Classic movie site with rare images (no web grabs!), original ads, and behind-the-scenes photos, with informative and insightful commentary. We like to have fun with movies!
Archive and Links
grbrpix@aol.com
Search Index Here




Friday, August 15, 2014

Those Chicago Censors Never Learn ...


Now They Want To Ban "Too Exciting" G-Men (1935)

You'd have thought they were kidding ... were Chicago censors really blocking Warners' G-Men because it was "too stimulating, too exciting for children"? If so, this was new height for absurdity and boon to a pic that every kid would now have to see. WB had merely to appeal the ban and await court reversal which came within the week (late April-beginning of May 1935), then watch G-Men "zooming the gate into high territory and good profits after weeks of doldrums and pecuniary malnutrition" at the Chicago Theatre. Here was once when bluenoses did what thousands spent on publicity might not --- make G-Men into a red hot must-see based on beaten back effort to suppress it. Money couldn't buy this kind of luck. With Hollywood's own Production Code now firmly in place, local censor boards were more and more inconsequent, a gnat flicked generally away --- but wait, Chicago successfully stopped Warners' previous Side Streets and Dr. Monica, "the local exchange about having given up hope of ever getting these by."

Line Up, Folks. Jim's On Our Side Now

Warners got possessive in a hurry, figured they owned the very concept of federal law dogging. To quell competitors, they'd seek protection of courts. Edward Small got out a smallish exploiter called Let 'Em Have It, in which FBI men Richard Arlen, Gordon Jones, and Harvey Stephens rack up bank-robbing Bruce Cabot and mob. What burned WB was Small referencing "Government Men" in ads, this an alleged infringement upon just-released G-Men. Also an irritant was Let 'Em Have It being shown in theatres owned by the Great States circuit. They'd done no business with Warners for whole of a current season, this much of reason for the latter's retaliatory move. Distribution and exhibition were two of a three-headed monster that was the majors-dominated movie industry, and so far as these Ghidrahs were concerned, little fish like Edward Small could go fry.  This was mile-high, if not accustomed, arrogance on Warners' part, another instance of the big bully picking on a little bully (remember Casablanca vs. A Night In Casablanca?). But justice would for once prevail when the judge told plaintiffs to take a hike, and Let 'Em Have It went on to what reward it could scrounge.


The Bureau had decidedly mixed emotion re movie adapt of its operation. Hoover knew Jack Warner, however, and that's said to be reason for his tentative open of door to G-Men. He'd not share case files or publicly endorse the venture, however. What story G-Men told was cooked up solely by WB staffers, and plain obvious was fact they weren't invited within FBI sanctum. That would be policy as well for other rat-a-tatters in studio pipelines, including Ed Small's Let 'Em Have It, Metro's Public Hero No.1, plus a pair from Paramount and Universal. In fact, said Variety, Hoover sent but one emissary to Hollywood "to check up on the several yarns to see that the producers do not go overboard in the glorification" of federal agents. They didn't want filmland "to paint the G-Men too gory or too matinee idolish." Toward this goal, there would be vetting of scripts and technical advising for all of features that utilized a Bureau backdrop. G-Men would boast a highest profile for its straight-to-point title and ideal casting of one-time Public Enemy James Cagney as quick-draw defender of law/order. That last was what really put G-Men in the chips and leagues past competition.


Cagney had been stuck doing comic variation of his urban caveman since Public Enemy stirred storm of protest and ultimate clampdown by an empowered Production Code. No more gangster pics was censorship's fresh edict, and so personalities like Cagney, wired too tight to stay strictly within the law, had to play their hustle for laughs and leave firearms off the menu. Warners kept Cagney out of a rut's way by using him in a musical (Footlight Parade) and then service yarns (Here Comes The Navy, Devil Dogs Of The Air), uniforms a safest alternative to the gangster motif, as they rechanneled Jim's excess energy to military purpose. The same formula would be applied to G-Men, Cagney entering as raw recruit to the Bureau where he'll learn it's best to play by rules. Within this short period, then, JC would go from street menace to defender of same, casting a matter of which branch he'd serve or badge he'd wear. There wouldn't be another Cagney bad man until Angels With Dirty Faces in 1938.

Genius Showman Don Nichols of Charlotte's Broadway Theatre Draws a Curious Crowd
To a Parked Car That Once Belonged to Al Capone, a Surefire Tie-In with G-Men

And yet ... Warners knew it was memory of Public Enemy from which much of Cagney energy flowed, and they'd assure 1935 patronage that G-Men was a same flavor of raw meat, which indeed it was in terms of let-loose violence and firepower that hadn't been on screens since that first flush of gangstering now in concrete shoes fitted by the Code. Maybe Warners couldn't reissue Public Enemy and ones like it, but merchandising could still promise ticket-buyers "The Same James Cagney That Gave Them Public Enemy." Added to this was urgency of crime-on-upswing that was Depression era scourge, plus conviction that only a gloves-off FBI could stop it. G-Men was a hardest sell for arming Fed agents with same lethal weaponry as thugs they pursued, and letting chase extend past state lines that were previous barrier to law enforcement. Give criminals the same harsh medicine they dealt out, said G-Men's army, but not on vigilante terms. With Cagney and company on duty, there'd be no need for self-help in any case.


Showmen filled lobbies with display of police firearms and standee rundown of Most Wanted Public Enemies. Fingerprinting of patronage was offered as bally and civic service, this a lure to mothers who'd want offspring digits recorded in event of kidnap later on. That's how profound fear of babies being snatched had become since the Lindbergh horror. G-Men made hay on real-life anxiety stirred by everyday headlines that made crime seem altogether out of control. Ninety minutes of reassurance from Warner Bros. seemed fair exchange for anyone's admission, which in G-Men instance totaled a million in profit, the biggest gain yet for a Cagney show. G-Men would prove continuing worth by its inclusion with Casablanca on 1949 bills, the reissue pair dressed with fresh ads and even a prologue to update the 1935 "Daddy Of All G-Man Pictures," as cited by David Brian, who appears on camera to unspool a 16mm print of the oldie for benefit of latter-day FBI trainees. It is this version that is shown on TCM and available on DVD from Warner Archive.

1 Comments:

Blogger Robert Fiore said...

Interesting to note in G-Men v. Let 'Em Have It is the King Kong veteran confrontation of Robert Armstrong in the former and Bruce Cabot in the latter.

2:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

grbrpix@aol.com
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009
  • April 2009
  • May 2009
  • June 2009
  • July 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • October 2009
  • November 2009
  • December 2009
  • January 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2010
  • April 2010
  • May 2010
  • June 2010
  • July 2010
  • August 2010
  • September 2010
  • October 2010
  • November 2010
  • December 2010
  • January 2011
  • February 2011
  • March 2011
  • April 2011
  • May 2011
  • June 2011
  • July 2011
  • August 2011
  • September 2011
  • October 2011
  • November 2011
  • December 2011
  • January 2012
  • February 2012
  • March 2012
  • April 2012
  • May 2012
  • June 2012
  • July 2012
  • August 2012
  • September 2012
  • October 2012
  • November 2012
  • December 2012
  • January 2013
  • February 2013
  • March 2013
  • April 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2013
  • July 2013
  • August 2013
  • September 2013
  • October 2013
  • November 2013
  • December 2013
  • January 2014
  • February 2014
  • March 2014
  • April 2014
  • May 2014
  • June 2014
  • July 2014
  • August 2014
  • September 2014
  • October 2014
  • November 2014
  • December 2014
  • January 2015
  • February 2015
  • March 2015
  • April 2015
  • May 2015
  • June 2015
  • July 2015
  • August 2015
  • September 2015
  • October 2015
  • November 2015
  • December 2015
  • January 2016
  • February 2016
  • March 2016
  • April 2016
  • May 2016
  • June 2016
  • July 2016
  • August 2016
  • September 2016
  • October 2016
  • November 2016
  • December 2016