Gorgeous Garbage

Rating: 1/10 (22 July 2009)

I quit going to the "popular" cinema a few years ago because I saw that the new con was to produce films that looked they =ought= to be "special" or "meaningful" or "significant" when they really weren't. Films with first-rate production values, great sets, great music, great cinematography, plausibly intriguing high concepts and/or the presence of actors who'd done first-rank work in the past.
These films (like "Gladiator," like "The Passion of The Christ," like "The Dark Knight," like "Jurassic Park") are meant to =seem= special because they are "epic" or strong on visual and audio effects and "atmosphere" that stimulate us or appeal to some shallow cultural value like pseudo-patriotism or non-spiritual religion. After we have seen them, however, we feel vaguely cheated, but because =others= say it was great, =we= say it was great, too.
"Public Enemies" is =not= "Public Enemy" (1931). It is not either "Scarface" (1932 or 1983). It is not "Casino," "Goodfellas" or "The Godfather(s)." It is not "Miller's Crossing" nor is it "No Country for Old Men."
"Public Enemies" is a beautifully constructed, handsome mounted, sophisticatedly promoted, crafty ball of fluff. It is (almost) all style, and (almost) no substance. It is a series of clever cinematic manipulations in search of (almost) any meaningful characters, meaningful story, or meaningful... meaning.
I was in my late 30s and early 40s when "Miami Vice" was so big that restaurants and bars emptied out on Friday nights at 8:45 pm. The music, the costumes, the hairstyles, the cars, the boats, the architecture, the lifestyles, the flamingos, the babes, and the "atmosphere" were all so =stylish= that we mistook it all for art. No one would mistake it for that now. And that is precisely what is going on here.
There's no "script" here. What there is is a series of set-ups and close-ups that pass for "scenes." There are no characters here. What there is is a collection of sleepwalkers in costumes. There is no drama here. Drama requires heroes, villains and victims. But characters can only =be= heroes, villains or victims if we are (respectively) drawn to them, frightened by them, or want to rescue them.
The "script" conventions here =instruct= us to perceive Depp's Dillinger is a "hero," but he does nothing whatsoever to earn the title. We are manipulated by the most transparent of conventions to perceive the G Men as buffoons or vicious thugs, but they are all (including Bale) so one-dimensional that it's irrelevant. We are (inadequately) seduced to think that a woman with any sort of functional personality could be involved with the principle character, but because the principle character is made of cardboard, we cannot tell =why=.
This could have been a =hugely= interesting film if it had shown us who John Dillinger, Billie Frechette, Melvin Purvis and J. Edgar Hoover actually =were=... because every single one of them had fascinating histories... none of which are revealed here.
People crave notoriety, danger, passion or justice because they motives to do so. We come away with no sense whatsoever of character motive. All we get is means, and opportunity.
And that's just not enough to get a conviction.