Pressed for time as we were, there were some thoughts on Michael Mann I didn’t get across on our ‘Public Enemy’ shows that I’d like to mention here.
1) Technology. Nobody shoots it better, (of course people have been saying this about architecture and Mann for years, plus there is much that has to be said for him as graphic designer – check out this excellent post by design director of the New York Times Online Khoi Vinh: Minimalism, Michael Mann and Miami Vice).
In ‘Public Enemies’ there are scenes that take place in a FBI ‘wire-tap’ room, (shades of the War on Terror, natch), that rival Hal’s Brain Room in ’2001′ for its sense of the ultra modern. Never has the 1930′s felt more present, (see below).
2) Digital Video. Many, many people have commented on how awful the digital video in ‘Public Enemies’ looks. The experience I had was opposite. The pic felt fresh, modern and present. If PE had been shot on film it would have seemed fusty, old fashioned – as it is the film, (do we still say that?), is alive in ways I haven’t seen before on the big screen – we feel as if we’re with Dillinger – as if the story’s events are happening in real time – created in front of us as we watch, not trapped in aspic.
3) Faces. What faces! Compared to Mann pics you realise everyone else in commercial cinema seems to populate their films with extras – see for instance the casting brouhaha over the new ‘Green Lantern’ movie – the studio had narrowed it down to 3 guys: Ryan Reynolds, Justin Timberlake and Bradley Cooper. Can you imagine those guys in a Mann film? They wouldn’t even make the cut as background artistes. Nobody does the American Face better than Mann, (and while watching how he casts a lookalike of himself as Dillinger’s closest associate – alas, no frame grabs to be found – I console myself with the great shot below).
being with Dillinger is a little challenging on film or digital, because the character is so poorly written. Mann does do great faces. The Dirgital question in terms of this film is more about consistency of lighting and grain from shot to shot, which is admittedly a technical question, than of any currency this format has in terms of being more relevant/visceral than film.
Bogus question. Past is present and vice versa in terms of narrative. Would it help a ancient rome set movie if we shot it on our Iphones? no, and neither here…watch chinatown and once upon a time in America…movies are stories not reality and reality isnt best served digitally or in any other format…!
Its a question for the audience, I personally found the poor resolution abundance of compression noise, wide shots just plain and simply soft due to the lack of resolution and the total and utter lack of colour timing consistency took me out of the picture on so many occasions that I was unable to emotionally engage emotionally with the story.
I found this a shame as the standard of performance, composition and direction seemed up to the usual standards.
That said, a if a film looks like youtube does the mass audience really care ? It is often said that the you tube aesthetic empowers the audience as they feel like they could have done as well.
Its a question for the audience, I personally found the poor resolution abundance of compression noise, wide shots just plain and simply soft due to the lack of resolution and the total and utter lack of colour timing consistency took me out of the picture on so many occasions that I was unable to emotionally engage emotionally with the story.
I found this a shame as the standard of performance, composition and direction seemed up to the usual standards.
That said, a if a film looks like youtube does the mass audience really care ? It is often said that the you tube aesthetic empowers the audience as they feel like they could have done as well.