Film, Crime & Misdirection

In this review of the new film Public Enemies from America magazine, a common mistake is compounded, conflating white collar con men whose crimes are largely built upon the cupidity of folks striving to realize the American dream, with street criminals who take money (and often much more besides) from the innocent; and it is a conflation serving no purpose other than excusing street criminality through the portrayal of it being structural rather than individual.

Most of us do not fear con men, feeling, justifiably or not, that we can generally hold our own by operating from the old warning that “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is”; but we do fear street criminals, as we know that they often hurt us not only financially but also physically, and as certainly as we wish con men who rob the gullible of their life savings to be put away, we demand it of street criminals who prey upon the innocent.

An excerpt.

““Public Enemies” presents a good story, but nothing surprising: Dillinger went on a crime spree and the F.B.I. killed him as he came out of a Chicago movie house in July 1934. The film gains interest with spectacular action sequences. Mann offers enough bank robberies and shootouts to keep even a restless 12-year-old boy in his seat for the full two hours and 15 minutes. Yet the story lacks sparkle. And the characters, even Dillinger himself, fade into the narrative without demanding much emotional investment. One senses a conscious strategy here. Johnny Depp, as the protagonist, and Christian Bale, playing his nemesis Agent Melvin Purvis, stand at a distance from their characters, appearing content to accompany them as they wander from one action sequence to the next. Their motivation remains in the background. Does Dillinger need the money, or does he want to humiliate law enforcement agencies? Or does he merely enjoy living on the edge? Purvis becomes obsessed with his job, but does he seek personal satisfaction or a leading role in the new F.B.I.? Or has he allowed himself to become a Hoover sycophant?...

“Now Mann has given us a Dillinger for the bailout generation. The action sequences make him an old-time gangster, whose Tommy gun rains death on lawmen and bystanders without discrimination. Yet Dillinger remains opaque, in the image of today’s buttoned-down gangsters. Today’s mobsters do not rob banks; they loot them with credit-default swaps. Faceless and all but anonymous in their striped suits, they no longer race their black sedans down country roads to evade the sirens of their tormentors. Today, gangsters ride their corporate jets and stretch limos to board meetings and Senate committee hearings. They don’t brandish machine guns; they send e-mails from their laptops. They don’t have sworn enemies in law enforcement; they have well-paid lawyers who find the loopholes to make their activities appear legal. And what of their motives when they have more millions than they could possibly spend in a lifetime? Ego? Proving to themselves that they are above the law? The thrill of the chase? They are ruthless, but dull. Mann’s John Dillinger would fit right in. But would Jackie Reilly insist on being Bernie Madoff during our Saturday game of Ponzi scheme?”