Log in

View Full Version : Public Enemies (2009)



Jay Rothermel
14th July 2009, 02:27
A traitor to his class: John Dillinger and Public Enemies (2009)

A review by Jay Rothermel


Michael Mann’s new movie Public Enemies unspools itself at a stately two hours and ten minutes. Meticulous direction and aesthetic skill are expended to recreate a moment in U.S. history that was transformed into folklore by mass media and cinema as soon as it happened.

On March 5, 1933 Franklin Roosevelt instituted a Bank Holiday to prop up trust in a faltering capitalism. On May 10, 1933 John Dillinger (1903-1934) and a few fellow knaves began their own bank holiday. By coincidence, Mann’s recreation of that time is presented to viewers during the start of a new and unprecedented global depression. Truly, there are no new stories, only new depressions to tell them in.

Like his 1995 masterpiece Heat, Public Enemies gives Mann the chance to portray the “high and low” in the United States. Of course for liberal Michael Mann the “high” is always the professional middle class. In Public Enemies this social layer is epitomized by cops. The film is based on Bryan Burroughs’s 2004 book Public Enemies: America’s Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI 1933-1934. The cops we see at work are agents of what would soon become the FBI. Mighty public relations work and the turning of a few stool pigeons around the Dillinger case were the making of J. Edgar Hoover and his national police outfit. The FBI is paraded before us as a department of non-political professionals, scientists of crime we may term a cognitive elite - giving a nod to that hymnal of the petty bourgeoisie, The Bell Curve (1994).

As any activist in the labor or civil rights or anti-war movement can attest, there are fewer institutions of bourgeois rule in the U.S. more political and less scientific than the FBI.

*****

Public Enemies organizes a few scenes around the conflicts between individuals in Hoover’s organization. Billy Crudup plays Hoover as a supremely dismissive and epicene Mussolini-in-becoming. He acquires his sinecure by commanding newsreel cameras and such founts of propaganda sewage as Walter Winchell.

Mann has a genuine interest in cop institutions of capitalist rule, though I doubt he would define it this way. He career is founded on depictions of such institutions. TV shows like Miami Vice and Crime Story presented cops as teams of cool professionals succeeding by wits and teamwork. In Public Enemies the “Dillinger Squad” is similar to the Major Case Unit in Heat and the 1989 TV movie LA Takedown. (Mann does not limit his interest in institutions to those of the cops; he also made 1999’s The Insider, which gives us an inside look at both Big Tobacco and CBS News.)

But while Mann is fascinated by professionals, he typically organizes the dramatic axis of his crime films by alternating scenes of travails of the head cop and head crook as they each try to outwit the other. In Heat the cop was played by Al Pacino as a narcissist so obsessed with victory he rarely slept; the crook, Robert De Niro, as such a supremo of his craft he could only defeat himself. The final image of that film, with the victorious cop and dying crook holding hands to comfort one-another, perfectly sums-up a century of Hollywood crime dramas: always focus on the individuals.

*****

To its producers Public Enemies must have looked like the perfect money-spinner. It would depict a great cops-and-robbers struggle; there was sex appeal and a love story (of a kind), and it explored one of the great tragic themes: a hero (in this case Dillinger) undone by his own flaws. To those who say moviegoers will not pay to see a story already filmed as drama and documentary so many times, the producers could retort that another well-known subject, the Titanic sinking, generated a veritable Fort Knox for its makers.

Public Enemies suffers (as Titanic and Heat do not) from centering its attention on real historical characters. Even when Mann changes facts and alters the chronology, he cannot overcome the stultifying fact that however dramatically he builds his scenes, viewers will always be ten steps ahead, waiting for him to catch up. The shoot-out at Little Bohemia Lodge might have surpassed the LA street shoot-out in Heat, but it cannot because viewers know Dillinger has a rendezvous with death on July 22, 1934.

As Dillinger, Johnny Depp does well portraying the youth of a man dead at 31. Depp’s Dillinger is a tragic loner, a wounded hero sensitive to his fate, a rebel without a cause alive to the belated nature of his last days. He appreciates his moment of media glory, but seems to sense it has nothing finally to do with him.

The real Dillinger, like all past and future Dillingers in the real world, was a lumpen parasite lobotomized by the cash nexus. However charming the old folk songs about Jesse James and Pretty Boy Floyd sung by Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger, these crooks were cretinous individualists and reactionary to the core. They were slapped-down and executed in the streets by cops serving the institutional bandits of Wall Street as an example to others. Crime and theft are expressions of class division and conflict, but only in the most reactionary manner; Dillinger, Karpis, and their ilk aped the most diehard and vile habits of the acquisitive bourgeoisie.

Christian Bale’s Melvin Purvis is the ostensible second lead in Public Enemies. This is because the Purvis-Hoover conflict has been the subject of so much scholarship which attempts to portray Purvis as a true alternative to Hoover’s organizational blueprint and personal rule. While liberals may pine, “If only Purvis had defeated Hoover,” there were no ideological or organizational differences between the men, only a conflict over pelf and place.

As an actor, Christian Bale has no equal in the “stony glare” department. Michael Mann lavishes him with numerous contractually required close-ups. But who can remember anything Purvis says? Purvis is shown to be a tyro surrounded by pencil pushers who must request help and guidance from older hands. Said hands arrive seemingly out of the past, through waves of steam from a passenger train, and look like reincarnations of the Earp brothers.

The movie attempts to present Purvis as the agent who defeated Dillinger, but shows us by simple allegiance to historical fact that that role was played by an agent named Charles Winstead. Throughout the second half of the film, it is Winstead who outwits, out-fights, and finally executes Dillinger. Mann telegraphs his own respect for Winstead as against Purvis by casting the fine character actor Stephen Lang in the role. (Lang is an actor Mann has employed before, most memorably as obnoxious and ill-fated Freddy Lounds in the 1986 movie Manhunter.) Winstead is portrayed as embodying all the wit and professionalism of western lawmen, much as Tommy Lee Jones was used in The Fugutive (1993) and No Country for Old Men (2007). Lang’s Winstead is given the final scene, a gem after two ours of predictability. Dramatic logic would demand the Purvis character be given the final scene, as a proper emotional resolution; but since Mann must depict actual events, Purvis is erased before the movie ends.

Charles Winstead is unknown and unportrayed in previous Dillinger films. Mann has missed a real chance for some fireworks by hewing to the Purvis-Hoover and Purvis-Dillinger line. (Winstead quit the FBI during the Second World War after making some anti-USSR comments, and went on to become chief of security at Los Alamos. Well, body’s perfect; at least he got Dillinger.)

*****

The Dillinger Public Enemies presents is certainly the most handsome movie-star Dillinger we have had. Does every generation get the Dillinger it deserves? In the 1930s, we were given the “mad dog” Bogart-style version. In the 1970s, it was the electrifying and now-forgotten Warren Oates in a pseudo-John Ford style directed by John Milius. Today we get Johnny Depp, a handsome and self-knowing Dillinger who dies pursuing the “get rich quick” dreams that still bubble-up to bewitch the desperate and outcast in class society. (And not just the desperate and outcast.)

The true remedy for crime is solidarity and class consciousness. That is not the subject of summer movies. Or any movies. For the billionaire families that own and run the United States, class consciousness and solidarity will always be Public Enemy Number One.

____________________________________________

x359594
14th July 2009, 03:13
...In the 1970s, it was the electrifying and now-forgotten Warren Oates in a pseudo-John Ford style directed by John Milius...

Warren Oates is far from forgotten by us cinephiles. Among his fans are poets Scott Wannberg and S. A. Griffin.

By the way, a very good review.

Bilan
14th July 2009, 03:46
I don't really like the review, to be totally honest. It seems more like a rant. Evidently, film has ideological currents running within it - but I don't think this really touches on it as well as it could have; infact, I think it's done rather poorly, especially with the last sentence. I almost cringed reading it.

The desire for a film in which the characters realise "The true remedy for crime is solidarity and class consciousness. That is not the subject of summer movies. Or any movies. For the billionaire families that own and run the United States, class consciousness and solidarity will always be Public Enemy Number One." is just horrendous. It depicts, to me, the lack of creativity intrinsic with these ridiculous pseudo-proletarian critiques.

Its representation of the FBI (by the sounds of it - it's not out in Australia for another 2 weeks) may well be ridiculous, and quite the opposite of how it operates in reality, but I think that's hardly here nor there. Like most films of this kind, they touch upon famous characters and stories, and reinvent them to make them more entertaining, or to fit into some typically constructed Hollywood styled plot.

Much like the Transformers critique, I find this just silly.

Bilan
14th July 2009, 03:58
This is quite a good review of it:

A brief fourteen-month period in 1933-34 witnessed the rise and fall of a group of legendary bank robbers and gangsters in the US—Bonnie and Clyde, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelley, Alvin Karpis and the Ma Barker gang, and John Dillinger.
Based on material in Bryan Burrough’s Public Enemies: America’s Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI, 1933-34, Michael Mann’s new film Public Enemies chronicles John Dillinger’s spectacular and shortlived crime spree.
Mann’s movie begins with Dillinger (Johnny Depp) organizing the break-out of his crew from the Indiana State Prison in September 1933. The surgically performed operation serves notice as to how the director intends to portray Dillinger: an elegant, criminal mastermind whose escapades are almost as ballet-like as they are efficient and effective ... an outlaw respected by his accomplices and cheered on by the public for being fair-minded to the little people and a thorn in the side of the banks and the establishment.
Depp as Dillinger is seductive, whether he’s dodging FBI gunfire, ministering to his bullet-ridden accomplices, or winning the heart of the woman of his dreams. He is a man who seems to defy physical limitations, leaping over bank counters and breaching police lines with blazing guns.
At first, Dillinger runs circles around the authorities, but J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) and the fledgling FBI respond to the threat. (In his book, Burrough writes: “Before Hoover, American law enforcement was a decentralized polyglot of county sheriffs and urban police departments too often crippled by corruption ... Hoover’s power did not evolve slowly. It erupted during the Great Crime Wave of 1933-34.”) Mann makes clear that Hoover, who disdains democratic norms and rules by fiat, is centralizing law enforcement, building an army of fedora-sporting, trench coat-wearing young white males with law degrees.
To capture the elusive Dillinger, Hoover appoints Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) as the head of the squad. Purvis is smart and single-minded, qualities needed to outwit a wily and popular offender. Dillinger’s concern for the common man is on display during one robbery, when a bank customer forgets his cash on the counter. “You go ahead and take your money. We don’t want your money. Just the bank’s,” says Dillinger kindly, in the middle of a war zone.
In Mann’s film, the bank robber and his gang mates—who include John “Red” Hamilton (Jason Clarke), Homer Van Meter (Stephen Dorff) and Charles Makley (Christian Stolte)—are out to get rich by stealing from the rich. Dillinger makes a social statement when he dines with hatcheck girl Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) at an upscale restaurant. The bank robber stares down the wealthy patrons who disapprove of Billie’s three-dollar dress.
Dillinger and Billie—she is not only poor, but also part American Indian, which brands her as an outcast—form an intense bond. But soon the cocky Dillinger is again behind bars, requiring another daring and ingenious escape from Lake County Jail in Crown Point, Indiana, in March 1934.
In a further embarrassment for Purvis, Dillinger survives an FBI ambush while hiding out with Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham) at the Little Bohemia travel lodge in northern Wisconsin in April 1934. But times are changing and so is Dillinger’s luck. One of the most intelligent of the Crime Wave hoodlums is Alvin Karpis (Giovanni Ribisi), who warns Dillinger that organized crime, engaged in lucrative bookmaking operations and other activities, is losing patience with the more primitive and conspicuous robbery gangs.
Billie is subsequently captured and arrested—and beaten. A trap is set by the FBI with the help of Anna Sage (the infamous “Lady in Red”), a brothel madam and eastern European immigrant, in trouble with the federal immigration department. A postscript reveals that Melvin Purvis resigned from the FBI in 1935 and committed suicide in 1960.
Public Enemies covers an intriguing moment in American history, and one with all sorts of implications, some of which Michael Mann seems alive to, but the artistic treatment is essentially quite weak. The filmmakers squander far too many opportunities for shedding light on people and social life, and instead pursue less interesting, more conventional paths.
The great love story tossed into the middle of the film and served up Harlequin Romance-style, between Dillinger and Frechette, is something of a travesty. Depp and Cotillard strive valiantly to remain in high gear throughout, but the silliness of the relationship defeats them. Absurdly, although Dillinger more or less bullies Frechette into the relationship, it turns out to be something of an exemplary one, with the gangster all charm and sensitivity—in the midst of a nationwide search for America’s number one “public enemy.” It doesn’t ring true at all.
A good deal of the film’s dialogue is virtually inaudible, and too much of the rest is both pedestrian and overblown. Extended scenes of robberies and gunfire, or police activities, are intercut with brief chunks of conversation, between Dillinger and Billie, or Dillinger and the gang members. These short sequences are obliged to carry far too much weight, and they fail badly.
So we get Dillinger to Billie, “I like baseball, movies, good clothes, fast cars. What else do you need to know?” Or the bank robber facing an FBI manhunt, “We’re having too much fun to think about tomorrow,” or one of his cohorts, facing death, instructing Dillinger “to let go.”
The ongoing absence among American filmmakers of a strong historical sense remains a major problem. To the extent that the characters are not genuinely made “of their time,” the filmmakers resort to trite solutions and shortcuts. Burrough’s book makes clear that Dillinger and Frechette were seriously damaged people, twisted by a harsh and brutal social environment.
There is simply not much time or energy given over to convincing human interaction in Public Enemies. Hollywood’s gangster films of the 1930s and 1940s painted more three-dimensional pictures of the times and personalities. Even more recent film, such as Arthur Penn’s Bonnie and Clyde (1967) or Robert Altman’s Thieves Like Us (1974), catch the imagination in more developed ways. These films portray their protagonists, without prettifying them, as the victims of poverty and neglect—unconscious and overwhelmed pursuers of a version of the American Dream.
Dillinger was something of an exception in this regard. The son of a wealthy Indianapolis grocer and real estate investor, the young man’s life changed dramatically when he was jailed for a “jaw-dropping” nine years at the age of 21 for a failed mugging. The American “justice” system, more than anything, produced Dillinger’s criminal career.
Burrough quotes Purvis’s secretary Doris Rogers: “These women [like Billie Frechette] were such pities. Everybody was broke, and they were running with these men because they couldn’t get a meal. They all had a baby or two, and they were treated like dirt. I tell you, the Depression was a terrible time in America.”
The strongest element in Public Enemies is the treatment of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. Here Mann takes considerable historical care and also lets loose with some genuine vitriol. One feels through much of the film that the FBI is a band of thugs and even murderers, presided over by a quasi-fascist.
Crudup as Hoover is chilling in an understated, disturbing fashion. At one juncture, the agency director, with a fierce grimace, tells Purvis, “Suspects are to be interrogated ‘vigorously.’ Grilled. No obsolete notions of sentimentality. We are in the modern age and we are making modern history. Take direct, expedient action. As they say in Italy these days, ‘Take off the white gloves.’” Mussolini—and Donald Rumsfeld—come to mind.
Clearly, and it is fully to their credit, Mann and his screenwriters intend scenes of FBI wire-tapping, trampling on elementary rights, the abuse and even torture of prisoners to resonate with contemporary audiences—and they do.
Moreover, the current economic breakdown must have had some impact on the film’s writing and production. Mann and the others are aware that once again banks are hated institutions. (Reportedly, in April 1934 moviegoers across the country wildly cheered newsreel footage of Dillinger, the bank robber on the loose, while images of FBI agents were booed.)
Unfortunately, Mann and his writers too often take the line of least resistance. Having their villain, Hoover, they feel obliged to transform Dillinger into a hero. Why not portray people more objectively, truthfully? A much richer reality would emerge. Hoover was a major criminal, but Dillinger was a sociopath, who doesn’t necessarily deserve our sympathy, except possibly in the broadest sense. There is no need to set up lopsided equations to make a point.
In an interview with the Guardian, Mann makes an interesting comment: “Dillinger at one point was the second most popular man in America after President Roosevelt. And he was a national hero for a good reason. He was robbing the very institutions, the banks, which had afflicted the people for four years, and after four years nothing was getting any better. You’re in the depths of the Great Depression in 1933 and when the authorities came after him—these were the same authorities that couldn’t fix anything. They also couldn’t remedy the misery of people out of work, or made homeless, or made into orphans by the Dustbowl. They couldn’t do anything right, and they also couldn’t catch John Dillinger. And he had a wicked sense of humor and really knew how to use the press. He was outrageous and funny, so you bet he was a hero.”
Unfortunately, these connections are not adequately developed in the film itself.
The content of the Depression conditions is minimally treated, reduced to the image of a dingy farmhouse or a fleeting reference on a radio broadcast to “red” influence in a miners’ strike. These touches are used more as bits of color, rather than a means of illuminating and even driving the drama.
What’s missing in Public Enemies is a deeper understanding of the processes at work. While the authorities genuinely wanted to wipe out Dillinger and the other gangsters, the banking business already had its share of problems, the “crime spree” was relatively easily put down. The “war on crime” provided Hoover and the FBI with the pretext for developing a national police force and introducing more systematic methods of repression. A ferocious anti-communist, Hoover was above all worried about the impact of the Depression and the discrediting of capitalism on the broad mass of the people.
Significantly, Hoover’s career in the Justice Department began in 1917—the year of the Russian Revolution. By 1919, as Burrough writes, “[H]e was named head of the General Intelligence Division, a newly created bureau charged with prosecuting labor radicals, anarchists, and Communists. He earned high marks—and his first interview in the New York Times—as a driving force behind the department’s January 1920 raids on Communists in 33 cities, which led to the arrest of more than three thousand people.”
In 1933 and the first half of 1934, the period of “America’s Greatest Crime Wave,” the population was still stunned by the new economic conditions. To a certain extent, individual acts of violence and disorientation predominated. Dillinger and the others filled the headlines, their activities greeted with probably differing degrees of sympathy by a still largely passive working population.
It has to be noted as a matter of historical fact, however, that once the working class began to articulate in action its own social interests in 1934 (the mass struggles in Toledo, San Francisco, Minneapolis, later Flint, Michigan, and beyond) the social atmosphere changed radically. One has difficulty imagining the activities of Dillinger, or Bonnie and Clyde, or Baby Face Nelson, coinciding with general strikes and factory occupations, not merely because the lawbreakers had been exterminated by the authorities, but because by then a different atmosphere had developed, with a different disposition of social forces.
There is a certain irony that Public Enemies, reflecting these processes only faintly and indistinctly and, unhappily, missing the principal social dynamic, should appear in movie theaters during another lull before the storm, so to speak.
Mann is to be credited for a sensitivity and an intuition about big questions, but, aside from The Insider, he hasn’t indicated he can do enough with them.

-WSWS

Stranger Than Paradise
14th July 2009, 16:28
Warren Oates is far from forgotten by us cinephiles. Among his fans are poets Scott Wannberg and S. A. Griffin.

By the way, a very good review.

Yeah Warren Oates is still a well remembered, highly regarded actor. Loving the review.

Trystan
14th July 2009, 20:26
Dillinger was just enjoying himself at the expense of bankers and capitalists. Good on him.

Agrippa
17th July 2009, 02:17
The real Dillinger, like all past and future Dillingers in the real world, was a lumpen parasite lobotomized by the cash nexus. However charming the old folk songs about Jesse James and Pretty Boy Floyd sung by Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger, these crooks were cretinous individualists and reactionary to the core. They were slapped-down and executed in the streets by cops serving the institutional bandits of Wall Street as an example to others. Crime and theft are expressions of class division and conflict, but only in the most reactionary manner; Dillinger, Karpis, and their ilk aped the most diehard and vile habits of the acquisitive bourgeoisie.

:mad::thumbdown::mad::thumbdown::mad::thumbdown::m ad::thumbdown::mad::thumbdown:

Communist Theory
22nd July 2009, 08:01
Yay John Dillinger's girlfriend was from my tribe!

Invader Zim
22nd July 2009, 11:04
The film was dull, despite being packed with action. It also seemed to me to drag on, and I hated the camera work. In the first half Mann resultely refuses to keep the camera still and as a result the whole thing is one massive motion blur. In the second half he suddenly dissists and returns without warning to standard Hollywood still camera. Of course the motion blur problem might be because of the technology of High definition, and it is not yet perfected for the action genre.

But all in all I was disappointed, I found the camera work practically unbearable, and found myself glancing away from the screen at regular intervals to give my near watering eyes a break. I found the film too slow paced and dull. I also thought that the artistic liberties taken with the story irritating (i.e. Johnny Depp wandering around the FBI office dedicated to his capture). I thought that both Depp and Bale wasted on this film, both of whom struck me as wooden. As a result I found it impossible to attatch any empathy to the characters.

All in all, save your money and wait for it to be on TV.