Prisoner of Japan

PRC in choosing a title for the film used the exact meaning of words. Our protagonist Alan Baxter is not a prisoner in Japan. But he's a prisoner nonetheless. He's under house arrest on his little plantation in a south sea island that is occupied but not openly by the Japanese.

It suits their purposes that way. Baxter is the son of a noted astronomer and one himself, but he's given way to drink and dissipation and he makes a convenient front for their espionage. Especially with that observatory dear old dad built. Just right for keeping track of American naval traffic and air traffic.

If that wasn't enough the Japanese pretending to be islanders have a nice little cafe with a dragon lady type operator who gently pumps navy people for information. Loose lips do sink ships in this film.

A visit by old friend Gertrude Michael persuades Baxter of his patriotic obligations. I think you can figure out the rest.

Doing this PRC flag waver must have really reminded both Baxter and Michael of better days. Baxter's career role was in Each Dawn I Die where he played the aptly named Polecat Carlisle who sets up James Cagney. Michael is best known for playing Calpurnia in Cecil B. DeMille's production of Cleopatra. This PRC film is about as far from DeMille as you can get.

What can I say, script is ludicrous, acting on the high school level, use of light and shadow to cover up shoddy sets. A model PRC film for sure.

Alan Baxter is an astronomer on a small island in the South Pacific. He's working for the Navy, trying to track down a directional radio beacon the Japanese are using. Beautiful women like Gertrude Michael are on the island for reasons that are never made clear. So are Japanese forces in the person of Ernst Deutsch, who are holding him prisoner and making him work for them.

All this is vaguely defined except for the utter evil of Deutsch standing in for all Japanese everywhere -- the actor was originally from Czechoslovakia, which I suppose is practically the same thing. We can tell he's evil, because he's annoying, making up a sizable percentage of the annoyance of this movie.

It being 1942 when this was released, it's to be expected that the propaganda component of this movie would be sizable. Unfortunately its simplicity of characterization takes some competent actors and merely makes them look foolish.

Stuffy, set-bound low-budget programmer that shows early promise but then gets bogged down in endless talk. It boils down to a call to pacifists to take up arms and die heroically for their country.

"Prisoner of Japan" was a hard film to sit through. One could see that it was made by a Poverty Row studio, Atlantis Pictures. But even it was among the lesser of the B studios of the day. Of its half dozen movies in 1942 and 1943, the studio had three with some actors of name. But the screenplays for all of these films are just horrible. I have never seen a high school or college play that had scripts as poor as these.

Besides an awful script, this film has a cast in which the few characters seemed to try to under-perform each other. None were much known in 1942. Only Gertrude Michael, as Toni Chase, seemed to have ever had an acting class. Her role was fair. But Alan Baxter as David Bowman, Ernst Deutsch as Matsuru and Tom Seidel as Ensign Bailey were almost laughably bad. The first two were stiff, wooden and hesitant throughout, and Seidel was like a kindergarten kid in a Navy uniform.

The idea for the plot wasn't a bad one. But the screenplay, sets and all technical aspects of the film are poor quality. Thankfully, it was over in 64 minutes. One had to watch to see the end with the subject and title the film has. But, there's absolutely nothing here at all even for war film addicts.

Now, brace yourself, reader, for here's an example of the dynamite dialog in this film. David Bowman, "I'm afraid." Toni Chase, "David, don't be afraid."

The movie like all B-Movies after Pearl Harbor were rushed into production and filled with patriotic themes and adequate production values. To put down or severely criticize these movies is foolish. The movie has value if you view it in its historical time period . Dave O'Brien and all the actors do what they do best act ! If you can understand the full picture in its historical context then you can enjoy the movie. To shoot spitballs and snitty poof bombs at the movie is a reflection on ones own ignorance, arrogance and lack of understanding of the historical era.