Girls in Chains

Arline Judge and Roger Clark head a no name cast in this Grade B flick about a woman's prison. This one ought to be seen back to back with Caged to note the difference between what an A film and a B film treatment of the same subject. I'm not sure I should dignify Girls in Chains by calling it a B film. By the way, I didn't see one chain during this entire turgid drama.

Ms. Judge is a psychologist and sister-in-law of the town's leading racketeer who gets a job despite that at a woman's prison. Roger Clark is a cop now working the juvenile beat. Together they bring down the political machine that controls the town and the women's prison which is just a patronage trough.

The film is badly edited and the story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Clark and Judge offered no competition to Tracy and Hepburn as a screen team. Best performance in the film is that of Emmett Lynn who played old codgers in westerns mostly. Here he does a great drunk act and actually plays the key role in bringing the villains to justice.

Probably the best known player in this is Sid Melton, later on better known as Ichabod Mudd with two 'd's, sidekick to Captain Midnight. He's the sidekick to the racketeer here. Captain Midnight was Shakespeare next to Girls in Chains.

I'd never heard of this movie by the master of Poverty Row, Edgar G. Ulmer. The title is what drew me to it.

It's a hodgepodge of plot and subplot. It is far, far from his weird best. Music is used but not the classical music he often employed.

However, it's fun. The main character is the sister of a gangster's wife. She loses her job teaching school because of this. Not to worry, though! She has a Masters Degree in psychology.

Now, when Joyce Brothers appeared on the scene with a doctoral degree a decade later, it was a novelty. How rare this must have been in the early 1940s. (My grandmother, Smith College class of 1921, had an advanced degree and was a career gal; but she was unusual. And that was in the 1950s and sixties.)

What makes the character even more peculiar is her hairdo. Yikes! Ms. Judge sports what looks like a nest of some sort on her scalp. The women in the 1960s with bouffants had nothing on her. Furthermore, she frequently tops this with a hat. And on top of that (literally and figuratively) the hats sometimes have veils! When she gives up teaching she ends up at a women's prison. The rest is fairly routine. But it has the touch, albeit nearly imperceptible, of a master.

I don't normally post for films I haven't seen, but the comment here from 1999 caught my eye. It mentions that director Edgar G. Ulmer snitched to HUAC. I had never heard this before, nor could I find any confirmation of it. I assume the poster confused Ulmer with one of his contemporaries, Edward Dmytryk, one of the Hollywood Ten who did indeed cooperate with the committee. At any rate, 8 years is long enough for that comment to go unchallenged. I'd hate to think that Ulmer's reputation could be tarnished by this apparent error, especially among viewers of these posts who may have no other knowledge of the man or his career.

"Helen Martin" (Arline Judge) is an honest woman who continues to have problems keeping a steady job because her sister "Jean Moon" (Patricia Knox) is married to a well-known gangster named "Johnny Moon" (Addison Randall). That being the case she reluctantly accepts a job as a teacher at a female correctional facility which just happens to be run by a man who is almost as corrupt as her brother-in-law. Yet even though he likes things just the way they are she continues to try to improve the lives of the young women she comes into contact with. This results in a conflict which poses great risks for all involved. Now rather than reveal any more of this film and risk ruining it for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this low-budget B-movie was produced during the height of World War II and it's possible some allowances might be necessary. But even so there were some parts which were definitely in need of improvement. For example, the scenes involving the alcoholic by the name of "Lionel Cleeter" (Emmett Lynn) were especially repetitive and boring. All things considered I suppose I can give this movie 4 stars (out of 10) but even then that might be stretching it a bit.

I agree with most of the criticisms of the first 11 reviewers and agree that Edgar G. Ulmer has not worked his magic and made a shoestring budget into a masterpiece. However there are two things that I think the film deserves credit for. The first is the genre. This is one of the earliest women in a bad prison pictures. I know there were a bunch of men in bad prison movie before this, and of course "Fugitive From a Chain Gang" was ten years earlier. Still this is the earliest or one of the earliest females in prison movies. It kind of sets up the basic formula for the bad girls in prison films. Here the prison staff are more criminal than the women prisoners.In fact, Ulmer seems to be making some kind of anti-Nazi statement with the film.

It does develop a lot of tension and you really root for the female inmates. Yes, it was shot in five days and lots of things are ridiculous, especially the actor and character of lead gangster Johnny Moon. Yes, the playing of Johnny Comes Marching Home Again when he's on-screen is ridiculous, but the film is fun and watchable nevertheless.

The second thing is the hairstyles. They are unique. When was the last time you saw a film and wanted to look up the credit for who did the hairstyles? They are outrageous and ridiculous. Still they are fascinating. I had to watch another film with Arlene Judge to make sure that her hair wasn't styled this way permanently. (I saw her in Baby Bride (1932) and her hairstyle was normal in that one.

Judge is actually a fine actress. You can actually believe that she does have a Masters Degree in psychology. She does seem to be compassionate and thoughtful towards the girls she must protect. It is not her fault that we are always mesmerized by the absurd hairstyle and we watch it instead of listening to her dialogue.

Anyways, I'm giving the film five stars because Ulmer did make a watchable early women in prison movie in just five days with on a shoestring budget. I'm giving the film two extra stars for the wild and unusual hairstyle. I'm pretty sure that the hairstylist, no matter who s/he was, never worked again on another picture.