From Studio Daily, an interview with frequent Michael Mann collaborator and Public Enemies cinematographer, Dante Spinotti. This can serve as a launchpad for your own feelings about the HD lensing, and your reactions to the film in general.
Dante Spinotti: …we looked at the potential that the digital camera gave us. First, you see what you’re doing right away. Artists who write or paint, all these people see what they do. Even if you write music, you can listen to it and make adjustments. You have time to think. Not so in making a movie. The final product is based in the fundamental decisions you make in the last two minutes before you roll the camera. With traditional photochemical film, you could say it’ll look like this or that. But it’s not like seeing exactly what you’re photographing. So that’s one major objective.
Also, the way the digital camera sees in the shadows is great, especially in a case like Public Enemies where you’re aiming for a very strong realism. That means you can light in a way that the audience is participating in an event as opposed to looking at something that’s constructed and lit so the film has a look. It’s a very different approach. This is also because the camera can be on the shoulder of the operator, so the operator is like a person looking at what’s happening. Because of the elasticity you have in lighting, especially in the darkness, you don’t need to use the kind of a lighting that depends on spotlights and traditional Hollywood lights. You can work with existing lights and adjust them…
Once you make tests and decide which camera you’re going to use, you don’t look back. You make the camera be a part of the movie. I think Public Enemies worked out in an interesting way. Even the aspect of doing a period film with modern technology was interesting.
Several readers have already remarked on the documentary intimacy of the cinematography. The high-def flexibility gives the film an urgent sense of tension. Far from looking too modern to me, at times the low-light night scenes leeched the color just enough to create a pastel grayscale palette approximating delicately tinted black-and-white. A familiar visual language being spoken in the tones of an offbeat dialect. The depth of field and surreal clarity were only part of the sensation. There’s a fluid freedom to the camerawork that feels like hand-to-handheld combat, an immersive headlong dive right inside the action.
24 Responses for "Public Enemies’ Dante Spinotti sees into shadows"
The HD filming put me off a bit at first, but I got used to it and didn’t mind it all that much (although I think I would’ve preferred a more traditional approach). Overall, I thought the film was fairly good, especially the second half which felt more tightly held together (and the cinematography during the scene in the woods was phenomenal).
I thought Depp was fantastic as usual, and Cotillard was great. Bale’s acting usually annoys me and, unfortunately, Public Enemies was no exception. I won’t be upset if the film is nominated for BP, even though it isn’t my first choice.
I was a little distracted by the camerawork throughout the movie. I appreciated the intent, but ultimately thought the digital looked too unprofessional. Loved Marion Cotillard btw.
Cotillard was great, both her acting and character really enlivened the film. Depp was good as he almost always is. Bale was, again, bland.
The film itself was quite fascinating if not all there. The first half was a series of vignettes that captured a time and feel fairly well, but seemed disconnected. The second half, the story caught up and ended in a powerful series of scenes. I’d probably forgive the disjointedness, perhaps even loved it, if there was more life in the story. Mann worked so hard on creating the documentary aspects of the docudrama, the actual dramatic tension feels lacking.
Incidentally I thought the HD, which doesn’t work in every film, works great here for the most part.
I don’t mind movies made with digital cameras if it looks good. From what I understand it’s the lighting of dark scenes that usually makes digital look bad. What I couldn’t take was the handheld shaky cam. It’s been used in other films like Blair Witch and Cloverfield but the point was for those to look crappy because it was supposed to be normal people filming with a video camera and running for their lives.
What got me was that the shakiness did seem to slow down about half way through. I don’t know if they shot the scenes in order but if they did it could mean they got used to dealing with it and lighting the scenes better. Because some of it toward the end looked really pretty. The big scene leaving the theater still looked iffy though and I just thought it was an unnecessary gamble. For me, if he’d used film it would have been a totally different and much better movie. I feel like the way I’m judging it is how I would judge something I watched on a scrambled cable channel. I’m trying to get past the shakiness to figure out if it was good or not, but the shakiness was a part of it so, I dunno what to say.
Wonderful last paragraph there, Ryan. That was pure Lounge exposition right there. Well said.
I’m with you and Dante on this one. I really liked the use of the HD digital camera here. It actually heightened the drama for me in a way that digital hasn’t before. With other films the use of it felt forced (kind of like what Antoinette described), but this actually seemed more natural to me. It took away any inadvertent modernity from the film to me, actually. The danger of using something that is by standards “new” equates it with a “modern” feel. I can see how this could have been jarring to audiences, but I thought Mann and Spinotti did a wonderful job of not making it modern at all. We as an audience are so used to seeing period pieces widescreened out in full costumery and propped to the hilt. And that’s what everyone loves; that’s what Oscar loves. But more often than not, ironically, it comes off too contemporary, too new.
Think about it. I never feel like I’m there with period films, I am always overly aware that I’m watching the costume and set design and art direction departments work their asses off. Kudos to them and they deserve more credit than they’re actually given, but their work should flow with the film. Oftentimes the director and cinematographer make it all too grand. That’s great for kings and queens; it makes sense. But for a story that really is one part cops ‘n’ robbers and another part love story, this approach seemed right on target. In this case, I want to focus only so much on the glitz and a little more on the dirt. Mann and Spinotti did just that.
With period pieces, especially early 20th century American ones, more often than not the look comes off like it’s a musical or Dick Tracy (which is only fine if it is in fact a musical or Dick Tracy). But I felt Spinotti’s work gave Public Enemies’ 30s shadows and light rather than technicolor; grit rather than refinement; immediacy rather than modernity. It didn’t look propped up. It broke that 4th wall. It was executed in a way that let me separate the technology from the story at hand. It put me there and I was less likely to get all caught up in the “periodness” of the scenes. It took away the spectacle and put me in the action. The intimate moments and the shootouts benefited most from this approach. Like Ryan said, it was “immersive.” Most directors of period pieces would never venture to do such a thing. It’s a bold new step and I welcome it.
The digital photography had its benefits and drawbacks for me. The detail that HD film can capture does make things look more real, which is great when the camera is staying relatively still. But when it starts shaking around during the action sequences, it’s impossible to focus on anything, and just makes things confusing.
According to EW.com, this movie banked $8.2 million on its opening day…Not bad!
Well gotta say I agree with the above. At first it was hard to really grasp the film quality but as it went along, I got used to it. Loved the movie, not sure it is “great”. But those action scenes were breathtaking (is that the right word?). I wish the sound had been better, because I could half hear Johnny Depp and the other actors dialog. Talked in low voices. Bale’s role was passable nothing outstanding. Any B actor could have played that role.
It was Marion Cottillard that stole the movie, and I mentioned before she and Depp should do another movie together.
I can see this again, yeh, I can.
Somebody on another board told me what I was watching: a manhunt.
I’m seeing it this Saturday. I expect Marion to be great after her great reviews!
I think predictions for the 5-day holiday range between $40-45 mil, Sertan. Though Universal’s lowball estimate is $30 mil.
(nice high-def amplification of my fuzzy-edged impressions, you guys. I’ll be back with a better reaction later, but have some work stuff to deal with right now.)
(tmoves, Mann and Spinotti shoot the meticulous production design the same way they shoot the array of perfectly cast faces — less Edward Hopper stillness, more wayward hopped-up thrillness.)
Brian, your #3 comment perfectly summed up how I (and obviously you) felt about the difference between the first and second half of the film. Thanks!
I just went to Ew.com / Lisa & Owen stated that Johnny and Marion didn’t have chemistry. I don’t know what movie they watched, but I thought they had great chemistry in what few scenes they had. The problem is that they weren’t together that much, but the man was robbing banks….how much time did they spend together? Unless he took her with him, probably very little.
I’m just going to copy/past my reactions to the film that I posted elsewhere, but this quote from a UK review is pretty much exactly how I feel about the cinematography. I greatly admire the intent, but think the execution was radically uneven:
“Mann’s aim appears to be to develop a new, distinctive digital aesthetic. Which is admirable in theory, but Mann’s digital aesthetic seems to involve making the movie look as grimy and unpolished as possible. Post-production is for wimps. That irresistibly glossy, larger-than-life reality created by Hollywood movies is diminished here. The flat glare of the digital camera emphasises the artifice of the film-making process rather than bringing the hoped-for gritty authenticity to the story.”
Now here’s my own lengthy “rant”:
Talk about missed opportunities. Michael Mann directing Depp and Bale in a gangster movie? How could this possibly go wrong? Well, strange technical choices and a script devoid of a point or any real characters, apparently.
I had no real care for any of the characters in the film. They just did things, and it felt like there was no real point to any of the proceedings until we got to the inevitable death of Dillinger. The police, led by Christian Bale, had a goal: get Dillinger. This would have made for an interesting story. But since the film is more interested in staying with Dillinger, we don’t get a sense of the investigators plight outside of the most basic, “Dillinger had this coat, it’s sold at these stores across the country, which means he stayed nearby one of them, etc etc.”
Since we rarely spend time with any of the characters, gangster or police, outside of them doing their respective jobs (robbing banks or policing), we don’t get to know them. It’s mostly a collection of scenes of men working, and they only speak of doing the job. So when one of Dillinger’s cohorts is shot and dies while the camera lingers on the last locking of eyes between the two men, you just don’t care. If you’ve seen one trailer for the film, you’ve seen nearly every scene of “humanity” given to Dillinger in the entire film. “I like fast cars, baseball, etc etc, and you.” “We’re having too much fun today to worry about tomorrow.” That’s literally about it right there.
The digital video look of the HD cameras was deliberate for the period film, to give a sense of realism and immediacy. Supposedly, you aren’t supposed to feel like you’re looking at the “fake” reality that the more smooth and fluid look of film gives, but the digital video is so crisp and clean that the events of the movie are almost unfolding right in front of you. That’s what the filmmakers want you to feel, but in reality the look is only sometimes visually striking, as in the extradition of Dillinger to Indiana, where the landing of a plane is lit by the sepia color of flares being used by photographers to capture the scene. Or the assault by federal agents on the Little Bohemia resort in the dead of night. The blacks of the forest are BLACK, until the spitting of gunfire lights up each shooter. Striking images, but then minutes later, after the assault turns into a car chase lit only by headlights and muzzle flashes, suddenly the absence of light that was so black in that forest is a washed out, grainy brown color. The video looks BAD. As does it when Dillinger first meets his girl Billy in a club. The image looked underexposed.
Sound is another huge problem. The mixing of dialog was wildly in consistent. At times almost inaudible, other times seemingly too loud. It didn’t help that most of the lines read by Depp and Bale are little more than mumbled. The music tries really hard to tell you what you are watching is a grand, sweeping, operatic gangster tale full of emotion, which clashes heavily with the lack of emotion and cinematography that is working to convince you this isn’t sweeping and operatic, but gritty and immediate. But then the music builds anyways, to a false climax of emotions, before the composer or sound mixer simply got lazy and fade the music out once the moment passes, without letting the music take us back down itself. No, the scene is over, turn the music off, NOW.
That’s really what the whole movie feels like. A collection of scenes, or story ideas, or technical ideas and principles, but someone grabbed the dial and turned the volume down on them before they got a chance to develop into a full melody.
Missed opportunities indeed.
Ryan I couldn’t agree with you more, you have summed up exactly what I thought about the film, so no point repeating. I thought the film look incomplete, sound was sloppy in some places and especially cuts between scenes and music. Did someone not send out the rough cut by accident?
I am glad others had issues with the sound. I was thinking of shopping for hearing aids because I thought the first half was a silent film.
Those are really well-explained reasons, Ryan Griffin, and if the choices Mann made didn’t work for you, no amount of discussion will persuade you otherwise. Your experience is your own. I feel bad that you didn’t like the technical decisions, but that’s no reason for me make you hate those decisions even more by trying to force you to see them like I do. That would be exhausting and ultimately impossible.
That’s why there’s no need to counter what you say with a point by point rebuttal. Some things are subjective matters of taste, and that’s that. Other impressions are based on individual personal experience, and equally valid factors in our distinct opinions.
We haven’t all experienced the same problems or pleasures with this movie — or any movie — but I try not to think of my own reaction as an absolute. For instance, you’re not the first reader or critic who has said you think the sound mix sometimes made the dialogue difficult to hear. But can I say that I had no problem at all hearing every line?
I don’t think my hearing is superhuman acute, and I doubt the multiplex sound system in my town is anything but adequate. Honestly though, I can testify that the only time I missed hearing a line throughout the entire movie was during the Biograph Theatre sequence — and it was a line spoken by Clark Gable to another prisoner, as he stopped to deliver the speech about “die the way you live– all of a sudden.” There’s a line right after that I didn’t catch — and I couldn’t catch it later the same night when Manhattan Melodrama aired on Turner Classic Movies. I think it was something about “if you don’t, that’s no way to live at all” (paraphrasing) or something like that. I caught the gist, but the exact words were muffled both times I listened (forgot to set Tivo, or I’d have it figured out by now.)
=====
The point is, I guess — the sound mix wasn’t an issue with me, because I heard every line. Even the more heavily accented dialogue spoken by Ana Sage — I had to perk up and tune in but didn’t miss a thing she said. So based on purely objective experience, the sound mix wasn’t a problem, so I have no personal reason to find fault with it.
The only time I noticed a strange mix was at the end of the restaurant scene during Dilliger and Billie’s first date. I’ve only seen the movie once so far, but I seem to recall the camera pulls back from their table a considerable distance while Dillinger is still speaking. The music swells up to the front of the soundspace, and the score is louder than what he says at the end (I can’t remember what he says, but I know I could still hear it.) That felt odd, but even in that fleeting moment, I chalked it up to a conscious choice — not a mistake. The camera is pulling back; their dialogue is less distinct in the mix of the crowded restaurant. It made a certain kind of sense to me — even though I know it’s not good to even have a sound mix be noticeable. But that was the only time it felt off to me.
=====
The sound and lighting in natural conditions remind me of Kubrick’s experiments with candle-lit scenes in Barry Lyndon. Kubrick was already beginning to play with faster film stock and low light in A Clockwork Orange — and now that the blu-ray edition is out, there’s a chorus of complaints about image “softness” and film grain, especially during night scenes. Maybe everything in A Clockwork Orange would be reference quality on blu-ray if Kubrick had shot it as glossy as My Fair Lady, but I have to say I’m glad he did what he wanted, and tried to push some aesthetic buttons, instead of doing everything the same way other directors in the 60’s were shooting and lighting their films.
Does it bug some people? Sure. Would it have killed Kubrick to use a finer film stock and throw in a brighter tungsten with a scrim here and there? Surely not. But I don’t usually argue with an artist’s choices unless something really aggravates me.
I’m not that fond of orange, but if I’d been a buddy of Picasso’s, hanging out in his studio, I wouldn’t have said, “Enough with the fuckin’ pumpkin hues, Pablo!” It’s his painting, he can use whatever tubes of color he wants. It’s Mann’s movie, he can use the camera that he feels gives him the look he wants.
Not everybody is going to like it. But not everybody is going to hate it either. I have more to say about the lighting, but no time to write more this morning. [Insert applause and cheers.] Just wanted to say, not all us had a problem hearing the dialogue. I can’t be the only one who didn’t strain my ears trying to follow what was being said.
I have to say, given some negative word I’ve heard earlier, I really enjoyed this film from beginning to end. I think Mann did a fine job combining that typical gangster film action with his own “Art Film” aesthetic. I was never bored with it and would have no problem watching it again.
As for the techincal aspects, I loved the HD filming — just the way it looked was enough to keep me watching. It was difficult to catch some stuff during the shaky-cam aspects, but I’m not big fan of that anyway as it makes me a little motion sick. And maybe some of you DID get a defective copy because, as with Ryan A., I had absolutely no problem catching any of the dialogue, and I was sitting in the back of the theater with the clacking of the projector in the background.
One final note on the acting. I thought everyone did a solid enough job (Bale didn’t really irritate me as he did with others), but I would like to mention Billy Cruddup’s work since no one else has. I’ve always been a fan of his, but his work as Hoover was my favorite in the film; I wish he had had more scenes. Overall, definitely worth seeing!
well, I really liked the film. After reading comments I was prepared for camera or sound issues, but didn’t have problems with either. I particularly liked the sense of desperation and finality that Mann conveyed; it really seemed like Dillinger was at the end of his time. I thought Depp and Cotilliard were wonderful, alone and together (what are the folks at EW talking about?). Their performances were balanced (from reading comments I figured Marion would seem like the real star). But Johnny was perfect. Cool and sad. And Colleen Atwood did another fabulous job with the costumes. I left the theater wanting to buy a skimmer, marcel my hair, put on a pair of round framed sunglasses and a find a coat with a big fat fur collar.
I thought Public Enemies was an excellent movie. The acting, direction, cinematography, and story were great. Michael Mann was back in true form. I thought Johnny Depp was great as John Dillinger. It was crazy how much of a resemblance he had to the gangster. Marion Cotillard was great as well. Her character could have been a one-bit part, but Mann added a lot of depth to her character in her scenes. I also thought Christian Bale was really good as Melvin Purvis. I don’t understand some of the hate for this actor lately. Yeah, Terminator Salvation was terrible, but actors have to pick up paychecks every once in a while. I think a lot of the hostility towards him is because of the events surrounding the shooting of that movie. I can’t imagine how professional a McG production could be. I am probably in the minority, but I give Bale the benefit of the doubt. So far, this was the best drama I’ve seen this year. Right now I would say it should be up for most of the big awards. Best Picture, Director, Actor (Depp), Supporting Actress (Cotillard), Best Supporting Actor (Bale), Cinematography and Screenplay. The one scene that really got to me was when Dillinger and Billie escaped together and she went into the Inn and was arrested. The shot where you see Dillinger breaking down as he is driving away was pretty heart wrenching. It really made you sympathize for his character. The subtle sadness Depp portrayed made the performance that much more layered.
Spinotti deserves an Oscar for this. Cinematography is about more than pretty pictures.
Just give Dante Spinotti the Oscar now. Thanks Awards Daily for updating the site. “Up,” “Public Enemies,” and “The Hurt Locker” (which I’m seeing next Thursday) deserve early Oscar buzz.
EW doesn’t know what they are talking about. I’ve written them off since their “Twilight” obsession not to mention glowing reviews for ‘Observe & Report.’ ‘Stoning of Soraya M’ and ‘Transformers 2.’
I must have seen a different movie than so many other people, because the digital camerawork looked terrific. Spinotti deserves a nomination for this.
Very good film, I thought, although it seemed to take a little time before it truly got off the ground. Once he breaks out of the Indiana jail, it became a lot more consistent.
I find myself totally agreeing with Ryan.
I think it’s a terrific movie. Not what you’d expect. It’s truly something different. It creeps up on you and involves you when you’re not expecting it to.
And a lot of the success of the film are the great performances of Johnny Depp and esp. Marion Cotillard. I wish there were more of her in the film, but she’s magic. A true old fashioned movie star in that the camera just LOVES her. Her gigantic saucer eyes conveyed everything. She was mesmerizing. Another Oscar nomination for her endearing work here for sure,but this time in Supporting.
And yes, Johnny Depp will get nominated once again for Best Actor and this time he could win it. He’s one of the screen greats and I thought the picture was pretty damn grand, too.
The experimental use of the HD camera was really something worthy, I thought. And Johnny made every questionable technical decision worthy I thought.
Ryan described it very beautifully I thought in his paragraph about the look of the movie.
I saw it with a typical NYC audience and they were packed in there like sardines and they were digging it.
And I saw “Hurt Locker” yesterday! One was photographed in all white, and shades of it, and “Public Enemies” is was all black….But I do think I’ve just seen two of the best films of the year in two days back to back! The season is certainly picking up steam! Finally!
Both these films are the kind that the Academy likes to nominate. Big, bold, violent epics about men. Big themes. Big performances. And as understated as Johnny Depp is in this film, it’s magnificent quiet may FINALLY make the Academy give him an Oscar. It’s a crime that he hasn’t won one yet.
And Marian Cotillard shows that she is certainly not a one-pic wonder. Movie stealing to the max. But you love her. She’s Dillinger’s vulnerable side, to say the least.
And that climatic scene in the jail with the cops…and her…OMG! Another Oscar nomination for sure. In Supp.
Too bad she’s won already and so soon, she’d get it for this, if she hadn’t won so recently for LVER.
Great film. Rush to see it!
But I did like “Hurt Locker” better and now that there’s ten spots, they are probably both “In.”
I saw this movie this weekend and it was bad enough for me to peek into what other people thought about it.
Whomever thinks that DV is an acceptable substitute for filmic clarity is sadly mistaken. If this film is supposed to be Michael Mann’s confirmation that this new lo-fi, shaky-cam, nil-lighting aesthetic is “the new thing,” I am entirely unconvinced, enough to the point of utter disbelief and repulsion with the idea of the future of movie making.
THERE WAS NO CINEMATOGRAPHY IN THIS MOVIE- THERE WERE NO SHOTS WIDE ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH A CONTEXT FOR EVENTS!
In every low-light shot there was no detail whatsoever. And in many of the daylight shots there were blown-out highlights! WTF? Simple details like lighting consistency and beautiful colors were just not present at all. Horrible.
The script was depthless and Depp did his best to make his character count. Bale was abysmal, he coughed up his lines like a poorly-timed engine.
This film may have had a budget but it must’ve been squandered on pulling star talent into its maw, because my little cousin would light things better than this p.o.s. and p.s i don’t care if I sound hyperbolic, this thing SUCKED. peace
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.