avocets
Avocets
rss 2.0 subscribe to this page
search


view all
•  projects
•  owners
•  tags
Thompson, Frank T., 1952- . William A. Wellman / by Frank T. Thompson ; with a foreword by Barbara Stanwyck. 081081594X series Metuchen, N.J. : Scarecrow Press, 1983.
Call#: Van Pelt Library--4 East--Temporary Location Annenberg PN1998.A3 W467 1983
Chapter six of Thompson’s biography of William A. Wellman highlights the specific role that Wellman played in shaping The Public Enemy. According to Thompson, Wellman’s involvement in the film resulted in drastic editing and casting decisions.
 
Thompson points out that Wellman did not shy away from making drastic changes to the screen play, which was inspired by the gangster novel Beer and Blood. For instance, Wellman “loved using children to introduce his characters” (111), and insisted that the opening scene portray moments from the gangsters’ childhood. In shooting those scenes, Wellman used a combination of early 20th century stock shots of Chicago and new footage, in order to create a credible visual scene.
 
Most notably, Thompson points out that in directing the film, Wellman drew inspiration from his personal life. This is particularly true for the film’s infamous “grapefruit scene,” in which Tom Powers smashes a grapefruit in the face of his girlfriend. According to Thompson, Wellman was in the midst of his unstable marriage to Marjorie Crawford. Thompson recounts how each morning, the couple ate a grapefruit breakfast together, and Wellman would imagine throwing the food at her. Wellman added the grapefruit scene to the film in order to vicariously live through Powers’ actions.
 
Furthermore, Thompson points out that initially, Cagney was not cast for the role of Tom Powers. He was originally granted the secondary role of Matt Doyle. However, Wellman, acting on instinct and at the urging of a number of writers, including production chief Darryl F. Zanuck, became a major advocate for making Cagney into the story’s protagonist.
 
This excerpt is particularly fundamental to my argument. Significantly, Wellman was responsible for putting Cagney into the role of Tom Powers. As noted in other annotations, Cagney is credited with adding an intensity to The Public Enemy that transcends the screen. Without this last minute switch, the role of the main gangster would be far less memorable.
 
Additionally, as Thompson notes, Wellman played a heavy hand in shaping the film, taking great care to add a sense of legitimacy and believability to the gangster drama. The ability of Americans to identify with Tom Powers can be largely attributed to Wellman’s efforts. His nuanced editing engendered the empathy that viewers felt for the film’s characters.
Smith, Jim, 1978- . Gangster films / Jim Smith. 0753508389 series London : Virgin Books, 2004.
Call#: Van Pelt Library PN1995.9.G3 S65 2004

Jim Smith’s book offers analytical critiques of some of the most influential films that shaped the genre of gangster cinema. In his study of The Public Enemy, he points out the film’s unique focus on the social and economic ills surrounding American life in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

 

Smith evaluates the psychological nature of Tom Powers, explaining that the audience is allowed to experience Powers’ childhood. He notes that viewers are able to meet Powers as a young boy, observe his familial relations and, in one scene, even catch a glimpse of an interaction with his largely absent father. Smith emphasizes the importance of this scene, claiming that the cruel beating of Powers by his policeman father is an indication of society’s fruitless attempts to force younger generations to conform.

 

He also comments that Powers’ introduction to the audience as a child is particularly important. The audience experiences the “formative” (33) incidents of Powers’ life. Those experiences are intended to have explanatory power, offering real rationale as to why Powers develops a somewhat hostile and rebellious temperament. Thus, The Public Enemy, according to Smith, is a film “genuinely attempting to examine the process whereby people are led into a life of crime” (33).

 

Notably, Smith reviews the importance of other childhood interactions, particularly the relationship between Powers and Putty Nose. According to Smith, Putty Nose guides a young Powers into a life of crime. This demonstrates that society bears some responsibility for Powers’ subsequent development into a gangster. As Smith notes, “for an individual to be responsible to his society, society must be responsible to the individual’ (34).

 

This piece would be particularly constructive to my paper, because it explains Tom Powers’ psychological and emotional background. The audience is able to identify with certain aspects of Powers’ childhood, and consequently, specific qualities of his character. A viewer can see him or herself reflected in Powers. Thus, significantly, Smith’s writing shows how the film’s depiction of Powers’ childhood humanizes him, depicting a gangster as an unfortunate product of his social and economic environment, rather than as a cold-hearted, removed, and unexplainable social phenomenon.