Public Enemies - When is it going to be Babyfaces's Time?

What was the appeal of John Dillinger? The Robin Hood nature of attacking the feds? His public disregard of authority? The fact he obviously must have looked like Johnny Depp? Michael Mann's film "Public Enemies" is a successful attempt at providing the viewer some insight into Dillinger while showing how the government are the true villains.

Aside from Babyface Nelson of course. I admired the job by Stephen Graham (one of many actors who successfully covers up their accents in this film...when will Jude Law and the Pythons learn), but like pass examples in cinema, we are only given the crazy side of him. Surely he was more dynamic than an over-rated Heath Ledger performance?

We pick up the story when Dillinger breaks out his entire crew from prison and follows him and his girl (Marion Cotillard) as they try living the sweet life on Uncle Sam's bill. Trying to prove the legitimacy of his leadership at the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup, Mr. "Cannot Do Wrong" 2009) assigns the Agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) to bring Dillinger's reign to a top the most wanted list to an end. Preferably, in the same manner that Purvis used to stop Pretty Boy Floyd. With increased heat on him, and the lack of accountable allies, Dillinger must find a way to stay with his girl, and capture the one score that can set him up for life.

There is no way to look at Dillinger in a bad light since the story seems to be about his pursuit of happiness. The downside is that it under utilizes the other characters in the story, but he is the guy on the poster. All of the performances are delivered as well as they possibly can be, and with this film not being a comedy, I do not see how Johnny Depp will not capture an Oscar (way off on that one, may need a rewatch). The film is a fine lesson on how an actor should give their all into a role, regardless of screen time.

This film is quite an example of the Socialist Hollywood agenda, but since it allowed us a marvelous performance by Crudup, why complain? As I said, focusing so much on the character of Dillinger's interpersonal battles makes everyone against him someone you genuinely yearn to see come up short. There was a peace of me hoping for a surprise ending.

There was also a peace of me hoping to see more of the opposition just to see a human side to them. Christian Bale (someone who has a label on my blog because my recent reaming of some of his more recent performances) has little dialogue, but he is able to show in every action with a "WWJD" level of contemplation in his face. Almost every law man with the exception of Stephen Lang's character (left in the same boat as Bale) is cold as cold as the mob, so the film is the epitome of a tragic hero story. It leaves me wondering whether or not we are glorifying Dillinger too much.

When I think back to other films by Michael Mann...alright one film ("Heat"), the biggest thing I was hoping for was a Bale and Depp having a De Niro/Pacino getting to know each other scene. A chance to show that they are the hottest thing in Hollywood, and to really understand both characters. The film seems to be a loose adaptation of events (based on the Bryan Burrough's book "Public Enemies: America's Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI, 1933-34"), so it is a shame that they did not work something like that into the film (they did with a cell door between them, but that is not 2 a.m. coffee). Then again, I'm pulling for Crudup for best supporting actor, so we cannot let Bale get too much Oscar bait.

The direction of the film is beautiful. A great merging of the cinematic look of the era and reality. Cinematography and editing are spot on especially when any scene involve a movie house. When one thinks about the movie houses, it reminds you of the writers efforts to stick to their themes. Dillinger the Man and Dillinger the Celebrity is shown as one person, so it can be said they wrote a perfect character and environments for Depp to portray it in.

Public Enemies is a great tale of a tragic hero, but the viewer cannot overcome the feeling that the film cut out elements to deliver this. The friend I saw the flick would say good gun fights (or it was her hope the "villains" would overcome the law), but after you accept the rules of a fire fight and the difficulty to consciously kill someone, you know that was not a problem.

The one flaw to Michael Mann's film is a focus so narrow that we lose track of the rest of 1933 and 34, but to give us such a sympathetic hero, you cannot complain too much about this great film.