...One Third of a Nation...

This film features the horrible realities of tenement housing which was in abundance during the early part of the 20th century. Shocking scenes of death and despair are very evident in the lives of the unfortunate people living in these "rat" holes. Sylvia Sidney is excellent as the crusader fighting against these "buildings of despair" knowing first hand because her own brother became a "victim" of living in these buildings. Leif Erickson is the "rich" landlord "by inheritance" of these "death traps" and joins the battle in tearing them down. The joining of the "poor" and "rich" in the struggle against tenement housing is what makes this film worthwhile to watch. If you are an activist against "injustice" then this is the type of film that will get your "dander" up.

When the story begins, Peter (Leif Erickson) comes upon a burning tenement building. He watches in horror as the bodies pile up and when a small boy is badly injured, he rushes him and his sister, Mary (Sylvia Sidney), to the hospital...vowing to help with the medical expenses. However, later Peter is horrified to learn that he is the owner of this slum and its dilapidated condition was responsible for the fire. He vows to change things...but his family vows to fight him on this. What's to become of the changes? And, what about Mary? After all, Peter has fallen in love with her!

It's interesting that during the Great Depression, most films never mentioned it in any way. And, weirdly, most of the films were about rich, happy folks! A few studios, like Warner and RKO (maker of "....One Third of a Nation"), occasionally made movies about the lower depths of society at the time....well meaning films that pushed for change. As far as this film goes, it does lay it on a bit thick (such as the scenes where the tenement building 'talks' to the boy)...though in spite of a lack of subtlety, it is enjoyable and worth your time.

Using FDR's famous line about seeing one third of a nation ill housed, ill clad and ill fed, One Third Of A Nation deals with the first part of that statement. The film deals with slum tenements in New York City and was shot at Paramount's Astoria Studios using some players who were better known for their stage work mostly at the time the film was made.

For star Sylvia Sidney it was a return to the slums where she played one of her most famous parts in the film version of Sidney Kingsley's Dead End. She lives with mother Edmonia Nolley, father Charles Dingle, and little brother Sidney Lumet. Yes, that is the same Sidney Lumet who grew up and became a top rated director.

After a fire which leaves young Lumet a cripple the owner of the building, in fact the owner of a lot of tenement buildings Leif Erickson develops a social conscience and is determined to tear these slum tenements down and build some decent new housing. He's fought every turn of the way by his sister Muriel Hutchinson and their business manager Percy Waram. But Sylvia's encouragement and an awful tragedy they endure it all works out.

Myron McCormick who at this time concentrated on the stage has a role as the neighborhood radical and rival for Sidney. It was interesting to see Charles Dingle, somewhat unshaven and in a dirty undershirt as a tenement dweller. Normally he'd be cast as the hard hearted plutocrat owner.

One Third Of A Nation is sincere, but a bit too melodramatic. For one thing I can't believe that Erickson is both tied down by his sister and also just didn't go out and become an engineer as he said he would like to have become. His character made little sense to me.

Still Sylvia Sidney's fans will enjoy her performance in her return to the New York slums.

Young Joey Rogers (Sidney Lumet) is injured in a NYC tenement fire. Peter Cortlant (Leif Erickson) is a rich man passing by. He pays for the boy's high priced hospitalization and falls for Joey's older sister Mary Rogers (Sylvia Sidney). Later, he discovers that he owns the rundown building along with several others suffering from recent fires. He inherited the buildings from his father and intends to change course. The media wants a scapegoat. The politicians hold a show hearing. The government gives the run-around. Cortland isn't required to go but goes anyways.

This is more an advocacy than a proper drama. Cortlant is so straight-laced and idealistic that there is limited drama. He's like the idealized character that the filmmaker wants everybody to be. I am surprised to see Sidney Lumet's name. This is apparently one of his few true theatrical acting jobs. He seems to have done most of his early acting on stage and transitioned into directing. All in all, there just isn't enough drama even with the romance.

I wanted to like this film-- I have great regard for Sylvia Sidney and a young Leif Erickson is pretty easy on the eyes-- however, the longer I watched it the more I regretted my choice.

The fault is mostly in the writing which veers joltingly from "message" to "love story" to "horror," and none of them work. The message gets sledgehammered into our brains-- characters keep making the same observations followed by the same speeches. The love story might have been interesting, but Sidney and Erickson spend so much time smiling at one another: Her brother is horribly injured-- smile, smile, smile. His sister is threatening to ruin his plans-- more smiling. They look good smiling, but there's no substance in it-- why should they love each other? It's actually more interesting to imagine Erickson's character is more interest in Sidney's boyfriend as the movie goes along. And it's never clear who gets who.

The horror is deep in this film with the "disturbed" injured brother having morose conversations with the tenement in which he and his sister move after a horrific fire at the other one they lived in-- this gets repeated even more horrifyingly. And what's up with adding horror to message and love story? As I say, to me it just doesn't work.

This is not to say there aren't parts that work-- the secondary characters-- who do much less smiling-- are for the most part well drawn and add well to the film. And, except for the endless smiling, the direction is good and the movie well constructed. But it is no where near enough.

Watch if you must-- but I warned you about the smiling.