Amid the mixed critical reaction to “Public Enemies,” I’ve been surprised at how few critics have responded to the film’s contemporary resonances: the dialogue (intentional or otherwise) between the film’s portrait of the Great Depression and the bleak economic landscape of the present day.
One reader recently (and rather astutely) noted the film’s general lack of interest in the “people’s champion” side of Dillinger’s persona, which might indeed have brought the film’s social agenda more to the fore. But David Cox at the Guardian believes the film already celebrates Dillinger quite amply, and draws parallels between the film’s events and the present-day corruption of the banking system. The only difference, he argues, is that the Dillingers of today lie within the system:
As he did in Heat, Mann toys with the much-favoured Hollywood theme of moral equivalence between wrongdoers and their state-ordained antagonists … It’s this air of pervasive amorality that most clearly links Mann’s tale with its present-day analogue. We may be seeing less bloodshed now, but we’re not short of our own kind of depravity. In some ways it’s even worse than the version that Mann portrays.
He continues:
Unlike Dillinger, Fred the Shred (disgraced former Royal Bank of Scotland head Fred Goodwin) can’t even claim it was a troubled life that drove him to plunder bank vaults. America’s gangbusters reasserted the rule of righteousness; as our rapacious bankers go unpunished, our own leaders have been busily indulging in their own brand of embezzlement. People used to worry that gangster movies exalted crime. Public Enemies celebrates something yet more untoward, namely the call to get away with whatever you can in pursuit of whatever you want. It’s a message of which we stand today in all too little need.
It’s an interesting take, though I’d dispute that Mann’s film particularly exalts Dillinger and his deeds much beyond allowing him to be played by an attractive, well-liked actor. Indeed, what some perceive as the film’s emotional remoteness — even the relative unknowability of its characters on both sides of the law — is, for me, the result of its reluctance to take sides.
I’m not saying that’s either a virtue or a debit of the film — I just think you have to look as hard for heroes in the film’s Depression as you do in the current social fabric.
Comments
5 responses to “Celebration of amorality?”
Just saw Public Enemies, thought it was a great film, Depp and Cotillard deserve all the praise they’ve got and more.
The digital camera bothered me more during the simple walking scenes then the action scenes. It made the action scenes look incredibly fluid but the walking scenes look awkward… I loved the colors though. Don’t think it is going to be that great for Oscars though, other than Depp and perhaps Cotillard…
Reluctance to take sides? The film did everything for Dillinger short of putting him up on the cross. The cops were brutal, and Dillinger’s allies were ruthless, but Dillinger stood above at all times.
Yeah, I’m with James — I don’t think there is any question what side that Mann took. I think one of the problems of the film, in fact, is that Purvis isn’t given his due because I think Mann just was too intrigued by Dillinger.
Also, I wonder if anyone else thought that the context of the Depression was significantly underplayed. I’m not talking about the set pieces and the production design, which were great, but rather the use of the time period in the story.
That was the maing thing that bothered me too. The film felt one-sided to me, because none of the cops were developed enough, particularly Purvis (did he have any motive for going after Dillinger besides the fact that it was his assignment?). I felt Mann was siding with Dillinger as well, by showing him as a loyal friend who despite his reckless way of life, cares about his people, and the scenes with the brutal police tactics (along with a shot of Purvis viciously shooting at one of Dillinger’s associates with a cold look on his face) made me feel the film was siding with Dillinger.
i think Depp’s Dillinger is too likeable to be a honest gangster! but i loved the fact Purvis isn’t a “good boy”