Are We Civilized?

The documentary "Hitler's Reign of Terror" debuted in April 1934 and is considered the first anti-Nazi film. "Are We Civilized?" debuted two months later. It's probably the first fictional anti-Nazi film, which gives it some historic interest. OK, the country where it takes place is never identified as Germany but it's pretty obvious. Unfortunately the writing is pretty stilted, the plot isn't really credible, and about half of it is a simplistic lesson in human history illustrated by clips from old silent films.

The plot concerns an ex-German soldier from World War One, with a metal plate in his head , who somehow by 1934 has moved to the US and become owner of the world's larges newspaper syndicate, with his adult son as second in command. The son is engaged to the daughter of the father's boyhood best friend, who now has become the head of Germany's propaganda and censorship bureau. At a state dinner is his honor, the refugee news magnate naively launches an attack on German state censorship and things go downhill from there.

Adding to the unintentional humor is that everyone in Germany speaks only English with a variety of attempts at German accents, when the actors remember, although some cops who invade the press syndicate's palatial offices to burn books sound straight from the Bronx.

Unlikely you'll want to sit through the whole movie if you can find it, but film history buffs should enjoy browsing through it. The film makers at least deserve some credit for their boldness in bringing it out at a time when many in the US were quite opposed to criticism of Hitler.

This is a curio about a country (read Germany) where the press is being censored, books are being burned, people are incited to violence ... well, you know where this is going .

Silent film star William Farnum plays the owner of a newspaper in a foreign country, although everyone speaks perfect English there. Farnum's son is to be married to Anita Louise, who just happens to be the daughter of some fascist (Frank McGlynn, who often played Abraham Lincoln in films and on stage). After about twenty minutes of some plot, the remainder of this 70-minute propaganda film involves Farnum giving us a crash course in history. He starts with the creation of the world, and we get to see dinosaurs and cavemen. Then it's on to Egypt and Moses, then Buddha, then Confucius, then Caesar, then Christ, then Muhammad (who looks like an aged Carnac the Magnificent), then Columbus, George Washington, Napoleon, and Lincoln (McGlynn does double duty here). Interspersed with this lecture are scenes of books being burned and Farnum's son getting clocked by a mob. But Farnum plows on, through World War I and the threat of World War II. Will his words have any affect?

The film is so-so, and so is the print on youtube. Farnum, who was once the highest paid actor in film, gives it a good shot, although he is a bit over the top when he describes the stock market crash - probably because in real life, he lost his shirt at the time. However, the movie may have some interest to film buffs. Many of the historical scenes appear to be taken from silent films, and one has to wonder what these films were, and if they still exist. If they don't, this may be the only bits of them left.

In the journal Harrison's Reports in 1934, the film was described as "suitable for children, adolescents, and Sundays."

'Are We Civilised?' is one of those weird movies from the League of Nations period, when Hollywood seemed to feel it could solve all of the world's problems with the proper screenplay. Any good qualities that this film might have had are seriously undercut by the casting of William Farnum in the central role. Farnum was a successful silent-film actor, specialising in cowboy roles that weren't much of a strain on his thespic talents. Here, playing a rare lead role in a talkie, Farnum proves he was never much of an actor.

Another problem with this movie is its gutlessness. 'Are We Civilised?' wants to tackle Serious Important Issues such as totalitarianism, yet it's afraid to name names. This movie takes place in a European nation that conveniently goes unnamed. Apparently it's meant to be Nazi Germany (this is 1934), but the movie goose-steps around that issue.

Paul Franklin (Farnum) was born in this unnamed European nation, and served in her army during the Great War, but he became disillusioned and he immigrated to America. Now he has come back to his homeland, where he has run afoul of General Bockner, the head of the national censorship bureau. (It's unclear precisely who's running the country; this movie has no precise analogue for Hitler.) Allegedly Bockner is a censor, but his chief duty seems to be disseminating disinformation rather than censoring genuine information. Bockner and his staff are constantly spreading propaganda to foment racism and religious bigotry. Bockner is played by Frank McGlynn, an actor who spent most of his career playing Abraham Lincoln. Here he gets a rare chance to play an extremely un-Lincolnesque role, and he's quite good. It's interesting to see McGlynn without Lincoln's chin whiskers and facial mole.

Meanwhile, Paul's son Paul Junior wants to marry Norma, the daughter of General Bockner. Hoo boy.

At the movie's somnolent climax, Paul Senior gives a frenzied speech on behalf of the brotherhood of man. This is accompanied by a series of tableaux, depicting the great heroes of history: beginning with a caveman, then carrying on through Moses, Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Julius Caesar, Christ, Mohammed, Bonaparte and Lincoln. At least three of the people on that list (Caesar, Mohammed, and Bonaparte) were all bad guys, but here they're depicted as good guys. McGlynn ducks back into the chin whiskers and mole for a brief turn as Honest Abe in the Lincoln tableau.

Fairly frothing at the mouth, Farnum orates: 'mankind will never be truly civilised until all races become one in spirit, understanding and brotherly love'. Don't hold your breath, laddie. Farnum's performance is ludicrously inept, although admittedly he's been cast in an unplayable role. Frank McGlynn is so impressive here, I wish I'd seen him in more non-Lincoln roles. I might have respected this movie if it had explicitly condemned Hitler or Nazism. As it is, I'll rate this simple-minded rubbish 3 points out of 10.

"Are We Civilized?" is, at times, a brilliantly insightful and wonderfully brave film. Unfortunately, that's just the first third of the film--the rest is pretty much low-budget crap! It's a real shame, because if they'd stuck with what they were doing initially, this could have been a great film.

When the movie begins, he's in the unnamed country of his birth but he's now an American citizen coming to spend time there--along with his son. The son has fallen in love with a nice girl--but her father is a fascist who is in charge of censorship in this now hateful country. What are the father and son to do?!

It's obvious that the film is an indictment of Nazi Germany and their repressive and evil government. The reason it's not mentioned by name and the actors all seem so American is not necessarily because the filmmakers are cowards. Before WWII, most Americans were ambivalent about European matters and wanted to remain neutral. In fact, sentiments ran so deep that Congress actually passed laws forbidding the studios from taking sides in the war once it began!! This is insane but true. So, the notion that filmmakers were trying to more subtly attack the Nazis (and the public surely would have known who the film was about). I commend them for this and loved this portion of the film. So why do I give it a three? Well, about a third of the way into the film, the fascists arrive at the old man's home and he then lectures them for the final 2/3 of the film-- using a lot of crappy clips from bad old silent films to pad the movie!!! On top of that, the guy playing the propaganda minister could barely read his lines. Overall, a hugely disappointing film that started with so much promise due to it being so preachy and cheap.

ARE WE CIVILIZED? stands as a fairly obvious anti-Nazi propaganda piece, but it is surprising pertinent in its warnings about the dangers of people surrendering their civil rights in this post 9-11 world. Perhaps its greatest failing is that its message is somewhat diminished by the nature of the historical events and personages used to describe mankind's progress towards civilization. The film seems to want to have it both ways: while great leaders advance civilization, the persistence of the people while suffering under the rule of dangerous warlords advances civilization as well. Under this theory, the extraordinary suffering humanity will soon endure through the upcoming Second World War could almost be seen as a good thing.