during the cabin shootout, for example, and the raw immediacy is there. But because the volume was so variable (and again, I don't know if this was a function of the cameras used or the theater's sound system), the score's consistently strong volume inevitably detracts from a realist aesthetic.

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#146 Post by Jeff » Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:53 am

Agreed that the audio mix was pretty terrible. There were several lines of dialog that I couldn't make out at all, and I don't think it was the theater.

Robert de la Cheyniest
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:06 pm

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#147 Post by Robert de la Cheyniest » Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:48 am

Wow, I'm glad other people are pointing out problems with the audio mix. I honestly thought my theater had a blown speaker as well, the score/sound effects sounded fine but at some points the dialogue was nearly inaudible.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#148 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:56 am

I didn't notice any problems with the mix when I saw it. Even the scenes where much of the dialogue is whispered (like in the movie theater) came through fine.

User avatar
foggy eyes
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:58 am
Location: UK

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#149 Post by foggy eyes » Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:05 am

A few lines of dialogue are definitely very difficult to catch, but the muffling isn't too bad - more like The Wire than Miami Vice, perhaps...

I'm beginning to wish that the discussion of digital would begin to move away from the question of "realism" here - yes, the aesthetic is surely intended to be immediate and direct, but it's almost being described as some kind of time machine. If anything, we're looking at "hyperrealism", and I think Mann is much more concerned with the mobility, texture, sensation, tactility (etc.) of digital rather than anything else... The way he's using it to, say, render light is at times more expressionistic than the techniques I would usually associate with a "realist" aesthetic...
Last edited by foggy eyes on Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Public Enemies (Michael Mann, 2009)

#150 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:00 am

I did notice that I couldn't make out a few lines of dialog during the scene in the car at the beginning after the jailbreak.

Post Reply