Blogs and Stories
Knives Out for Michael Mann
Peter Mountain / Universal Studios
Johnny Depp's new gangster movie Public Enemies may be stylish, but if it doesn't win at the box office, Hollywood will be gunning for its director, Michael Mann.
Xtra Insight: Plus: Harvey Weinstein says the Oscar race begins with Public Enemies
As tectonic plates continue to shift in Hollywood thanks to the economy and the digital revolution, studios no longer want to pay for big-name stars and they certainly don’t want to pay for big-name directors who seem unlikely to deliver a product that is solidly commercial.
All this would seem to augur ill for a talent like director Michael Mann, who appears to be poised for trouble with his latest film, Public Enemies. The Public Enemies billboards look cool and Johnny Depp may be a god, but critics are mixed to the John Dillinger biopic, and a more pragmatic audience—theater owners—have not been expecting the film to do well. They find it to be stylishly directed but slow, violent, and unlikely to perform in smaller markets.
Johnny Depp disliked Mann’s chaotic style of filmmaking to the point that he ultimately refused to speak to the director.
One former studio chairman told me that he can imagine what the movie’s problems are without having seen it, based on Mann’s previous work. “It’s going to take itself too seriously, it’s going to be way too long and it will not focus on entertaining the audience,” he says. “Michael Mann, in the past 15 years, has not made one movie I’ve liked.”
Perhaps you loved some of Mann’s movies—I was crazy about The Insider—but he typically doesn’t deliver at the box office. At least not in the context of what he’s been spending. Many people enjoyed his biggest hit, the 2004 thriller Collateral, but it barely got to $100 million. None of his other films—including Ali, Miami Vice, and Heat—have come close.
Artistic merit aside, Mann is a costly proposition in more ways than one. I was talking to a couple of veteran crew members recently about which directors are the biggest nightmares on set. In such conversations, three big names always come up: James Cameron, Transformers director Michael Bay, and Michael Mann. But one of these is not like the others. “With Michael Bay, you have the opportunity to break out, so he’s a pain in the butt but you have the potential for a big upside,” says an executive who knows from experience. “With Michael Mann, you’re lucky if he breaks even. And you’re raked over the coals in the process. What part of that is a prudent decision?”
I last wrote about Mann in 2006, as Miami Vice was rolling into theaters. The movie went over schedule and dramatically over budget as Mann waffled constantly about what he wanted to do and where he meant to do it. He berated and humiliated his crew and there were questions as to whether Mann was sufficiently concerned with the safety on set. Many crew members had their doubts about the security arrangements while filming in the Dominican Republic. Jamie Foxx left after a shooting (with a gun) took place during filming there and refused to return for any more work outside the U.S., forcing Mann to rewrite his ending. In Miami, Mann continued to work when a hurricane warning was in effect as Katrina drew near. (When I asked Mann about this, he initially said it didn’t happen. An angry crew member provided proof in the form of a time sheet.)
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Oprah Changes Channels
Kim Masters covers the entertainment business for The Daily Beast. She is also the host of The Business, public radio's weekly program about the business of show business. She is also the author of The Keys to the Kingdom: The Rise of Michael Eisner and the Fall of Everybody Else.
New Moon Rises Over Hollywood
Kim Masters covers the entertainment business for The Daily Beast. She is also the host of The Business, public radio's weekly program about the business of show business. She is also the author of The Keys to the Kingdom: The Rise of Michael Eisner and the Fall of Everybody Else.
Meet the Movie Theater of the Future
Kim Masters covers the entertainment business for The Daily Beast. She is also the host of The Business, public radio's weekly program about the business of show business. She is also the author of The Keys to the Kingdom: The Rise of Michael Eisner and the Fall of Everybody Else.
The main thing about Mann that people don't like is that he doesn't make movies to "entertain". Mann is so detail oriented that he movies drag out and have a lot of more boring parts to add those details to the story.
The payoff is the Mann makes very realistic movies without plot-holes in his stories. You'll never see a Mann gun-fight and roll your eyes, as if to say "whatever".
I suppose the biggest thing people have to ask themselves is do they want mindless action or a slow, drawn out good story?
"The payoff is the Mann makes very realistic movies without plot-holes in his stories. You'll never see a Mann gun-fight and roll your eyes, as if to say "whatever"."
Actually, that is EXACTLY what will happen when you see this movie. The plot holes are enormous, and almost every gunfight (of which there are way too many) will have you roll your eyes and say "whatever."
Looked at one way (how much does a director bug the suits?), Michael Mann and Michael Bay are apparently in the same category. Looked at another way: "The Insider"; "Last of the Mohicans." Enough said.
A Michael Mann movie is like reading classic literature. Every detail is there for you, and the degree of realism is through the roof. Unfortunately, not many people like that stuff now days. They'd rather read People Magazine over War and Peace. The same goes for movies.
That said; I'm still excited for this movie. Mann's insane but a good director and story teller. Plus, I think I have a man crush on Johnny Depp (don't worry therapy's keeping it from becoming an obssession).
"Artistic merit aside..."
That's some caveat. Most Hollywood movies--especially those that reliably draw high box office returns--are unbearably stupid. Michael Mann's movies are almost uniformly excellent. They are visually stunning, smartly written, challenging to the audience, and formally ambitious. The thrust of this article seems to be that none of this matters, and that Mann would be wise to lose the style, add some cleavage and one-liners, and make himself into a bankable enterprise. I for one hope he doesn't.
On the one hand I like Mann's balls to the wall approach to filmmaking (art should and can be dangerous) but I also think with his past couple films the money hasn't wound up on screen. I think alot of the problems he's been facing recently are due to shooting digitally. It just doesn't look good enough. I think Fincher did a decent job shooting in HD for Zodiac (a great film) but I don't think its a coincidence that that film didn't make any money either. When people go to the movies they want it to look like a FILM...Not some cheap looking sci fi channel production. A lot money was spent on Public Enemies and none of it looks like it made it on the screen because the digital cameras he's using suck all the life out of the image. Heat and The Insider are his best films. But they were shot on film and were compositionally speaking incredibly cinematic. Depp is overrated and Bale is not always at his best (really depends on who is directing him). I think Mann and many other directors in Hollywood would do well to learn how to go back to basics. Rather than trying to make the most expensive film imaginable why not start with making a good film. There is no reason that this film should have cost over 100 million dollars to make. And the studio was stupid to green light it at that budget considering that most period films (action or not) usually do poorly at the box office (i.e. Clooney's Leatherheads). I think director's deserve more artistic control but with a smaller budget (ideally under 30 mil). It worked for people in the 70's and 80's there is no reason it shouldn't work now. And actor's salaries are WAY too high. No one goes to see a movie because of an actor anymore. People are drawn in by trailers and concept...Period. So, a 20 million dollar paycheck to Jim Carey (Yes Man) or Will Smith (Seven Pounds) doesn't promise you solid box office returns.
You make some good points all around, esp. about Johnny being overrated, but this is his best movie in a long time. I got tired of seeing him in silly costumes and clown makeup. Maybe "adult" directors like Scorcesee just don't think Depp can pull off a movie like the Departed and he doesn't get the scripts; only from Tim Woods. He and Cotillard make a good duo and should consider making another movie -- maybe a light comedy. I liked Depp in Chocolate, a small role, but he was very sexy. I think that's the problem. Depp seems to be sexless in his movies, when he can pull off sex better than any actor (certainly better than Damon and Clooney).
He should maybe consider working with a foreign director, because talk about sucking the life out of somebody: Tim Woods. But we don't know why that relationship keeps rolling. Maybe Woods pays more money than anybody else.
As for Mann and PE, I enjoyed watching the movie although I knew the story and how it would end. Mann shoots better gunfights than anybody and yeh, there may be too many in this movie. This movie comes closest to Bonnie & Clyde IMO and you know that was many decades ago. I'm not sure the public is sophistocated enough to appreciate B&C if it was released today.
Depp is "over-rated"?! He's one of the best if not the best male actor out there today. He defies stereotyping and has the creativity and the artistic reach that can make an otherwise mediocre film worth seeing just because he is in it.
That being said, he's made some lousy role choices in recent years. He should cut away from Tim Burton whose become a lazy film maker whose been making the same movie over and over again..same characters....just different costumes and sets.
Depp needs to take on some real projects where he can show himself as the great actor he really is...up there with Brando.
Hmm. I agree that Mann is a fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants director in respect to some of his shooting techniques. However, Mann is, and has been for some time, one of the leading proponents of digital technology in film. Mann started experimenting with digital editorial flourishes in his earlier films like The Insider and Ali, before going all-out and shooting almost entirely in digital for Collateral and Miami Vice (on the Thomson Viper FilmStream cameras). Mann's skill in digital is unsurpassed - his films are an exercise in aesthetic-not just character. His images cascade around you and immerse you in a world of sensation. I don't believe that this element of his films overshadows their substance. Mann's films are exactly the type of movies I want to see. Realistic, artisitic, gritty and with substance. Every one of his movies is worth it's weight in gold. I'm with you 100% regarding the studio's stupidity to green light Public Enemies at that budget. Look at Michael Clayton - an adult drama with grit and realism and it's studio budget was $21,500,000. More artistic controlsmaller budget is an equation that I like the sound of a LOT.
Mann makes Indie (independent) films with studio money and that's what makes The Suits nervous. If Mann is going to survive, he'll have to make some commercial garbage to stay around and show The Suits he can speak their financial language . . . P-R-O-F-I-T-S!
Maybe Mann should do like Coppola and finance his own movies.
love mann...and studios will be studios..., none of my favorie movies in teh last 10 years have made that much money- well maybe Slumdog!
However, even for Mann- there is absolutely no excuse for Miami Vice..., what an absolute pice of @#$% that was. What was it all about?
Slumdog! Forever! Loved that movie.
Masters, this is a new low for you. What kind of Nikki Finke wannabe reporting is this scurrilious gossip. I've worked with someone below the line who worked for both Bay and Mann closely - as opposed to hear bottom feeding bottom line gossip from studio execs who only care about money - and yes I've heard Mann is a cruel taskmaster, but he earns your respect through his knowledge, fearlessness, and attempt to aim for something higher. Just like Cameron. Whereas no one respects Bay, not even his leading actresses - who are willing to make public comments about their lack of humanity, but everyone humors him because he makes money. So whose side are you on as a journalist? The money or the art? Since you'd prefer to see Mann go down in flames because he at least aims for art, it's pretty obvious. I hope you enjoy the hell out of a lifetime of Transformers and The Islands. Maybe Bay can even do a sequel to Pearl Harbor. What a pointlessly cruel and misguided article. You fail to offer your own perspective on Public Enemies, probably because you haven't seen it. I was as surprised by anybody when I saw it this evening in NYC - and there was applause at the end. I kid you not.
I hate the way Hollywood works these days because of what it churns out. Big, dumb movies made for 14 year old boys - how depressing.
My husband and I went to see this movie last night on opening night, and it was very good. Depp brings great empathy to his character and the "cold chill" between Agent Purvis (Christian Bale) and Dillenger was excellent. The main thing sorely lacking is Mr. Mann didn't "hype up" the folk hero atmosphere that evolved around John Dillenger at the time. This important component would have "lightened up" the movie just a bit. A great gangster movie, and Johnny Depp was excellent as usual. Don't listen to the critics if you like this genre of movie.
I have always enjoyed Michael mann's productions, but he should stick to fiction. When you take a historical situation such as the "great bank robber era" of the 30's, twist it inside out with fabrications posed as fact, timelines reversed and credit taken from real figures and shoved on to others just to make the story line more appealing, all you get is a visually attractive travesty. Giving Melvin Purvis credit for capturing or killing all these bad guys is crap. Purvis was an incompetent policeman who spent more time trying to get headlines than doing actual crime fighting. To glorify him at the expense of the known figures who actually did the work is bogus and perpetuates myth over history. Why can't a director just work with what actually happened rather than having the egotistical gall to think their version of events is so much better. If you want to re-write history, make it a fictional work and stop using real peoples names. It is as bad as having Roy Rogers playing Billy the Kid as a heroic figure.
see again Public Enemies:Purvis isn't a heroic guy in this movie,he's the villain!
Dillinger is shown as a romantic gangster too "likeable" to be a good real gangster.
I'm not a bit surprised that they clashed. Mann is THE most world-class, horrific asshole I've ever seen in showbiz, and I've seen a few. Just a mean, cruel motherf'er. On the other hand Johnny is one of the true gentleman of the industry, nice and gentle to one and all. Mann is a disorganized mess and covers it up by screaming and terrorizing people. His staff are like terror-stricken citizens of some Totalitarian state. He better hope ENEMIES makes money or maybe the town will finally be over him. He cares deeply about the movies he makes but that's no excuse to treat people as he does, knowing he can get away with it.
every one knows Mann is a difficult movie maker and he knows what he wants:he's perfectionist and he wants the best movie.
Perhaps Depp became lazy and didn't know how to work with him.They're not perfect guys but after the Chicago première,they ate together at "gibson" restaurant.
l really like Depp but all i know is in Europe,he didn't give one interview to promote the movie but he went in premiere whereas Mann,Cotillard and Bale(him during Terminator promo) did their job to sell the movie.
I don't care if people is good person because all i want is a good movie and Public Enemies is verry good
Well his attention to "detail" has one BIG FLAW.It was in 1933 that the Union Station massacre in Kansas City MO occured, prompting the formation of the FBI and providing J Edgar Hoover a job. But you know, this is Missouri. Who's heard of Missouri? Its not even a part of the Union is it?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.