Marihuana

Based on the script and technical aspects of this film, I should have rated it "one star." But I'm giving it a five because it's so campy that it's worth a few laughs. And I am not a doper...I've never even inhaled! This is definitely the poor relation of "Reefer Madness," which has higher technical quality and is more entertaining overall. "Marihuana" is just jaw-droppingly awful, with weed blamed for virtually all vices, many of which are shown on screen (including...gasp...spraying a woman's backside with soda!). The budget was so low that the producers used classical music clips instead of a real soundtrack, so the dangers of dope are underscored by Strauss, Liszt, and others.

This is just a nasty little low-budget exploitation film, using the dope scare as an excuse to titillate the audience.

A young woman slowly becomes a dope pusher.

Most people have heard of "Reefer Madness". But if you wanted to see another film that was anti-marijuana in 1936, look no further than "Marihuana", which (not surprisingly) was made by some of the same people.

This film is not the cult classic of its step-brother, and with good reason. It is far less humorous, with the only really notable thing about it being a nude swimming scene that never would have passed the censorship code. In fact, the film is not even really about marijuana so much as a drinking party gone wrong and the bad choices made after the fact.

An Innocent young woman is seduced into pot parties,a wedlock baby, and eventually, into pushing drugs for a professional ring.

Naturally, no one expects artistry from these exploitation flicks. Instead, audiences expected more titillation than usually allowed under Hollywood's restrictive Production Code. Of course, the liberties were granted under the guise of educating the public on the menace of demon weed. However, I doubt anyone went to see this epic for its hyped-up pot warning. Instead, Dwain Esper's mid-1930's production has more peek-a-boo than usual, with a lot of nude scampering and uplifted skirts.

Surprisingly, however, it's a better movie than at least I expected. Except for the exaggerated pot party, it plays pretty much like a standard Hollywood cheapie of the time. Actress Wood does a good job going from innocent fun-loving teen to hardened drug pusher. At the same time, director Esper adds some nice unexpected touches, such as Burma's descent reflected in her choice of shoes, a bad guy joining the innocence of the little girl, plus the final symbolic shot of the door closing. Also, the script integrates its central twist effectively into the narrative.

Of course, these are minor virtues in an otherwise shoddy production. Still, they should not be overlooked. All in all, this cheapie plays more legitimately than most of its competitors from that campy category of sex, dope, and retribution.

Beating the more famous "Reefer Madness" into the theaters by all of about 15 minutes, "Marihuana" is yet another morality play whose producer tries to pass off a warning about the evils of marijuana use as an excuse for the picture's real reason for being: a nude swim scene (shot so darkly that the participants can barely even be seen). A group of the oldest-looking teenagers you've ever seen (and don't you just love movies with teenagers being played by actors old enough to be the PARENTS of teenagers) fall in with the wrong crowd, and soon there's a drowning, a shooting, an unwanted pregnancy, a kidnapping (of a child you just know was supposed to be the next Shirley Temple, at least in the minds of her parents), and an ending that has to be seen to be disbelieved. All in all, a truly mind-bending experience that would rival any that could come from the actual use of marijuana.

Dwain Esper, the man who makes Ed Wood look like Orson Wells, came out with this movie around 1935 or so. (Judging by the clothing, I'd say it was filmed about a year earlier.) Films like this were made perporting to show the evils of the world but instead showcased rough acting, stilted writing, sparce sets, bad lighting, static camerawork and starlets lifting their skirts and disrobing in doctors offices. More money was spent and more creative energy invested into hyping the films when they played in rural towns with a public eager to see any film that would show them skin and insanity to take the edge off their boring lives.

Harlene Wood gives an uneaven proformance as Burma Roberts, the central character. The other actors, all complete unknowns both then and now, lend even worse acting to their roles as cops, drug addicts, gangsters and teenage girls who look like thirty-five-year-old stag film actresses. The script is also badly written, clearly having been scratched out in a few days time. There are some interesting sets, like the interior of the villains cabin with the stone fireplace and balcony, and some nice camera set-ups, but the filmmakers' megre budget and lack of technical ability is pretty easily discernable throughout.

Personally, I like this film. It's amusing, fairly inventive at times (that scene with the drunk spilling his beer at the beginning), and the scene with the girls stripping down and running around on the beach is still hard to beleave (it's certainly not arousing in the least bit, though). Overall, it's a better film than Tell Your Children (1938), more enjoyable and way more misguided.