Documentary-style audio diminishes storytelling

Rating: 6/10 (8 July 2009)

Michael Mann deliberately embraced the HD video camera as a way to shoot in a more documentary style, especially at night. He did that with success in "Collateral" (see my review). He evidently tried to up the realism by not only shooting with inferior video (trails from lights), but also inferior audio. I first thought I was being fooled when I first screened the movie. I thought it might be the theatre's sound system. I went to another screening (video projection) which unquestionably had the intended audio mix. My guess is that Mann wanted to mimic what a location sound mixer (which is one of my professions) would do. In this case, you would hear a line delivered very quietly. Then you hear the volume deliberately turned up much louder, as if the sound mixer was compensating for quiet talking. Along with that, the ambient audio is almost nonexistent in some cases. Once again, mimicking the poor sound you get in a low budget documentary, due to the clip-on microphones attached to the actors having a small pickup range. What he apparently wanted to accomplish was the sense we were watching "Cops" or something like reality TV. He chose to degrade the quality of the image to cue the audience into believing this was first person footage, like someone in the gang was walking around with a handycam.
But it's not a documentary. And the all too perfect production design and all too good-looking cast never take us out of movieland. Then there are the deliberate face close-ups, using the fine grain on the video to emphasise the pores in people's skin. Once again, attempting to feel real, and in this case it does not detract from the story. Seeing the weathered skin on the characters faces helps illustrate the rough texture of their lives. But in pushing the envelope in degrading the video and audio, Mann sacrifices the level of audience involvement, because the trance is broken when they notice something wrong with the audio. Same with the video, when the camera swishes around, creating obvious video trails, you start thinking about the craft instead of the characters. My main complaint is that those who do not recognise the use of bad sound as a directing decision, they will conclude that either the sound mixer did a bad or rush job, or that the theatre itself has a bad sound system.
As for the acting and story, Mann put together a detail filled depiction of the 1930's, as seen through the eyes of our main characters. Depp doesn't quite come off as human, only coming close when he admits that he never learned how to dance. His subsequent love interest never has any sparks. There should have been a scene with them being human, such as going bowling or something. Some of the dialogue also feels canned. Even if this is supposed to be a subdued script, the lines delivered sometimes sound cliché. I also applaud directors taking chances, but I think there is a thing as too much, such as too much shakycam (thankfully not in this case). This film has too much of an amateur look and sound for an audience to pay $9 for. I still give this film a thumbs up, especially for the terrific period work and cinematography.