Sex Madness

Sure there are camp moments in Sex Madness, a film which somehow tries to gain the notoriety that 'Reefer Madness' has but fails despite having tons of elements that should point in it's favor.

In the beginning it starts off strongly, with all sorts of people going to a burlesque show (and jamming the auditorium up!). This show is probably the highlight of the movie, plenty of silly dancing, no nudity, and clunky choreography. I liked the personalities that showed up for this. A group of randy boys looking to party, a lesbian couple who can't stop pawing each other, and a man who gets all worked up he rapes the first girl he sees. Funny, but ALL of these plot lines get dropped for Millicent (!!), a dancer in the chorus, who finds out she has VD from her doctor. After taking a tour which she's all chipper about seeing icky cases of VD, she goes into treatment, carefully hiding it away from her fiancée. After going home and seeing another doctor who gives her a quack cure, she marries and.. well… you can guess the rest. Rest assured that as foul as it sounds, it drags somewhat, and is nowhere as memorable as 'Reefer', (admittedly, I thought It was going to be of the same looniness). It's okay for some laughs, but doesn't hold up.

Actually, most film portrayals of sex and drug use before the Hayes Commission were not timid, and then afterwards (circa 1930) they had to have some sort of moral equation showing the results of such behavior. This film, post 1930, would have fallen under Hayes guidelines, and consequently meets those guidelines, and yet the depiction of immoral behavior, for the time, and the consequences of such are fairly progressive. The whole idea of sex education for young persons, and of exposing the public to the reality of sexual diseases, is something still being tossed around in today's society. This film is on the progressive side of this debate, albeit dated, and those snide commenters who decry this film as being too prudish or preachy have little idea of what was really prudish and preachy in the 1930s. The grand images of that past time as presented by Hollywood are merely that, images. The reality is much less wonderful, and each new generation feels that it is the generation that is the most sophisticated of all. I have no fear that the young generation of 2070 will have a great laugh at our current ways.

A movie like this has to be judged fairly - and that means being judged by the standards of its era. It tackles a subject that in 1938 would have been taboo to pretty much everyone - the scourge of syphilis, and the associated sexual "looseness" that was seen as its cause. Yes, I know that this is considered an "exploitation" film - one dressed up as an educational film in order to get past censors who would have objected to some of the sexual innuendo contained within it. Still, there is no doubt that at one time syphilis was a major health issue, and so this also comes across as something of a "scare tactic" - a way of warning people to avoid sexual immorality lest they contract the terrible disease. Thus, the words "they must be told!" in the opening credits. The first 20-30 minutes or so jump around a little bit. We see a fair bit of a burlesque show attended by a lot of people, some hints of lesbianism as one girl tries to convince another to spend the night with her, "wild" house parties with couples going off together and assorted shots of those wanting to do battle with the disease and the loose morals at the root of it. It then settles down largely to the story of Millicent - a small town girl who went to New York and caught the disease, then returns home and spreads it to her new husband and their child. The tragic results of the disease are portrayed, and the movie then tries to end on a hopeful note.

This isn't a particularly good movie. It drags at times, but I thought the subject matter was worthwhile, and looked at from the perspective of 1938 it was courageous. One can only go so far with courage alone, though. Eventually, you have to judge whether a movie has quality or not. This one fails on that count.

Sex Madness (1938)

BOMB (out of 4)

A sweet, young woman decides she wants to be a star so she tells her fiancé that their love needs to be put on hold while she goes to New York City to make it big. She doesn't make it big but she does have sex with someone and sure enough she catches syphilis.

SEX MADNESS comes from director Dwain Esper, the man best remembered for MANIAC as well as other exploitation films. It's hard to believe but at one time films like this one, REEFER MADNESS and THE COCAINE FIENDS were controversial pieces of filmmaking that passed themselves off as education pictures while mainly just wanted to draw attention to a naughty subject and make money off of a public willing to pay it.

Most of these films are incredibly awful without a single thing to really recommend in them. THere are countless awful things about this picture including some really awful performances, a really stupid story and of course everything technical is bad. THe editing, the direction, the cinematography and even the bad stock footage that is used at times. Oh yeah, don't forget the horrid dialogue that happens. As with other VD films, this one here features "real footage" as shock value.

I'm not going to lie, as awful as this movie is, it's still fairly entertaining simply because of how awful it is. All the false information given, the way everything is hyped up for drama and the ridiculous message are all Bad Movie Cinema 101. On that level, SEX MADNESS is worth watching.

This is another one of those scare tactic movies from the 30's that's more hokey than fact. I laughed throughout the whole movie watching the antics of "normal" people in the 30's. It's supposed to teach you about the dangers of syphillis, but is more entertaining than informative.

This movie ranks up there with "Reefer Madness" and "Cocaine Fiends"......entertaining and nothing more.

I highly recommend it to anyone that wants a night of belly laughs.