This 1931 film review heaps praise on The Public Enemy, specifically commending James Cagner and Edward Woods for strong performances in their respective roles. The review also discusses director William Wellman’s contribution to character development.

The review places a significant emphasis on Cagner’s performance, claiming that it is “magnificently acted” and “uncompromisingly realistic in his portrayal of the youthful killer.” The review also offers a character analysis of Cagner’s Powers, writing that although Powers is an unlikeable character, he “stands out in bold relief.” Essentially, the review declares the character of Tom Powers to be a success, and attributes it to a collusion of Cagner and Wellman’s talents. Wellman shaped a sharp, multi-dimensional gangster with his directing, allowing Cagner to bring Powers to life with his “magnetic” acting and interpretation.

The review also notes that Edward Woods was “admirably cast” in the secondary role of Matt Doyle, and praises the performances of the film’s other stars, including Leslie Fenton and Jean Harlow.

I feel that this review is particularly important because it offers an evaluation of how the film’s actors served their respective roles. In my annotation of Wellman’s biography, I note that Wellman encouraged James Cagner to take the lead role of Powers, instead of playing the more muted part of Matt Doyle. This review praises how well-suited Cagner’s acting style was for his part, in addition to how aptly Edward Woods portrayed Powers’ second hand man. As a result, this review essentially confirms that Wellman’s instinctual decision to re-cast the main roles was in the right.

And, because the review claims that the strong acting was so central to the film, it allows me to make the argument that Wellman’s interference with production decisions positively contributed to the overall success of the film. Wellman’s decision to change the roles created believable characters with more depth and substance, uniquely allowing American viewers to connect and empathize with the gangsters.

McCarthy attributes a large amount of the success of The Public Enemy to Cagney’s performance. He writes that Cagney played the protagonist Tom Powers in a real, utterly honest way, adding a ring of legitimacy to the gangster film. McCarthy notes that Cagney’s presentation of Powers was so powerful that it evoked a reaction from the pro-censorship contingency. Influential civic and religious groups rallied around Hollywood with renewed vigor, objecting to how actors such as Cagney glorified crime with their roles. Specifically, Will H. Hays, the “morals czar” (156) heading the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), took preventative steps to ensure that Hollywood crime films would not be based on the lives of real, existing criminals. Hays and others worried that Cagney’s life-like portrayal of gangsters would immortalize existing criminals and inspire young Americans to travel down a similar illicit path.

According to McCarthy, while Cagney may have unintentionally or indirectly inspired a censorship rampage, he also left an indelible impression on contemporary cinema. Cagney’s “distinctive tough-guy gangster” (165) truly shaped the role of the mobster criminal. McCarthy points out several examples of actors who followed in Cagney’s footsteps, including actor Richard Widmark’s performance in Kiss of Death, which was largely modeled on Cagney’s interpretation of Tom Powers.

McCarthy’s analysis of Cagney in The Public Enemy in addition to other roles of his in the gangster genre demonstrates the level of influence an actor can maintain in a film. This point is central to my argument. McCarthy notes how Cagney’s lifelike portrayal of Tom Powers brought a true sense of sincerity to the movie. Consequently, the relatable nature of The Public Enemy can be somewhat attributed to Cagney’s performance.

Cagney, by giving what was determined to be an honest presentation of the life of a gangster, gives the audience the opportunity to identify with the character of Tom Powers. American viewers are able to see the gangster as a dynamic, real man, rather than as a flat character on the screen. Cagney’s humanization of Powers is significant in garnering viewer empathy for a criminal.

In this article, Ronald W. Wilson offers a critique of Jonathan Munby’s piece “Public Enemies, Public Heroes: Screening the Gangster from Little Caesar to Touch of Evil.” He discusses Munby’s portrayal of the gangster as an American icon, reviewing the idea that the gangster emerged as a symbol representing America at a time when the nation was experiencing rapid urbanization.

According to Wilson, Munby argues that city dwellers were unaccustomed to the hasty changes taking place in their neighborhoods. A majority of urban citizens were familiar with a largely homogenous, Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture, and were unsure about how to react to an influx of immigrants that differed from them vastly. The gangster came to represent a fusion of the various cultures that were pooling into America’s cities. Essentially, the cinematic gangster was a manifestation of all types of ‘otherness’ that Americans were not able to psychologically penetrate.

Wilson agrees with this claim to a large extent, but adds that the perception of the gangster changed with the advent of sound technology. He writes that the institution of sound made the gangster seem even more foreign, as audiences were able to hear characters such as Powers or Scarface speak with a pronouncedly different accent. 

This article makes an interesting point, and would add another dimension to my analysis. Wilson makes a valid claim when he states that Anglo-Saxon, Protestant audiences viewed Italian or Irish gangsters as fairly foreign, and were unable to connect with those characters. However, as the article mentions, these homogenous audiences filled theaters in the early 1920s, when urbanization was in its initial stages.

In my paper, I will emphasize the timeline of urbanization, noting that when The Public Enemy was released in 1931, the cultural composition of audiences had changed. A significant portion of movie-goers were the products of immigration and urbanization, and many of them were from either Italy or Ireland. As a result, the gangster – who spoke with an accent and ate ‘ethnic’ dishes – was an accurate representation the backgrounds of audience members. Consequently, the processes of immigration and urbanization changed cultural make-up of audiences, allowing viewers to see themselves reflected on screen and identify more fully with the characters. 

Mason’s piece explains the visual style of The Public Enemy, in addition to the film’s representation of the Hollywood gangster. She analyzes the editing, production, and acting components of the movie, contrasting The Public Enemy to other well known films, particularly Little Caesar.

Mason emphasizes the striking and shocking nature of a number of scenes in the film. She specifically mentions the grapefruit scene, in which Cagney shoves a grapefruit into his girlfriend’s face after they begin to argue over drinking in the morning. The scene incited social and public controversy at the time of its release, but also remains “one of the best remembered scenes in gangster cinema” (17). Mason remarks that the film brims with other memorable scenes, including the final one, in which Powers’ body – bandaged tightly to a stiff board – topples over in his family’s entrance way.

Mason discusses the production of The Public Enemy, noting that its style is fairly “naturalistic” (16). This is largely due to the crisp editing that generates a strong connection between each scene. A significant portion of the film is also shot outdoors, allowing natural light to dominate each scene. The characters, bathed in this natural light, seem more approachable and normal than gangsters in other crime films, such as Little Caesar.

This piece is particularly central to my argument, because it enumerates the reasons why Americans related to the gangster protagonist in The Public Enemy more so than other films. As Mason notes, The Public Enemy is filled with striking, memorable scenes. The unforgettable nature of the scenes allows the moments to resonate with the audience. Viewers are emotionally and mentally impacted by the movie, and are consequently more able to connect and empathize with the characters. Additionally, Mason’s mention of the naturalistic production of the film – evident in the use of natural light and sense of continuity between scenes – further contributes to the audience’s ability to connect with characters and identify with those living in a world of crime.

    Arthur Penn began two very important trends in Hollywood filmmaking with Bonnie and Clyde, specifically introducing a new type of gangster film and creating a signature director’s style. First, audiences were attracted to Bonnie and Clyde, even though they were the gangsters. He describes Bonnie and Clyde as folk-heroes “who live from their spontaneous impulses, not from any codified morality (80).” He identifies several scenes in the film, such as the reunion with Bonnie’s mother, that humanize the gangsters and portrays conventional society as abnormal. Secondly, the French New Wave inspired Penn’s use of slow motion, special photographic textures, and free intercutting to create a sense of tension, excitement, and escalating violence. But, Cameron argues the “released” his artistic signature and desire for a distinguishable style. Penn really applied his own "mark" to his films through editing.

    Cameron’s analysis explains that despite the unequivocal evidence that crime does not pay, the film is still very likely to encourage spectators to like Bonnie and Clyde because these outlaws are attractive, spontaneous, and even seem fun. Cameron believes people do not identify with their criminal nature, but rather their carefree sense of independence. This essay supports the notion that Penn glamorizes the perpetrators of violence by creating endearing characters. From Cameron's perspective, there are sociological and cultural implications that the audiences identify so intensely with outlaws, which up until this film was nonexistent.

This article is an interview with Francis Ford Coppola about his career as a film Director, specifically regarding the making of The Godfather.  It begins with some general background about Coppola, and how he wanted to get away from big time Hollywood.  He struggled greatly, and despite not particularly wanting to take on Mario Puzo’s adaptation of his successful novel, he ended up doing so because his own film company was in great financial distress.

Admittedly, Coppola knew nothing about the mafia save the few films and books he has once viewed and read.  He did however, tear up the book and annotate it like crazy once he had accepted the job so as to familiarize himself with all of the relevant information he would need to successfully create this film.

Coppola then discusses how he was highly opposed to have Robert Redford play the part of Michael because he very clearly did not have the coloring to play a Sicilian which, for this mafia based movie, was very important.  The entire Italian-American immigrant aspect of the film was in many ways central to understanding the family, which is why Coppola pushed for Al Pacino, who was the young actor, at the time, who he had pictured playing the part.  Part of the opposition there, however, was that Pacino was short and Michael was supposed to be a tough guy, but Coppola supported Pacino’s acting skills.

Then Coppola tells the story of how he managed to get Marlon Brando to do the part of Don Corleone, after Brando had already turned down a previous script of his.

Chapter three in the book Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather Trilogy, is entitled, “The Representation of Ethnicity in The Godfather.”  The chapter focuses on the Italian-American heritage of the Corleone family, as well as that of Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola, in the analysis of how this factored into the film as well as the novel to create a very different tale.

The chapter opens with a quotation that claims this film has changed the term “godfather” from a parental, guiding figure, to that of a ruthless Italian killer.  Of course, when one actually considers the representation of Don Corleone, while he may in fact be a ruthless Italian killer, he still possess family values, and a deep sense of thoughtfulness.  In many ways he still is a wise and guiding figure. Of course, the film does nothing to take away from the stereotypical image of all Italians being in the mafia.

What the chapter then seeks to discover is why, specifically, Italian criminals seem to be more attractive a topic than crime in general, although the author does not deny that violence certainly is intriguing to most people regardless of the ethnicity that is involved in a particular situation. 

There is then a continued discussion about the representation of Italians in The Godfather as a specific type of Italian, and not simply Italians in general.  These are specifically those, as depicted, that have strong and firm attachments to their Italian roots, heritage, culture, and traditions, but have had all of these values “corroded” by American values.  It is then ultimately the fact that the characters are Italian-American wherein the trouble really begins.

This article is an interview with Francis Ford Coppola about his career as a film Director, specifically regarding the making of The Godfather.  It begins with some general background about Coppola, and how he wanted to get away from big time Hollywood.  He struggled greatly, and despite not particularly wanting to take on Mario Puzo’s adaptation of his successful novel, he ended up doing so because his own film company was in great financial distress.

Admittedly, Coppola knew nothing about the mafia save the few films and books he has once viewed and read.  He did however, tear up the book and annotate it like crazy once he had accepted the job so as to familiarize himself with all of the relevant information he would need to successfully create this film.

Coppola then discusses how he was highly opposed to have Robert Redford play the part of Michael because he very clearly did not have the coloring to play a Sicilian which, for this mafia based movie, was very important.  The entire Italian-American immigrant aspect of the film was in many ways central to understanding the family, which is why Coppola pushed for Al Pacino, who was the young actor, at the time, who he had pictured playing the part.  Part of the opposition there, however, was that Pacino was short and Michael was supposed to be a tough guy, but Coppola supported Pacino’s acting skills.

Then Coppola tells the story of how he managed to get Marlon Brando to do the part of Don Corleone, after Brando had already turned down a previous script of his.

In this original New York Times review of Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather, published on March 16, 1972, columnist Vincent Canby describes specifically the plot and themes of the film.  He then proceeds to sing the praises of Coppola’s efforts.  Ultimately, we can see how this popular film was well-received even upon its initial release, given that Canby’s article was nothing short of glowing.

Canby begins the article by introducing Mario Puzo’s bestselling novel The Godfather first.  More often than not adapted screenplays from novels aren’t well liked, partly because there is a great deal of expectation surrounding them, but also because creating what many people have envisioned differently is a daunting task.  Still, Canby begins his series of compliments by praising Coppola for being able to stand up to the task and really make the film as good as if not better than the novel, while still remaining true to the characters and plotline.

He continues by turning to the complexities of both the characters as well as story difficulties, describing how characters that are very well liked may very well act out in later scenes, making it difficult to establish whom to vote for.  For instance, the typical mafia wars here are not particularly glorified, nor does Coppola hide the brutality of the family business.  Instead, despite the rather small portion of a community that has actually experienced it, he gives us a full and true sense of both the violence as well as the love and respect present within the Corleone family.

Finally, Canby attempts to make a brief mention of the superb acting in the film, but with so many incredible people, most of whom would go on to lead very successful careers if they weren’t already, he struggles and only specifically calls out Marlon Brando for his incredible return to film, and Al Pacino, who starred.  Coppola receives many compliments for his rather lengthy feature film, 175 minutes in fact, all of which are of course well deserved.