For all the astonishing talent thrown at Public Enemies, the story of the spree and fall of John Dillinger, a Depression era bank robber, the biggest star is long gone: that would be Myrna Loy, whose luminous face spruces up the film's final act, and overshadows nearly everything else going on. Okay, let's not be coy - she does, actually, overshadow every last thing. And given that all we're getting is a compendium of Loy closeups from Manhattan Melodrama, it's some indication of just how easy it is to steal the show in Public Enemies.
Gangster films have an illustrious history in American cinema - one of the genres we probably can claim to have invented - but it's also true that the elements are so well known, it's hard to keep things fresh. Perhaps most depressingly, Public Enemies doesn't so much try to keep things fresh as try to dampen everything with "realism", debunking old tropes, de-glamorizing thieves and killers; it's admirable... but it's also misery-inducing, and Public Enemies never quite escapes the sour taste it sets up.
With little fresh to say, Public Enemies settles for a kind of endless homage - there's that whole bit with Manhattan Melodrama, and a main storyline with Johnny Depp and Marion Cotillard that recalls much of what worked - less subtly - in Bonnie and Clyde. The piling on of past references doesn't really gel, rather it creates the feel of a smudgy copy that's one generation too many removed from the original. One yearns for dialogue that doesn't feel recycled or chases that felt less rehashed.
Opening on a daring daylight prison break (Prison Break?), Public Enemies starts with a bang - many of them, in fact - as things go wrong pretty much from the get-go. Dillinger has a knack for having one trigger happy fool in his henchmen, and he operates more on instinct than firm planning, which means thing go right spectacularly... or go wrong big.
It's also hard to find a hero here - Dillinger and his gang are basically motivated by love of cash and fine things, which doesn't make them monsters... but it's nothing to sympathize with, either. Meanwhile Dillinger is being chased by Melvin Purvis and a still developing FBI, led by (as usual) a fairly creepy J Edgar Hoover. Representing the forces of order and discipline (and evolving detctive techniques), it's clear that they have the upper hand in chasing Dillinger. Yet there's little to root for - the sense of FBI hunting down killers and exacting retribution (or becoming the thing you want to destroy), makes them not heroes, either.
If anything, the smart, admirable group in the film is Chcago's organized crime bosses, who begin to corporat-ize their criminal enterprises, leaving charismatic thieves like Dillinger behind. It's an interesting point... but it undoes the film: between the corporate criminology of the FBI and corporate-like criminal organization of the Chicago Mob, there's no place for an adventurous free spirit like Dillinger. That's hardly a message that you expect from, er, free spirited artists.
This grim, realistic sense of how crime evolved drains Public Enemies of the kick that older films - certainly golden age films with the likes of Cagney and Robinson, but even latter day exercises like Bonnie and Clyde - get from reveling in their antihero's melodramtic excess. Things are so closely controlled - and emotionally, the film rarely gets above "simmer" - that there's just nowhere to go, and few real thrills, or dramatic moments. Arguably, Cotillard, as the girlfriend, is meant to be the sympathetic figure... but she disappears for the final third of the picture, leaving a deep void.
Which is a shame: Cotillard, in her first big role in the US since the Piaf biography, shows that her Oscar was no fluke; she's got a command of English that's impressive, and more impressively, a real grasp of acting American. The film needs more of her.
As for the men, there are lots of them, so many I can't even say conclusively who all was who. Johnny Depp was in many ways born to play Dillinger - the role's antihero qualities, combined with Depp's old-school Hollywood good looks, gives him an assurance rivaling Gable or Cagney. But, like many of his roles, it's hard to know if he's connecting with the part... or the idea of the part. I'm tempted to say what's wrong with Public Enemies rests with him.
As for others... Christian Bale, as Purvis, continues his run of fabulously chilly, cold roles that he inhabits as marvelously as a robot should. If he had to carry the picture... fuggedaboutit; but as the foil, he's icy and bracing and committed in all the right ways. And as Hoover, Billy Crudup makes the most of a few unsettling moments... but then, this film squeezes in Channing Tatum, Leelee Sobieski, Giovanni Ribisi, and Stephen Dorff, so it's not wanting for interesting actors cast in unexpected roles.
I'm a little surprised Michael Mann has made such a dismal efort of this; of anyone who directs, he seems especially well suited to this material, and as someone who liked Miami Vice (the film), I would have figured he had a way to frame the material with more verve. As it is, he's done some interesting things with visuals and he streamlines the storytelling nicely... but I think an even more stylized and slick film is lurking here (esopecially if, for instance, he'd simply dropped the washed out color tones and made the black and white film he's surely capable of).
In what's shaping up to be a slow year, Public Enemies may manage to surprise come Oscar time - I could imagine Depp and Cotillard with nominations, maybe even Bale (though he's got a huge PR problem to overcome). Awards, though, won't prove Public Enemies has any real staying power. In the long run, I suspect going back to the Gangster source will be a better bet than stopping in this grey, grim place.
Comments