Public Enemies

Rob, what do you think of the story here that Dillinger was unarmed when shot by the FBI?
Apologies in advance for going fftopic: a bit.

scotrace said:

Saw it again last night at the $2 second-run place.

Click to expand...

That's a real cheap ticket price, real cheap.

Saw the movie tonight. Enjoyed it to some extend: good wardrobe, nice cars, nice props even though some might be not that period-accurate..

I hated the handheld camera, and I find the sound was really bad. Didn't like the sounddesign, but even the simple dialogs sounded choked, no dynamics, unbalanced in the mix and sometimes even downright distorted... (in case your wondering, yes I'm a soundmixer )

My wife and I just saw Public Enemies last night. We both really enjoyed it.

Mr. 'H' said:

One thing I didn't like was that the tube radio on Depp's bedside locker started playing immediately he turned it on.

This would not happed with a tube radio.

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct, but I think this was done less in error and more for the purposes of keeping the film moving. Waitning for a radio to warm up is not riveting filmmaking.

I am still trying to figure out why Ghostsoldier wants to see the Little Bohemia bathroom!

Magic Mark said:

I am still trying to figure out why Ghostsoldier wants to see the Little Bohemia bathroom!

Click to expand...

Mark....I have a secret fetish....

Not really! I am going to renovate my master bath in late 20s-mid-30s decor, and I was wanting some photos of a period, unchanged reference for detail comparison...
Rob

Hello,

Well, I watched the movie. I liked it, although I think it was not as good as it could have been. I certainly do not regret having watched it, maybe even would go back for a second viewing.

Some random thoughts and opinions... beware there are spoilers ahead!

The real sequence of events was greatly changed, but I will admit it, understanding the "dramatical reasons" behind it. The film is about Dillinger, and a major actor portrays him, so is to be expected the climax of the film will show his death. Hence, history is distorted and the death of other important gangsters is shown as having occurred before. Also, many of the events are condensed, greatly modified, or fictionalized; even allowing for cinematographic needs for rythm, pace, etc, the reasons behind some of the changes escape me.

Some of the events depicted, condensed, modified or not, I am not sure can be really followed if you are not familiar with the historical events (I was because I had purposely read Public Enemies before watching the movie); but I am not sure if this can affect the audience, neither. It could well be that many of the accuracy flaws of the movie are only detected by history buffs, so probably the main audience is not influenced. Also, some things are altered, but others are faithfully reproduced, as, for instance, the precise, accurate way Dillinger and other characters receive their wounds. Visual details are generaly very well covered (yes, you can nitpick them, but they are generally well dealt with in my book, and are on the main reconigzable by experts/advanced aficionadoes only).

I think the flamboyant personality of Dillinger could habe been better dealt with, but it is not that badly done, either. I had a concern he would have been shown as too much a glorified character, but I believe this area was not overdone. The scene about him entering the FBI offices I found quite absurd. I think Melvin Purvis character is served worse as regards to accuracy - to make it better fitting for the hero role I guess.

The love story is a bit cliché-ed and, again, pretty fanciful, but I am ready to forgive that, providing such a development is surely preceived as necessary from an audience viewpoint.

Some character and story development is sorely lacking; I wonder how much of it is due to cutting room action. Even if the events depicted cover a few months of real time, probably some more could have been done. Some of the secondary characters merited more screen time - you can lose some of them if you blink. I enjoyed the Texan lawmen, as I did Baby Face Nelson and Karpis, I would have liked more.

I am not a wardrobe expert, but I enjoyed this part. It looked very convincing. And they changed the clothes and hats according to the weather, too. Great scene at the racetracks, with lots of boaters and panamas. Maybe hats were a little more uneven - that often seen feature of them looking too pristine was present, although less so than in other movies. I did not like Bale's hat - I would think it looked too modern, with the taper and all, but I may be wrong. I am not sure about Dillinger's straw hat at the end: I have read he wore a boater, and the pic shown above by Wolfmanjack



seems to show just that. But Depp wears a soft version of a boater. I wonder if this was due to him wanting a soft hat, because of the fall stunt? He ends on the sidewalk with his hat still on - perhaps this not worked well with a stiff boater, or was refused by safety reasons? The pic above seem to show a damage consistent with this, btw.

Regards!

Wolfmanjack said:

Rob, what do you think of the story here that Dillinger was unarmed when shot by the FBI?
Apologies in advance for going fftopic: a bit.

Click to expand...

Wolfman,
Sorry for the delay. I read through that site, and I have have seen other sites with the same bent, but I personally don't buy too much into the "conspiracy" and "poor Johnny" theories myself. A lot of those folks try to apply 21st century, moralistically-bent thinking to the early 20th century reality...it simply doesn't work. Do I believe that the FBI covered-up and possibly "broke" a few rules in the Dillinger affair? Absolutely. Do I think it was with malicious intent? Absolutely not. Was it warranted? I feel it was.

Those hard times called for hard measures, and the men "on the ground" getting the work done were no-nonsense, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later type of fellows who understood that their quarry (Dillinger, Nelson, et. al.) were ruthless in the procurement/practice of self-preservation, that they would give no quarter, and would ask for none if cornered. If I were Charles Winstead, I would have shot John Dillinger instantly also, armed or not, front or back, several times if need be...it was either him or me.

I can't help feel that a lot of these latter-day authors tend to want to deify these outlaws, and show them as anti-heroes, being vulnerable, helpless and 'victims of society', but I think that is revisionist bull; the fact remains they were criminals who consciously chose to live outside the boundaries of civilized law and take what was not rightfully theirs (including human lives), and they were (and are) deserving of whatever harsh fate that befall them (fickle public be damned).

The lawmen were the true heroes in this story, in my opinion.

Rob
(OK...off my soapbox now! )

Hi,

I do not buy that neither. For starters, I very much doubt Dilliger would go anywhere unarmed, being as he was the Public Enemy Number One. He had underwent some basic aesthetical surgery (removal of some moles, filling of a dimple) and probably felt like he could take more risks, and he indeed did, going to public places often - but this does not mean he would behave so carelessly, to the extent of going around without a weapon.

BTW, I subscribe GSoldier posting entirely. Those were different times. Some things have changed for the better, and some arguably for the worse.

Ghostsoldier said:

I am going to renovate my master bath in late 20s-mid-30s decor, and I was wanting some photos of a period, unchanged reference for detail comparison...
Rob

Click to expand...

For uptown reference, see Manhattan Melodrama with Powell & Gable. In the film, a guy is gunned down in a bathroom. Only a Flounger would notice the bathroom decor in such a scene, but it is an amazing art deco bathroom!

Rob & Torpedo,

Thanks for your views. I fully agree that Dillinger had to be brought to justice, but that's for the courts to do, not the police. That being said, I can understand why the fed's might not take the time to ascertain that he was armed. Given Dillinger's history, any lawman would feel "in imminent fear of his life" just being near this thug.

Saw it last night. A bit of a stinker I thought. Not a total loss as the costuming was cool to see and nice vintage sets etc.

But Depp was unusually uncharming, and the script does not allow you to get very involved or like dillinger, or to get to know the lawman. So, since you are not attached to either of them, it is hard to care much about anything that happens. Who is this story really about? Dillinger of the FBI or what?

Further, the whole love affair was so cliche and forced.

Thirdly, the most annoying thing was how they used overly dramatic music to try to make rather boring unimportnat scenes seem so freighted with meaning or emotion.

Overall, I give it a c-, only because it was a fun period piece if nothing else.

I didn’t care for it. Had it been either filmed well or historically accurate I could have accepted it, but as it was neither…

I just finished the book yesterday, and highly recommend it. Very well written and researched.


An idea for a new drinking game:
Every time someone says Melvin Purvis or John Dillinger; you take a drink
Every time they say their own name; you take two.

Serial Hero said:

An idea for a new drinking game:

Every time someone says Melvin Purvis or John Dillinger, you take a drink.

Every time they say their own name, you take two.

Click to expand...

Every time a scene in the film is a let-down, you take three.

.

Marc Chevalier said:

Every time a scene in the film is a let-down, you take three.

.

Click to expand...

I had a little drink about an hour ago and it went straight to my head lol

I finally saw it the other day, and I must say I was pretty underwhelmed. I agree with Marc and others, I just couldn't get interested in the characters. The anachronistic cars didn't get my attention, tho I wish they had used correct ones, but the music did drive me up the wall. Music of the early 30's is SOOO different from music of just a couple years later. Diana Krall's rendition of Bye Bye Bllackbird was perfectly fine, but utterly utterly incorrect for the period. Go listen to some Helen Morgan or Ruth Etting or even Kate Smith. Great music, just as touching and sensitive, but of the time. And there was no excuse for using incorrect radios. Early 30's designs were drastically different from the ones they used here.
The music bugged me the most, tho. They did the same with the otherwise excellent film about Jimmy Braddock, "Cinderella Man".

Often it seems that the research goes like this:

Q: We need a couple of radios for this movie set in the 30's.

A: Here use these they're old.

Q: Are they period?

A: No, but no one will notice the difference.


In the Warren Oates Dillinger movie they did not even bother to have him in a boater when killed, they had him in a fedora! Close enough for Hollywood work!

The warren oates one was good anyway, inaccuracies sure, but warren oates at least looked a little like the real Dillinger.

In JFK if they couldn't get the open continental presidential limo the were considering a convertable Karmen Ghia.

Serial Hero said:

I just finished the book yesterday, and highly recommend it. Very well written and researched.

Click to expand...

I'm almost done with it; I, too, find it highly entertaining and informative. Too bad Mann didn't film it the way it was written.
Rob