Girls in Chains

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.

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.

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.

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.

Girls in Chains (1943)

1/2 (out of 4)

Incredibly bad drama from PRC has a school teacher (Arline Judge) being fired from her job because her sister is dating a gangster. The teacher then gets a job in a home for delinquent girls where she tries to clean up the abuse, which might lead back to the gangster. This is an incredibly bad film that really goes beyond badness on all levels. Orgy of the Dead still gets my vote for the worst film ever made but this one here takes the honor for the worst performances I've ever seen. I really never thought acting could get as bad as it does here but the only reason I don't give this thing a BOMB is because of the bad acting, which leads to several laughs throughout the film. I've never really understood all the praise thrown at Ulmer, although I'm a big fan of a couple of his films. His direction here is decent at best but why in the hell didn't he try and get better actors? Yes, this is an ultra-low-budget flick but I've never seen acting this bad. The editing is also quite terrible but that's to be expected. If you're a fan of really bad movies then you might get a few laughs out of this thing but others should stay far away.