avocets
Avocets
rss 2.0 subscribe to this page
search


view all
•  projects
•  owners
•  tags
In the early 1930s, the gangster film enjoyed center stage in Hollywood. The fame of the genre reflected a real-life spike in crime, as America was in the midst of the Great Depression. A broken economy and collapsed financial system pushed market exchanges underground, engendering a thriving mob and gang culture. Many gangster films, replete with theatrical scenes of violence, dramatized America's latest criminal fad. However, other films attempted to analyze the gangster from a psychological or sociological standpoint, offering explanations and solutions. The Public Enemy falls into the latter category, representing a shift in the depiction of the gangster. Prior to the release of The Public Enemy, a majority of crime films painted gangsters as inexplicable sources of immorality and vice. However, The Public Enemy offers a unique presentation of crime life, emphasizing the economic and social environment of gangsters, and controversially allowing the audience to both identify and empathize with America's most dangerous criminals.
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.

By 1941, Hitchcock was considered by pop culture to be in the same league as Frank Capra and Orson Welles as being a recognizable personality as well as filmmaker.  Hitchcock had begun to receive some autonomy on his films of this periods from studios like RKO (who also afforded the same courtesy to Welles).  However, while Welles’s autonomy came contractually, Hitchcock’s came from people’s dislike of confrontation with the standoffish director.  With RKO unsatisfied with the progress of one of his projects, they began to seek more direct involvement.  Hitchock responded by leaving the studio after the projects completion, with David O. Selznick helping him work out a deal with 20th Century Fox.

 

Unused to and unaccepting of studio interference, Hitchcock’s brief stint at 20th Century Fox saw Hitchcock having to deal with studio head Zanuck over many of the elements of production.  Zanuck’s biggest issue with Hitchcock was his slow production pace.  It took twenty weeks for a script for Lifeboat to be produced.  A short production schedule was imposed on Hitchcock which was ignored.  Zanuck constantly sent letters complaining of the inefficiency of Hitchcock’s shooting scenes in sequential order and wanted cuts to be made to keep the project under budget, with Hitchcock frequently never responding.  Hitchcock disliked the even stronger studio interference then in his earlier projects, and Zanuck disliked Hitchcock’s disregard for the budget.  With Hitchcock’s value to the studio questionable, a second film for Fox was not produced (as originally intended).

 

Leff also notes that although Hitchcock sought after Steinbeck, he still hesitated working with The Grapes of Wrath author.  Familiar with Steinbeck’s work, Hitchcock was afraid of the “political baggage” that would be brought to the film that was meant to be a technical challenge above all.  Ironically, Steinbeck’s original work was far less politically controversial then Hitchcock’s eventual film.  Even in interviews after filming, Hitchcock denies any reading of the film other then a political one.  Leff states this as being the film’s chief weakness.  Instead of focusing on the development of real characters, Hitchcock is more concerned with the allegory of political ideal and ideals colliding.