Arson, Inc.

Very well shot with a good mix of angles, this is also pretty fast paced, but whilst it's interesting to see the fire services in action, this doesn't really go anywhere. The film is book-ended with very poorly delivered fire chief statements about how every has to do their best etc and whilst the main body of the film is better, the acting seems rather lacklustre. Robert Lowery just seems to coast along but Edward Brophy puts in a spirited characterful performance alongside him. Even Anne Gwynne outshines the lead even if she seems not to notice any of the danger or worry at all about what's going down. Maybe it's because she's had more terrifying jobs, like working with Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney Jr. Not a total waste of time but it would have to be a very rainy Sunday afternoon.

Fire fighter Robert Lowery is tapped for the arson squad. He starts to investigate a series of suspicious fires and the death of his predecessor, while wooing school teacher Anne Gwynne. He goes undercover to join mysterious Douglas Fowley's gang, working with firebug Edward Brophy.

Since it was a Lippert film, I went in without particularly high expectations, and thus wound up enjoying this mediocre B movie, directed by William Berke. Despite its 61-minute length, it seemed to drag for sizable sections, although players like Marcia Mae Jones, Maude Eburne, and Byron Foulgar did their best to keep me entertained, and the final efforts of the fire company to get there before the place burned down was something that D. W. Griffith would have been content with. Perhaps editor Edward Mann deserves some blame, but what could he have cut to speed up the pace without reducing it to a three-reeler?

ARSON, INC. is a very low-budget film and its obvious for several reasons. First, almost everyone in the film are unknowns other than Eddie Brophy in a supporting role. Brophy was in the latter part of his career and wasn't exactly a huge name, but at least he's a recognizable actor. Second, occasionally the dialog and acting are very poor--especially the prologue and epilogue by the fire chief. He had the acting talent of a tomato and the dialog they had him read was definitely the worst in the film.

As for the rest of the film, it's a reasonably interesting movie about an arson investigation. It seems that quite a few suspicious fires have occurred lately and it appears to be the work of organized crime. And, when people are killed, it's up to the hero to go undercover and learn who's responsible. Interesting and rather reminiscent of the film LOAN SHARK in plot--which is bundled on the same DVD as ARSON, INC..

By the way, the best aspect of the film was the comic relief by Maude Eburne (playing "Grandma"). She was exceptional and the few times she was in the film, it really brightened the whole thing up.

Overall, a decent little low-budget time-passer and that's about it.

Simplicity is the secret to vintage B movies like Lippert's "Arson, Inc.". Watching it almost 75 years after release I wondered the obvious: is there something missing here?

Movies cover a wide range of subjects and are generally designed to entertain and at least provide escape from the mundane, the routine of everyday life. With a B movie, aiming at just an hour or so in length and nothing pretentious in content, the diversion can come from colorful characters, amusing situations or novel plot twists. Of course, exploitation subject matter, whether it be sex, drugs or "forbidden" topics, is a sure-fire way of interesting the viewer.

Too many Bs like "Arson, Inc." are mundane and ordinary, almost reveling in their generic nature. (Sometimes this was on purpose: I remember as a drive-in and grindhouse enthusiast in the '70s watching some features, often dubbed foreign films, that existed as "chasers" -boring junk designed to empty the theater or drive-in parking area as few people would want to sit through them a second time.) I suspect "Arson, Inc." was tolerable when released, as a simple story, easy to follow, and easily consumed, to be forgotten immediately. Decades later there's a tendency to put such simple artifacts on a pedestal, whether for nostalgic reasons or simply to magnify the contrast between the old & standard cultural norm with current gimmicky entertainment. I try not to fall into that trap.

"Arson, Inc." is relentlessly uninteresting, presenting the story of a profession that is dull -basically a fireman acting as a specialized insurance investigator. Watching it, my mind quickly wandered to the current psa commercials broadcast about disability insurance fraud - a real-life problem, but trivialized in the tv pitch of how we should all be vigilant (in the 9/11 style of "if you see something, say something") to report miscreant employers or employees cheating the government and thereby us taxpayers out of many millions of dollars annually. Methinks these psa appeals to the public will not make the slightest dent in the problem.

So stalwart (say, wooden) hero Robert Lowery working undercover is a boring way of introducing the captive viewer to a boring subject. Sure, fires and arson are potentially exciting -as witness the current hit tv series "Fire Country", a procedural broadcast show generating more interest than many a big-deal gimmicky cable miniseries. But with a dependable hack William Berke directing this movie goes nowhere, not even the usual car chase and shootout scene perking things up -soon we're right back to cliches a mile a minute, and nominal villain Douglas Fowley playing "Frederick P. Fender" up to his old dastardly tricks.

More mind-wandering: was it a coincidence that singer Freddy Fender, born in 1937 so the right age to have watched "Arson, Inc." on a Saturday afternoon double feature, came up with that catchy stage name? I hadn't thought of him in ages.

A fireman goes undercover to catch a gang of professional arsonists.

I wish the movie had some memorable feature, something to distinguish it from other crime features of the period. But it doesn't. The undercover plot is borrowed from a hundred scarier crime dramas of the time. Lead actors Gwynne and Lowery are certainly capable performers, much better than the predictable material. Still, I wonder about Brophy (Pete). He's faintly comical, a colorful character right out of Damon Runyon. The trouble is he seems out of place in a serious movie like this. I guess it's left to the archly villainous Douglas Fowley to project needed menace. All in all, the movie's a Lippert production, which probably accounts for the various cost-cutters (cheap sets, absence of big fires to menace hero), plus a general lack of imagination. My advice is you've probably seen it before, so skip it, unless you're a fan of Lowery or Gwynne.