Quartiere maledetto

This film features the horrible realities of tenement housing which was in abundance during the early part of the 20th century. Shocking scenes of death and despair are very evident in the lives of the unfortunate people living in these "rat" holes. Sylvia Sidney is excellent as the crusader fighting against these "buildings of despair" knowing first hand because her own brother became a "victim" of living in these buildings. Leif Erickson is the "rich" landlord "by inheritance" of these "death traps" and joins the battle in tearing them down. The joining of the "poor" and "rich" in the struggle against tenement housing is what makes this film worthwhile to watch. If you are an activist against "injustice" then this is the type of film that will get your "dander" up.

Young Joey Rogers (Sidney Lumet) is injured in a NYC tenement fire. Peter Cortlant (Leif Erickson) is a rich man passing by. He pays for the boy's high priced hospitalization and falls for Joey's older sister Mary Rogers (Sylvia Sidney). Later, he discovers that he owns the rundown building along with several others suffering from recent fires. He inherited the buildings from his father and intends to change course. The media wants a scapegoat. The politicians hold a show hearing. The government gives the run-around. Cortland isn't required to go but goes anyways.

This is more an advocacy than a proper drama. Cortlant is so straight-laced and idealistic that there is limited drama. He's like the idealized character that the filmmaker wants everybody to be. I am surprised to see Sidney Lumet's name. This is apparently one of his few true theatrical acting jobs. He seems to have done most of his early acting on stage and transitioned into directing. All in all, there just isn't enough drama even with the romance.

When the story begins, Peter (Leif Erickson) comes upon a burning tenement building. He watches in horror as the bodies pile up and when a small boy is badly injured, he rushes him and his sister, Mary (Sylvia Sidney), to the hospital...vowing to help with the medical expenses. However, later Peter is horrified to learn that he is the owner of this slum and its dilapidated condition was responsible for the fire. He vows to change things...but his family vows to fight him on this. What's to become of the changes? And, what about Mary? After all, Peter has fallen in love with her!

It's interesting that during the Great Depression, most films never mentioned it in any way. And, weirdly, most of the films were about rich, happy folks! A few studios, like Warner and RKO (maker of "....One Third of a Nation"), occasionally made movies about the lower depths of society at the time....well meaning films that pushed for change. As far as this film goes, it does lay it on a bit thick (such as the scenes where the tenement building 'talks' to the boy)...though in spite of a lack of subtlety, it is enjoyable and worth your time.

Let's acknowledge right off the top that the production qualities of this movie are very outdated (even by 1939 standards) and, at least in the version I saw, the sound quality was very poor. There were extended scenes in which I could make out barely any dialogue. Even acknowledging that, though, one has to give credit where credit is due. Those failings could (and probably should) result in a disastrous movie. Instead, "One Third Of A Nation" manages somehow to rise above those problems on the strength of a very good story and solid performances all round.

The movie provides a gritty and pathetic view of life in the New York City slums of the 1930's. The movie opens with a fire in one of the rundown tenement buildings that leaves a boy crippled after having to jump out a window to escape. There's complicity all round. The tenants don't complain about the conditions because they don't think anyone will respond; the authorities (as portrayed in a riveting, if brief, portrayal of a hearing into the causes of the fire) understand the problems but are powerless to do anything and largely pass the buck around to various agencies, and the wealthy live in uncaring ignorance, brilliantly portrayed in an icy cold performance by Muriel Huthinson as Ethel Cortland, whose brother Peter (Leif Erikson) owns the tenements through inheritance. As an example of how out of touch the rich are with the poor, Peter rushes to the fire at the start of the movie, basically seeing it as a show - he doesn't even know he's the owner. There's also a superb performance by Sylvia Sidney as Mary Rogers, the sister of the crippled boy, who becomes a crusader, trying to convince Cortland to tear down the old buildings and rebuild them.

I felt this was a very courageous movie, clearly and surprisingly approaching the issue from an overtly left-wing ideological perspective (unexpected from that era, in which there were great fears of the Depression-afflicted nation turning to communism). There are some graphic scenes (including one in which a burning man leaps off a building) and the last scene of the movie is appropriately ambiguous, leaving us wondering if Mary and Peter built a relationship in spite of their social differences. After a slow start (caused by the technical problems rather than the story) that made me rather hesitant I thought this turned into a superb movie. 8/10

I wanted to like this film-- I have great regard for Sylvia Sidney and a young Leif Erickson is pretty easy on the eyes-- however, the longer I watched it the more I regretted my choice.

The fault is mostly in the writing which veers joltingly from "message" to "love story" to "horror," and none of them work. The message gets sledgehammered into our brains-- characters keep making the same observations followed by the same speeches. The love story might have been interesting, but Sidney and Erickson spend so much time smiling at one another: Her brother is horribly injured-- smile, smile, smile. His sister is threatening to ruin his plans-- more smiling. They look good smiling, but there's no substance in it-- why should they love each other? It's actually more interesting to imagine Erickson's character is more interest in Sidney's boyfriend as the movie goes along. And it's never clear who gets who.

The horror is deep in this film with the "disturbed" injured brother having morose conversations with the tenement in which he and his sister move after a horrific fire at the other one they lived in-- this gets repeated even more horrifyingly. And what's up with adding horror to message and love story? As I say, to me it just doesn't work.

This is not to say there aren't parts that work-- the secondary characters-- who do much less smiling-- are for the most part well drawn and add well to the film. And, except for the endless smiling, the direction is good and the movie well constructed. But it is no where near enough.

Watch if you must-- but I warned you about the smiling.