Where's the HEAT?

Rating: 6/10 (9 April 2012)

It's hard to watch any Michael Mann film these days without feeling even the slightest of tendencies to measure it against HEAT- Mann's cops- versus-crims epic that stirred, stunned and starred a couple of 'alright' actors called Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. Ask any Mann fan what they consider his best film to be and they'll almost certainly come back with the aforementioned. Ask a stubborn film snob like me and I'll insist on The Insider. Anyway, whoever you ask, whichever Mann film you favour, the above-mentioned movies actually have a lot in common: superbly acted urban allegories with clear eyes about the importance of look, sound and feel. They're also comprised of great scripts, photography, sound, scores, half a dozen lens filters and rather memorable endings.
So, "where does this leave Mann's latest film?" I hear you ask. Well, not only is Public Enemies his finest since the quite brilliant Collateral, but it's reasonably akin to the above-mentioned movies in a variety of ways, especially HEAT. Public Enemies is a relatively well acted, well shot and scored US based action/thriller that's loaded with breathtaking shoot outs: it looks, feels and above all sounds pretty good. What's more, Mann's grafted A-list stars Johnny Depp and Christian Bale onto its set-up, employing vintage yet somewhat bare characterisation techniques to show the similar mind sets and emotions of cops and robbers. Having said that, though, Public Enemies lacks that (for want of a better word) 'zing' that made Mann's finest work just that. To rank his latest film amidst his best would not only be generous, it would be wrong.
Pubic Enemies is an overlong, self assured film that has been drained of all depth and complexity to make room for some fast, profit- reaping commercialism and high concept. Spun from Bryan Burrough's equally titled book, the film tells the true tale of notorious bank robber John Dillinger (Depp), a charismatic, Robin Hood like maverick whose swift and graceful raids made him the number one target of J. Edgar Hoover's newly founded FBI and its chief agent, Melvin Purvis (Bale).
Back in a Depression ridden, 1930's America, Dillinger's name and antics held somewhat of an illustrious place in society. No cop could stop him. No bank could beat him. No jail could hold him. His magnetism and foolhardy prison breaks widened his appeal to almost everyone, from his girlfriend Billie Frechette (a superb Marion Cotillard) to a society who felt no compassion for the banks that had thrust their nation into a Depression. If only Dillinger and his band of crooks were among us now, eh? Anyway, the film is basically a far from extraordinary dramatisation of a particularly 'eventful' year in the life of a love- struck Dillinger with Purvis' bid to catch him acting as an omnipresent plot boost.
Pitting Depp against Bale, Public Enemies certainly harks back to Mann's metro' crime classics HEAT, The Insider and Collateral, yet, it ultimately fails to tap Bale's true potential. If there's any area that the film can be seriously accused of faltering in then it's in the sheer depth of Bale's forgettable supporting character: there isn't any. Depp is excellent, playing a tortured, bent kind of anti villain who, like De Niro's character in HEAT, has a heart, a dream and enough principles to steal the audience's sympathy. Bale is far less convincing, though- trapped inside a shallow, uninspiring role that begs to be explored. He does the best with what he's been given, yes, but I'm afraid the usually reliable Bale has been upstaged for the third film on the bounce by an actor who's just had more to work with. Ledger had the Joker. Worthington had Marcus Wright. And now Depp has Dillinger. I'm not even sure why Bale even went for this role. He's a side character at best. I found Marion Cotillard's character and performance far more interesting. Anyway, enough Bale bashing. Onto the film stuff.
Mann's hands-on approach to filming combined with Elliot Goldenthal virtuoso score and sound mixing are the film's underlying strengths. A modern sheen on 1930's styling is also brought to fruition but Mann and DP Dante Spinotti shoot and frame the locations in such a way that they ultimately fail to boast the same kind of presence the urban spaces did in their previous work. For me, Public Enemies does not reflect Mann's knack for transforming city and landscapes into screen characters. A few overhead shots, tracks or even the odd long shot or two would've been nice. Maybe even a tea-stained, saturated lens filter would've added a little more authenticity, a little more character. It sure did the job in that Francis Ford Copolla gangster film. I forget what it's called. Anyway, I guess I'm nitpicking, but when it comes to Michael Mann, when it comes to one of the most experienced visualists in the business, you expect better. The dark and largely sombre palette employed along with the cold, clear interiors certainly add to a detailed mise-en-scene that works well with a whole host of hand-held coverage but Mann's summer smash stirs in the shadows of his transfixing, urban masterstrokes and emerges a forgettable gangster caper.
Good: At times suspenseful, sometimes sensual and very well scored, Public Enemies is a decent yet unremarkable film riddled with remarkable gunfights. Mann's authorial traits permeate the plot throughout and his droll Cagney homage a la Stephen Graham was a very nice touch, but I guess Public Enemies belongs to Johnny Depp- if anyone.
Bad: The comparisons are there alright, but Public Enemies is no HEAT. Bale's talents all but go to waste inside a second-rate supporting role and the film, itself, is nothing more than a flimsy genre mash-up when weighed against the likes of, say, Scarface, Once upon a time in America, American Gangster and Miller's Crossing.