So Michael Mann makes a gangster movie. Interesting. A director championed by many for works such as Ali, Manhunter and Collateral yet a figure I have always been somewhat lukewarm to. Plenty of his films have entertained me, but none really wow me, Collateral getting perhaps the closest if it weren’t for a very generic final act. Also, for every worthwhile addition to his not insignificant collection of works there are plenty that muddy the waters. Miami Vice springs instantly to mind, not to mention Last of the Mohicans. If anyone dares to try to make me watch another two hours of Daniel Day-Lewis and Madeline Stowe jump through waterfalls whilst seeming to diffuse their mutually length brunette bushes together, then I will find them, “NO MATAR WAT OKKKURRRRSSSS!!!!”
However, Mann does at manage to make major studio productions with some sort of thought-process behind them, even if they are not always to my taste. Therefore, at a time where Terminator: Salivating Boring and Transformers 2: Because the First One Made Money are clogging up our multiplexes, I welcome Mann’s latest film with a warm heart and a sense of trust. Here we might have an antidote to the various summer blockbusters that insist on emphasising smashing over story: Transformers in particular I see as a misogynist, egotistical, offensively corporate, idiotic, episodic example of smashy-smashy stupidity that I really do hate in modern cinema. Compared to Michael Bay or McG (I mean, come on, seriously, McG, that’s not even really a sound, let alone a name), Michael Mann is Orson Welles, he is Francis Ford Coppolla. Even at his worst, he makes spectacle that attempts to mean something to someone. That he fails often is forgivable.
I am rather pleased to report that I do not count Public Enemies as one of his failures, but it’s hardly a roaring success either. In the film, Johnny Depp stars as John Dillinger, a real life figure from the Great Depression who became known in popular folk lore as a Robin-Hood-esque hero for a series of Bank Robberies as well as for escaping jail twice. The film tells the story of this man’s successful, and unsuccessful, attempts to evade a police force that are becoming increasingly obsessed with obtaining his capture, led by the almost pathological Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale, thankfully free of his growly Batman voice). What makes the film interesting beyond this rather been-there-done-that narrative is the visual palette. Mann’s continued experimentation with digital technology, used effectively in Collateral, Public Enemies employed light-weight, handheld, cameras and digital video technology to create a look that is grainy, personal and contains something of the real about it. Despite being a 30s period piece, despite displaying a vast array of flashy suits, vintage cars and antique Tommy-guns, the film’s aesthetic keeps the film enthused with an actuality, as if some bystander had filmed Dillinger’s actions and posted it directly to Mann’s editing suite. This new take on a genre that has traditionally been stylised and, at its worst, rather antiquated allows the proceedings to carry with a sense of significance, like the actions on screen really happened and thus are worthy of the audiences full attention. The footsteps crackle and the gunshots deafen.
This aesthetic is aided by Depp’s central performance. I know it rather boring to praise the acting in another Johnny Depp film, hardly the most shocking or original of analysis as he’s clearly a very fine actor, but this performance is another to add to his vast collection. Far from the theatricality of Jack Sparrow or Sweeney Todd, this represents a display of cinematic nuance. His face is rigid and unchanging, his voice monotone and emotionless, displaying largely the everyday masks that we place on ourselves when we’re out in town, at work, or even at home. He is gloriously enigmatic: you want to stare at this face forever to work out what’s behind it. This realism is also present in the film’s references to other gangster works, distancing it from fiction to present it as fact. Dillinger is seen to have a fascination with screen gangsters, a particularly pivotal scene revolving around him going to see Clark Gable in Manhattan Melodrama, and I can’t help see the film’s title itself as a cinematic confrontation with the classic film James Cagney film The Public Enemy. These various touches give the film’s make-up a sense of realism to the action and suspense and make the proceedings fascinating to look at.
Yet, Michael Mann's faults still remain. Beneath the visuals, beneath the flash, beneath the score and the stuff and the bangs and the cameras, there not much else that succeeds. That isn’t to say the film is without substance, quite the opposite in fact, the trouble is there is way too much. The narrative and thematic core of the movie is an unfocused mess, unsure of its central loci. It seems at points to be a tale of two opposing yet parallel forces of Dillinger and Purvis, except the latter is slightly one-dimensional to be really interesting. At times, it attempts to present a tragedy of heroism or the creeping cult of celebrity, ala The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, as the film touches on Dilinger’s desire and attempts to be larger-than-life making him ultimately larger-than-life. Except, this is really only hinted at in places and the lack of any real attempts to portray the man of Dilinger, the romantic subplot very minor and Marion Cotillard’s electrifying screen presence criminally underused, creates a situation where the final showdown and fate of Dilinger feels more an inevitable full stop than a tragic dénouement. There seem to be even vague attempts at a modern allegory: it is important to remember Dillinger was loved by many not for giving to the poor but robbing the rich, reflecting a public distrust and distain of the institutions of banking that have crippled their country. Surely, the modern day similarities did not escape Mann but very little is made of it, but enough to feel that you can’t help missing something as eerie crowd shots occasionally infect the mise-en-scene. I’m sure, if asked, Mann would suggest the film in fact all of these things but it really isn’t. It’s none of them. It’s just a melting pot of ideas and a really long one at that at roughly 140 minutes. Way too long. Way, way too long. In the end, it’s like orange cordial with too much water, something rather tasty in their diluted with too much waffle. Still, a lot, lot better than Transformers.
However, Mann does at manage to make major studio productions with some sort of thought-process behind them, even if they are not always to my taste. Therefore, at a time where Terminator: Salivating Boring and Transformers 2: Because the First One Made Money are clogging up our multiplexes, I welcome Mann’s latest film with a warm heart and a sense of trust. Here we might have an antidote to the various summer blockbusters that insist on emphasising smashing over story: Transformers in particular I see as a misogynist, egotistical, offensively corporate, idiotic, episodic example of smashy-smashy stupidity that I really do hate in modern cinema. Compared to Michael Bay or McG (I mean, come on, seriously, McG, that’s not even really a sound, let alone a name), Michael Mann is Orson Welles, he is Francis Ford Coppolla. Even at his worst, he makes spectacle that attempts to mean something to someone. That he fails often is forgivable.
I am rather pleased to report that I do not count Public Enemies as one of his failures, but it’s hardly a roaring success either. In the film, Johnny Depp stars as John Dillinger, a real life figure from the Great Depression who became known in popular folk lore as a Robin-Hood-esque hero for a series of Bank Robberies as well as for escaping jail twice. The film tells the story of this man’s successful, and unsuccessful, attempts to evade a police force that are becoming increasingly obsessed with obtaining his capture, led by the almost pathological Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale, thankfully free of his growly Batman voice). What makes the film interesting beyond this rather been-there-done-that narrative is the visual palette. Mann’s continued experimentation with digital technology, used effectively in Collateral, Public Enemies employed light-weight, handheld, cameras and digital video technology to create a look that is grainy, personal and contains something of the real about it. Despite being a 30s period piece, despite displaying a vast array of flashy suits, vintage cars and antique Tommy-guns, the film’s aesthetic keeps the film enthused with an actuality, as if some bystander had filmed Dillinger’s actions and posted it directly to Mann’s editing suite. This new take on a genre that has traditionally been stylised and, at its worst, rather antiquated allows the proceedings to carry with a sense of significance, like the actions on screen really happened and thus are worthy of the audiences full attention. The footsteps crackle and the gunshots deafen.
This aesthetic is aided by Depp’s central performance. I know it rather boring to praise the acting in another Johnny Depp film, hardly the most shocking or original of analysis as he’s clearly a very fine actor, but this performance is another to add to his vast collection. Far from the theatricality of Jack Sparrow or Sweeney Todd, this represents a display of cinematic nuance. His face is rigid and unchanging, his voice monotone and emotionless, displaying largely the everyday masks that we place on ourselves when we’re out in town, at work, or even at home. He is gloriously enigmatic: you want to stare at this face forever to work out what’s behind it. This realism is also present in the film’s references to other gangster works, distancing it from fiction to present it as fact. Dillinger is seen to have a fascination with screen gangsters, a particularly pivotal scene revolving around him going to see Clark Gable in Manhattan Melodrama, and I can’t help see the film’s title itself as a cinematic confrontation with the classic film James Cagney film The Public Enemy. These various touches give the film’s make-up a sense of realism to the action and suspense and make the proceedings fascinating to look at.
Yet, Michael Mann's faults still remain. Beneath the visuals, beneath the flash, beneath the score and the stuff and the bangs and the cameras, there not much else that succeeds. That isn’t to say the film is without substance, quite the opposite in fact, the trouble is there is way too much. The narrative and thematic core of the movie is an unfocused mess, unsure of its central loci. It seems at points to be a tale of two opposing yet parallel forces of Dillinger and Purvis, except the latter is slightly one-dimensional to be really interesting. At times, it attempts to present a tragedy of heroism or the creeping cult of celebrity, ala The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, as the film touches on Dilinger’s desire and attempts to be larger-than-life making him ultimately larger-than-life. Except, this is really only hinted at in places and the lack of any real attempts to portray the man of Dilinger, the romantic subplot very minor and Marion Cotillard’s electrifying screen presence criminally underused, creates a situation where the final showdown and fate of Dilinger feels more an inevitable full stop than a tragic dénouement. There seem to be even vague attempts at a modern allegory: it is important to remember Dillinger was loved by many not for giving to the poor but robbing the rich, reflecting a public distrust and distain of the institutions of banking that have crippled their country. Surely, the modern day similarities did not escape Mann but very little is made of it, but enough to feel that you can’t help missing something as eerie crowd shots occasionally infect the mise-en-scene. I’m sure, if asked, Mann would suggest the film in fact all of these things but it really isn’t. It’s none of them. It’s just a melting pot of ideas and a really long one at that at roughly 140 minutes. Way too long. Way, way too long. In the end, it’s like orange cordial with too much water, something rather tasty in their diluted with too much waffle. Still, a lot, lot better than Transformers.
No comments:
Post a Comment