L'empire du crime

`Guns Don't Argue' is essentially a docu-drama about the war against crime in the 20's and 30's, with particular emphasis on the role of the FBI in that process. It is very much pro-Hoover, pro-law-enforcement, and anti-criminal, and is also quite heavy-handed (often laughably so) in its narration and its portrayals of the criminal element. While offering an interesting counter-point to such romanticisations of the outlaw as Arthur Penn's `Bonnie and Clyde', this movie simply goes TOO far in the opposite direction, to the detriment of what real history it presents.

The worst revisionist moments are in the portrayals of the executions of John Dillinger and of Bonnie and Clyde (interestingly, consistently called `Clyde and Bonnie' in this picture). In reality, each was gunned down maliciously by lawmen who gave no warnings, having set up fool-proof ambushes and using patsies to bait their prey. The vigillantism of law enforcement officials in these days is a legacy America still must live down. In `Guns Don't Argue,' however, Bonnie, Clyde and Dillinger are somehow able to get off the first shots, and the implication is presented that they were given ample opportunity to surrender. Also notably lacking is any sense of the popularity of bank robbers among the American masses, especially after the stock market crash. Dillinger, particularly, was regarded with considerable reverence in the 30's, not the abject fear that this film suggests.

In another interesting twist on history (although a more informed criminal historian will have to bring out the true story), Lyle Talbot takes on a role out of Ed Wood's `Jail Bait' (1954) and is forced to perform plastic surgery on gangster Al Karpis at gunpoint. Those who have seen Ed's original will agree - his `surprise ending' was more effective than this rip-off's.

The best sequence of this movie, however, is that of the vicious `Ma' Barker' and her brood. The little old lady with a Tommy-gun is somehow the most powerful image of the film. The film is quick to point out that the only reason Barker's family attended church was because it helped them avoid jail sentences, of course. Ma' does spend a good deal of screen time in the kitchen, however, reminding us that 50's values cross race, class and even legal lines.

Dizzy, Dumb, and Downright Inaccurate with just about Everything. Where to Start? Why does IMDb put a Date of 1960 on the Thing and then in the Synopsis say it was "released to theaters in 1957"?

The 1950's were Ripe with Pro-Govt Propaganda from the Very Start of the Conservative Decade. Government Agencies, Law-Enforcement, Hell even the "Dog Catcher" could do No Wrong. It was an attempt to "Control" the Population, Shut-Up, Don't Ask Questions, Toe the Line, and be Good Consumers, No Worries, Big Brother is "Looking Out for You".

For the Most Part...It Worked.

"Gangbusters" was Produced for TV in 1952, this is a Compilation of Episodes Released to Movie Theaters in 1957. It is Riddled with Ridiculous Didactics, Smug, and Condescending. A Product of its Era. With Ed Wood Like Acting and Editing, the Film is Disorienting as it Clunks its way through every "Headliner" of Thirties "Gangsterdom".

Most of the Budget was probably Spent on "Tommy Guns" and Bullet Drums. It's pretty Bad even for Early TV. Kids of the Day Enjoyed it as Entertainment, but for Adults it's as Low-Brow as it gets. There are even a few Scenes that Reek of Exploitation with Pistols in the Garter-Belt and Extremely Tight Sweaters and Skirts.

What a Hoot!

Note...Good title though.

TCM showed this movie in October 2016 along with other movies about the FBI. Three of the movies covered gangsters efforts to free one of their own in Kansas City. Those three were "G-Men" (1935), "The FBI Story" (1959, and...this one. The only reason I started watching "Guns Don't Argue" is because Lash LaRue was in the cast, and I wanted to see him play something other than Lash LaRue. By the time his scenes were finished I was near the end of the movie, so I stuck it out. The only reason to watch this movie is to see how similar stories were told by filmmakers with different budgets to work with or, in this case, with no budget at all. In two of the segments the bad guys have face lifts. The first, with the Al Karpis character, results in no change of appearance. The second, at the end involving John Dillinger (played by a guy I always liked -- Myron Healey) resulted in no change either, except for a mustache that kind of looked like a black caterpillar that I kept expecting to walk of his face. A couple of the reviewers stated this looked like an attempt by right-wing individuals trying to put forward their viewpoint. I don't see that; this movie is too incoherent. The only thing that comes out looking bad in this movie are the people who decided to put it together and, if they made any money, the laugh is on us, not them.

The history of early-twentieth-century organized crime, and the response of law enforcement, narrated on the budget of a high-school sex-ed movie. Martin Scorsese recommended this movie as the ultimate exemplar of visual storytelling on a well-worn shoestring, and he knows whereof he speaks: even Sam Fuller never had to portray a shooting death by dissolving to stock footage of a firing gun.

Apparently re-cut episodes from the Gangbusters TV show on the big screen. While this was frequently done in the 50's and 60's because people didn't have a TV or a color TV and producers wanted an increased return on their investment (big screen ticket sales or if it went to the small screen resale of a series that isn't in syndication), the results were usually less then the sum of their parts. The only time I've ever seen it work were where multi-part stories were put together (Ala Rocky Jones or Man From Uncle) or in the case of horror anthology (The Veil and 13 Demon Street). Here the effect is to have stories of American criminals in the 20's and 30's (Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Bonnie and Clyde, etc)inter-cut with each other as a narrator talks about how the FBI hunted them down. Its a weird concoction that doesn't quite work because its clear that there are things here that don't belong together. More than once I looked at the TV oddly because things didn't seem right. In fairness I won't describe the cheapness of the production since this was what early TV (and the series) was like. Its not bad, but its not very good either. To be perfectly honest the episodes of the series that I've seen work better a single episodes where we're not expecting as much. Given the choice I'd rent dvds of the show instead of this movie.