The Fire Raisers

Apparently a fire raiser is insurance jargon for an arsonist engaged in insurance fraud. And there are plenty of fire raisers from all levels of society in this movie which combines action/adventure with an interesting moral dimension.

Leslie Banks plays a slick insurance investigator who walks both sides of the legal line to make fast bucks in a corrupt industry. Much of the movie is spent in glamorous portrayal of his unscrupulous business activities and trendy lifestyle. One of the main strengths is the fast moving, cynical banter between the characters which creates a sense of their decadent lifestyles lived out against a background of unrestrained, completely amoral capitalism. No doubt this was a powerful image in the midst of the Great Depression when this movie was made.

But so much time is spent tantalizing us with the fruits of dirty business deals that it comes as a sudden surprise near the end of the movie to discover that there is a moral dimension. Because the ground has not been prepared, the main character's late struggles with his conscience may seem a little unconvincing.

For social history enthusiasts, there are some quaint historical shots of the London Fire Brigade and the British horse racing industry in action during the 1930s to lend some authenticity to this morality play.

This movie had three things going for it from my viewpoint. It has Leslie Banks as the lead; Francis L. Sullivan in a major role; and most importantly, it's an early film from Michael Powell. I was pleasantly surprised.

Banks is a hard working and disliked insurance investigator, willing to threaten and reward minor criminals for return of stolen goods to the insurers -- with a nice cut for himself. He's doing well, but when an expensive wife and slow horses catch up with him, he gives into temptation, in the form of Sullivan, who has organized a ring of arsonists and wants an investigator who will look the other way. When affairs turn sour...

It's a nice, if unpretentious story, carried along by some very good actors, and the direction of Powell, who keeps things moving along at a lively clip.

Any viewer lucky enough to find this wild British gem is is for a major discovery! It turns up on Australian Tv as a late night regular and I only wish UK or USA viewers can be as rewarded as we regularly are. The Fire Raisers is one of the toughest roughest and profane old films you could be shocked to see....the level of gangster violence and the swearing! Made without Hays code restrictions that curtailed US freedoms, we get to hear enemies or cohorts referred to as Dagoes and Bastards which is absolutely unheard of in films from anywhere else at that time. This is one mean movie and a good thriller in its bash'em smash'em blow'em up and burn'em down manner. Maybe only the Hollywood film UNDERWORLD in 1927 or the dazzling German car chase thriller SPIES of 1928 come close. THE FIRE STARTERS is well worth tracking down from the UK and showing your shocked friends what must have been the Brit answer to Scarface or Public Enemy. Believe it or not (you won't but it is true) THE FIRE STARTERS in on Australian National tv directly after the ACADEMY AWARDS telecast on next week ( Mar 1st 2004). Now that's a night of entertainment!

How much does Twist know ,Bates? How many times is this sentence repeated ? Count' em all! People who are looking for a lost gem of GB's best director ever will be disappointed;people who are looking for a "pulp fiction 1934" will be ,too,fortunately ,disappointed too.

"The fire raisers" is a so so thriller ,with some good moments of suspense ("In five minutes ,the place will be yours" as the unfortunate Twist looks at the clock :"six ,no ,four to midnight,too bad nobody can attend your final,Twist!) Francis L Sullivan is perfect as the sadistic villain,a part he would take to its absolute perfection in Dassin's "night and the city" .

A man wants to make his way of life;unlike his respectable father,he seems to be completely unscrupulous .An insurance investigator ,he gets involved in very bad things with a gang of arsonists.But as it causes death to people around,he is stricken with remorse .

They say Michael Powell praised his female star ,Carole Goodnear,who possessed American know-how.

What, pray tell, is a fire raiser? It's an arsonist, but...fire raiser is such a mealy-mouthed term. It feels too polite. Maybe it had greater purchase culturally in Britain in the 1930s, but 90 years later, it's an odd choice. Hard to fault Michael Powell for not having that foresight, but, seriously, arsonist is such a better term. It just sounds meaner. Anyway, this is the closest I'd say that Powell has come to failure in the opening four surviving films of his quota quickie period. A thriller without much in the way of thrills, helped none at all by being overstuffed and too broadly told, and reminding me of how John Huston had such trouble with straight thrillers throughout his tired period.

Sifting through everything post hoc, the film is about Jim Bronson (Leslie Banks), an independence insurance investigator who blackmails people who have done bad things to get those insurance payouts, getting himself a cut. The film starts with him running to a warehouse fire where he climbs up the back, recovers the financial books, and then presents them after the fact to the owner with thinly veiled threats that he'll reveal the true state of the business before the fire. It was only worth ten thousand pounds, not the insured thirty thousand. And he's set to start business.

That feels straightforward, except we have this bevy of a supporting cast. There's Bates (Harry Caine), who gets him the information about the fire early. There's his secretary Helen (Carol Goodner). There's this...guy (seriously, I don't really know who he's supposed to be, though, he becomes important later in the film, maybe he's another insurance assessor) Twist (Lawrence Anderson). At the same time, Jim has to negotiate with the insurance companies, mainly represented by Brent (Frank Cellier), who don't trust him, think he's a crook, and think he may have something to do with any claim he helps manage. Brent also has a daughter, Arden (Anne Grey) whom Jim falls in love with while he's racing his horses with his newfound wealth. Yeah, there's a lot, and when most of the men kind of look similarly, it can be hard to figure out who is who for stretches.

The dramatic turn is when Jim decides to take on the underhanded and illegal proposal from Stedding (Francis L. Sullivan), the head of a financial firm who's also a crook and who does raise fires to take advantage of the financial payoffs from the insurance companies. Brent uses Twist to get closer to what's going on. Bates becomes a stool-pigeon. Twist wants to protect Helen because he's sweet on her.

Why do I think this is all kind of dead as a thriller? I wouldn't call the film a complete bomb. The characters, once we get to know who's who, are fine. There are some nice moments here and there. But, the thrills are just absent, and I think it's a combination of the primitive sound mixing (getting more complex with every film, but still pretty archaic), Jim's culpability in everything, making him less of a heroic figure in any light, and the general opaqueness around Twist, who becomes the main point of tension as the central figure under duress.

Essentially, Brent knows that there is a fire raiser gang doing everything, and through Twist he has enough circumstantial and witness-based evidence gathered inappropriately to know who's behind it all. However, to be good enough for the police, he wants to catch the gang in the act (without ever calling the police because obviously, I guess). This is something that Stedding figures out, and suddenly Twist, this guy we've had trouble figuring out why he's in the movie at all, is in trouble, Jim is having a crisis of conscience because the effort before this effort led to the deaths of dozens of people, and the women are all in the background being stiff-upper-lipped about it all while trying to support the guy who's kind of responsible for it all anyway.

It's a very odd mix that doesn't really work, undermining the whole third act as it steams forward into the mechanics of thrillers.

Thrillers are hard and work very specifically, is what I've figured out.

For a quota quickie, this would entertain the masses in between larger features as they spent their Saturday in the theater, escaping the heat. As an actual entertainment to keep one going for about 70 minutes, it doesn't really work. It's handsome, has some good performances, and some delightful miniature work (that is never convincing, but I love miniatures). I mean, it's not good. It fails at being a thriller, its attention more towards creating a complicated character who gets lost in his own film, but it's not bad.