Not trying to be a nitpick but there are some lack of authenticity. For example, the Lake County Courthouse and jail in
-
james_oblivion — 16 years ago(December 09, 2009 09:06 PM)
Agreed. It's always nice to have the rare civil IMDb debate. I just got called a "moron" in another thread, simply for stating the opinion that PE is a better film than Milius's Dillinger. I'll never get over how self-centered people can be, that they would consider anyone with a different preference to be a moron. Oh wellseems to be a norm around here, so this is certainly refreshing.
My take is that while Dillinger provided more character development for certain characters, a lot of that development wasnot just inaccurate, but
mindboggling
. Again, the sight of Billie Frechette shrieking "RUUUUUUUN!" as she fired on federal agents with the BAR, like some amalgam of Bonnie Parker and Patty Hearst, was unintentionally hilarious. Are you sure you weren't thinking of
that
when you mentioned Billie being present at Little Bohemia? Because in PE, she
wasn't
thereso that's something you're recalling incorrectly.
And I admittedly
loathe
the way that Melvin Purvis was portrayed in the film. Ben Johnson was a fine actor when he's in his element, but he was horribly miscast as Purvis, and Milius's take on the "character" is ass-backwards. Purvis was a 30-year-old Southern aristocrat who got into the Bureau after a brief career in law. He was polite, well-spoken, and never relished the task of gunning anyone down. The Milius film portrays him as a bloodthirsty middle-aged codger whose grasp of proper English is strained, at best. I have to say that I wince whenever he refers to his "SEE-gar." And watching him walk into a house with a 1911 in each hand to blow away a public enemy, or seeing his delight in Tommygunning someone to death with scarcely a word of warning, rings absolutely hollow.
So in a
storytelling
sense, yesthere was more outright character development. But even that was often just as inaccurate as the bulk of the film. It may be
amusing
to watch Babyface Nelson scream and cry like a little girl, surebut I think that the more you know going into the film, the more these things rankle. You saw Dillinger before you knew the real story, then saw Public Enemies after you were well-versed. I think that makes all the difference in the world. I grew up fascinated with gangsters and public enemies, so knew quite a bit about Dillinger and his gang before seeing
either
filmand I think that PE comes out on top.
Admittedly, I think Milius's Dillinger film is amusing, and serves its functionit's a low-budget shoot-'em-up exploitation picture, clearly made to turn a quick buck. Bolstered by the popularity of such films as Bonnie and Clyde, they sought to make a similarly themed flickwhich was basically AIP's specialty. And as a Bonnie and Clyde clone, while it's obviously inferior to the film that inspired it, it's still one of the better ones. And to its credit, it's only about as inaccurate as Bonnie and Clyde was.
I think that most of the creative license taken in PE, on the other hand, was done for specific dramatic reasons. Michael Mann's commentary track on the DVD/Blu-Ray actually explains several of the deviations that were made, and why he chose to combine several different events into a singular event, or play with the timeline, regarding the deaths of certain public enemies (which should be the most forgivable thing, anyway, since EVERY Dillinger film does it). If you haven't listened to the commentary yet, I recommend it. Mann is pretty good at articulating his artistic choices. Because at the end of the day, PE is a
drama
, not a document. So no, it's not entirely accurate, but I give it points for getting more things right than the average fact-based gangster pictureas well as for simply being, in my opinion, a strong dramatic film.
And I think that because, as you say, the book was about an era, the film tried to do some degree of justice to that factbut that ultimately meant fudging the timeline and changing the facts where necessary for dramatic effect. For example, that's why they brought in Karpis, despite the fact that Dillinger and he never met. And it's clear that, from a cinematic standpoint, this story is essentially over when Dillinger is killed. There's no real way around that fact. That IS the climax, so it puts the filmmakers in a bit of a bind when it comes to representing the era more fully. Which is why, in order to include
some
of the other major events of that era, and demonstrate how other public enemies met their ends, it was dramatically necessary to deviate to some degree from reality. As it always is in film.
At the end of the day, it's all a matter of subjective taste, as well. Everyone has different criteria, so it goes without saying that opinions will clash. And again, it's nice to discuss a difference of opinion without any name-calling or childishness. -
SoTyred — 16 years ago(December 10, 2009 08:58 AM)
Cool. Yeah PE is next on my Netflix que, so I'm gonna listen to the commentary. In the end, the way I rate films ..8/9/10'sthey're all just subtle differences all based on preference.
I hope this isn't a case of a DVD that only comes with the commentary on the BlueRay. I cant afford a BlueRay, and for me HD isn't really all that big of a deal.
That's another argument for another day ;).
Peace.
Skin that Smokewagon and see what happens! Tombstone -
james_oblivion — 16 years ago(December 14, 2009 02:59 AM)
The DVD has the commentary, as well. Gotta say, though, the movie looks incredible on Blu-Ray. haha
The players are getting a lot cheaper, actuallyand as far as the discs go, I got Public Enemies for $20 on Blu-Ray. On the shelf next to it was the 2-disc DVD, for $25. Extra features, HD picture and audio,
and
five bucks cheaper? Can't beat it. -
SoTyred — 16 years ago(December 24, 2009 04:43 AM)
Eeekdon't hate me, but after the 3rd viewing and listening to only the opening scene of the commentary I dropped PE back to a 7.
It's just not that good. The zero character development, focus on a love story that never realistically happened, the 'Karpis Caper' that is pretty much an attempt to mimick the 'Heat' finale it seems. Far too rushed a film, and again I think he missed the point of the book entirely. PE is NOT about John Dillinger and Billie Frichette. Mann told one small part of a HUGE tale.
Lets get to the part that really proved to me Mann just had no clue. So we have the opening scene of the breakout where he's patting himself on the back for his attention to detail and making Depression Era life come 'alive' more than just visually (which is pretty much what he doesthe film is almost entirely visual in it's attempts to pull the heart strings one way or the other). He goes on to say how accurate things are and tells the TRUE story about Deitrich being Dillinger's mentor, and Lamb being Deitrichs. Boy it would have sure been great to see THAT story on film. No.his choice was to put the focus on the afore mentioned 'love story'.
Then, after this patting himself on the back, he stops talking just as Dillinger walks into the jail cuffed. Doesn't say a word. Such as .."Oh by the way, Dillinger wasn't there, he just set it up." or.well you mentioned Billie shooting at Little Bohemia in this films version of the tale.how about Johnny , who wasn't even there, blasting away to cover his pals in Mann's film?
OK..thenas Deitrich is falling dying from the car , Mann starts talking about how losing Walter scarred Dillinger for the rest of his life. Ummreally? Wow.since Walter was in Dillingers first gang and died of natural causes well after Dillinger died, that sorta ..wellthat's sorta BS.
click
Ya seeok, 'Dillinger' isn't the most accurate film in the world, and I've already said why I feel the character development makes the film better. It's also a much better script. But I digress..
When one has a chance to update a story,a story based on facts, it seems only reasonable that one would use that chance to tell the story exactly the way it happened! Yes , it would have prob had to have been a 3 pic deal. Thats not a prob in this day and age. In no way would the film(s) be any less exciting , or even melodramatic (something it seems Mann was going for as one watches the clips from Manhattan Melodrama). There's plenty of romance as well in the real lives of these people (the people other than just John Dillinger).
People always say "Well they can't tell the real story, it needs to be embelished, or the public couldn't take it, blah yadda blah." In some cases that might be true, and certainly every little detail could not have been shown in any case.
PE the film was just one big missed opportunity. Altho it's not as bad as Burton's "Planet of the Apes" remake, it's the same situation. Burton could have told the story the book told, and decided to do an homage of some type to the original
films
.
Mann did the same thing. He could have made the equivalent of..say..Romero's Dead Trilogy.or a modern classic (IMO) Trilogy, the Pirates Trilogy,or insert series of films you like here.
Instead he tried to capture a flavor of
filmaking
and storytelling of the era the events take place in. IMO, it was a mistake.
Thus ends my strange journey on this topic. Funny how my final thoughts on PE ended up here.
I need some sleep.
Happy Holidays
Skin that Smokewagon and see what happens! Tombstone -
Petronius Arbiter II — 15 years ago(January 27, 2011 07:45 PM)
I'm having a very hard time imagining where you're coming from with that bit about "a love story that never happened." Read any of the most often recommended John Dillinger histories, and it becomes unmistakably clear: Billie Frechette was the closest thing to "the love of John Dillinger's life" that he ever had.
"I don't deduce, I observe." -
SoTyred — 15 years ago(February 04, 2011 10:17 AM)
Yes it is often cited, but that it was never more than another fling and someone to use
.
Billy Frechette is the only one who claims the romance happened, and that was after Dillinger died.
Skin that Smokewagon and see what happens! Tombstone -
Petronius Arbiter II — 15 years ago(February 05, 2011 04:46 PM)
I'm still just not connecting with these assertions, Tyred. It's on record that after Billie was arrested, according to Dillinger, he "cried like a baby." It's on record that he plotted to spring her from jail, and that she sent word to him to
not
endanger himself by making the attempt.
Between their first meeting in October 1933 to Billie's arrest in March 1934, there was a period when they were never apart from each other for longer than a day or two. There is absolutely no evidence that I know of that during that period, he ever went to bed with any other woman.
Clinching the deal, on his last visit to his family at the Mooresville farm, John Dillinger introduced Billie to his father as his common-law wife, and the woman he longed to marry legally, as soon as her divorce from her husband could be finalized. The icing on the cake is that evening the final fling with Polly Hamilton may not have come about, were it not for the fact that Hamilton was almost a double for Billie Frechette.
Your assertion that "Billie is the only one who claims the romance happened" appears to be utterly without merit. Sources? I still haven't heard any from you.
"I don't deduce, I observe." -
SoTyred — 15 years ago(February 06, 2011 10:06 AM)
First, I appreciate you actually having a discussion without the typical IMDB stupidity.
I am aware of no "on the record" accounts of anything but Dillinger being talked out of springing her. That has multiple people telling the same story.
The time period in which they were together does not suggest anything other than a long term fling, and a safe person. Of course that's merely my opinion.
I know of no record of the introduction to the father. Of course I concede that romance was certainly a possibility. Is there a source for this?
My problem with the film is that it
focused
too much on the romance and not the incredible amount of info and events that were the book Public Enemies. This should have been at least a trilogy of films focused on the entire era, not just Dillinger. Add to that Mann's total changing of events that need not and should not have been changed, and this film , IMO, is just not that great. Even the equally inaccurate Warren Oates version is better from an entertainment standpoint. Again, IMO.
My sources are the many books I have read over the years , I can't name them all. From my gathering of info, the romance is overblown. If you have any to suggest, I'll gladly check them out.
Skin that Smokewagon and see what happens! Tombstone -
Petronius Arbiter II — 15 years ago(February 06, 2011 03:56 PM)
Number #1 recommended text: Dary Matera's book:
http://www.amazon.com/John-Dillinger-Americas-Celebrity-Criminal/dp/07 86715588/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297036361&sr=1-1
One I haven't read myself yet, but that gets high marks from Gangsterologists more experienced than myself, is Ellen Poulsen's book:
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Call-Us-Molls-Dillinger/dp/0971720002/
ref=s r_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297036463&sr=1-1
I'm guessing you've already read Girardin and Helmer, but just in case you haven't:
http://www.amazon.com/Dillinger-Anniversary-G-Russell-Girardin/dp/0253 221102/ref=pd_sim_b_1
I do like Brian Burrough's book, but he doesn't go very far beyond the information he obtained from the FBI, and the several books Alvin Karpis wrote. Dary Matera had access to the Pinkston & Smusyn files, and ended up publishing a great amount of material you can't get from any other text.
"I don't deduce, I observe." -
Hancock_the_Superb — 16 years ago(January 11, 2010 03:16 PM)
Now you could argue that Milius took some of these liberties as well, and would be right. My initial let down with PE was that they were building it up to be so , SO accurate and based on the book, just because they filmed at some real locations
Largely my thoughts too. Public Enemies had a great portrayal of Dillinger and was incredibly accurate on the details, but it botched most everything else.
As to the comment about Pretty Boy Floyd's death, the only source for Purvis summarily executing the dying Floyd is an East Liverpool cop who was known as a fibber.
"If life gives you lemons, choke on 'em and die. You stupid lemon eater." -
Petronius Arbiter II — 14 years ago(November 18, 2011 07:10 PM)
Here it is two years later, and Puttle-Butt-Gum is still flogging the same dead horse. "It's all about the legend! What about the legend!"
What
legend, pray tell? That Dillinger talked like Humphrey Bogart, and he and Billie Frechette acted more or less exactly the same as Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway?
That Herbert Youngblood was, by turns, an amusing darky, and a "magic negro" who was sho' 'nuff happy to he'p out a nice white boy like Dillinger by chiming in with a gun and not a desperate but proud black man who he'ped out Dillinger in escaping from the Crown Point jail because, like, Dillinger and Nelson
paid
him to, and besides, Youngblood was doomed to die soon one way or the other, and he preferred to die
outside
of jail, on his feet like a man, and did so?
Of all the distortions of history in Milius' "Dillinger," this one is beyond the usual "Hollywood inane," it's either embarrassing or outright offensive, depending on how much you want to like or dislike this movie.
Which, BTW, I
used
to want to like more than I actually did. That was before I read post after post of utter stupidity from Puttle-Butt-Gum. Especially over on the "Public Enemies" boards, where he persists in invading one more-or-less sensible discourse after another with his hateful tripe. With the result for me, the more Mr. Mxyzptlk hates "Public Enemies," the more I feel like hating his pet gangster movie right back at him.
I
used
to actually
like
Milius' "Dillinger." But that was before I started seriously investigating the life and times of my famous homeboy, and well before I, um, "met" Puttle-Butt-Gum here on the IMDb boards. Hell, I even used to believe Pretty Boy Floyd was actually at Little Bohemia, 'cause, like, Milius told us he was.
Or is it the legend that Melvin Purvis bore an astounding resemblance, in appearance and manner, to actor Denver Pyle as Frank Hamer? 'Cause, like, I don't know a single soul on earth other than Puttle-Butt-Gum who believes that this is not only entertaining
complete fiction,
which it is, but also, um,
"the"
Dillinger legend.
Mr. Mxyzptlk also can't even seem to get the real Melvin Purvis right. Over on the Ben Johnson thread, he casually dismisses the real Purvis as "a pencil pushing geek," instead of the overly embattled and surprisingly skillful law enforcement officer (and later, World War II soldier) that Purvis really was. Hoover may have hired him in part because Purvis was young, kind of a pretty boy, and slightly built, and maybe Hoover wanted to get into his pants, who knows? But he was also an experienced hunter, and a pretty good shot when he had a gun in his hands and wasn't too nervous to draw and aim it properly, as happened in front of the Biograph.
The real Purvis was courageous, and also "in way over his head," as the saying goes. But he was far more than a "pencil pushing geek," except in the little boy's fantasy world where a "strong and manly" personality always goes with a tall and well-muscled body type, and anybody who ain't built that way is just another wimp.
If you want to talk about
"the"
Dillinger legend, as if there were only one,
let's talk about the closest thing the big screen has ever seen to "the" Dillinger legend:
the slick charming con man who could fool almost anybody into thinking he was a nice guy, and who was liked by just about everybody who ever met him, even if they did see through his jive, as most did eventually. That's the "Dillinger legend" that Morgan County, Indiana believed in, and we knew him best. You get some of that in "Public Enemies." Not enough, if you ask me, but in Milius' "Dillinger," you hardly get a single glimpse of the guy.
The Indianapolis street punk who might have straightened out eventually and become a decent enough citizen of these United States, if Judge Williams hadn't played politics with his first serious offense, and sentenced him to ten-to-twenty for a bungled mugging that should have gotten him no more than a year behind bars. That's the "Dillinger legend" that Indiana governor Paul McNutt came to believe in, and announced to the public: the product of an overly draconian state prison system. Again, you get a hint or two of that in "Public Enemies," when Dillinger sums up his life story to Billie Frechette in one paragraph of, arguably, the best dialogue in the movie. You get a very good hint of it in the prison break scene that opens "Public Enemies." In Milius' "Dillinger," you don't get much of a hint that John Dillinger ever served a day behind bars before the Tucson cops put him there.
The ladies' man who loved, loved, loved sex with women, Billie Frechette in particular, and whom the FBI correctly predicted would be taken down sooner or later because one or another of his lady friends would betray him. That's the "Dillinger legend" that Billie believed in, and that Polly Hamilton believed in, and the FBI believed in. (But that some fans of both movies in question somehow think doesn't belong in the story? With -
joe_538 — 12 years ago(August 26, 2013 02:12 PM)
About the "Turning Billie into a Bonnie Parker" comment. Historians doubt Bonnie Parker ever shot anyone. She may have posed for photos holding a gun with a cigar in her mouth, but she didn't smoke cigars either. And than there's Ma Barker
All in all, this movie is more accurate than most gangster biopics. They definitely took liberties in casting Ben Johnson, but he played the part well. It would be a lot of trouble to take count all of the inaccuracies between this and Public Enemies and try to judge the importance of each one. Regardless, I feel this one has a better 1930's atmosphere, more natural acting, more realistic action scenes (70's filmmaking), and the supporting cast all have something to contribute.
I actually get a little mad watching The FBI Story, the way that one played with history to fit it's own needs. -
Petronius Arbiter II — 11 years ago(July 23, 2014 01:01 PM)
About the "Turning Billie into a Bonnie Parker" comment. Historians doubt Bonnie Parker ever shot anyone.
True, but that wasn't really the point that I and others have been making with the comparisons of Milius' treatment of Billie Frechette. We're saying John Milius, in a typical Milius display of lack of imagination, created a portrayal of Billie that was rather obviously derivative of
Arthur Penn's
portrayal of Bonnie Parker.
That's emblematic of why I and others consider "Dillinger" to be kind of a third-rate work of historical fiction, not so much the artistic plagiarism (everybody does it,) but the fact that so much of what is watchable about "Dillinger" what Puttle-Butt-Gum keeps relentlessly lauding as
"the
Dillinger legend" is not in any way a reference to the actual saga of the historical John Dillinger, but a reference to
other movies,
and only that.
Which might be okay, even commendable, if Milius' ripoffs were
more
interesting than whatever source material he's ripping off, but usually that is not the case. I suppose some people may find Ben Johnson more interesting than Denver Pyle as Frank Hamer; I don't. And if you think Michelle Phillips is anything but a serious letdown compared to Faye Dunaway as Bonnie, then I really pity you. And for all the undeniable watchability of Warren Oates' portrayal of John Dillinger, once I noticed the extreme resemblance to Humphrey Bogart, it became impossible to ignore the
lack
of a meaningful resemblance to the character of the historical John Dillinger.
The one derivative scene in "Dillinger" that I do really like is when Ben Johnson guns down "Handsome Jack" Klutas. At least here, the source material is not so obvious: it seems a little bit derivative of the death of Bonnie and Clyde in the 1967 film, but also a bit derivative of the ending of Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch." And arguably, just as artistically effective as either.
Too bad, though, that by doing that scene by making it up out of whole cloth, in fact, because it's completely fictional Milius painted himself into a corner. Once he's established his version of Melvin Purvis as some sort of superman, now he
has
to hear Pretty Boy Floyd say "I'm glad it was you," utterly preposterously, and now he
has
to have Melvin Purvis kill John Dillinger by his own hand. In both cases, the real history was
so
much more interesting.
"I don't deduce, I observe." -
Petronius Arbiter II — 9 years ago(November 28, 2016 12:50 PM)
Just checking in after being away from both this and the "Public Enemies" boards for quite awhile. Looks like Puttle-Butt-Gum is still trying to convince "Public Enemies" fans to watch this 1973 film. He's a little less crazy and wrong-headed than he used to be, too!
"I don't deduce, I observe."