Public Enemies

[Mark Dunn]

Films like Seven, Fight Club, Solaris, The Limey, Traffic, American Graffiti and Star Wars, stir the soul. The latest incarnations from these directors just leave me distracted and emotionally detached

 

Tarkovsky died in 1986. He hasn't made a film lately.

And yes, I was being deliberately obtuse about remakes.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Solyaris, was ;72 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069293/)

Solaris was the nice 2002 remake. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307479/)

 

not to nit-pick too much.

 

And David, is not breaking convention also a cliche? Ahh the paradox of our lives!

[Jason Outenreath]

I think the lesson to be learned from this movie, as with so many movies coming out of hollywood these days, is that regardless of whether your shooting on 65mm, 35mm, 16mm, HD, SD, or home movie old school VHS cartridges, without a solid script/story/intention no amount of technology or talent behind that technology can make a great movie.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Solyaris, was ;72 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069293/)

Solaris was the nice 2002 remake. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307479/)

 

not to nit-pick too much.

 

not to nit-pick too much... But 'Solyaris' is a direct transliteration of the Cyrillic letters of the title.

Lem's original novel was in Polish, which uses the Latin alphabet, & is titled 'Solaris'.

 

So if you insist on using the exact Russian title, you should also refer to 'War and Peace' as <<Voyna i Mir>> & Ivan the Terrible as <<Ivan Groznii>>.

 

---The real El Pedante

[Robert Houllahan]

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).

 

 

I think this is a great misconception. It is almost like the computers and electronics (what these new hd cameras and toolsets are made from) are birthed out of magical factories in some kind of immaculate environmentally perfect conception. Nothing could be further from the truth electronic products are birthed with arsenic, beryllium pvc's and exotic solvents. Often the parts are made in places like malaysia or china with little or no regulation.

 

This is a real problem and these products have short shelf lives typically five years or less. Much of the manufacturing processes leave residual persistent toxins which build up over time. From a film laboratory point of view the chemistry is relieved of all of it's silver, recycled and finally made PH neutral and can be processed through a wash and biomass without adding persistent carcinogens to the environment the facts are available in the msds sheets.

 

Lastly a film negative or print takes relatively little power to create and once created lasts 100's of years and does not consume power unless it is being played. Digital media will consume power almost continually after creation or perish shortly without power or if not recorded to film. Google consumes enough power every day to run a million homes.

 

Computers are not any more environmentally "correct" than any other creation even though the box they come in looks clean on the outside.

 

-Rob-

[Frank Barrera]

"'Robert Houllahan' date='Jul 9 2009, 03:34 PM' post='292917']

I think this is a great misconception. It is almost like the computers and electronics (what these new hd cameras and toolsets are made from) are birthed out of magical factories in some kind of immaculate environmentally perfect conception. Nothing could be further from the truth electronic products are birthed with arsenic, beryllium pvc's and exotic solvents. Often the parts are made in places like malaysia or china with little or no regulation."

 

Indeed, digital has a tremendous impact on the environment. That is undeniable. However my point about film being marginalized for environmental reasons is based on the idea that with the emergence of digital technology as a market new policies whether misguided or not will compliment the eventual transfer from one medium to the next.

[Robert Houllahan]

Indeed, digital has a tremendous impact on the environment. That is undeniable. However my point about film being marginalized for environmental reasons is based on the idea that with the emergence of digital technology as a market new policies whether misguided or not will compliment the eventual transfer from one medium to the next.

 

 

Maybe, though I feel that the computer phenomenon is fairly new. People have been reading so much into it that the general push has been to use it for everything and anything i.e. the general push to digitize the world. I feel that there are generational things happening too like Kurzweils "melting Point, sic." where we all upload to the cloud computer. This is of course ridiculous and just a thin veil of an age old phenomena which happens when a generation gets older and faces mortality eternal life has been just beyond the horizon for millennia now.

 

I think that energy and environmental concerns will put digital technology into a more rational place in the coming generations and good old emulsion goop will be with us still...

 

Oh and I didn't like the look of PE either, though I think I see Mann's philosophy now (after being a bit pissed for a bit at it) which is to shoot with these cameras in their "natural" format and let it go almost like shooting film and printing a one light. Unfortunately I think these cameras do not inherently make pretty pictures and need all the work in post to make them look good which is unlike film IMO.

 

-Rob-

[Keneu Luca]

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

 

I'm not talking about right or wrong. Nor was I talking about going with or against convention. You are making that assumption.

 

I am speaking about a specific choice made, a specific motivation for that choice, the desired effect, and if that effect is actually achieved. And if that choice was worth the risk..."as in risk versus reward" - A phrase Mann himself likes to use.

 

I think everyone here can appreciate times when artists do go against convention. As well as when choices seem to stick to convention. It's all about the intention and logic behind it.

 

I, probably like most or all people here, am all for thinking outside the box and doing things different. But if it is purely for the sake of being different or purely for the sake of trying something new, problems can arise.

 

In Ali, Mann used tiny video cameras rigged to stunt boxers to subject the audience to the force and brutality of what it's like to be in the ring in a way no other filmmaker had done before. And I liked it. I thought it was very powerful. Very effective. An unconventional choice made with with logic and, in my opinion, achieved its desired effect without sacrificing anything.

 

I bring this up, David, because it seemed as though you were suggesting that I simply don't like conventions being challenged, or something new explored. The Ali example is one of many I could offer.

 

 

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.

The issue I've taken isn't the act of breaking convention - it's the motivation behind it, and its result.

 

The casting choice of Michael Keaton for Tim Burton's Batman. Unconventional. Keaton was largely seen as more of a comedic actor and lacked the masculinity people expect for a superhero such as Batman, and a millionaire playboy. But obviously Burton cast him for a reason other than breaking convention. It wasnt just that it was such a surprising refreshing choice, but Keaton really delivered. Despite his comedic background, despite his lack of chiseled leading-man looks, and despite his "smallness."

 

I am curious if you have ever been disapointed with an unconventional choice in a film, David. Be it in the cinematography or any other department. And if you have, why? Have you ever defended your position only to have somoe respond to you by saying "you just can't handle a break in convention"?

 

I have given my reason for not agreeing with the type of video choice Mann made for PE:

 

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?

[Keneu Luca]

I forgot to add one thing.

 

By shooting Public Enemies in video, did Mann really break a convention? It has become conventional for him to use video lately. Perhaps, for him, shooting on film will become the unconventional choice.

[Freya Black]

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.

 

So funny you should mention this as I was about to mention Peter Watkins film about the Paris Commune, where he actually has 2 sets of camera crews who are doing the news gathering for the tv stations on each side. It's an incredible film that by mixing the time periods up, makes you ask questions about now as well as then.

 

incredible film, would love to see it again, all 6 hours of it! :)

 

This michael mann film sounds a lot less interesting tho.

 

love

 

Freya

[David Mullen ASC]

I forgot to add one thing.

 

By shooting Public Enemies in video, did Mann really break a convention? It has become conventional for him to use video lately. Perhaps, for him, shooting on film will become the unconventional choice.

 

What sort of logic is that? Unconventional filmmakers can only stay unconventional by being conventional?

[Keneu Luca]

What sort of logic is that? Unconventional filmmakers can only stay unconventional by being conventional?

 

I asked a question. And said "perhaps."

 

But my post before that was the more substantial one.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Keneu Luca

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

The film's been poked and prodded enough that I don't need to go into profound detail about what I liked or hated. Basically, it was a great story with some excellent performances...only Bale wasn't taken full advantage of, nor was his character every really explored, so I felt bad for him. Depp was charming as ever, and Cotillard was really fantastic, I thought. She always manages to light up the screen...even if she is shot in available light with the shutter at 360 and gain turned up past +6.

 

On a film with this budget and so many high calibre stars, you'd think they'd at least have SOMETHING just to punch in a bit more light for a decent exposure. It's almost as if parts of the film were shot by an amateur wedding videographer. I don't doubt Spinotti's talent, I just felt too many of the choices made really distracting from the story rather than supporting it.

 

A friend of mine who I saw it with made an excellent point, that like "Dark Knight", this film would also have benefited greatly from a larger format (be it IMAX, 35 or even RED). There were certain shots, wide shots (example the front of the prison at the beginning) that just didn't have the dynamic they needed, and as a result they were just FLAT when they really need to be "grandiose" perhaps to give us a sense of scale or better involve us in the setting. I felt very uninvolved as an audience member.

[Julia Marshall]

Hi, I'm new here :)

 

After hearing a lot of overheated puff about Public enemies it was rather disappointing to see it in the theater. Though the costumes and makeup were impeccable (Billies nails are even painted in the style of the period) the cinamatography was oppressively HD and poorly executed. I know next to nothing about types of cameras, but the handycam was distracting and annoying, as was the home-movie-esque overuse of zoom (how many times do I have to see every hair and pore on Depp's face??). I go to an arts college, and have seen every type of student film imaginable, and Enemies was right up there with them in terms of execution. It looked like a senior thesis film with unbelievably famous actors.

 

Aside from the shoddy film making, the screenplay and script were good but never great. Characters were introduced then killed off without much development in between. Instead of exploring the public's fascination with Dillinger as a Robin Hood archetype, this theme is barely raised and then abandoned. Depp was his usual charismatic and charming self, but was left to bear the extra weight of a threadbare plot. Bale did his best, but his limited character development really hobbled his efforts (despite that great accent).

[Guest Giles Sherwood]

I loved the film. I pretty much share Ebert's opinion that it's just shy of being a Great Film.

 

90-95% of the shots looked spectacular to me while the remaining 5-10% didn't seem to quite work out. I think the reason Mann's "bad" HD works so well for me is that it's grounded in his amazing compositions and the really excellent production design. No one else frames like Mann does. I don't know if I've seen a closeup as intense as Depp staring down the heavy, cowardly agent outside of Leone or Bergman. Really. There's something going on in that shot I can't put my finger on.

 

The story's a little sparse, but I'd argue it's not as big a flaw as a lot of people are going to say. I really think the film can be considered a narrative about as much as Limits of Control can, which is to say, not really at all. It's a tone poem masquerading as an action movie.

[Joe Giambrone]

Bill Martell rips this film a new one.

 

I haven't seen it, but reading this review I'm more inclined to put DILLINGER (1973) on my Netflix, than I am to go out and give Mann money. And, I've already seen Dillinger, at least once.

[F Bulgarelli]

What a terrible film, regardless of the digital capture choice, the movie feels sloppy and rushed, are the actors only doing 1 or 2 takes?

how can you not get good performances from such great actors? I could be wrong but to me it just feels like not enough time was put into the performances.

Similar to what happened with Miami vice.

And yes, it looks terrible!!

 

 

big disappointment again.

[Justin Hayward]

I liked the movie alot.

 

Yes, the sound was really strange (as if it was an unmixed rough cut with little to zero foley, but mostly student-film-like) and I understand there were some very creative choices made surely by Mann, but the bizarre fade ups and downs? On lines of dialogue? The sound guy must of thought he was nuts. The opening where Dillinger breaks out of whatever jail and drags his friend along the car as he dies? That sounded like the sound guys shook some gravel together in the sound stage and left it at that. I mean, it was a car, not only driving like forty miles an hour, but a guy dragging on the side. The sound for that should have been insane, but instead it was just... quiet. The only thing I can think is that Michael Mann wanted to diminish all the sound of the movie except for the "tommy gun" blasts as to make the killings more effective or that he thought the guys death would be more personal if quiet, but he did that stuff throughout the whole movie, not just on specific moments. It was very distracting.

 

The picture for the most part was... weird? Underexposed video with tons of noise and muddy colors is not exactly something the novice wishes to accomplish. But truth be told, many complaints about the picture are directly related to the sound. People may not notice, but it's the freak'n sound that made this movie look cheap. It was weird and weirdly directed by Michael Mann. It looked worst when we couldn't hear foley, or dialogue was weirdly quietly, or we simply couldn't hear anything cause they faded it out to the point I could hear the guy behind me breathing.

 

Okay, all of that said... the focus on death and the fast lives these people lived was captivating and terrifying. After an hour into the movie I completely forgot the tech stuff and was totally enthralled with the... not so much a story... but a portrait. It seemed Michael Mann didn't try to do some historic epic biography, but more a "in the moment" of this guys life... a comment on life and death and how fragile we are. And, I felt the HD photography really lent itself to that feeling. This was not "Road to Perdition" and the movie told us with every weird handheld, gainy, open shutter, shot that it didn't want to be.

 

There were moments I was actually reminded this was a "period" piece by the wardrobe or set design.

[Henry Weidemann]

The movie came out yesterday in Germany and I took the first opportunity to watch it. I liked the movie itself a lot as I like almost every film Michael Mann did so far - although I have to add that it could be a bit more epic and slower. The costumes and art direction is great, but I think it was definetly the wrong decision to shoot in HD.

 

The day-scenes where ok but I had my problems with some of the interior sequences - especially the scene in the restaurant where John meets Billie for the first time. I thought it looked terible!

I think if you shoot a period movie like this it would be a better decision to shoot it on 35mm. Although, as I said, the costumes, art direction and make - up have been great, I never had the feeling that I am in the 1930's, because the whole movie looked too modern and too stylish to me in HD!

 

But anyway, I would still recommend it because it's a Michael Mann film and it's very entertaining.

[Rajavel Olhiveeran]

had been waiting for this cinema for so long and then i watched it finally on big screen. . .

i believe for this genre and the period portrayed...'Film' would have done better justice to the film..than digital....

its just not the format but the way it has been shot...the style of shooting also was not as

convincing as the other films from similar genre...like 'road to perdition'.....

...interesting thing which i just got to realise is ....in the world of cinema genre....apart from the story and scripting.....

we have all been acclamatized to the style of visual storytelling of those done for those specific genres....so that 'look'..

also unconsciously becomes part of that 'genre'.......and as a result even that becomes an expectation out of that genre...

 

ok assuming the creators of this film didnt want that...and they actually wanted to break away from that (which they have).....

it just Failed to better the 'Emotional response to the Visual Look'.......which the earlier films had done in the same genre with 'film'...

this is more than just the format of the camera....it also how the shots have been taken.

(this emotional response to the visual look could be subliminal for the audience...they might not be able to put their finger on it)

 

to be technically speaking.....those jittery movememnts during the pan or subject movement......and bleeding edges.......and loss

of detail at the highlights....generallly took away the punch from the images...thereby reducing (reducing..) the impact of the film..

 

... ofcourse on the whole i loved the movie... it was entertaining...good but not great!!

but as a cinematographer my thirst was not quenched!!!

[Thomas James]

What the director was after was the reality look in which high definition video is the perfect choice. The reality look means that it is just like going back in time to the 1920's and seeing it as if it were happening today. But people may object saying that they did not have high definition back then but that is not true. Anybody who lived in the 1920's who had good eyesight saw reality as crystal clear even though today their eyesight is not too good. It really is an insult to the older generations when we try to portray their period using black and white film. The fact is that any time period in the 20th century could be considered modern times.

[georg lamshöft]

I think that's what they aimed for. They positioned the cameras close to the action, very direct, documentary-like.

 

But did it look realistic? Well, it reminds us of documentary-work which claims to show real situations - but the look itself? No, it looked like limited-quality-camera-technology pushed too far, in a few years it will seem like a 80s-sitcom: everybody can see that it was shot when "HDTV was cool", it will be outdated pretty soon... When you want to see a realistic look, watch "The International" on blu-ray, it's "recording"-technology is so good, that it nearly vanishes - it barely has any look if you don't want any...

Edited August 9, 2009 by georg lamshöft

[Keith Walters]

As I mentioned in an earlier thread about this movie,

 

IMDB says it's a mixture of film and digital viz:

 

Camera:

Arriflex 235, Cooke S4 Lenses

Arriflex 435, Cooke S4 Lenses

Sony CineAlta F23, Zeiss DigiPrime and Fujinon Lenses

Sony HDC-F950, Zeiss DigiPrime and Fujinon Lenses

Sony PMW-EX1

 

Film negative format (mm/video inches)

35 mm (Kodak Vision3 500T 5219)

Video (HDTV)

 

Cinematographic process

Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)

HDCAM SR (source format)

Super 35 (source format)

 

I can't seem to log onto IMDB tonight to see if that's been changed.

So, does anybody know how much film footage was actually used?

 

By the way, they showed Superman Returns here on 9 HD last week. As far as I'm concerned the pictures on that looked like ass when it came out, and they still look like ass. It looks like a cartoon. And if you think that's cinematic step forward well Good For You, as Jim Jannard would say.

(And what's Bryan Singer made recently by the way...)

 

There's something seriously wrong with the universe when the images on a show like "My Name is Earl" completely slaughter the images on a $250 million production like that. And if you want to trot out the same old house-of-mirrors homily that it comes down to a matter of the producer's taste, well, come back when you can duplicate the image quality of My Name is Earl on video.

 

Yeah, it's an artistic choice. An excruciatingly bad one.

[Keith Walters]

Bill Martell rips this film a new one.

He does go on, but I know where he's coming from :lol:

 

Am I the only one who's noticed that it's mostly tired old over-the-hill farts facing the twilight of their creative years, who seem to be the ones mostly vigorously embracing Digital Production, as if they somehow think it's magically going to make them young, hip and relevant again.

 

People in their prime and productive years seem to be perfectly happy with film.

 

(As always, I am talking about people who make movies that are likely to be seen by more than the members of their immediate families unable to think of an excuse to escape in time :P )

[K Borowski]

Am I the only one who's noticed that it's mostly tired old over-the-hill farts facing the twilight of their creative years, who seem to be the ones mostly vigorously embracing Digital Production, as if they somehow think it's magically going to make them young, hip and relevant again.

 

And this makes them worse than the people, even on this forum, who think shooting film will somehow bring back their long-lost childhoods how?