The Guilty Generation

Some parts of this movie have not survived seventy-five years well, and at times the dialogue limps. Robert Young, as the young lover, speaks in a voice that is annoying in the high register. Constance Cummings is a beautiful young woman and a good actor. Boris Karloff handles his rather small role gracefully, with just an air of lurking menace.

But it is Leo Carrillo, who begins the movie looking like a buffoon and ends the movie as a terrible monster, who owns this movie. I won't give away any details, but the ending, once you realize its inevitability, is a real shocker.

Does Carrillo's performance make the movie worth seeing? Yes, although just barely, and you may need a bit of patience until the movie is worthwhile, but perhaps the mobile camera-work will keep you interested.

Guilty Generation, The (1931)

*** (out of 4)

Warner had The Public Enemy, Universal had Scarface and Columbia had this little gem from director Rowland V. Lee. A young couple (Robert Young & Constance Cummings) fall in love even though their fathers (Leo Carrillo & Boris Karloff) are rivals of opposite gangs. There's no doubt this lifts the story of Romeo and Juliet and while it starts off a bit shaky there's no denying the final twenty minutes are extremely good as the girl's father finally finds out who the boy's father is. Everyone gives a very good performance but Cummings is the real standout with her delightful charm. Karloff is also very good in his few moments at the start of the film. It's really great that TCM is showing all these rare Columbia films and I can't wait to see what else they have from this period.

So, let's pretend you are a Hollywood producer back in 1931 and you are planning on making a movie about mobsters--Italian mobsters to be precise. So, for the roles of mobsters and family members of the Ricca and Palmero family, who would you pick? Well, unless you were insane, you probably wouldn't pick the British Boris Karloff, Hispanic-American Leo Carrillo or the Waspy Constance Cummings or Robert Young. And, oddly, these are exactly the actors chosen for this film that is a bit like "Little Caesar" and "Romeo & Juliet" merged into one. The only one in the cast that came off as Italian was the English actress Emma Dunn--now SHE seemed like she was cast well as she sounded Italian and was quite effective. Now I am NOT saying that the others were bad--they just didn't seem very Italian.

The film begins with nice-guy Young getting a surprise visit from his dad (Karloff). It seems Karloff is hurt because his architect son has changed his name and wants nothing to do with the family business of killing people and selling bathtub booze. But, despite his charming personality, Young is determined to make it on his own and tells his father to leave.

A bit later, the film shifts to another unhappy child of a different gangster. It seems that Constance wants to be accepted by high society but her thug brother and father (Carrillo) make it really tough. When she throws a fancy party, the brother starts acting tough by throwing people into the pool. When Young stops him, the brother is about to shoot him! Nice family, huh?! Well, it seems that Young knew Cummings when they were kids. This, combined with their angst about their mob families makes their falling in love natural...except the two fathers are rivals bent on killing each other as well as wiping out the other's family! As a result, the Romeo & Juliet angle enters into this fateful romance.

Overall, this is a low-budget but entertaining film from Columbia. It's well worth seeing and a nice reworking of Shakespeare--minus all the olde tyme dialog. However, for fans of Karloff, be forewarned that he's really not in the film that much and I assume he was billed as high as he was due to his recent appearance in "Frankenstein". Regardless, it's a tough little film that I enjoyed.

While it is true that this interesting crime drama has a few significant "holes" in it -- like casting Boris Karloff with his crisp enunciations as an Italian-immigrant mobster -- the film stands as a persuasive cultural document indicting the whole Prohibition Era. For those who do not know anything about our true American history, there was about fifty-two years of social agitation behind what was known as The Temperance Movement, culminating in a Constitutional amendment and "the Volstead Act." In a curious tandem movement, the long-running "Suffrage" movement for women to have the vote became intertwined and then interlocked with "Temperance." What began as a local issue, restricting or banning the sale of alcoholic beverages at a time when nearly all adult men drank beer, whiskey or gin, eventually morphed into statewide legislation. The problem was complex, however, as "dry counties" competed with "wet counties" inside of states, and then across state boundaries, as dry states conflicted with wet states.

When Congress proposed the "Prohibition" amendment in December of 1917, the country had been involved in the Declared War that T. Woodrow Wilson campaigned against in his 1916 re-election bid, since April of '17. As tens of thousands of U.S. troops were training for and shipping out for the battlefields of France, where they would learn to enjoy French wines, cognac and champagnes, their Congress was moving to provide Prohibition of drinking alcohol from sea to shining sea. The amendment as proposed achieved ratification on January 29th of 1919 and its provisions took effect one year later.

Thirteen years and twenty-one days later, Congress moved to repeal the Prohibition Amendment and this counter-amendment was ratified by December of 1933, or nine months into the new administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In those thirteen years and nine months, the structure and integrity of American society was wholly changed and radicalized. Minor criminal gangs in the major cities blossomed into full-fledged crime syndicates, as the taste for liquor and beer among the people wholly overwhelmed the legal reality of Prohibition.

Thus, the "Roaring '20s" was a time when stock market speculations and easy money rode the same horses as did "bootlegging" or the illegal importation or illegal manufacture of beer and hard liquors ... in every part of the country. Thousands of men -- and some women and children -- were killed in the revolving battles between bootlegging gangs in the major cities, and the violence only got worse as the profits from "speakeasy" saloons and "rum-running" grew larger and larger. Municipalities and county governments were suborned. Governors were bribed, and Customs officials bought or intimidated into silence.

The background of this movie is that history: the two gangs, seeming to be from Chicago although not specifically mentioned as such, are the Ricca and the Palmero, whose leaders were formerly partners and whose families were formerly friends.

As the movie unfolds, the violence between the gangs escalates into killing each others' operatives, each others' cousins, and then each man's sons. And against this hideous background, even if played at a lower key, the daughter of Palmero meets and falls in love with the second son of Ricca, who has been raised abroad and who has changed his name to "Smith." No, it's not "Romeo & Juliet" at all but there are some similarities.

Others have commented on how this fledgling romance comes across as being "sappy" or syrupy. That's right. But that's what movie going audiences wanted in the middle of the early years of the Depression. The violence described in this film is not shown specifically, but it lurks in the shadows like a Kabuki puppet.

Leo Carrillo and Boris Karloff do very well in their roles, and the absence of any background music makes this film more intensely visual, although there are scenes where music is played in a club or for a party. The lavish life style of the Palmero family, in their Florida mansion, is another element in the fictional "testament" of just how warped the social order of the United States had become under Prohibition, and under the tyranny of these petit-princes of the Prohibition Era.

Having looked at a few of the other reviews here, some of which predictably say this is a "pale imitation of Warner Bros. gangster pictures," I have to chime in with a dissenting opinion. Those more famous films, such as "Little Caesar" and "Public Enemy," with their iconic Edward G. Robinson and Jimmy Cagney, respectively, are a whole different type of animal; you're comparing apples and oranges. Those are the seminal action films, bad guy as antihero, cautionary tales about the ultimate end of reckless lawlessness.

"The Guilty Generation" focuses instead on the offspring of two of the biggest crime families involved in bootlegging. While a gang war whirls around the shoulders of Robert Young & Constance Cummings's characters they are trying to get away from the business, while each has a brother who's trying to follow in father's footsteps. Apt comparisons to "Romeo & Juliet" are made, and the similarities extend to the fact that both began life as a play before being made into films.

And that's probably part of the problem movie purists have with TGG. While the aforementioned WB pics are more action-oriented, with lots of shootouts and chases, TGG is more about the internal and intergang politics and the romance. They are also more "talky," which some people have a real problem with. In this case it works, IMO.

Leo Carillo & Boris Karloff play the heads of the families; in keeping with the early '30s, their accents are not accurate (see Jimmy Stewart as a Hungarian in "The Little Shop on the Corner" for one of thousands of examples of worse casting in this regard), but they do well personality-wise in their roles.

Don't overlook the secondary characters, such as Ms. Cummings's excellent Italian grandma and her father's press agent, who provide terrific support and comic relief.

Maybe it's just the fact that this one took me completely by surprise, but I'd rather see it again than any of the aforementioned films or even the more-similar "Godfather" pictures. It avoids the bloody shootouts of the latter, yet has more to do with the human beings affected by the action than the former, and it ultimately shows a prime example of when it's most correct for children to rebel against their parents. An interesting story, well acted, perfectly paced, and with even a couple of nice plot twists. I think it holds up quite well.