Girls in Chains

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.

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.

Plot-- an idealistic mental health worker is conscripted into making changes in a girls reformatory run by a crooked combine. There the girls are being treated like nothing more than numbers. Trouble is the school's head is part of the criminal combine that has broad political influence. So, will the reformer be able to make the reforms needed for the girls rather than the combine.

Looks like legendary director Ulmer walked through this one. There's no evidence of his exotic stylings, e.g. Detour {1945}. Only the scenes in the reformatory carry any weight as the girls and matrons perform with some gusto. Otherwise, the leading men are blandly forgettable, even the ostensive criminal mastermind Moon (Jack Randall) fails to provide impact. On the other hand, Judge does her reformer-with-heart in persuasive fashion. But what really sinks this lightweight production is the comedy relief from a goofy Emmett Lynn. His drunken idiot is so over-the-top I wonder if Ulmer even cared. Then too, catch the clumsily mounted backdrops to outdoor action where even lake water remains motionless. Anyway, no need to go on. After all, it is a barrel bottom PRC production. I just hope the more capable actors like Judge were able to recover from this awkward effort. I know Ulmer did.

"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.

The version shown on "Film Detectives" channel has turrible sound, picture, and editing, but it's probably taken from a copy out of copyright. The ONLY name i recognize in here is Sid Melton, who, for those old enough, remember him as the bumbling contractor Alf Monroe on Green Acres! In lieu of a good script, they keep dragging character actor Emmet Lynn in as the town drunk. he keeps wandering in and bugging everyone until they ask him to scram. The lead here is Arline Judge, who was married to director Wes Ruggles for a few years. In the story, a woman takes a job at a Reformatory, but she may or may not be on the up-and-up. meh. story is so-so. another low budget gangster film from PRC productions. no big thing. Directed by Edgar Ulmer, bigshot at PRC film Productions. Ulmer had started in the silents, and worked his way up to head of production, making both good films, and some real cheesy, low budget ones along the way. SO many better films to see. can skip this one, and go do something else. anything else.