08 July 2009


Perhaps more than any other film genre, the gangster film is distinguished by its symbiotic relationship with its subject matter. Perhaps not so much anymore, but certainly during the 1930s with films such as Wellman's The Public Enemy or Hawks's Scarface -- films which not only interpreted the gangster lifestyle and myth, but which largely helped to create and characterize it: it is said that John Dillinger's trademark leap over the counter was taken from the movies; Al Capone is said to have loved Scarface.

Michael Mann's latest, Public Enemies, references this relationship during one scene in which Dillinger watches a screen gangster played by Clark Gable and gives one of the few genuine smiles throughout the two-and-a-half-hour film. It is a significant scene because it speaks directly to Dillinger's life as a projected image, a self-created myth, but it also reminds us of the conventions of the gangster genre picture and thus of how Mann's film fits, if at all, within that lineage.

What strikes me most about Mann's film is his interpretation of Dillinger, as the person and as the gangster. While we have come to know Dillinger as a smirking, confident wise ass, Depp's characterization suggests that that public persona is completely an act which covers up the somber, deadly serious private reality. As Dillinger, Depp is pale and thin-lipped, constantly serious to the point of approaching a parody of Alain Delon's Jef Costello in Le Samourai. Even with Billie, his apparent true love who gets the closest to Dillinger within the film, Dillinger appears tense and emotionally blocked. Many viewers have noticed the lack of chemistry in scenes between Dillinger and Billie, made worse by some terribly contrived dialogue ("What do you want?" / "Everything, right now.") that sounds more like line rehearsals than a conversations. It appears like bad acting on Depp and Marion Cotillard's parts, but perhaps it is bad acting on Dillinger's part.

In other words, no one is able to really know Dillinger, not even Dillinger himself. His true nature is lost somewhere behind the image he is projecting as a notorious gangster, buried so deep that it becomes inaccessible. Thus when he deals with people he deals with them as Dillinger the image, not Dillinger the person; he is reading lines. Dillinger the person remains an enigma, hidden behind a stony face and distant eyes. We are shown so much of Dillinger as a deadly serious person that when he does say something characteristically witty or affable (in front of a reporter or to a bank customer) it becomes incredibly clear that it is an act, perhaps even performed poorly. This is much unlike other gangster pictures in which the gangster's charm is so authentically contagious that we as viewers want to be their pals, whether as a public persona or a private person, though we may even be a little frightened of him; Dillinger is always frightening because he is unknowable.

In this way, Public Enemies can be seen as a type of revisionist gangster picture. It questions the established myths of the gangster as charming and tragic hero, suggesting he is exclusively and overwhelmingly tragic. Unlike Tom Powers in Public Enemy or Tony Camonte in Scarface, Dillinger seems constantly aware of death, as if it were hovering over him like some persistent ghost, reminding him of his fate: he seems as aware of the gangster as tragic hero archetype as we are. This gives new meaning to the gangster's love of his projected image, as seen in films or in newspapers, for in Dillinger's case it exceeds vanity and instead becomes an attempt to deny death by claiming immortality through legend.

Which leads me back to the last part of the film, in which Dillinger watches Manhattan Melodrama in the Biograph theatre. Dillinger's private smirk at the projected images of Clark Gable and Myrna Loy exposes more about him than any other moment in the film. I get a feeling that Mann's Dillinger is one completely absorbed in the suspense of belief that cinema allows, something which he transfers over into his real life -- Dillinger plays a certain character, making his life into something fit for the screen. It seems beyond coincidental that Billie looks like Myrna Loy or that Dillinger would choose to have a 'stache like Gable's -- maybe he learned to smirk from the same actor. When Dillinger leaves the theatre he dies, and perhaps that is the most appropriate way for him to go -- once he leaves the images and illusions there is nothing else but death.


James said...

I found nothing of any depth to the acting in this film. Perhaps, a degree of passion was beamed from the screen from Marion Cotillard, especially in her final moments, but even then her demeanor seemed cliched and "tough" ... a persona derived from moll archetypes. This was a change in character from her earlier scenes and her interest in the cipher tough guy Dillinger was inexplicable.

This movie had no passion and no deep meaning to me, but as a by the book gangster picture that did not trigger one tingle of excitement. The few 30s picture you cite did accomplish those feelings ... this dry, oft times plodding boring picture, never, to me, at least, offer any of he insights you describe. Depp's characterization was terribly vague and uninteresting. I never felt he was imitating any idea of what he saw screen-wise in Depression era cinema. We see him as determined, ruthless, unlikable and true to his comrades to a fault. Otherwise, he is a cipher ... a one dimensional cliche of a gangster. I could have cared less if he lived, died or left the picture. No passion was evident at all between him and Billie. A perfunctory sex scene, crying and boring declarations of lukewarm love at a waterside does not signal any sense of attraction between these two poorly written characters and their attraction for each other.

And don't get me started on Mr. Bale.

I don't see this movie about people anyway. It's about crime and government changing. Okay fine. At least Mann gives some good gun fights.

I can't really agree at all with your assessment, except for your comments on the concluding Biograph scene. I see you took notice of what I said of Marion looking a lot like Myrna Loy. In fact, that may be why Depp smiles ... the same why I do after reading your last paragraph.

kazu said...

I guess what I am trying to suggest is that the apparent vagueness of Dillinger's characterization within the film and the staleness of a lot of the delivery is possibly saying something about Dillinger on an interior level.

In other words, I don't think it's entirely a matter of bad acting and writing, though it certainly appears that way on the surface. Maybe it's a bit of a stretch to make that claim, but what the hell.

Matt Olver said...

In my own review of this film I touched on some of the problems with the script. I think a lot of the vagueness of the Dillinger character has to do with the awful script. Any time you see three persons given screen writing credit you know there are script problems. Depp, who probably recognized the situation and script for what it was, made the best of it and gave a strong interpretive performance of the Dillinger who was caught up in his own imaginative public image. I also like how you interpret this as a revisionist gangster film. A lot of things suggest that it is; from the digital photography of the film, (which I don't think I'm sold on, but will give it another chance) to the cold, narcissistic, and enigmatic portrayal of Dillinger by Depp, to the stark authenticity of the real Dillinger story details and set decor -- this film represents a new direction for the genre. I think your analysis of the Biograph theatre scene and your overall interpretation of this film's version of Dillinger is spot on. I also liked Depp in this film and thought Marion Cotillard was also good. It's too bad they couldn't be spared from some of the bad dialogue early in the film. I'm interested in seeing John Milius's 1973 film Dillinger starring Warren Oates in the title role to see how he interpreted the same character.

kazu said...

Matt, you make an interesting point. Perhaps the dialogue was just plain bad, ham-fisted writing which disallowed any deep investment on Depp's part into his character. Either way the results are interesting, even if a little isolating.