Public Enemas
When Steven Spielberg or Martin Scorsese is working on a film, people talk about it. In conversation, or print, their name is part of the story. Whether or not I happen to be a fan of their work, I can recognize the merit behind this type of special treatment. Joss Whedon might be a great example of someone who may not deserve it, but I’m aware that he has legions of fans who dote on his every frame. I can even tolerate this sort of thing for Robert Rodriguez, who hasn’t made a great movie in a long time (or… maybe ever), though maybe he did earn it from “El Mariachi” which broke some serious ground, way back when.
But there is a Director whose projects get this first-class treatment, and I cannot figure out why. His name is Michael Mann.
When I first heard of Michael Mann, the press was rolling out the A-List treatment for him and his latest film, “Ali.” Reading articles about the film, you sensed that the press seemed to think Mann’s direction of the film was almost as important as the eponymous subject. And the movie, which we’ll discuss in a bit, was bloated, flat and too long.
What did this guy do to deserve any sort of ‘above the title’ recognition? I’ll borrow a Festivus tradition and begin the airing of the grievances:
1.) Ali - Despite a pretty terrific performance from Will Smith, the movie fell flat, like all Michael Mann movies. It just plodded along and couldn’t muster up any sparks of its own. In other words, the film did a fine job of siphoning the energy of the larger than life events from Ali’s life, but the other scenes, dialogue, the moments of Ali’s life that needed some life breathed into it (or, I don’t know, direction!)…. Nada. Mind you, we’re talking about the most electrifying sports figure of the 20th century and Mann couldn’t even get the lights on.
I will also never understand the casting of Jon Voight as Howard Cosell. Cosell was a caricature of himself, begging to be reprised by someone who at least vaguely resembled the man, or at least had a whiff of the nuances of the character. Casting Jon Voight as Howard Cosell is a bit like casting someone like Horatio Saenz to play Jon Voight.
2.) Miami Vice - Now, I’m probably the a**hole for even going to see this, but that’s neither here nor there. If you like grainy, low-lit, ‘verite-esque’ wobbly, herky-jerky camera work, then: a) You probably celebrate Mann’s entire career, and b) You might even be watching Miami Vice as I type this. From the little I can remember (and couldn’t permanently scrub from my memory), the movie also had no pulse, no serious plot, and horrific casting of Farrell and Foxx. I actually wondered at the time if Mann cast this movie by Q-Scores. And yet, I remember this being a big deal when it came out. Like, people were actually excited about this, and partially because of Michael Mann.
3.) Collateral - Here, at least, Mann scratched some potential. The first half was intriguing: Jamie Foxx as a cabdriver with Tom Cruise as a mysterious character, driving around the neon-lit, shadowy streets of Los Angeles. Of all his films, Mann’s grainy low-lit, etc. etc., actually works here! I didn’t hate this movie, but it’s also pretty forgettable. And still doesn’t explain why Mann’s name is even mentioned on projects.
4.) Heat - I wish I could talk about this movie, but I haven’t seen it. Which, in my experience, enrages some people. People love this movie. So maybe I’m missing it and Mann’s entire existence is predicated by Heat. You can let me know. But let’s say that “Heat” is the greatest movie ever made, I would still be bewildered by this (c/o Wikipedia): “Total Film ranked Mann #28 on their 100 The Greatest Directors Ever and Sight and Sound ranked him #5 on their list of the 10 Best Directors of the Last 25 Years,Entertainment Weekly ranked Mann #8 on their 25 Greatest Active Film Directors list.”
NOW, let’s talk about Public Enemies: An abject failure of film making, in every single facet of the ‘game.’ I’ve really never seen such a mess on film. Why anyone would make a stylish, period piece about the Great Depression and gangsters and fall back on herky-jerky camera movements and low-lit shots that betray the era is beyond me. This isn’t even like Baz Luhrman’s “Romeo and Juliet”, which had a purpose and a role for these stylistic choices. Mann will throw in your usual fixed camera shots, and “West Wing” style walk/talk scenes, and then, for no real reason, give you a grainy shot of Johnny Depp in a car, or a slow push on the side ornament of a car… for no reason. It all adds up to a director with no feel for the movie he was creating.
The acting was really poor, and we’re not talking about B-List players, either. Christian Bale delivers a totally wooden and mumble-mouthed performance as the lead FBI agent, and Marion Cotillard, while not a poor performance, per se, turns in an accent so bizarre you might wonder if she was trying to cross Chicago with the Czech Republic.
Similar to “Ali”, this movie took some pretty compelling events and blew the opportunity entirely. Unlike Mann’s usual sin, this movie wasn’t exactly flat. It was too much of a trainwreck to be flat. The movie jumps from scene to scene, and brings characters in and out of the story, with no real purpose or exposition that ties the proceedings together. Mann never takes the time to introduce the characters to the audience, and we never learn anything about anyone. The story is incoherent, and as opposed to movies with a purpose for confusing the audience, I would call this “Confusion by Ineptitude.” The controversial creation of the FBI, along with Hoover’s oversized ego, Dillinger’s “Robin Hood”-esque existence are all footnotes to scenes of extremely boring bank robberies and prison breaks. Should bank robberies ever be boring?
On the technical front, this movie is really bad. I’m not an audiophile, but this movie’s audio mix was atrocious. I’ve actually never seen a movie where it was this obvious that the dialogue was looped in afterwards; I’m talking about moments when it seemed like mid-sentence, the actor’s microphone got louder.
So here’s my bottom line: I don’t know why people think Michael Mann’s career is worth celebrating, but I’m clearly in the minority. Perhaps he’s a charismatic individual whose personality and charm yields sweetheart treatment from the Hollywood press. I cannot conjure up any other explanation.
(F)
