A gangster who operates a sleazy dance hall uses a sadistic bodyguard to keep his girls afraid and his customers in line.A gangster who operates a sleazy dance hall uses a sadistic bodyguard to keep his girls afraid and his customers in line.A gangster who operates a sleazy dance hall uses a sadistic bodyguard to keep his girls afraid and his customers in line.
Honey Bruce Friedman
- Rose
- (as Honey Harlow)
Sally Marr
- Hostess
- (as Salle Marre)
'Killer' Joe Piro
- Henchman
- (uncredited)
Featured reviews
This endearing sleaze classic is another "film a clef" from the Grade Z mastermind of ROBOT MONSTER, BROADWAY JUNGLE and CAPE CANAVERAL MONSTERS. This pulpy exposé film is best known for the casting of the notorious Lenny Bruce and his wife Honey Harlowe, but actually they're secondary characters in this "dance hall". Lenny plays the henchman of the gangster-owner, slapping around anyone who tries to double-cross this dubious entrepreneur.
All things "Tucker-ian" are in abundance here: non-existent art direction (check out when customers want "to go to Hawaii", which basically means having some crummy palm tree put in front of their table while a dance hall girl smooches with them; that's the best set decoration in the entire film); badly overacted performances which go to the realm of baroquely cartoonish; impossibly dreary single-take medium-long shots in which you can view all the non-decor and the non-actors; and spare, washed-out cinematography only rivalled by Dreyer.
But also, DANCE HALL RACKET is perhaps Phil Tucker's most structurally challenging film. Not bad for a movie taking place entirely in a shabby set with three tables, a cramped generic office and a back alley (these limited locations also compliment the stagnant lives of their inhabitants). This "complex meta-narrative" operates on several planes at once. The time-old tradition of having a wraparound story is in effect here, as one detective explains to another that "shocking story" of all the crime and corruption in this dance hall, where we view scenes the detectives couldn't possibly have known, much less been a part of. Despite the known presences of Bruce, Honey, and everyone's favourite world-weary bad guy Timothy Farrell, there are really no major characters. Even the eccentric customers "wanting to go to Hawaii" take equal precedence. There is really no plot in this impressionistic study, despite the faint whispers of racketeering. I've only ever seen this movie on the video offered by Something Weird, and that print more than a few times has some small scenes repeated. Evidently, the reels were mixed up and someone stopped it, put the right one on and kept going. But leaving these moments in adds another bizarre touch to the screwy narrative. It's as confounding as anything by Alain Resnais.
By the same token, the latter incident is a classic example of how Tucker's filmography is in disrepair. Isn't it sadly ironic that the most well-preserved film in his legacy is ROBOT MONSTER... the film over which he threatened to commit suicide? Otherwise, the only remnants I've ever seen of Tucker's work come from some tattered composite prints. Phil Tucker is perhaps the last undiscovered country of Grade Z filmmaking. I mean, even Andy Milligan had a book written about him! Little exists in print about Mr. Tucker, and perhaps there are a few more films signed by him, that are collecting dust somewhere that need to be found. Because of his poverty row films, and the enigma surrounding their creator, his legacy remains a fascinating one.
All things "Tucker-ian" are in abundance here: non-existent art direction (check out when customers want "to go to Hawaii", which basically means having some crummy palm tree put in front of their table while a dance hall girl smooches with them; that's the best set decoration in the entire film); badly overacted performances which go to the realm of baroquely cartoonish; impossibly dreary single-take medium-long shots in which you can view all the non-decor and the non-actors; and spare, washed-out cinematography only rivalled by Dreyer.
But also, DANCE HALL RACKET is perhaps Phil Tucker's most structurally challenging film. Not bad for a movie taking place entirely in a shabby set with three tables, a cramped generic office and a back alley (these limited locations also compliment the stagnant lives of their inhabitants). This "complex meta-narrative" operates on several planes at once. The time-old tradition of having a wraparound story is in effect here, as one detective explains to another that "shocking story" of all the crime and corruption in this dance hall, where we view scenes the detectives couldn't possibly have known, much less been a part of. Despite the known presences of Bruce, Honey, and everyone's favourite world-weary bad guy Timothy Farrell, there are really no major characters. Even the eccentric customers "wanting to go to Hawaii" take equal precedence. There is really no plot in this impressionistic study, despite the faint whispers of racketeering. I've only ever seen this movie on the video offered by Something Weird, and that print more than a few times has some small scenes repeated. Evidently, the reels were mixed up and someone stopped it, put the right one on and kept going. But leaving these moments in adds another bizarre touch to the screwy narrative. It's as confounding as anything by Alain Resnais.
By the same token, the latter incident is a classic example of how Tucker's filmography is in disrepair. Isn't it sadly ironic that the most well-preserved film in his legacy is ROBOT MONSTER... the film over which he threatened to commit suicide? Otherwise, the only remnants I've ever seen of Tucker's work come from some tattered composite prints. Phil Tucker is perhaps the last undiscovered country of Grade Z filmmaking. I mean, even Andy Milligan had a book written about him! Little exists in print about Mr. Tucker, and perhaps there are a few more films signed by him, that are collecting dust somewhere that need to be found. Because of his poverty row films, and the enigma surrounding their creator, his legacy remains a fascinating one.
Timothy Farrell runs a waterfront clip joint, using half-witted hoods and b-girls to take the fuddled customers. Meanwhile, he has a few other rackets on the side. Lenny Bruce (who also wrote the script) is his enforcer. He also kills a diamond smuggler whom Farrell is having one of his girls roll to recover the money he just paid him. The sucker is outraged at the unethical behavior, and Bruce has to clumsily shove a knife into him.
It's a very bad movie where Farrell is the best actor. Certainly the awful dialogue, filled with non sequiturs and dully offered observations of the obvious don't help. Given the script, Phil Tucker runs a surprisingly competent visual work, but the only reason to watch this is because of Bruce. And even that offers no particular pleasure.
It's a very bad movie where Farrell is the best actor. Certainly the awful dialogue, filled with non sequiturs and dully offered observations of the obvious don't help. Given the script, Phil Tucker runs a surprisingly competent visual work, but the only reason to watch this is because of Bruce. And even that offers no particular pleasure.
I saw this film solely because Lenny Bruce was in it.
The whole story takes place on a three wall set made from cardboard which is meant to look like a dance hall, and pretty much everyone in this hall has their crooked fingers in pies.
Lenny Bruce plays Vinnie, a hard man, and takes centre stage as he is clearly the best actor in this film. The other actors stand around, bump into each other and chew scenery while Lenny does his thing of being the star.
Phil Tucker does nothing in the way of original directing often opting to cover scenes with a single master shot and letting the action play out in front of the camera.
The print of this film that I saw (on DVD) was terrible, scratched with a constant blemish on the picture, the sound would often pop in and out and there where large jump cuts where someone has clearly edited out the nudity for some reason.
All this is a shame because in spite of all its faults the movie isn't that bad, yes the plot seems rather padded and some of the rolls could do with better casting (the drunk with the hat stands out in my mind) but i have seen worse, much much worse than this. I would like to see someone buy this film and clean it up, get the print nice and crisp, film some extra insert shots that it feels like its missing and dub over some of those bad actors and then we'll see how really bad this film is.
The whole story takes place on a three wall set made from cardboard which is meant to look like a dance hall, and pretty much everyone in this hall has their crooked fingers in pies.
Lenny Bruce plays Vinnie, a hard man, and takes centre stage as he is clearly the best actor in this film. The other actors stand around, bump into each other and chew scenery while Lenny does his thing of being the star.
Phil Tucker does nothing in the way of original directing often opting to cover scenes with a single master shot and letting the action play out in front of the camera.
The print of this film that I saw (on DVD) was terrible, scratched with a constant blemish on the picture, the sound would often pop in and out and there where large jump cuts where someone has clearly edited out the nudity for some reason.
All this is a shame because in spite of all its faults the movie isn't that bad, yes the plot seems rather padded and some of the rolls could do with better casting (the drunk with the hat stands out in my mind) but i have seen worse, much much worse than this. I would like to see someone buy this film and clean it up, get the print nice and crisp, film some extra insert shots that it feels like its missing and dub over some of those bad actors and then we'll see how really bad this film is.
Dance Hall Racket (1953)
* (out of 4)
Before turning to stand up comedy, legendary Lenny Bruce wrote and starred in this film from director Phil Tucker who is best known for the infamous Robot Monster. Vic (Bruce) tries to rise from a small town racket to a higher up gangster but there's a price to pay. The viewer pays a price as well because this is quite dreadful but thankfully it's bad enough to where you can laugh at it. The acting, including Bruce, is beyond awful. Bruce is so bad killing people that this gets the biggest laughs but the death scenes are also hilarious. Timothy Farrell of Glen or Glenda? fame co-stars.
* (out of 4)
Before turning to stand up comedy, legendary Lenny Bruce wrote and starred in this film from director Phil Tucker who is best known for the infamous Robot Monster. Vic (Bruce) tries to rise from a small town racket to a higher up gangster but there's a price to pay. The viewer pays a price as well because this is quite dreadful but thankfully it's bad enough to where you can laugh at it. The acting, including Bruce, is beyond awful. Bruce is so bad killing people that this gets the biggest laughs but the death scenes are also hilarious. Timothy Farrell of Glen or Glenda? fame co-stars.
This is a no budget film noir and while alot of film noir can pull off being cheap and good (like Detour and Highway Dragnet), this can't. Timothy Farrell is an actor who is like a watermark in these types of movies. Racket Girls, Jail Bait, The Violent Years, this movie. A departure for him was playing a psychiatrist in Ed Wood's Glen or Glenda.
Most I imagine by now saw this because of Lenny Bruce who stars in it, with his wife and wrote the original story and perhaps the script too. Proving it is more fun to play the bad guy, Lenny played the heavy's violent hit man. Really, the only highlight in this movie is toward the end when Lenny Bruce, in character, inexplicably takes his suit jacket off during a gun fight. Lenny couldn't afford to damage his suit since he was going to be performing his comedy act in it later that night.
This was made before Bruce hit it big by the mid to late 50s with his TV appearances on shows like Steve Allen's, so it is a nice curiosity. If you dont know who I'm talking about then the only people who will find anything to like about this movie are connoisseurs of low budget movies and study them like others study movies released as part of the Criterion Collection. Afterall, this is from the same director of Robot Holocaust. ROBOT HOLOCAUST!
Most I imagine by now saw this because of Lenny Bruce who stars in it, with his wife and wrote the original story and perhaps the script too. Proving it is more fun to play the bad guy, Lenny played the heavy's violent hit man. Really, the only highlight in this movie is toward the end when Lenny Bruce, in character, inexplicably takes his suit jacket off during a gun fight. Lenny couldn't afford to damage his suit since he was going to be performing his comedy act in it later that night.
This was made before Bruce hit it big by the mid to late 50s with his TV appearances on shows like Steve Allen's, so it is a nice curiosity. If you dont know who I'm talking about then the only people who will find anything to like about this movie are connoisseurs of low budget movies and study them like others study movies released as part of the Criterion Collection. Afterall, this is from the same director of Robot Holocaust. ROBOT HOLOCAUST!
Did you know
- ConnectionsFeatured in Sleazemania III: The Good, the Bad and the Sleazy (1986)
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 3m(63 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content