Showing posts with label Michael Mann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Mann. Show all posts

Monday, 4 January 2010

Public Enemies: Thoughts from a train


I wrote the following about Michael Mann's Public Enemies while travelling drunk on a train a few months ago. The details are lost to me, but go something like this: I like Mann a great deal, and remember feeling aggrieved at some po-faced and cockwards misunderstanding of the film which I read or heard somewhere or other. Drunk and on a train seemed the perfect place to right these wrongs. So please remember as you read the following: I was drunk, and on a train.


This isn’t vintage Mann. It’s not his best. But that leaves plenty of scope for beating the stern shit out of all the other macho bullshit spilling out of Hollywood, so all good.

In the end, what we have is: Better than The Keep, Last Of The Mohicans, Ali, Miami Vice and, just, Collateral. Worse than Manhunter, The Insider and, like all but maybe a dozen films ever, Heat.

It has the same men-on-the-job structure as Heat, the dynamic opposing forces intersecting briefly on the way to a fatalistic outcome. But unlike Heat, where De Niro and Pacino's connection sends sparks which flash and fizzle through to the end of the film, the distanced relationship between Depp and Bale works better than the meeting itself. That coming together, a subdued few moments in a county jail cell, reaches for and almost snatches greatness. Bale is smug and implacid as Purvis, sharp-faced, subdued, the company man. But Depp, waiting smiling in the cell, is too much for him, unbalancing the scene with a brash monologue about watching a man die, and the cold glint of the eyes. It’s too much too soon, a beat or two too early, playing on a diffident respect that Bale’s silence hasn’t yet allowed the two to establish.

But the professional male angle is still played hard, and fruitfully. People compare Mann to Hawks in his use of macho cliques, but the truth is Mann admires a far more dangerous animal: cold, remorseless, functioning psychopaths. De Niro’s McCauley is a frozen corpse of calculation, and just like the real hero of Mohicans isn’t Daniel Day Lewis but his get-shit-done dad (who’s been scalping mutherfuckers for years), so it’s not Bale or Depp who earn the most admiring looks from Mann’s camera in Public Enemies, but a steely southern agent drafted in by Purvis who consistently makes smart calls and doesn’t blink as he puts a bullet into Dillinger at the close (though he does do the honourable thing and deliver his final message: a Man, not a Monster).

A major difficulty of the film is the clash of period setting and digital video. But not, as my fear was, because it robs the gangster epic of its spectacle: the set-pieces are still luminous and grand, Dillinger bounding over bank counters just like the movies taught him to, the art-deco interiors and coat-tailed costumes looking luxurious. The problems come with crowd scenes – blurry and indistinct – and even more so with moments of intimacy. The quieter, closer sequences are lit with shadows that wreck the painterly pretence that film – celluloid – can build. These scenes look no more than the flat sum of their parts: a room, a man, a woman - there. Not strikingly immediate, as the intention presumable was, but strikingly ordinary.

For all his truth and precision, Mann’s finest moments still come when he lets his subjects explode into barely contained flamboyance. Depp wandering through the incident room daring to be captured, a pressured and possessed Purvis skipping from the footplate of a car with Thompson cracking in the darkness.

The gunfights are still a major pleasure. Unleashed in Heat’s running street battle, they reached an obscene plateau in Miami Vice, the ending of which was like having Colin Farrell fire an assault rifle directly into your ear. Here again there’s a respect of the deadly machinery, but also a revelling in the thunder of those frantic, punching bursts. Like Mann’s treatment of manhood and humanity it’s naked, desperate and dangerous. He has an uncomfortable affinity with the criminal element - no, not the criminal element, but the uncompromising element. Killers, basically.

Monday, 13 April 2009

A Start

I was talking to my wife yesterday about the best openings to films, ever. Or more specifically I was positing unscientifically that Manhattan has the best opening to a film, ever (even though I wrote differently here. I changed my mind, alright?). Anyway:



See?

The point is that this here, that I'm building with typing and linking and self-aggrandising, isn't a great beginning. This blog was created, ooh, ages ago, when I still lived in Sheffield, and was intended for writings about film which didn't fit into either the (fairly limited) magazine stuff I was doing, or my ongoing PhD, which is about changing models of authorship in contemporary Hollywood. Of course, freelancing, writing a PhD and having two children means I never had the time to write a single entry - no disaster, since I barely had the time to have any thoughts which could be wasted by not being written about.

So, to now. The blog is resurrected primarily as a public shaming tool for myself. I'll make friends aware of it (hello, friends!) so that the weight of humiliation is awkward and pressing. See - this is the crux of it - I have been writing my PhD for four and half years. I've been doing it slowly, when I can and, lately, hardly at all. I have until the end of August to submit a full draft of 70,000 words. I currently have around 35,000 words written, and so am undertaking to write 2000 words a week from now on.

I'll post here mostly to keep a record for myself. There will be at least one post weekly. Each post will end with a running total, counting down from 35,000, of how many words are left to write, and how many have been completed that week. Mostly the posts will be involved and dry, and uninteresting for casual readers (sorry, theoretical casual readers!). They will say things like:

Last night I rewatched Manhunter to prepare for writing the second part of the Lynch/Mann chapter. I enjoyed it more than ever - title credits and climactic soundtrack choice aside, it's brimming with edge and intelligence, and it's hard to see how it wasn't recognised at the time. I'll be focusing on the film's emphasis on voyeurism and modes of looking (back to not understanding Lacan properly - hooray!), and the specific use of videotapes - the capture and exploitation of experience - in the detective narrative. The most striking thing is still how closely the character of Dolarhyde and his killer's MO fits Lacan's model of langauge/symbolic order/mirror stage, with the use of actual mirrors and his speech impediment. I'll be using the film mostly as a comparison to Blue Velvet - both films released by DEG within a month of each other in 1986 - and Lynch's fetishised conception of performance, but I'm also wrestling with the significance of Blue Velvet's similar correspondence to Freud's Wolfman case. It the connection mostly due to the inherent voyeurism both films depict? Or is it a reflection of the engagement of independent studios in intellectualised sex? And, relatedly, was Ziggy in Quantum Leap named after Sigmund Freud? It's just been brought to my attention that he might.

I'm cheating, because I haven't written any of this yet. Next week will be more honest. Like I said, I know what I'm writing here is out of context and, well, I don't want to say boring, so I won't. But niche. Specialised. All the euphemistic words the marketers of the films I'm studying use to describe their tough sell Euro titflicks and auteurist impenetrables.

The count:

Words remaining: 35,000

Oh, and here's a picture reward, for getting to the end - Manhunter's two promo posters, showing typical alternative strategies. Top - classy intellectual thriller, bottom - kick-ass exploitation cop flick. I love them both.