Past, Present and Future

PUBLIC ENEMIES. There are a few reasons why I was drawn to watching this movie, but I will have to admit the a major reason came from what I thought was a pretty kick-ass trailer. It seemed Johnny Depp, in a rare departure by not playing a pirate or Tim Burton character, was perfect for the role of John Dillinger, it looked like a slick Michael Mann project that fit his strengths well, and it looked like a interesting movie visually. So I saw the movie last weekend with family in part because the women in my family happen to be a little, shall we say, infatuated with Mr. Depp. So I can say it didn't seem to be quite as good as the trailer (truly one of the better crafted ones I've seen lately) but did make me think a bit both positively and negatively.

So I titled this post the way it is because I found that although it does span more than a few years after Dillinger escaped from jail and when he went through the last few jobs of his life before being gunned down by what was becoming the FBI (I guess I should have issued a spoiler alert, but is that really appropriate when it is a rather well-known true story?). In relation to the past, it was quite obviously a story set in the 1930s, in the still early years of the Great Depression and also had a side-story on the creation of the FBI featuring a rather sleazy, although noncross-dressing, J. Edgar Hoover played by Billy Crudup. I wouldn't say, however, that it's a historical movie since it seems to have decided to tell its story partly as a love story (which, in case you were wondering, did not really make sense to me either).

In the present, I found myself thinking of how the actions of the movie relate to our current era and there were a few moments that seemed to have been a bit of a wink to us, including a negative view of banks, and a bit of a hint toward the idea of torture as a result of compromised ethics more so than necessity. It could have been a candidate for a movie to explain our current era. However I would say that it does fail a bit if that was what Mann intended of this movie, which is not really what I think was the case. It seems like he was making this movie and the collapse of the economy and its tie to the greed of banks just kind of fell upon his lap. The movie focuses on romance and action with hardly a reference to the desperation of the depression -- they reference that Dillinger might be popular but never give much to explain why. I expect it is because they assume we know about the depression and that's not what it is about, which is fine. It does end up being a bit of a missed opportunity to explore the idea of morality in a time of desperation. As much as I like Marion Cotillard, I would have found that to be a better background to Dillinger's story than that of him falling in love.

On the topic of the future, I found it to be relevant to the visual style of the movie, which was indeed as my first impression from the trailer suggested, filmed digitally. I saw it at Cinetopia specifically to take advantage of the digital projectors so as to see it without a transfer to film. This is going to be a technique used more in the future but as of now is a bit rough. On the negative side, I found certain aspects to be a bit disappointing, like the fact that I could see the male actors' makeup -- especially Christian Bale, who at times kind of looked like a cheap hooker, which I didn't find particularly appropriate for an FBI agent. There is also a bit of a difference in the depth perception that I find a bit distracting at times but that might just be because I am not used to it. It does, though, seem to fit this particular story well in that the digital method comes across as more documentary style and the crispness of the picture fits the stylized filming style Mann often utilizes. Much like Steven Soderbergh, he seems like a good choice to be more of a pioneer in this arena.

So if you haven't seen it, it's rather worthwhile. It's a good movie to watch, if not necessarily appreciate.