Public Enemies

[Lars Zemskih]

This isn't against you personally, Emile, but I am really tired of this constant "one-upmanship" on this forum. I'm not trying to impress or one-up anyone else, just trying to provide the most accurate information possible.

 

Please don't guess or speculate and make it sound like a fact, which you sort of do here.

 

Sorry, I forgot to add "as I remember" or something like that. But forums will always be in this tone, you know.

[K Borowski]

Sorry, I forgot to add "as I remember" or something like that. But forums will always be in this tone, you know.

 

Yeah, I figured as much.

 

It's very easy to misconstrue tone without a smattering of emoticons. Even then, it's tricky sometimes. Lol. I like how this one: :) Has come to mean angry, in general.

 

 

Some people take it as happy though.

 

 

I really hate, personally, when someone comes in and picks apart one's post sentence-by-sentence or paragraph-by-paragraph. It almost feels to me, in these situations as if I am being cross-examined by Jack McCoy in a court room somewhere when someone does that to me.

 

And the notion that you need to pounce on someone and correct every little mistake is also quite obnoxious. Please don't take what I said to you as coming across that way. My bluntness and forthrightness often comes off as hostility or criticism.

[Peter Moretti]

Karl,

 

Go watch "Public Enemies." I want read what you think after having seen the moive. Not to sound blunt or crtical, LOL :P .

[K Borowski]

Should I catch a film projection or a digital projection?

 

Which would allow me to be more blunt, and critical in my evaluation? :P

[Peter Moretti]

Should I catch a film projection or a digital projection?

 

Which would allow me to be more blunt, and critical in my evaluation? :P

 

Both, it would give you the most latitude for criticizing with bluntedness. ;)

 

But seriously, if you have the choice, I'd still choose film projection at a good theatre. Digital display throws another element into the mix. We're trying to evaluate the choice and technique used for acquisition not projection. JMHO.

[David Mullen ASC]

Both, it would give you the most latitude for criticizing with bluntedness. ;)

 

But seriously, if you have the choice, I'd still choose film projection at a good theatre. Digital display throws another element into the mix. We're trying to evaluate the choice and technique used for acquisition not projection. JMHO.

 

I don't know, I generally prefer seeing digital photography digitally projected. I saw it at the Landmark where they have a 4K Sony projector and it looked great, projection-wise, very sharp and crisp.

 

I mean, you can just as easily argue that seeing a release print possibly made from an IP/IN, with all the quality control issues involved, adds more "elements into the mix". With the digital version, I feel I'm seeing something as close as possible to the master, so I'm not judging the quality of the film recording, duping to IP/IN, and mass release printing.

 

But even with the digital version, you're going to see every digital artifact in the image, don't worry! But it might not look as muddy and washed-out as some people have said the print version looks.

[K Borowski]

But even with the digital version, you're going to see every digital artifact in the image, don't worry! But it might not look as muddy and washed-out as some people have said the print version looks.

 

I tend to agree that it's better to see digital movies digitally projected than from film.

 

The color timing of prints has gotten pretty abysmal, too.

 

The only advantage I could see to print stock would be the increased color range and latitude, but that is assuming a digital camera could actually take advantage of these features (which most seemingly can't).

[David Mullen ASC]

I tend to agree that it's better to see digital movies digitally projected than from film.

 

The color timing of prints has gotten pretty abysmal, too.

 

The only advantage I could see to print stock would be the increased color range and latitude, but that is assuming a digital camera could actually take advantage of these features (which most seemingly can't).

 

Print stock today only has one clear advantage over digital projection: black level. If you go into a decent multiplex and see a new print in one theater and the digital one in another (as I did for "Underworld: Rise of the Lycans", shot on the Genesis), the main difference you'll see is the greater contrast ratio and black level of the print version. But you also see jittering, dirt, more grain, and inconsistent focus. You've also got the flatness of focus problem due to the mediocre scope lenses used in so many theaters, whereas 2.40 is digitally projected with a spherical lens.

 

But some movie theaters can't even get a decent black with print projection for some reason, perhaps due to dirty glass (or the stupid use of plexiglass, which I saw at Sundance in the Prospector Lodge Theater) for the projector port window. Or it may be due to using a bulb that is too dim. IMAX projection, which has great blacks, also has a higher footlambert level (for which the prints are timed.)

 

Some movies have come out in IMAX DMR prints, 2K DLP projection, and 35mm release prints -- usually the choice for me is between the IMAX print or the DLP presentation. You get better blacks with the IMAX version, the grain is about the same because they do a lot of grain-reduction in the DMR process... but you also can get this plasticy de-grained look, which at least the DLP version doesn't have, you're just seeing the grain from the scan, and whatever noise crept into the color-correction.

[Tobias Marshall]

For me its simple: it is a badly directed film and poorly lit, this not helped by the choice of substandard formats, for example HDV.

 

Firstly in Direction: I didnt care for, associate or understand any of the characters which for me is vital. No Beginning or End, Just Middle. lt lacked story with events just tied together by Dillinger's involvement. In scenes I was confused by the staging and cutting to where people were and time relation, something I notice alot in these 'choppey' handheld movies. Some shots really bought your attention to the camera (as Eisenstein would say ''Unrelated Camera Mischief'') which drags the viewer out from the screen making the realisation, infact I am sitting in a chair watching a movie (I love Goddard so this isn't down to technique, only application). The shot which followed Billie from the ladies switch to the door in her apartment was just awful, it looked like student film-making. (On a side note - the Sound was also terrible, not just ADR but the lack of diegetic noise to make the scenes feel alive)

 

As for Cinematography, I was waiting for who's name would be at the end and was shocked to find it was Dante Spinotti. Manhunter for me is what Micheal Mann is about, its so bold and part of that is Spinotti's work. First off the film would have looked better if shot on film or one high end HD camera but it still would have been a poor film, however it was made worse by the the format. Many scenes were High-Contrast, something video really struggles with its lack of latitude. The highlights were constantly blowing out losing detail, its bold but horrible, especially with video. They didnt raise the light levels with fill to even out the latitude, its almost like their were using video's downfalls to try to establish a look. As for using EX-1, one has to ask why?, as there was no shots in the film that a 35mm camera couldnt have done. Its a big budget movie and they are are using a cheap camera which comes with heavy magenta hues and noise. The low-light scene were awful, so muggy and dark, it looked like they only used praticals but I doubt this, they looked very flat. Lots of shots looked underexposed.

 

You could say I fould this film uncomfortable to watch . .

[Tom Lowe]

I don't think we can blame Spinotti at all. This seems to be all Mann's doing.

[Peter Moretti]

For me its simple: it is a badly directed film and poorly lit, this not helped by the choice of substandard formats, for example HDV.

 

... First off the film would have looked better if shot on film or one high end HD camera but it still would have been a poor film, however it was made worse by the the format. ...

 

Tobias,

 

The film was mostly shot on a Sony F23 recording to HDCAM-SR. That's a far cry from HDV or low end.

 

As for the dialogue mix, I agree that some of the voices sounded disconnected from their locations.

[David Mullen ASC]

Tobias,

 

The film was mostly shot on a Sony F23 recording to HDCAM-SR. That's a far cry from HDV or low end.

 

As for the dialogue mix, I agree that some of the voices sounded disconnected from their locations.

 

I think he's referring to the Sony EX1 footage mixed in there, which is technically XDCAM, not HDV.

 

What bothers me the most about this torrent of criticism aimed at the movie is that many people are suggesting that Dante Spinotti and David Canning -- both of whom are experienced with HD -- don't know what they are doing, and that the look of the movie is inherent to the Sony F23 and that the movie would have looked "100X better if shot on the RED" (something said over at RedUser).

 

A lot of people really don't know what they are talking about, clearly, yet want to feel that they know more about filmmaking and shooting HD than the people who made this movie.

 

It just doesn't sink in that the look, like it or not, was a deliberate aesthetic choice -- the over-use of edge enhancement, the Rec 709 color space, the clipping, the 360 degree shutter, etc. -- all these things didn't happen by accident because Spinotti and Canning don't know what buttons to push on the F23 or how to expose a shot in HD.

 

I'm tired of defending the movie, but what really irks me is all these small-time video shooters and even some high schoolers who like to brag now about how much more they know about shooting in HD than Mann's team.

 

If you want to see some straight-forward F23 footage, look at the new trailer for "Final Destination 4".

[Justin Hayward]

what really irks me is all these small-time video shooters and even some high schoolers who like to brag now about how much more they know about shooting in HD than Mann's team.

 

Well, the same goes for the critics that praise it. People seem really excited that they can tell it's HD at all, whether they rip it or not. It's just they're normally shocked when they hear something like Final Destination 4 was shot on HD, especially after they've seen it four times. So, something like this is fantastic, because it's a chance to spit like one of the pro's and finally not be faking they can see something they can't. This movie is obviously shot on video and made by some of the best artists working in Hollywood today, so it's an easy target.

 

And I'm not playing the "holier than thou" card. I've been there and done that. :rolleyes:

[Peter Moretti]

...

It just doesn't sink in that the look, like it or not, was a deliberate aesthetic choice -- the over-use of edge enhancement, the Rec 709 color space, the clipping, the 360 degree shutter, etc. -- all these things didn't happen by accident because Spinotti and Canning don't know what buttons to push on the F23 or how to expose a shot in HD.

...

 

I know I wrote that I didn't find the highlights blown-out except for in one scene. I'm sure that's not really the case. It would have been more accurate of me to say that only in one scene did I find the highlights offensively blow-out. Depeding on the time of day, angle of the sun, setting, mood, intended look, etc. highlights can be blown-out and look absolutely appropriate.

 

Bryan Carroll also made it clear that he and Mann wanted to make the shooting experience as much as they could like shooting flim. And they wanted the look baked-in, not dependent upon post like Mann's Viper Filmscribe experience was. There were a lot of concerns that had to be weighed.

 

I really liked the look, FTMP. It was the (lack of) interaction between Bale and Depp where I felt the film fell short.

[Tobias Marshall]

I never suggested Spinotti didnt know what he was doing, only regardless of format; this was a poorly lit film. The nightclub scene looked almost as if no artifical lighting was used, which can look great but it caused flat magenta tones and muggy blacks that eclipst the frame with no depth. Cinematography for me looks its best when its natural and doesnt bring your attention to it but that doesnt mean it has to be ugly. When ever Dillinger walked past practicals that were blowing out (When he walked out of the club along the stairs, or when he walked in to the police station) all I could see was the ugly look of digital loss of detail, if you like that look we should just stop talking. I will love to hear the views of someone who liked the lighting.

 

As for the EX-1 it looked as blantant as a PD-150 cut with film. ''Unrelated Camera Mischief'' on a different level, mischief with formats.

 

Does Micheal Mann have shares in Sony? I bet he gets alot of back-up from companies for being at the forefront of HD production.

[K Borowski]

I am probably going to like this film, in spite of myself. I see the type of work the movie's "protagonist" employs himself in as a fallback career if filmmaking dies.

 

 

As far as amateurs liking to think they know more than professionals, David, unfortunately a lot of people like to view filmmaking as their fantasy world, an escape from the IT job that is getting outsourced to China next month.

 

They don't make the distinction between the finished product and the process.

 

This is a job folks; we don't care what Joe Q. Public thinks of our work unless "Joe" knows what he is talking about. Even *in* the industry a lot of people don't know what they are talking about.

[Dakota Gracey]

The thing that was most surprising to me was that almost every shot was a close-up. So much so that when a long shot came-up it was a surprise. The whole movie seemed visually flat to me, not in terms of image quality, but in cutting and shot composition. I did like the film, but I was constantly wishing the operator would take a step back. Not sure if anyone else felt this way.

[Tobias Marshall]

Close-ups like Camera moves, mean more if used with motive behind. When the film is bombarded with them, they lose any effect, a less is more approach. Its takes good direction to stage a wide and know when to use a close-up, Im aware that this might not be the intended style of the film but its a style I dont like. How many films spend millions on sets, only to see the millions spent on the mugs of actors. I blame MTV.

[Gary Shunk]

Mann's current iteration of style is perfect for The Insider and Collateral. Unfortunately, I felt it impeded my ability to enter any character, let alone the story, in PE. A hand-held 30's period film of this magnitude didn't work for me.

 

In spite of the almost constant movement of the camera, I did notice many nuanced details in the images. The production designer (Nathan Crowley) did a superb job.

[Jason Outenreath]

The movie had so many things going against it besides cinematography, that at points it was difficult to tell the difference as they blended together. There were major script problems for starters. The relationships all felt superficial. Billy just suddenly decides to run off with this bank robber she met 1 day ago or something, and chooses to stick by him until the end for who knows what reason. Even though they try to make a big deal of the rivalry between Dillenger and Christian Bale's forgettable character, he isn't even the one to apprehend him at the end. I think the thing that makes this movie fall flat more than anything else, is just how this genre has been done so incredibly well in the past, that the standards are high (as they should be). This film as far as story/script goes, was completely unoriginal and didn't bring anything new to the genre. Consider movies like Bonnie and Clyde, or Road to Perdition. This movie was bland, and the ending was unsatisfying and essentially a cop out, even if it was what actually happened historically. The whole movie felt like a cop out, in that at every turn, whatever happens, is pretty much the first thing that comes to someones mind when they think of what could happen next. It was predictable, and tried to be unpredictable in predictable ways.

 

As for the cinematography, I don't think the issue is that it mixed formats, and has different looks, so much as it didn't feel very purposeful. Sure, there were some scenes that just completely fell apart visually. For example the night wood scene. For one, where in the world were those light sources coming from??? I know its in the woods, and light has to come from somewhere, but they could have done something like in Lord of the Rings where there's just kind of an overall bluish glow coming above. Instead, they opted for incredibly harsh, directional light that changes in color dramatically from one light to the next... In the woods nonetheless.

 

More than anything the whole movie just felt uninspired... And even Johnny Depp couldn't save it as good an actor as we all know he is.

[georg lamshöft]

@James Caspar Wolfe

 

Thanks for finding the right words for my thoughts, too ;-)

 

"Road to Perdition" is a good example, watch it directly after watching "Public Enemies", even with some teenagers/students that don't even know that one was shot digitally and the other one by an old cinematographer with film - they won't care anyway. But I promise, if they're halfway interested in movies, they will FEEL the difference!

It has nothing to do with the MTV-generation, every 20 year old thinks that "Star Wars" or "The Godfather" is super-cool - quality is timeless!

 

The brownish, nearly monochrome artificial light scenes remind me a little bit of "Benjamin Button" - just flat and powerless.

 

Soderbergh? When you just thought it can't get worse: http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/theinformant/hd/ Well, at least the camera isn't shaking... Looks visually like a well-made youtube-spoof or a multicam-sitcom...

 

Do we really have to see teen-splatter-cheerleader-movies to get good cinematography :lol: ;) (just kidding, Diablo Cody is a must-see for me, whoever has made it, how it was filmed).

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I don't know if I want to see Jennifer's Body more for the cinematography, or more for Jennifer's Body.....

(sorry i havn't got much more on digi talk this early in the morning)

[Frank Barrera]

Wow. There is a lot of fundamentalism going on around here. Many of these posts sound like horse shoe salesmen when the car was developing. And thats exactly what's happening here. Technical Evolution. A long period of time while film and video will co-exist. However, just based on environmental reasons alone film will be pushed to the margins if not out right banned (someday).

 

Anyway, I think Public Enemy is a very good genre piece. The melodramatic bio pic can be somewhat limited material at times of course but I was entertained. I also think that the BEST thing about this film was the use of video. And the only reason i went to see it in the theater was because of what I had read from Mann and Spinotti talking about their attempts to achieve "hyper realism". They shot tests with period wardrobe and found the 35MM to look like a period piece and they were not interested in that look. They felt that the HD appeared not realistic but more hyper-realistic. In this instance I agree with them. I see this as a reference to live television broadcast and the "news" connection we have with interlaced video. Think "Jerry Springer".

 

I thought the gun fights did look like somebody was running around with a video camera and the action was good and johnny dep was cool and it was a good ride.

 

i think that when filmmakers with deep experience experiment we should always stop talking and study what they are doing and perhaps learn. we are living in a changing world.

[Keneu Luca]

Wow. There is a lot of fundamentalism going on around here. Many of these posts sound like horse shoe salesmen when the car was developing. And thats exactly what's happening here. Technical Evolution. A long period of time while film and video will co-exist. However, just based on environmental reasons alone film will be pushed to the margins if not out right banned (someday).

 

Anyway, I think Public Enemy is a very good genre piece. The melodramatic bio pic can be somewhat limited material at times of course but I was entertained. I also think that the BEST thing about this film was the use of video. And the only reason i went to see it in the theater was because of what I had read from Mann and Spinotti talking about their attempts to achieve "hyper realism". They shot tests with period wardrobe and found the 35MM to look like a period piece and they were not interested in that look. They felt that the HD appeared not realistic but more hyper-realistic. In this instance I agree with them. I see this as a reference to live television broadcast and the "news" connection we have with interlaced video. Think "Jerry Springer".

 

I thought the gun fights did look like somebody was running around with a video camera and the action was good and johnny dep was cool and it was a good ride.

 

i think that when filmmakers with deep experience experiment we should always stop talking and study what they are doing and perhaps learn. we are living in a changing world.

 

About "hyper realsim", in this thread, I previously said the following:

 

As far as "violent jolts and swooshes" are concerned, they too can easily be achieved on film. And if Mann wanted the movie to look as though it were captured by camera phones and broadcast over youtube...well....he could have shot the film with camera phones, and then severely compressed the footage in post. This argument, for example, works much better for the movie, "Cloverfield." Not that I'm endorsing that movie, just saying the video argument can be made with more validation for it.

 

But let's say that that in fact is Mann's motivation for employing video origination. What purpose does that serve? Does it really strengthen the emotional, intellectual, or visceral impact of the movie if the audience feels as though it were happening today? As if there hasn't been any media-saturated criminal activity that somehow glorifies the criminals since Dillinger. Arent we all well aware of this real-life phenomenon? Is this element necessary in the telling of "Public Enemies"?

 

What does it add? We know the story is decades old. Using video doesnt really modernize it. The movie is set in the 1930's. We see the cars, the clothes, etc. If it were shot on film, would we be less connected to the story and the action and the characters and the emotions? Do you really think those elements would suffer without the use of video? If you agree, does that mean every movie you make set a few decades back should be shot with video so that we can make a relevant connection to it?

 

It becomes an issue of subjectivity versus objectivity. And it takes more than using video to achieve either one of those. Is the use of video harmonized with the other directorial choices to achieve its effect?

 

i think that when filmmakers with deep experience experiment we should always stop talking and study what they are doing and perhaps learn. we are living in a changing world.

 

We are studying. And now we are sharing the conclusions of those studies.

[David Mullen ASC]

What does it add? We know the story is decades old. Using video doesnt really modernize it. The movie is set in the 1930's. We see the cars, the clothes, etc. If it were shot on film, would we be less connected to the story and the action and the characters and the emotions? Do you really think those elements would suffer without the use of video? If you agree, does that mean every movie you make set a few decades back should be shot with video so that we can make a relevant connection to it?

 

There's no right or wrong choice here, there's mostly an issue of going with or against convention.

 

A similar example would be Peter Watkin's movies of the 1960's like "Culloden":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057982/

A reconstruction of the Battle of Culloden, the last battle to take place on British soil, as if modern TV cameras were present.

 

You could argue that what an anachronistic approach does is remove some of the comfort of the distance of time that comes from seeing conventional "period" photography, it forces you to consider what your reactions would be if these events were happening today.

 

I'm not knocking convention because obviously for some people, going against genre expectations did not work for them in this case. It's always dangerous to upset people's notions of how something should be portrayed. But you also have to ask yourself whether convention becomes cliche after some time, or whether breaking convention allows for a fresh take on an old topic.

 

It's a bit like Hitchcock's comments to Truffaut that he'd rather set a murder in a sunny field with flowers rather than in a dark and scary place... yet ultimately, that's what he did with "Pyscho", embracing some gothic horror visual conventions, and it was one of his most popular and effective movies. So going in the opposite direction of expectations is always risky.