Héros à vendre

In under 65 minutes, "Heroes for Sale" deals with drug addiction, Red Squads, automation, the Great Depression and World War I. This movie's time frame covers the end of the Great War to the election of FDR, and makes some very pointed observations about America along the way. There are no stereotypes in this movie, and except for the sanctimonious fadeout, I would have rated this movie a 10. "Heroes for Sale" was the last movie William Wellman directed under contract at Warner Bros. and he did a great job. With the onset of the production code in July, 1934, this movie was buried because of its treatment of drug addiction. "Heroes for Sale" is a top notch movie ahead of its time.

I rented this movie after reading about William Wellman and his adventure filled life. Heroes for Sale captures the mood of the Great Depression, a time when rich people were not celebrities to be worshiped and envied, but villains who oppressed the working class. The movie is noteworthy as a benchmark for how we lived during a period of economic turmoil 75 years ago versus today. The unemployment ratio is about 1/3 of what is was then and we now have safety nets that weren't available 75 years ago. Also we treat our returning veterans better for the most part. This movie is enjoyable from start to finish and the beauty of it is there is no Hollywood ending per Se. One of the enjoyments is the way early 30's movies had the ability to encapsulate so much plot into a little over an hour. No wonder it was possible to watch a double bill back then. I am looking forward to watching more of Wellman if this movie is any indication of his work. Loretta Young was certainly one of the Hollywood beauties of that era, and a good actress even at that early age. The movie appears faithful to the history of that period in its portrayal of the "Red Squads", treatment of veterans, soup kitchens, and authoritarian figures in general. The morphine segment at the start of the movie is very realistic and not far from the pain killing addition medications of the 21st century.

The screenplay may meander, but it wanders into territory that would remain untouched for years courtesy the straitjacketing Production Code of 1934. Consider the outspoken communist Max Brinker railing against the plundering rich. Sure, the screenplay eventually capitulates by showing him up as a rank opportunist utterly devoted to wealth when he gets the chance. But for a few minutes the communist is actually a somewhat sympathetic character. Then too, maybe main character Tommy Holmes should have listened to some of those railings. That way he would have known that while he might strike an altruistic deal with one capitalist (laundry owner Gibson), another will break it as soon as he sees a competitive advantage in doing so. Thus innovative machines come to replace human labor in the laundry, and more people join the unemployment lines. Not exactly a standard plot development for post-1934 Hollywood.

Then there's the Red Squad, sort of the thought-police of the time, usually off-duty cops paid by local business interests to hound union organizers and other troublemakers out of town. The movie makes clear that the two squad members who confront Holmes will use force unless he complies, which he meekly does. Still and all, how many Americans even know that such extra-legal groups as Red Squads operated during the Depression, while authorities looked the proverbial other way. Then too, isn't it odd how tissue-thin free speech becomes when it directly challenges the prerogatives of wealth and power, as union organizing especially did. The vigilantes at the movie's end are somewhat similar, except their motives are less political. Instead, they were generally civilians from the community kicking the footloose unemployed down the road because their own town is too ravaged to help. Maybe that's not charitable, but it is understandable.

Speaking of charity, the final few scenes illustrate the importance of government action in the face of increasing hunger and joblessness. Sure, Holmes proves himself something of a secular saint in using his wealth to feed the hungry. But what happens to those same needy if he suddenly changes his mind, dies, or goes broke. To me, this shows the limitations of voluntary giving as a societal solution, praiseworthy as giving may be. No, something like broad-based government action is needed when there's a breakdown in the economy itself. Whatever the screenplay's real deficiencies in treating these issues, they are at least raised. And just as tellingly, these same highly charged topics would for all practical purposes disappear from movie screens for the next several decades.

The movie itself has a number of noteworthy scenes. Wellman's filming of the unemployment riot is both vigorous and persuasive, as is the battlefield scene with its hellish terrain separating the German and American sides. As a director and veteran of WWI, Wellman's clearly at home with such subjects. I like the way the screenplay prepares us for Holmes' extraordinarily humane behavior by having him first experience great pain and then drug addiction stemming from a war wound. In the process, he learns the personal value of charity and mercy. It's also gutsy, I think, to show him rescued and pulled back from death by a German field hospital and the German branch of the Red Cross. Hollywood seldom affords the enemy such magnanimous gestures as it does here.

Also, consider how Holmes the returning vet is left essentially to manage as best he can with a war wound and a morphine addiction. Apparently there was no program at the time to help vets return successfully to civilian life, much as vets of the Iraq war were left to deal unaided with Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome and Vietnam vets with the effects of Agent Orange. Then too, the screenplay makes Holmes' plight especially ironic since he's the true war hero, and not the fair-haired Roger Winston. Yet because of the fog of battle, it's the cowardly Winston who's awarded officer's rank and mistaken for a hero, while Holmes is left to struggle alone and unrecognized. Thus, the whole idea of heroism amid the fog of war is portrayed as more problematic than generally thought.

The movie itself benefits from Barthelmess' understated performance as the pivotal Holmes. His character comes across as something of an everyman, such that his humane potential thereby becomes everyman's potential. Also, Gordon Westcott as the weakling Winston manages to add an unexpectedly sympathetic touch to a basically unsympathetic role. But I especially like Aline MacMahon as the lovelorn Mary. Watch how subtly she conveys her unrequited affection from the moment she first meets Holmes. It's a rather poignant performance suggesting the plight of the plain-faced woman in a culture that especially prizes feminine beauty.

Thanks are owed to TCM for reviving these "forbidden" films from the pre-code era. I've been a fan of the late show in big market LA for 40 years, and I don't recall any of the movies being shown on commercial channels during that period. To me, this suggests that the films were either too titillating or too political to get a commercial airing. And by the time the lid did come off in the 70's, they had been assigned to the movie dustbin and forgotten. But as Heroes shows, films from this grievously neglected period were willing to take on difficult and controversial topics. And just as importantly, the topics here are ones that remain as relevant now as they were then.

There's something strange about watching most pre-code WB movies: they don't end so much as they just STOP. It's as if Jack Warner doled out a budget and the director just shut the production down when the film stock quit being delivered. Wild Bill Wellman's a top-notch director knee deep into his socialist fervor period (see WILD BOYS OF THE ROAD as a double bill), Barthemless is a hapless WWI vet who traded heroism for a morphine addiction--- his cowardly platoon commander got the glory and he faces the next 14 years dealing with everything life throws at him. His fortunes ironically change when his cartoon-Red neighbor (played to the usual hilt by Robert Barratt) invents a machine that allows them both to get rich, but Barthemless has gains a deeper social conscious as Barratt loses his. This is really a big budget (for Warners!) soap opera. An uplifting ending is tacked on after Barthemless disappears into the Land of the Hobos. Watchable as an example of early 30's "realism."

Heroes for Sale (1933)

Okay, this is frankly a great movie. It's a "type" of movie that may or may not be your thing--a social conscience film. Warner Bros. in particular was famous for these, and the year before had made the astonishing "I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang."

In a way, this one owes a lot to that previous film. The theme is similar--a returning WWI vet runs into trouble adjusting to life at home. And the progression is similar, as this leading man goes through huge ups and downs over many years. There are even similar devices used, like showing several places on the map as he wanders the country, showing his paychecks go up over the years (during a successful period), and using a dates to move the narrative ahead quickly.

The crisis in this movie is not a man wrongly accused of a crime, but a man struggling with morphine addiction from war injuries. Once he overcomes that he rises up but because of his compassion for the poor he's labelled a "Red" meaning a communist and is targeted again. The cycle gets worse and worse.

The leading man, Richard Barthelmess, is (like Paul Muni in "Fugitive") a real actor, less a matinée idol and more a compassionate, emotive performer. And he makes the movie complex and heartwrenching. His wife, when you get to that point, is a young, chipper Loretta Young, who is great, but even better is Young's sidekick, who has a growing part as the movie goes, Aline MacMahon. She represents the truest goodness of all the people in the movie, matching the more exaggerated kindness of Barthelmess.

Eventually the movies moves from 1918 (in the war, actual battle scenes) to 1933, with the depths of the Depression kicking in. And so a whole new kind of despair is on view--something the audience itself felt very much. That's something hard to remember or feel is that the audience was not only suffering much like the people in the movie, they had no idea (!!) when and if the suffering, the Depression, would end. Like "Fugitive," this movie ends with that despair on screen.

But boy is this well made. Well photographed, great modern sound, and wonderful direction by the undervalued great Hollywood master William Wellman. Wellman is one of a handful of terrific directors who never developed his own style outside of what the studio was creating as an institution. But for about twelve years or so (up to "Ox-Bow Incident") he made, on and off, some really terrific, classic, still-powerful movies. "Heroes for Sale" is one of them.