To be honest I didn't really notice it except for the high movement action scenes. The shoot out in the woods it was especially noticeable...if anyone has a TV with the Auto Motion Plus feature or something similar, it sort of reminded me of that on the low setting....slightly soap operish at times.

That being said, I do not care for that feature. So it was a bit jarring at times.

I'd say that the "artistic" choice of using HD in this film was a huge mistake. As one of the people above said, it looked like a highschool movie. But I think it relates to more of the behind the scenes cameras that you normally see on the special features. It looks as if we arent seeing what we are supposed to see. In a period piece, like this, I understand you want it gritty. Which makes complete sense, however, HD is a very clean format (ie without film grain, hard to make look distorted with in camera tricks... etc) so instead they just under lit and flicked the gain tab up to "high."

I found it especially distracting in all of the close-ups where instead of noticing Depp's wonderful acting, I was trying to figure out just how close they got to him to get that distorted look... Talk about being taken out of a movie that you would clearly want to relate to the main character in... I mean its a biographical period piece, why am I thinking about focal distances? I'm a film guy yeah, I study it, but I've never been a person that really studies the look of films though. I like movies, and I like to forget I'm watching a movie, thats why we watch them right???

it didn't work because it looked like a crappy british tv show.

you can get grainy, documentary style realism from film. mann's not doing it for the look. he's doing it because he likes to see the picture as soon as he shoots it.

film would have made this film unbelievably better.

I completely agree. The HD did not help the at all, it was more of a distraction. It took me completely out of the film and all I could concentrate on was the weird lighting, the extreme blur, and the off set of foreground and background. The depth of field was a little off for me as well. Honestly with entires movie being all close up shots and hand held camera style, with the HD on top of that... it gave me a huge headache. There's nothing better for film that traditional photographic film. It gives the best feel for any genre of movie. It is way more artistic than any digital medium.

To suggest that any one medium is more or less artistic than another is ignorant at best. I'm not trying to be a jerk. I agree completely with everything else said so far. HD didn't work for this film, and I thought it looked horrible.

That said, there is a place for HD and it can have every bit the artistic integrity that film can.

I completely agree here. HD looks great when used properly, its about how you add to the film that makes a medium artistic. In this case HD only detracted, but in say, Collateral, or Sin City, it added to the style of the film.

However, overall, Film has a more organic feel.

"Talk about being taken out of a movie..."

With all due respect, I'd say you did a fair job of that yourself. I noticed the frame rate change in the cabin shootout as well -- but I know that, plus everything else I noticed (lighting, score, etc.) was because I fancy myself a filmmaker; I notice everything.

I wouldn't put all your observations on Michael Mann's feet.

I wouldn't say that using HD was the wrong choice for this film. I shoot films in HD and run them to DVD all the time but mine do not have the 'motion blur' or 'frame blending' effect that this film carried in almost all the low light scenes. It was those traits that bothered me and I felt did fit into the story in this time period. It didn't fit also because the artwork for the film did not represent that sort of feel. It looked like a clean 1930 gangster film. It maybe would have worked if they had promoted the film in the way a Bourne film is promoted.

I found the grainy, digital look to be very obvious and distracting and, therefore, it didn't really work for me. It was just entirely too noticeable, causing me to pay attention to how the filming made the movie look, rather than the film as a whole. It didn't make or break the movie for me, but I think I would have preferred it without it.

Personally, I thought the HD worked well for the movie, it definitely gave it a different and interesting look from other period films, the only problem I saw was because of the time period the movie was set in, there were fewer man made lights in the sets, and since in HD they used a lot of natural light or lights that were incorporated into the sets it made night scenes, for instance the woodland shootout, a little difficult to see.

For me the digital look was EXTREMELY distracting, particularly during the shootout int he woods. It felt too much like watching a high school film project- I could imagine myself as one of the actors running around and shooting blanks. The look came across more like low budget than an aesthetic choice. But, when I asked my friends about it as we left the theater, no one else had seemed to notice or care.

Saw it yesterday. I liked the digital video a lot, it made it seem more realistic to me, compared to a more detached feel you get from film.

I havent seen the movie but I hated the look from the first second of the first trailer. Much like Alex Albrecht, I loved the way it looked in Collateral. But a 1920's period piece should NOT be filmed with HD digital cameras. Its jarring and takes you out of the moment.
Getting too enamored of tech and forgetting story? Who does Michael Mann think he is? George Lucas?

My wife thought the digital video took her out of the film -- that it looked too much like a soap opera. I had the opposite opinion, it made it feel very contemporary to me, even though it was set in the 30s. And that involved me even more.

And even with the unnatural look during daytime scenes, I think Mann, using this technique, captures night scenes like no-one else. And with his music cues he creates a very unique atmosphere.

A period film does not need to feel contemporary. Thats the problem with the vision for the film; Needing to find a way to make the film feel fresh causes you to forget one core idea : To honor the true nature of the story.
The HD choice in this feature seems to be one for convenience and economy. Film would have made the movie ten times more realistic. The HD was a disservice to the art direction of the film which was clearly borrowing from Edward Hopper paintings. The natural lighting style of the scenes would have looked beautiful and timeless on film. Check out Donnie Brasco to see the difference of film with cops and Depp in the lead role.

I respect the daring of shooting a period film in that style. As a colleague pointed out, it's really no less period-appropriate than a sweeping Cinemascope approach. It just didn't work for me aesthetically. It's not just that it was ugly, it's that it was ugly in a really unengaging way. (Except occasionally it wasn't: I liked the BLAIR WITCH-like chaos of the Wisconsin shootout and a few other scenes.)

It's just a constant anachronism. If the film were set in present day, it wouldn't be an issue. But the constant reminder of DIGITAL video in a period film is just silly.

You are so right. I mean the fact that it was in colour took me right out of the film. I spent all my time thinking that people were shades of gray in those times and to have modern actors that were in colour was just too distracting for me too watch. I mean they even showed clark gable, in the film just to taunt me, with what a person of that period was supposed to look like. Sheesh.

But seriously it is ridiculous to think that it should have been shot in Black and White with period cameras, just to be true to the era. Not that I wouldnt have respected the choice to do that, even though it would have been equally controversial. Following that logic would mean that no movie set before 1890's should ever be made. The period look is a cliche. Its like saying that every villain should have a mustache or else people won't know he is the bad guy. Cliches maybe cultural shorthand but they aren't required.

Way to put words in my mouth there, guy. I never said it need it needed to be shot in B&W with period cameras or even implied anything near to that. I'll assume you didn't miss my point entirely and are just using exaggeration to make your own point. In that case, what you're saying makes sense, using color film in a period movie is technically an anachronism. I never thought about that, and it has never and will never bother me when watching a film.

However, the type of digital video used in Public Enemies has a very distinct look that I immediately associate with modern technology. I don't do that with other types of cameras. It's especially bad in this case because the handheld cinematography is supposed to bring you closer, but then I'm having this frequent anachronism thrown in my face that breaks my immersion. With film, I don't get that constant reminder.

I'm not against a period film being shot with digital, but it shouldn't look so obviously digital. I shouldn't be thinking about the type of camera they're using at all, just the images conveyed by it. That's my problem.

I was merely trying to illustrate that there will always be things that are not authentic in a period film and to draw the line at what is ok for a period film and what isn't ok is a loosing battle. Since almost nothing in a period film is period.

I will agree that the look is a relatively new look made using relatively modern technology. But so is dolby sound. So is colour. So is johnny depp. What I'm saying is that period films are always going to be made with modern technology. Would you poo poo cgi in a period piece.

Even kubrick shot barry lyndon with a lens developed by nasa so he could shoot scenes lit by candles. Which was a revolutionary look for the time.

You insist on missing my point, but maybe that's my fault. I am not a luddite. I am not opposing the use of non-period technology in period films. I am not opposed to the use of new technology in period films. Color, dolby digital, CGI... all of these things are tools designed to bring the world of the 1920s closer to reality, to draw the viewer more into the world of the film. The cinematography in Public Enemies did exactly the opposite - it caused an anachronistic clash of the old with the new. As someone in support of it pointed out, it made it feel like there was a film crew following these guys through the woods. From my perspective, when you're dealing with a period film that BREAKS THE FANTASY.

Criticizing this movie for not looking like a period film, is like saying that any world war 2 movie that doesn't look like Private Ryan is flawed. The only thing wrong visually with the movie was the handheld closeups which were distancing.

Your comparison makes no sense at all. Why would every WWII movie have to look like Saving Private Ryan?

Digital video has a very distinct look that is unmistakably digital and doesn't belong in the era of the film. I normally love Mann's use of handheld, and agree that it often does a great job of bringing you closer to the action. Digital, however, is so unmistakably modern that in this case it just screams WE ARE PEOPLE IN COSTUMES PLAYING PRETEND. To me it's no different than if one of the characters pulled out a cell phone to make a call.

Keith, cinemascope may be no more period appropriate, but I dare anyone not trained in film to notice. With the digital video employed in Public Enemies, it's unmistakable.

You are saying every period film has to look like a period film. That is like saying that every wwii film has to look like private ryan because since it has come out, it has become the defacto look of wwii.

Why can't the exploits of john dillinger have the realism of a clip on youtube?

It's a "media is the message" argument.

No, I'm not saying that a period film has to look like a period film, I'm saying that it just shouldn't constantly remind me of something modern. There's a pretty important distinction there.

And your SPR comparison still makes no sense to me. It's one style of film making that a lot of people have imitated. That doesn't make it the model that all others must follow. There is nothing to say that all WWII films must use that style, or that that style can't be employed in a different period. Especially with the implication that I was insisting people only use B&W period cameras for period films, this comparison makes even less sense because it did nothing of the kind.

I agree with Sean. YouTube has the advantage of an inherent trust - until proven otherwise, we believe it is real. Film has to clear the hurdle of the fact that we KNOW that it's fact. Filmmakers are supposed to make us forget that, and DV is just another hurdle. As for the SPR conparison - DV, even handheld DV, is not a 'style', per-se, in the way that the washed-out, handheld jittery SPR 'style' is. It's a type of film, pure and simple. Can someone shoot a period film on DV one of these days, and make it work? Probably. Is Public Enemies it? No.

There are more movies shot on Digital than you probably realize. The look of Public Enemies was definitely the look of Michael Mann and that is definitely a style.

Oh, agreed. I'm not complaining about Digital in general, simply how Mann chose to use it, or simply that he chose to use it for this picture, in this manner, with the goals in mind that he had. I think shooting in DV was a part - merely a part - of his 'style' for the film, but that's the part that doesn't seem to work, or even to mesh with some of the other things he was trying to accomplish, so that's why it's generating such criticism. And it's not simply that it's a constant anachronism - Moulin Rouge, or Plunkett & MacLeane are nothing but two hour long anachronisms, but that fits with their entire styles, their over-all purposes, so it works.

"No, I'm not saying that a period film has to look like a period film,"

I agree.

"It's one style of film making that a lot of people have imitated. "

That is how I feel about the period film look.

"There is nothing to say that all WWII films must use that style, or that that style can't be employed in a different period."

That is how I feel about using digital in a period film. There no reason why Public Enemies couldn't look the way it did.

It just didn't work for you.

The problem isn't simply with digital cameras used on a period piece.. it's just that this movie flat out did not use it to any advantage. They used lenses that resemble the lenses of a 300 dollar camcorder. Shots were often poorly lit, underexposed, highlights were often completely blown out.. They bumped up the gain on the cameras for the night shots, which is a terrible idea.. adds noise, artifacts.. Compositions felt rushed and uninspired. You could tell when they just sort of gave up and decided to start pointing the camera around at whatever. Digital cameras are not the issue.. It's sloppy and careless cinematography disguised as being 'intentionally stylistic'.
The story does not call for camerawork like this. They majority of the movie is slowly paced and dialogue driven. The choice to embrace the digital feel seems far more inspired by being able to say they have a 'unique style', rather then having any justifiable reason to actually do it. It didn't work. It didn't feel more real and it didn't give the movie more energy. It honestly just looked like shit.

I'm confused, too. How do you decide which anachronisms to ignore and which will remove you from the mindset? It seems to me you didn't like the way it looked in this movie, but you're trying to convince yourself it was because of the subject matter and not just because it looked like crap. Which it did.

I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. Guess what? Color existed in the 1930s. Sound came from more than one source. They may not have existed in technology at the time, but they certainly existed in the world. Film technology should advance to draw us further into the world of the film, and that's what color film and dolby surround have done because I'm pretty sure the real world of the 1930s wasn't in black & white and wasn't simply mono or stereo. You know what didn't exist in any context at all? Digital video.

I didn't mind this style of cinematography in Collateral or Miami Vice because it was appropriate within the context of the film. It's wildly inappropriate in Public Enemies.

You're just picking and choosing what is important, an accurate reflection of the real life, or an accurate recreation of the recreations available at the time. Real life did exist in color and full sound in the 1930s. It also existed in full motion, which is what video is attempting to replicate. What difference does it make if the technology we are using to recreate a period existed in that period? Like jim said earlier, Johnny Depp didn't exist in the depression era Chicago-land, but no one has any gripes with him playing the part.

I'm not arguing that digital video worked here or looked good. I agree that it was jarring and off putting, but it wasn't because it didn't exist in the 30s. It just plain didn't work.

How do you decide what new technologies are acceptable to use in a period film?

I actually didn't notice that it was video.

I found the overly crisp video and abundance of handheld shots extremely distracting. The scene in the woods became impossible to follow and the few shots in movie theaters and other dark areas you could see the noise because of the lack of light. That drove me absolutely crazy.

I thought that the way Mann chose to shoot this film was at times beautiful (e.g. loved the pan of Depp after the jailbreak in the beginning), but at other times it looked very amateur (e.g. like many have mentioned, the shootout in the woods.)

I think that HD has a place in a period film because it obviously worked for Benjamin Button - its just the manner in which the director wants it to look.

^ Exactly. Not all DV looks like Mann's. I'm not sure what camera Mann used for PE (some kind of Sony), but there are some that can nearly replicate the look of film, such as the Thomson Viper (Fincher's Zodiac & Benjamin Button) or the RED One (Burn After Reading). I wouldn't have had a problem if Mann had chosen a digital look that resembled film. As it is, however, the grainy DV doesn't work with the period detail. totally took me out of the film. there was never a scene or shot that i didn't think to myself, "this would look better on film." the aesthetic did not fit the narrative.

it doesn't belong in period pieces, because it is a technology that specifically acknowledges the 1990's/2000's. no matter how good of a storyteller mann thinks he is, even he cannot overpower the natural connection the eye/brain make when they immediately notice the digital look compared with such a specific time in history.

it was such a lost opportunity, because that period can become a character on its own. could have made the film stronger - not that it would've helped as the script was beyond salvation.

its funny I think Johnny Depp specifically acknowledges a certain period as well.

Some of the comments seem odd to me regarding what type of film is allowed to be used for a period piece. Should westerns only be filmed to look like early newsreels? Should Roman epics be drawn on parchment and displayed in the theater? Our catalogue of epics is made of up those we've seen, and we've seen the (for myself 60s and 70s) epics in a format other than HD. That isn't to say I loved the movie, but I don't blame the technology and don't think its appropriate to require certain types of movies only exist on a certain technology.

I would never presume to require anyone to film anything in any way, but that doesn't mean that the way something is film won't be distracting to me. The basic jist of my argument is that there should to be as little between the audience and the content of the film as possible. I don't see the use of digital in Public Enemies as a style choice. The handheld cinematography certainly was and that's totally cool. I see the digital "look" of Public Enemies as the artifact of a tool and thus a barrier between me and the content of the film.

A lot of times the scenes were not lit properly

Also, Manns use of it was done to showcase a hightened sense of reality while watching the movie, but all it did was prove just how unreal the movie looked

You realize that film is no more real looking than digital.

I for one am a huge supporter of High Definition. All though I do agree it's better suited for certain genres, but I absolutely loved "Public Enemies." One of the main attractions for me was the fact that it was shot on HD. The HD look can and will upset some viewers who are not used to the grainy and blurry effect cause by the format, but all in all I find HD to be a unique way to bring realism to a film. Michael Mann has also been a stylish director. He seeks out backgrounds and atmospheres worthy of HD, the majority which can't be seen by ordinary "film." Mann has and will continue to make the viewer pay attention to everything in the frame, and that alone is something others fail to do. All in all, Mann knows how to shoot a movie. Yes, his style might upset some, but at least he's being innovative with today's technology. As far as people saying HD does not fit the gangster/period piece has failed to acknowledge that Mann is bringing something new and fresh to the genre. For "Public Enemies" he wanted to bring the viewer in, a docu/drama as it were. I will continue to support Mann and HD in every way possible.

Anything that is negatively distracting enough to take you out of the story is a mistake. The point is to lose yourself and be entertained, not pontificating in your head, "Why does this look like crap?" My friend I was with, who knows nothing about filmmaking, noticed. That is not a good sign.

On a superficial level, I would kill to have the opportunity and funds to shoot on 35mm. I shoot on HD because I have no other choice. Why would anyone decide against it? That's like throwing out an un-eaten meal in front of a homeless person!

The HD camera works in a movie if the story takes place between I'd say late 90's and on. I think it's because our eyes have been trained to believe anything around this time period could possibly be seen through a digital camera. But when it takes place in the 1920's, 30's 40's, etc, our eye catches some sort of subliminal hint that this camera wouldn't be here at the time. Kinda like when we see CGI characters and they look totally real and the graphics are amazing.....there's something in it that your eye catches and says, "That ain't real."

Best way I can explain it. Thought Public Enemies was good and the HD didn't ruin it or anything. I guess if I was helping develope it, my vote woulda been for using film over the digital. Of course, I can understand if they used it for artisitc or even budgetary reasons since it seems to be cheaper than film.

That was probably the most pointless and retarded comment I have ever read.

I agree. This guy needs to get over himself and go study movies like UHF or something.

To me it looked like they had no idea how to do lighting for Hi-Def, it look amateurish and cheap. Collateral suffered from the same problem in that it looked like it was made on the cheap with someones home video camera but was lest distracting because it kinda fitted in with the setting.

Although the 2 films are not in the same league Crank 2 was filmed on hand-held off the shelf HD cameras (Canon XHA1 and HF10) and thanks to good post-production processing just looks like a much more professional film.

Some of the gunshot blasts were very distracting. I did like the hectic handheld camerawork in some of the sequences but sometimes it seemed like the camerman was tripping over himself and that kind of took me out of the movie.

The digital noise was distracting, certainly, and I'm wondering if this will look better on blu-ray or digital projection (because I'm under the impression that there might've been resolution lost in the DV to film conversion).

It was kind of a shame that all those great sets and costumes weren't shot on 35mm, but then I think that maybe shooting on film would have inflated the budget (lighting setups, time between takes, dailys processing, talent availabilty etc.) so much that it would have been impossible to get this picture made.

I'm glad they made it, though, I thought it was pretty good.