The Wet Parade

Author and environmentalist Edward Abbey once said "Democracy - rule by the people - sounds like a fine thing; we should try it sometime in America." At least the internet says he did. The makers of this film felt the same way about Prohibition. They must have felt pretty strongly since the film ran for two hours back when the average was about 1h 10m.

Did you that know that during Prohibition the US government put poison in industrial alcohol so it couldn't be converted to drinking alcohol? The result of this policy was that criminals converted it anyway and thousands of people were poisoned to death. Yes, it's in the movie and can be verified on reputable websites. Just one of the historical facts you can pick up from this film, not to mention a sampling of the spectrum of public opinion at the time.

For instance, imagine you were an ordinary social drinker at the time. The film captures such people's incredulity as they watched the laborious process involved in passing a Constitutional amendment, one they never dreamed possible, that would make their recreational drug of choice illegal.

Despite such nuances the film makes no bones about its anti-alcohol feelings. It differs from laughable anti-drug films like "Reefer Madness" in that its makers actually knew about the real effects of the drug in question. Its point is that Prohibition as it existed was not working and was only funneling money into organized crime while increasing disrespect for law and order. It was made during the tail end of Prohibition, when it must have been clear that its repeal was imminent. Its message is a pious hope that somehow Prohibition can be made to work, but it doesn't quite specify how.

By the way, there is a plot with stars like Robert Young and Myrna Loy buried in all of this, which generally moves at the snappy pace of other pre-code films. Its excessive length is due to its repetitious hammering home of the evils of alcoholism. They did try to liven it up a little by having comedian Jimmy Durante playing an unlikely Prohibition agent who performs bits of Durante's nightclub act. Still it may impress you as overlong, melodramatic and even depressing at points, but those interested in American history and culture in the 1920s and 30s will find it fascinating.

Probably Upton Sinclair's novel was ambiguous so the MGM film version had to be equally so. But The Wet Parade was made and released before the public's verdict on Prohibition was in. At the end of 1933 the 21st amendment to our Constitution was passed repealing the 18th amendment banning liquor. The cure was worse than the disease.

The Wet Parade deals with two families headed by Lewis Stone and Walter Huston. Stone is a southern colonel who likes his branchwater and bourbon and Huston a New York hotelier who also is a drinker. The culture of drink is inculcated in both families.

Two who missed it are Stone's daughter Dorothy Jordan and Huston's son Robert Young. Alcohol claims family and friend all around them. And Prohibition just seemed to make it worse.

Among the rest of the cast look for outstanding performances from Neil Hamilton as Jordan's brother, Jimmy Durante as a Prohibition agent , and Myrna Loy as a flapper who abandons Hamilton in a crisis. In the case of Hamilton he did in real life develop a serious drinking problem.

A good film that was made before it's time.

One of my favorite movies mostly because I'm a Jimmy Durante fan and he plays, of all things, a treasury agent during prohibition! True, that doesn't stop him from being somewhat funny, cracking jokes and displaying his comedic talents, so anyone who likes Durante will enjoy his participation in this movie. There is also some fine ensemble acting from the large cast as we see some of the evils of liquor both before and during prohibition. And there's a great scene showing bootleggers making phony whiskey using wood alcohol and printing labels saying it was pre-prohibition liquor or from Canada.

I noticed two onscreen credit errors: Frederick Burton is listed as playing Major Randolph, and Reginald Barlow is listed as playing Judge Brandon. The character names were erroneously interchanged.

If I had one piece of advice for people wanting to try out films of the 1930s, it would be to check out any movie with Walter Huston in it. From Gabriel Over the White House to Kongo to The Beast of the City and more, the man was in some of the weirdest and most interesting films of the period. Here we have a film about the dangers of alcohol, made a year before prohibition ended. The film seems to be both anti-alcohol and anti-prohibition, which makes for some fascinating think-work about what the movie is really trying to advocate.

The film starts with Lewis Stone's Colonel Sanders-looking Southern patriarch, whose daughter (Dorothy Jordan) is trying to get him to quit drinking. After a short while we move North to a fresh-faced Robert Young and his lush of a father Walter Huston. The two stories eventually intersect as Young falls in love with the daughter. Prohibition passes which leads to a tragedy for Young, who decides to become a treasury agent and is partnered with Jimmy Durante (!). From here the movie hits a bit of a lull as we get a fairly typical T-man story until the final minutes, which are exciting.

The film offers some great moments such as the haunting image of Lewis Stone's final fate or the powerful scene where Walter Huston's wife confronts him about his bootleg liquor. The cast is excellent. The performances are melodramatic but in the best way. In addition to the stars already mentioned, we also have Neil Hamilton, Myrna Loy, and Wallace Ford. Not a bad lineup.

As an entertainment piece, I think it's solid. But it has added value as a historical curio, allowing modern audiences to get perspective on the thoughts and feelings at the time regarding an important period in our history.

Wet Parade (1932)

A heavy social message movie but really well made, with some touching, in fact moving scenes. There is the first layer of drinking and the damage heavy drinking does (with some dramatic examples!). Then there is a political level, with electioneering and a kind of lobbying by the characters—and the movie—regarding drinking.

The year it begins is 1916, more or less, and it's the cusp of the beginning of Prohibition, just a year before the U.S. enters WWI. (The war is a side issue—one character wisely says, "War has no good side.") The acting is quite realistic—this is a truly serious and large drama—and so the events take on poignant significance. Even if it might, sometimes, seem to preach (barely), it always puts it in human terms, and human costs.

"I never did take it up," says one main character, to explain his not drinking. It makes it seem like a drug ("I never did take up pot") and that's really the underlying attitude on both sides. Of course, there are lots of scenes of drunks and parties leading to good old drunkenness. One of the reasons for voting for Prohibitions is shown as economic—50 million bushels of wheat and rye were going to making drink, and in war time this was wrong.

Remember that the movie was made in 1932 just as Prohibition was being repealed. I don't think it was simply a reminder to the audience of the history of the whole 14 year experiment in teetotaling. Progressive (Democratic) President Wilson did not approve the idea, but the states went ahead and ratified the amendment (not including some notable hold outs like Kentucky, home of great Bourbon).

So, as a movie, there is a lot going on. Before the first hour is up we have one plot transform into another and then yet another. In a way it's quite remarkable. Director Victor Fleming is seven years away from his glory year (1939) and yet is showing a sustained intelligence and narrative savvy. And the camera keeps moving with engaging fluidity, the light varies greatly from night to day to night, and the editing is fast and intelligent. This is, technically, a superb movie.

Now you might object to a certain level of moralizing—the drinkers are often cads or losers—but there is enough complexity of message to make this work overall. There is a sense that everyone (nearly) admits that Prohibition is a hopeless, and maybe senseless cause. As the plot moves toward its dramatic mobster climax, it feels more about pure crime than a moral issue, which got lost along the way.

But that's perhaps what happened to the country, too, back in the long dry years of the 1920s. Which were not so dry after all, for many. Hypocrisy and irony abound. A truly interesting movie.