Vingt mille ans sous les verrous

As I write this, "Shawshank Redemption" is IMDb's number two top movie of all time. I find that absolutely fascinating.

The prison movie isn't quite a genre to itself because the story possibilities vary so. But there is a definite collection of cinematic devices that are used in nearly all of them, only "Silence of the Lambs" excepted that I can recall.

This film may be the first to set that collection of cinematic devices. It has a lame redemption story and quite ineffective acting styles. But the way the story is told in images is masterful. The filmmaker is Michael Curtiz, who you will know as the man who took a B movie and framed it beautifully as "Casablanca."

His is an approach very much like the "graphic novel" trend sweeping across Hollywood right now. Simple compositions, starkly presented to be easy to read. A consistent pulse in the way scenes change. Strict attention to the way the brightness is modulated slowly throughout the thing. And of course within this, some shots of prison life that have since become almost mandatory. (Thank God, that slamming door sound effect hadn't found its way into movies yet.)

So, if you are interested in cinematic storytelling, this is something of a must for you.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

One of the best movies from the early era of sound. Both Spencer Tracy and Bette Davis display the wonderful talents that made them legends. In a time when most films were simplistic and performances still laced with pantomime, this movie truly stands out. The script is clever and engaging and director Michael Curtiz displays his vision and prowess in creating one of the first great crime films.

A good entry in the early prison-drama cycle.Spencer Tracy is good as the cocky inmate.Arthur Byron has an unusual part as the sympathetic warden of Sing Sing.There aren't too many of them in movies.The action sequences in the movie are expertly handled by Curtiz.Bette Davis does a good job in a small part.Louis Calhern is suitably slimy.The ending is typically of the times in which it were made.

Like so many films made during Hollywood's classic era, this one was re-made just a few years later as "Castle on the Hudson" (with John Garfield). Both are quite good but I prefer this original film...slightly.

The film begins with Tommy Connors (Spencer Tracy) arriving at Sing Sing. He's cocky and assumes that with his connections he'll get all sorts of special privileges. The warden (Arthur Byron) puts Tommy in his place...and informs him that if he doesn't want to work or wear a prison uniform, he didn't have to...even if that meant going outside in the winter in rags! Eventually, Tommy gets with the program and develops a grudging respect for the warden...and vice-versa. So how does this new-found respect end up backfiring for both of them? Watch the picture.

The acting in this one is simply wonderful. Tracy, as usual, is great but so is the supporting cast. The script also is quite nice...and make for an enjoyable viewing experience.

20,000 Years in Sing Sing is directed by Michael Curtiz and adapted to screenplay by Wilson Mizner, Brown Holmes, Courtney Terrett and Robert Lord from the book written by Warden Lewis E. Lawes. It stars Spencer Tracy, Bette Davis, Lyle Talbot, Arthur Byron, Grant Mitchell and Warren Hymer. Music is by Bernhard Kaun and cinematography by Barney McGill.

Cocksure hoodlum Tom Connors (Tracy) enters Sing Sing Prison and is instantly disrespectful towards those in authority. Could it be that the tough - but compassionate for reform - warden can put Connors on the right road?.

Out of Warner Brothers, this crime/prison melodrama manages to rise above its social conscience heart to become gutsy entertainment. This is due in most part to a committed turn from Tracy, the real location photography, the use of real prisoners for key prison scenes and the sense of realism brought about by the adaption from real life Sing Sing Warden Lawes' literature source. Curtiz manages to keep it from being a torrid "message" movie, even keeping a grim feel to proceedings, though his one failing is not to rein in the sometimes over the top perf from Davis as Tom's love interest moll. 7/10