I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang (1932)
“I’ll be a model prisoner if it kills me!”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: He writes that the “ending is shockingly depressing”, and that the film “is daring, not only because of its socially conscious theme but also because of its pre-Code depiction of sex”. However, while this film is almost universally lauded as a classic, I’ll admit to finding it both somewhat dated, and over-acted by the Oscar-nominated Muni. Most powerful are the graphic scenes of chain gang life, which we take for granted now after multiple cinematic depictions inspired by this one — i.e., Woody Allen’s Take the Money and Run (1969), among others — but otherwise, everything about the screenplay too-neatly telescopes corruption, injustice, and hard knocks. The film does deserve points for not pulling any punches, and also for Sol Polito’s impressive cinematography — but otherwise, it’s primarily worth viewing for its historical significance. Redeeming Qualities and Moments: Must See? (Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) Links: |
2 thoughts on “I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang (1932)”
First viewing. A once-must, for its place in cinema / social history – but be prepared for a rather depressing watch, esp. (as noted) the conclusion.
I don’t find the film dated and, oddly, Muni (to me) seems less prone to over-acting in this performance, esp. once the film really starts to kick in. (In general, Muni does have a tendency to be a bit much, so I was surprised to find that he didn’t particularly seem over-the-top this time out.)
Glenda Farrell is rather impressive here in her (ultimately) cold and calculating portrayal.
The depiction of the cruel ‘justice’ of the South comes off as credible.
Note: I found it slightly amusing that, after his initial escape, Muni switched his name from James Allen to (of all things) Allen James. That’s not exactly a surefire way to conceal an identity (even though he wasn’t re-captured because of it).
A definite must for it place in history as well as a well made and acted film. I also share the thought that Paul Muni can overdo a role, but I think his performance is perfect in this film. And for a 1932 film, the ending and tone throughout was very bold, and I feel it still it holds up really well. The film was gripping from beginning to end, and I was amazed it didn’t seem too dated and definitely not stagnant. Will I watch again -not sure, but this is mainly due to the pessimistic ending – the film didn’t make the lead out as a criminal (which some would have done), or give him a happy, Hollywood ending. Instead, it seemed right (or as right as it could be in 1932). Also in volumes of the 1001 films you must watch before you die books.