Ville sans loi

I wasn't expecting much when I watched this, but It's pretty good. It's set in San Francsico in 1849 during the gold rush. It's got a great cast like Miriam Hopkins, Edward G. Robinson, Joel McCrea, Harry Carey, Brian Donlevy and Walter Brennan. It was also directed by Howard Hawks. Watch it if your a fan of the cast.

In 1848 the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican - American War, with the secession of territory from Mexico to the U.S. of most of the current southwestern U.S. (California, Arizona, New Mexico, any claims to Texas - as well as parts of Colorado, Utah, and Nevada). This was a war of conquest by the U.S., but to assuage American consciences fifteen million dollars was paid to Mexico for this territory. Only a subsequent bit of southern Arizona and New Mexico (known as the "Gadsden Purchase") was made as an addition in 1853 by the Pierce Administration, giving us the current southwestern border.

While the territory of Northern California (as opposed to the territory of Baja or Southern California - still part of Mexico) had always been a bit too far from Mexico City for proper control over local government, the change to Washington, D.C. - more than twice the distance and across a continent - further seemed to weaken national control of the territory. Moreover the population, being mostly Latino, was hostile to the non-Latino U.S. Government. It is in the next few years that California's so-called answer to Robin Hood, Joachin Murrieta, is continuing the Mexican War by his guerrilla/bandit attacks.

Under normal circumstances, it would have taken a generation for the U.S. to be really bothered by this. But in 1849 gold was discovered in California, and the world rushed in. Suddenly the territory had nearly one million population within a year, and demanded statehood. This would lead to the controversy about admitting California to the Union as an free state, and unbalancing the balance of the U.S. Senate. This in turn led to the Compromise of 1850 which enabled California to enter the Union as a free state, but guaranteed a fugitive slave act as a sop to the South. It put off the Civil War (or ignited the path to the Civil War) ten years later.

But for a big state, with wealth and population and size, California had a bad reputation. The towns of San Francisco and Los Angeles boomed in population - in particular San Francisco with it's immense harbor. But their governments were pitifully unable to maintain public order. Fires (arson caused) were frequent. So were killings, usually tied to robberies of the prospectors with more gold than sense. Judges and police were frequently paid off by gamblers and crime gang leaders. Finally, in 1851, the better elements of San Francisco put their foot down and formed a vigilante committee. They arrested several dubious characters, held stream-lined trials (where many legal niceties were ditched) and if the parties were found guilty (which usually happened) they were hanged in public. It sort of calmed things down, but then the continued prosperity of the state caused the same problems to reappear. In 1856 two incidents reignited the Vigilante Committee. First a local outspoken newspaper editor, James King of William, was shot and killed by a corrupt local political alderman named James Carey. Then a gambler named Charles Cora shot and killed a police official. Both men were arrested, given the drum-head trial, convicted, and hanged. The Vigilantes retained control of San Francisco for the rest of the next year before disbanding. They never had to make a third appearance.

Were they real heroes or a lynch mob? It still is debated. James King of William was right about the corruption and crime, but he was a "Nativist", and his attacks were also against Catholics, such as Carey (an Irish American) and Cora (an Italian American). Many of his fellows were also Protestants, and some may have had pecuniary interests in attacking the businesses controlled by the Catholics. So the real situation is not black and white, like this film suggests.

Edward G. Robinson's Luis Chamalis was based on Charles Cora, although the triangle with Miriam Hopkins and Joel McCrae is from whole cloth. Col. Marcus Cobb (Frank Craven) is based on James King of William (although King of William was never reduced to such stunning superficiality as Cobb is for nearly a year). Robinson's grip on the whole of San Francisco is fictitious (Cora never had that much power). The leadership of the Vigilantes (Harry Carey) reflect the moral center of the Vigilantes movement that was unquestioned in American History books of the 1935.

It is a good film, with fine performances by Robinson, Hopkins, Craven, Brian Donleavy (who's physical appearance makes him look like the corrupt contemporary Mayor of New York City, Fernando Wood), and Brennan. McCrae is sturdy and acts well, but his role seems terribly naive. It is fun trying to locate David Niven as a drunken cockney sailor tossed out of Robinson's saloon (he recalled it fondly in THE MOON'S A BALLOON). Robinson's recollections of the film were downers in ALL MY YESTERDAYS: he had political disputes about the on-coming World War II with isolationists Hopkins, Carey, Craven, Brennan, McCrae, and director Hawks. Hopkins kept trying to upstage him and the others, until he let her have it before the cast and crew (who applauded him for it). He also felt the end was a let down. Quietly told by Carey and his associates it is time to accompany them to his neck stretching party, he quietly joins them, as though they have come to take him to deliver a political speech! Still the film merits an "8" out of "10".

When a woman arrives in San Francisco during the height of the Klondike gold rush to find her mail-order fiancé dead she takes up with a shady - and jealous - casino owner before falling for an honest prospector. Although he sports an ear-ring and walks around like he's waiting for the rest of his pirate fancy-dress costume to turn up, Edward G. Robinson pretty much just does his usual gangster routine in Barbary Coast. Not that there's anything wrong with that: his controlling mob boss Louis Chamalis, is actually given a pleasingly sly sense of humour and depth of character, and is also given the opportunity to go out with some class when he meets his inevitable fate. Director Howard Hawks creates a wonderfully evocative portrait of a muddy, fog-bound San Francisco filled with morally compromised larger-than-life characters. Recommended.

Barbary Coast (1935)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

Masterful acting highlight this overlooked gem that features just about everything you'd want out of a classic from the Golden Era of movies. Miriam Hopkins plays a poor girl from New York who travels to San Francisco to marry a man she's never met but once she arrives she learns that he has been murdered. Since she didn't love him, she decides to team up with the man responsible for his death, a ruthless casino owner (Edward G. Robinson) who wants to keep the town under his rule. Soon the woman begins to have second thoughts after meeting young man (Joel McCrea) from her old hometown. Hawks has a big following today and many consider him one of the greatest director's of all time but I'm really not sure I'd join such high praise. I did find it rather strange that when people mention his work this title is often left out, which is too bad because I found this to be one of the most entertaining of his career even though he did take the picture over from William Wyler. Some have called this LITTLE CAESAR set during the gold rush and that might be a fair saying but you could also mix in another Robinson picture, THE HATCHET MAN. This film here is pulp entertainment from start to finish as we have three legends really giving it their all in a pretty good story that contains romance, action, drama, comedy and one masterfully directed sequence. This sequence takes place as a vigilante group is holding a trial while walking through some mud. The sound effects used here and the constant editing down towards the mud is priceless and will certainly remain in the viewers mind long after the film ends. Robinson dives head first into his role and really delivers one of the finest performances of his career. His scenes where the character goes mad or better yet, love struck, are priceless and really pack a nice little punch as he goes off the deep end. The evilness Robinson brings to the role was not only creepy but it added to the entertainment value just because it will also put a smile on your face. Hopkins is also terrific and manages to deliver a full performance full of all sorts of emotions. Her character goes through various stages and the actress captures all of them perfectly. Her and Robinson have wonderful chemistry and I was shocked to learn after the movie that the two hated working with one another on this film. McCrea is also terrific and plays the naive and soft-spoken character wonderfully. The supporting cast features the wonderful Walter Brennan, Frank Craven, Brian Donlevy, Harry Carey and Donald Meek. The film's biggest problem is the ending, which really felt added on but I haven't been able to find anywhere that it was forced by the studio. Why this film isn't better known is beyond me but there's enough packed in here for two movies so hopefully more people will check it out.

Enjoyable adventure is filmed at a lively clip and delivers a fine entertainment. A bit heavy on the ham in a couple of places but entertaining nonetheless. Edward G.Robinson is fine as always although he should have rethought the earring. He is full of brio and shows his versatility but his costume does him no favors. He and Miriam are a fine pair even though he despised her offscreen. A good actress if a bit dithery she managed to destroy her starring career with cheap tricks and constant attempts to upstage her co-stars. The story goes that Edward G. became fed up with it and when the script called for him to strike her he was so frustrated with her shenanigans that he didn't pull the slap and sent her flying to the applause of the assembled crew.