Tom Silfen

See the movie. Then read the history.

John Dillinger is the subject of a new film, Public Enemies, and of a new book, Dillinger’s Wild Ride. Elliott Gorn is familiar with both. He’s the author of the book, subtitled The Year That Made America’s Public Enemy Number One (Oxford University Press, 268 pages, $24.95). He’s a professor of history at Brown. And on Tuesday he attended a special premiere screening of the film in Indiana that was preceded by a special tour of one of Dillinger’s former residences: the Crown Point (Ind.) Jail.

The tour was a fundraiser. Locals are hoping to renovate the empty building and turn it into a museum.

“It’s been controversial for years,” says Gorn. “On one hand, Dillinger was a criminal and a dozen people died because of him and his gang. On the other hand, he was seen as something of a local hero, a Robin Hood figure.”

This month marks the 75th anniversary of Dillinger’s famous FBI-induced death outside a Chicago movie theater. That’s something you’ll see in the movie Public Enemies. But don’t believe everything you see, Gorn says, and wonder what you’re not seeing.

“The movie is not history. It’s a way to think about history.”

Public Enemies, Gorn says, is based on history, takes some creative license, and makes some historical omissions. But the basic and actual story of a ruthless Depression-era bank robber is there, mostly.

Central to the story of Dillinger is, of course, Dillinger. And no one can really say who he was.

“He was certainly a hard man. You clearly don’t get into a profession where you’re using machine guns out of a kind spirit.”

But the movie, Gorn says, may depict Dillinger, played by Johnny Depp, as more dastardly than he was. “Dillinger was a charming man. He did understand that the public was watching him. And he loved to see himself in the papers and in news reels. He played up to being a charming rogue.”

One elderly Wisconsin woman from whom Dillinger stole a car told news reporters how thoughtful he was, putting a shawl on her shoulders as he left her.

“The woman’s interview was on a news reel. And people loved it.”

Why would they love Dillinger? Perhaps, Gorn says, people were living vicariously through him, and sticking it to banks.

“The context matters. This is 1934. Thousands of banks have closed and taken people’s life’s savings with them. . . . So who is worse, the guy robbing banks with a gun or the banks robbing people with a sharp pencil?”

The movie is accurate in depicting Dillinger as a fashion plate, which was a way to show off his ill-gained wealth and, Gorn says, to gain more of it.

“If you’re going to rob a bank, you’d probably be much less conspicuous if you looked as good as you could.”

Dillinger and his gang spent lots of money on clothes, Gorn says, but also on dental care, which the movie doesn’t mention.

“These were working-class people. They didn’t have money to go to the dentist. The first thing they did when they got money was get their teeth fixed.”

Dillinger also had a doctor remove his fingertips with acid and alter his face, according to Gorn, points the movie didn’t make.

“It was an attempt to alter the way he looked. But it didn’t change him that much.”

The movie opens with Dillinger breaking his friends out of prison, which is a perfectly fitting thing for a gangster to do. However, Dillinger didn’t do it.

“Dillinger did manage to smuggle guns to his friends. But he was nowhere to be seen at the breakout.” At the time, Dillinger had just been sent to jail. What’s also notable, and not in the movie, is a week later, Dillinger’s friends then visited his jail to break him out.

The movie is about action, Gorn says, not necessarily about accuracy. And clearly there is creative license, particularly in the characterizations.

“How do you have dialogue between criminals if they didn’t record their conversations? They were on the lam. They didn’t do that. Criminals just don’t write letters to each other and they don’t keep a diary.”

The dramatic end of Dillinger is dramatic in the movie, but lacks sobering details. He went to the Biograph theater in Chicago with two women, Ana Cumpanas, a brothel madam, and a woman the movie merely refers to as Polly Hamilton.

“The movie doesn’t identify Polly as his new girlfriend. That’s partly because Hollywood loves a love story and wants to make Dillinger seem committed to his girlfriend Billie Frechette, though the feds have her in prison. And Polly was probably a pro, but maybe just part-time.”

brourke@projo.com