Public Enemies
Jul. 3rd, 2009 11:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ivyficFor a movie that is so incredibly long (two and a half hours), I came out of the theater more aware of what I had not seen than what I had.
There were a lot of things that could have been themes in this movie:
- The romance between Dillinger and Billy. For all that they show the two meeting, they never show the development of the romance. There's a hint of what Billy might see in him—an escape, access to a world of privilege she's barred from—but there's no explanation of when or why this transitions to true love I-will-go-to-jail-for-you. I also found it amusing that they had to include John going to a whorehouse, since he was betrayed to the FBI by a prostitute when he was killed, but they play it as if John just wants someone to go to the movies with him, not like he regularly visits whores. Which he did.
- The making of the myth of John Dillinger. From a couple of comments in the movie, you realize that the start of the movie is before Dillinger was Dillinger. But the movie throughout treats him as an icon that it shouldn't need to explain to us. So you don't see him developing his reputation, or earning the loyalty of his crew. You don't see why they follow him or what his genius is. You don't see what makes him public enemy number one. And you barely get introduced to members of his crew. So when he starts losing his friends and his status, it has no emotional impact. Because damn if I can remember who those people are anyway.
- John Dillinger conciously shaping himself into a popular figure. At the end, when you see scenes from Manhattan Melodrama, you see that Dillinger has intentionally made himself into a Clark Gable Hollywood villain. The appeal for him seems to have largely been about the fame. But you don't get much more than that one scene.
- The end of the golden age of the bank robbery. There's a hint of John's type of criminal being replaced by a mafia type of criminal—crime as a business. It hints that the other criminals are the ones putting an end to his career. But aside from one scene, and a couple of lines of dialogue later…that never goes anywhere.
- The rise of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. Again, there's a hint of this. (Though I'd like to point out, despite what Hoover says to the appropriations committee, I'm pretty sure he arrested people. He made his name on communist raids in the twenties.) But you don't get a real sense of Dillinger being behind the times and not acknowledging the power of modern investigation techniques, which could have been the center of the film.
- The cops are just as much thugs as the bank robbers. This has a distinct whiff of The Untouchables, but they miss obvious opportunities to develop this.
Each of these only got a scene or two; none of them were a storyline. And, with the exception of one protracted gun battle in the middle, there wasn't a huge amount of action, either.
Which leaves me with the question of what the heck happened in this movie to fill all that time? It seemed to be just a string of incidents from his life, with no time taken to comment on their significance or to shape them into a narrative arc. It's one of those movies where you don't know if you've got ten minutes or an hour left. And as it approached the end everyone is familiar with—the gun battle at the cinema—the pace slowed down even more. It was excruciating.
Meanwhile, many incidents that could have been significant pass without comment. For example, during the long shoot-out at the lodge in the woods, the FBI shoots up a car of innocent bystanders, killing one and injuring two, because they didn't stop the car. Apparently, they hadn't heard the shouts because the radio was on, and it was two dark to see the guys with tommy guns running at them. Let me reiterate—the FBI opened fire on innocent people who just happened to be leaving the inn at the wrong time. Don't you think this deserves some acknowledgment?
Or you have Dillinger breaking out of jail with a wooden gun. There's one line about the gun being fake, but since you don't see him make or acquire the gun and it isn't mentioned again, that has little impact. This sequence, like so many in the movie, seems to be playing with the expectation that the audience already knows the story and doesn't need it explained. Here's a hint—I needed it explained.
I couldn't help comparing this to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, with which it shares a lot of its narrative structure. But while in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid you get a real sense of these two people, once on top of the world, losing control of their position, being backed into a corner more and more, not recognizing that the time when their type of robbery could work has passed, in Public Enemies, they seem to be assuming that you as an audience member already know this arc and will just fill in the blanks for yourself.
The movie is beautifully shot and beautifully acted. Lots of period detail. And it seems dedicated to showing Johnny Depp in iconic mobster poses (most of which are in the trailer). But for all of that, it has no narrative underpinnings. This movie is made up of bits of John Dillinger's life, but it's not really about anything.
There were a lot of things that could have been themes in this movie:
- The romance between Dillinger and Billy. For all that they show the two meeting, they never show the development of the romance. There's a hint of what Billy might see in him—an escape, access to a world of privilege she's barred from—but there's no explanation of when or why this transitions to true love I-will-go-to-jail-for-you. I also found it amusing that they had to include John going to a whorehouse, since he was betrayed to the FBI by a prostitute when he was killed, but they play it as if John just wants someone to go to the movies with him, not like he regularly visits whores. Which he did.
- The making of the myth of John Dillinger. From a couple of comments in the movie, you realize that the start of the movie is before Dillinger was Dillinger. But the movie throughout treats him as an icon that it shouldn't need to explain to us. So you don't see him developing his reputation, or earning the loyalty of his crew. You don't see why they follow him or what his genius is. You don't see what makes him public enemy number one. And you barely get introduced to members of his crew. So when he starts losing his friends and his status, it has no emotional impact. Because damn if I can remember who those people are anyway.
- John Dillinger conciously shaping himself into a popular figure. At the end, when you see scenes from Manhattan Melodrama, you see that Dillinger has intentionally made himself into a Clark Gable Hollywood villain. The appeal for him seems to have largely been about the fame. But you don't get much more than that one scene.
- The end of the golden age of the bank robbery. There's a hint of John's type of criminal being replaced by a mafia type of criminal—crime as a business. It hints that the other criminals are the ones putting an end to his career. But aside from one scene, and a couple of lines of dialogue later…that never goes anywhere.
- The rise of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. Again, there's a hint of this. (Though I'd like to point out, despite what Hoover says to the appropriations committee, I'm pretty sure he arrested people. He made his name on communist raids in the twenties.) But you don't get a real sense of Dillinger being behind the times and not acknowledging the power of modern investigation techniques, which could have been the center of the film.
- The cops are just as much thugs as the bank robbers. This has a distinct whiff of The Untouchables, but they miss obvious opportunities to develop this.
Each of these only got a scene or two; none of them were a storyline. And, with the exception of one protracted gun battle in the middle, there wasn't a huge amount of action, either.
Which leaves me with the question of what the heck happened in this movie to fill all that time? It seemed to be just a string of incidents from his life, with no time taken to comment on their significance or to shape them into a narrative arc. It's one of those movies where you don't know if you've got ten minutes or an hour left. And as it approached the end everyone is familiar with—the gun battle at the cinema—the pace slowed down even more. It was excruciating.
Meanwhile, many incidents that could have been significant pass without comment. For example, during the long shoot-out at the lodge in the woods, the FBI shoots up a car of innocent bystanders, killing one and injuring two, because they didn't stop the car. Apparently, they hadn't heard the shouts because the radio was on, and it was two dark to see the guys with tommy guns running at them. Let me reiterate—the FBI opened fire on innocent people who just happened to be leaving the inn at the wrong time. Don't you think this deserves some acknowledgment?
Or you have Dillinger breaking out of jail with a wooden gun. There's one line about the gun being fake, but since you don't see him make or acquire the gun and it isn't mentioned again, that has little impact. This sequence, like so many in the movie, seems to be playing with the expectation that the audience already knows the story and doesn't need it explained. Here's a hint—I needed it explained.
I couldn't help comparing this to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, with which it shares a lot of its narrative structure. But while in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid you get a real sense of these two people, once on top of the world, losing control of their position, being backed into a corner more and more, not recognizing that the time when their type of robbery could work has passed, in Public Enemies, they seem to be assuming that you as an audience member already know this arc and will just fill in the blanks for yourself.
The movie is beautifully shot and beautifully acted. Lots of period detail. And it seems dedicated to showing Johnny Depp in iconic mobster poses (most of which are in the trailer). But for all of that, it has no narrative underpinnings. This movie is made up of bits of John Dillinger's life, but it's not really about anything.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-05 05:03 am (UTC)They really missed the boat here. I spent so much time being distracted by famous actors being used barely at all that I never actually was able to follow their actions. Because they never spoke above the one, accented tone; they all wore hats and suits; and hardly anyone had a name until they were already dead. (I spent half the film thinking Stephen Dorff had died ages ago. Then I was sure he was in prison up until the second he was shot. WTF?)
no subject
Date: 2009-07-06 04:36 pm (UTC)For such a violent movie, it's maybe inappropriate to call it bloodless, but that's the best adjective I've got. It's completely uninvolving.
From the reviews of the book, though, it seems that it is everything this movie wasn't. It's almost like they assumed the audience would have read the book, so they didn't need the story, just an illustration of the cooler bits. What an assinine way to make a movie. Just makes me want to watch Butch Cassidy again.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-07 04:22 am (UTC)That's what we said! Because despite all the shooting and stuff that seemed almost constant, it was totally detached and almost sterile. They could have been shooting laser beams a la Star Wars for all the carnage you really saw. The action was so stale.
From the reviews of the book, though, it seems that it is everything this movie wasn't.
I heard it wasn't very historically accurate either--I mean, the movie was supposedly worse, but the book reportedly took a few liberties. Wonder if that's true?