Hell's Highway

It's hard to tell whether this was an "A" or a "B" flick, since it's got a post-Cimarron Richard Dix (presumably a big star), but dives directly into the sensationalism of its topic (chain gangs). Most of the characterizations are sharp and the Walker-Evans style photography is often brilliant. Charles Middleton (Ming the Merciless) is great as a cagey wacko/spiritualist. Unusually enlightened treatment, for the time, of racial interaction and muted homosexuality (the sissy cook is not unsympathetic). Not a great film, but quite entertaining for its 62 minutes. Makes you curious about director Roland Brown, who only made a handful of films and wrote a few more.

This film isn't well known enough, and its reputation pales beside that of "I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang." That being said, it should be noted that this film was released first and actually received fairly good notices. One can even speculate that Mervyn LeRoy may have seen it - there's one shot of chains being pulled through the shackles that is common to both films.

Hell's Highway opens with newspaper stories depicting chain gang abuses - and unlike most films, it uses real newspapers such as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Richard Dix is "Duke" - a hardened criminal, not an innocent victim of injustice, but it's never mentioned if he's committed any crimes worse than bank robbery. Dix is better here than in some other films in which I've seen his over-emoting - such as "Cimarron" which I've found almost unwatchable.

Early scenes in the film have Charles Middleton as Matthew - Ming the Merciless - as a character who seems to predate John Carradine's "Casey" in "The Grapes of Wrath" in being a rather touched preacher. He even resembles the lanky Carradine and coincidentally, Middleton also happens to appear in 1932's most famous chain gang film. Duke involves Matthew in a plan to aid his escape, but Duke turns back when he sees his younger brother Johnny (played by Tom Brown) has just arrived in the holding pen. While Duke tries to keep his sibling on the straight and narrow, he receives the wrath of his fellow prisoners who think that he's sold out to the screws. C. Henry Gordon, so memorable in a number of Charlie Chan films, is the primary villain, although Oscar Apfel's "Billings" - a contractor relying on convict labor is really the one setting policy. Wonder if he's the one who decided to have the prisoners wear large circular targets on their shirt backs, he's sure proud of his sweat box used for discipline.

Although the story may now seem by-the-numbers, it must have been fresh in 1932 being the first film to depict the horrors of the chain gang. Although not as hard hitting as the Warner film, it's hardly as "viewer friendly" as the much later "Cool Hand Luke." RKO's film may not have broken a thousand chains as did the Warner classic, but it makes a great companion piece, and is one of the best examples of a rival studio attempting to tread on Warner territory. There are some quick cuts, which combined with the running time of only 62 minutes, that give the impression that the film may have been longer before release - Dix was too big a property for a programmer.

This is an entertaining film despite containing all the cliches one could expect to fine in a chaingang movie. Well worth seeing for any movie buff. Richard Dix gives a great performance as Duke Ellis,the leader of the chain gang. His brother Johnny,who idolizes him ,is the newest prisoner on the chain gang for trying to kill the man who ratted on his brother. Duke does all he can to help his younger misguided brother. Despite all the cliches it is entertaining just the same.

To me this film shown on TCM @ 2 wks ago early am! (end of NOV. 03) left such an impact. on me Never Heard or seen before!! . wow..better than I AM A Fugitive From A Chain Gang!! before the code was in progress.. A prison drama depicting the harsh realities & also the racial & sexual innuendoes which awhile later would have been censored: WATCH!!! Observe the cook in the Prison..obviously gay or "Pansy" being slapped on the behind by one of the male wardens.. & later talking about a funeral which he'll never forget, where the Pansies were sooo large"!! & the immortal Louise Beavers visiting her boyfriend in same prison"rolling her eyes" & making it clear that she wishes her "Handy Man" was free.. so she could feel so much better!!!& he sees her & states he"aint well since he ain't had no 'sugar"...wow could not believe my eyes & ears !!& the relationship between the imprisoned brothers..THIS FILM SHOULD BE ON DVD/and or VHS has a lot to say about prisons of the South at that time (early 1930s) & sexual mores & racial attitudes way back then.. should not be missed !an Historic Document!!! How did we let this one pass?? & Rochelle Hudson? gorgeous & beautiful Want to see again..Thanks TCM once more

Joe Arpaio was born the same year this film was released, and perhaps it's where he got some of his backward ideas. "I don't believe in coddling prisoners," says the warden (C. Henry Gordon), as he has them whipped, starved, and tortured in order to utilize them as slave labor to build a road for a state contractor. The film is a wee bit heavy-handed in its call to end prison conditions which "though a throw-back to the Middle Ages, actually exist today", but there are several little things I liked about it:

• The headlines in the opening sequence are from real newspapers, and refer to the Arthur Maillefert case which shocked the nation. On June 3, 1932, Maillefert was put in a shed similar to the one we see in the movie, with a chain wrapped around his neck and wooden stocks around his feet, and he died within an hour. The first article shown is from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "Prison Guards Accused of Murder As Tortured Youth Dies Chained In Sweat Box", and if you search for the next one, "Dark Age Tortures Revealed in Prison Camp Death Quiz", you'll see it's on the front page of the San Francisco Examiner from July 10, 1932. Filmmakers moved quickly; this movie was released September 23, 1932.

• The moment when a guard is about to whip the main character (Richard Dix), but hesitates. The camera pans down and we see a large tattoo on his back with the American flag, and the words "42nd Machine Gun Co. 167th Inf." We don't know much else about this guy and the film doesn't describe too much about his crimes, except that they're numerous and he's "habitual", destined for a life sentence - but finding out that he's a veteran humanizes him, and also points out that criminals have also done positive things in their lives. Given the horrifying outcome of the 'Bonus Army' encampment in Washington D.C. in July, 1932, this image would likely have resonated even more with filmgoers at the time.

• During the jail break the deaf prisoner is hiding in the tall grass, and doesn't see a couple of guys come up behind him. They tell him to "put 'em up", and of course he doesn't because he can't hear them, so they shoot him. It's another case of not knowing everything about someone else, and either misinterpreting or not understanding their actions as a result.

• I loved the treatment of African-American in the film. One wisely comments that the guards are more concerned with the way mules are treated than convicts, because mules cost money and the men are free. Another says to his visiting wife that "Sweetheart, you don't how tired a man does get when he don't get no loving," which in a simple way helps us empathize. I also loved the scenes where we hear groups singing the blues, and during one of them, an artist drawing a few funeral scenes.

• Lastly, something about seeing C. Henry Gordon trying to learn the violin at night using the "E-Z Method" made me smile; perhaps despite his inhumane ways, the film tries to point out he's human too.

I was less enamored with a few comments about women, one of which being that a lot of crime is done on behalf of women, and another that prison is a good way to escape being married to three women, since, you know, women are such balls and chains themselves. "I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang", also from 1932, is a better film with more emotional power, but this one is worth seeing too.