Features
Headlines
Search
Archives
F.X. Feeney, whose Taschen study on the films of Michael Mann is must reading for fans of the director, has gone on the record with Jeffrey Wells as believing the female characters from Mann’s films to be “deeply observed, self-reliant and fully dimensional.”
The comment follows an earlier Wells posting concerning Marion Cotillard’s strong performance in “Public Enemies,” opening Wednesday. And while I have all the respect in the world for Feeney and his opinions, I have to respectfully disagree with his take here.
In writing about Cotillard’s performance in my review of the film, I praised the actress for finding “the right combination of frailty and strength that has defined the few well-developed female characters from Mann’s films,” and I stand by the passing commentary at the end there. Most of the females in Mann’s work, to my eye, serve as transitional devices more often than not. Cora Munroe in “The Last of the Mohicans,” Charlene Shiherlis in “Heat” and now, Cotillard in “Enemies,” represent the few examples of the director tapping into women with a compelling trajectory.
Feeney takes exception with film writer and professor Mark Harris’s recent New York Times piece, which claims “prominent roles for women are not among [Mann's] trademarks,” though I think Harris was speaking more to presence than complexity.
Mann was on to something in “Miami Vice” and especially Diane Venora’s role in “Heat,” but where Feeney sees self-reliance and dimensionality, I see missed opportunity through underscored nuance with actresses that didn’t seem comfortable with their roles. Regardless, I appreciate the opportunity to read his thoughts on “Enemies” and have to thank Wells for putting them forth.
“I love, too, that Public Enemies dramatizes the great line from Miami Vice — ‘time is luck’ — without having to state it aloud,” Feeney tells Wells. “Mann is contemplating mortality in this movie, more directly and philosophically than ever before — and doing so in the Ernest Hemingway sense of action as a philosophy. This is a soulful film that calls no attention to its soulfulness, trusting us to tune in.”
On that, sir, we’re 100% in agreement.
7 responses so far
1 6-29-2009 at 12:55 am
Jacob said...
I’m more in agreement with Feeney. I not once have faulted the writing of a female character in a Mann film within the context of the particular film and its purpose. That being said, I don’t think he’s trying to use his female characters as the most complex aspects of his films. And sometimes, if they’re just meant to reflect the males, and how they see things, well, then that’s the story he’s telling and he uses them well in that regard, for my money. But I do think Isabella is a 100% dead on great character. Even that line — “time is luck” — is not simply that; it goes a long way to explaining the emotional age both she and Sonny are trapped in, despite the hard — and often fake — exterior. Look forward to going through the details of the Cotillard character. From what I’ve read by people that seem to get Mann (i.e. not mainstream critics, for the most part), it seems there’s no doubt Mann is keeping with the “calls no attention to itself” approach of MV.
2 6-29-2009 at 1:00 am
Guy Lodge said...
All I know is that “Miami Vice” managed to make one of the greatest actresses of her generation look completely and utterly vapid. Not saying Gong wasn’t entirely at fault, but that character … ugh.
3 6-29-2009 at 7:56 am
red_wine said...
Most reviews are saying that Cotillard has the typical love-interest role. Along with Mann, I would also point the finger of blame at Scorsese. While not misogynist, I always felt that his films in general almost never had good female characters, there are some, but they are few and far between.
4 6-29-2009 at 1:05 pm
BerkeleyGirl said...
Don’t forget Ashley Judd in “Heat”!!! Specifically, the scene from the window when the cops are there. She lets Val Kilmer know not to come home. It speaks volumes without a word.
5 6-29-2009 at 1:23 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Ashley Judd’s character in Heat is Charlene Sheherlis:
“Most of the females in Mann’s work, to my eye, serve as transitional devices more often than not. Cora Munroe in “The Last of the Mohicans,” Charlene Shiherlis in “Heat” and now, Cotillard in “Enemies,” represent the few examples of the director tapping into women with a compelling trajectory.”
:)
6 6-29-2009 at 3:42 pm
Guy Lodge said...
Scorsese made “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore,” so when it comes to the issue of female characters, that qualifies as his Get Out Of Jail Free card for life.
And there’s a long run of women emerging as the most interesting features in otherwise male-driven Scorsese films: Hershey in “Last Temptation,” Lewis in “Cape Fear,” Ryder in “The Age of Innocence,” Stone in “Casino.”
Factor in Liza Minnelli’s work in “New York, New York,” and I think you have a pretty great women’s director, but that’s me.
7 6-30-2009 at 2:45 am
F.X. Feeney said...
Kristopher Tapley,
What a pleasure to be embedded in such an intelligent discussion. Thank you!
In fairness to Professor Harris, I was reacting to his opinion as-summarized, not in its proper context — and then I compounded the error by doing so with the cranky immediacy of a guy talking back to his radio. Your own argument that there are “few well-developed” female characters in Mann’s films is certainly thought-provoking.
There are nevertheless micro and macro ways to view character-development. Judged in strictly linear terms, Mann’s films deal exclusively with male protagonists and antagonists. The exception is Cora Munro, who takes hold of her destiny with such energy that she is a co-lead with Hawkeye in MOHICANS. (Indeed, SHE changes; he remains constant.) Cotillard’s Billie is her kin, and is nearly as much at center-stage.
Mann’s other women are, nevertheless, fully developed and dimensional when we meet them. This in itself sets Mann well above other male American filmmakers. He truly loves women; he sees them true. Every female we encounter in his films, from those blink-and-you-miss-them young mothers imperiled by the Red Dragon in MANHUNTER to the poor gaunt countrywoman who says to Dillinger “Take me with you, Mister,” has been fully realized — observed, thought about in advance, conjured — to her very fingernails.
Those characters are there, in a sense, for US to develop. Mann is a bit of a renaissance painter in this regard — every figure in the canvas competes to be the key figure. This gives his murals their turbulent life.
His pictures are so eminently re-watchable because EVERY character has been truthfully realized — take Bud Cort’s fierce cameo as the fry cook in HEAT; elsewhere in the same picture, check out those hellish little sores afflicting Jon Voight’s pale dealer-in-stolen goods.
My irritation with what I (mis)understood of Professor Harris’s point is simply that Mann gives NOBODY short-shrift, least of all women. I hate for MM to be held up to a false standard of “fairness” when what he’s gunning for at all times is a fantastically swift-speckled omniscience.
Again, Mr. Tapley, many thanks –!