Filles sans joie

Before he became popular directing Charles Bronson films, J. Lee Thompson directed two prison movies based on books written by his future wife, Joan Henry. Glynis Johns does very well as the gambler who is framed for insurance fraud and sent to prison for one year. Here she meets the inmates who relate their stories of crimes that sent them up for time: a shoplifter, a blackmailer, and a neglectful mother. She stops one from stabbing a cruel guard and is rewarded with a transfer to a prison without walls. It's also very touching in the visitation scenes with her fiancé and doctor (John Gregson) how she feels the stigma of her sentence from the outside world. Only beef with the film I have is that there is no flashback to explain what crime her best friend, Betty (Diana Dors) did to serve two years. Her chum is desperate to find a boyfriend, Norman, that never writes or visits.

This film concerns itself mainly with two women, "Jean Raymond" (Glynis Johns) and "Betty Brown" (Diana Dors) who are sent to prison on the same day. Jean is sentenced to one year in prison for fraud. Betty, on the other hand, is given two years in prison because she chose to take the rap for her conniving boyfriend. Naturally, there are other female convicts as well and we get to see some of their stories in a series of flashbacks. I found a couple of these stories were interesting but I will leave it to the viewer to decide for themselves which ones they may or may not find entertaining. One thing I will say, however, is that this film is very British. At least it seemed that way to me. Also, this movie is not the standard women-in-prison film one might expect to find these days. There is no sex, violence, foul language or nudity of any kind. But both Glynis Johns and Diana Dors performed in a decent manner. I also thought both ladies looked quite nice with Glynis Johns appearing the more elegant of the two. Anyway, although not necessarily a great movie it wasn't bad either and I rate it as about average all things considered.

As far as women's prison pictures go, this one is far from bad, thanks primarily to fine performances by its British cast. Glynis Johns, who is great throughout, plays a compulsive gambler who's framed by a vengeful casino owner for writing a bad check. That part of the plot doesn't ring entirely true, nor does her romance with her faithful boyfriend, but the assortment of Dickensian criminals she meets in jail are an entertaining lot. Especially wonderful is Sidney James and his family of shoplifters. Compared to some of the overwrought American pictures that have been made on this subject about "caged" women, this one is a real treat.

I remember seeing this film as a child when it first came out. I disliked it intensely BUT obviously it could not have been as terrible as I thought since I remember it well. I did like both Glynis Johns and Diana Dors. If only these old films were available to us now, I for one would be very happy!!! I remember the cinema where I saw it. It was a 'flea pit' in those days with poor decor and broken seats. The cinema screen was taller than it was wide and the edges were rounded. This was very odd, I thought. I remember that the story dealt with women in prison and followed their misadventures both while 'inside' and after release. I remember being very impressed with Glynis Johns voice and Diana Dors curves. I also remember that the story ended reasonably happy for one but not the other. I was happy when it was over as I had been promised an ice cream for sitting quietly through it!

Aka The Weak and the Wicked. Socialite Jean Raymond is sentenced to 12 months for fraud. In flashback, she is revealed to be in gambling debts and refused to pay. The casino threatens unknown retribution and soon, she is framed for her fraud charge. In prison, she meets other prisoners who reveal their lives before prison in other flashbacks.

I find the prison drama rather rambling and non-dramatic. Some of the characters are interesting and the most interesting parts of the movie are a couple of the flashbacks. The structure of the movie may be problematic in maintaining dramatic drive for the central narrative. All in all, there are a few intriguing bits but the overall effect is less than expected.