Warning, this review contains criticism on the United States of America, reader discretion is advised.
Firstly, the film is well made. On the one hand it starts out slow and some of the acting is sketchy, especially the mother and the reverend brother. Were I more optimistically inclined I would say his portrayal was religious satire, but being realistic, I exclude this point of view; it is hard enough to find religious satire in contemporary Hollywood productions, accordingly the presence of it in Hollywood in 1931 is highly unlikely. On the other hand the technical aspects are great for a production of its time, namely apt use of camera movement and good sound editing for such an early 'talky'.
The film is commendable to any viewer who wants to explore the golden age of Hollywood, the early spoken films and the start of the prison genre.
Now my take on the content of the film, which as previously stated contains some criticism on the ideology and working of the United States, in particular the 'Bible belt' states. The southern states, having lost their right to hold slaves after the ending of the civil war (which did not mean the slavery system was abolished in all forms in the years following the death of Abraham Lincoln), have found a new, just as profitable, way to exploit human beings. This is the only description I can give to the system of the chain gangs.
The scene which conflicted most with my sense of justice was the defense of said chain gang system; a desecration of human rights and glorification of egotistical capitalism. How can a land be 'of the free' if capitalism is more important than individual rights; the effect of the economisation of all aspects of society, while also pretending Adam Smith was right about the free market (the economical crisis of 2008 proved otherwise, as did the one in 1973 and 1929). 'Land of the brave'? Yes, I can definitely see the people who opted to stay in the United States as brave.
Firstly, the film is well made. On the one hand it starts out slow and some of the acting is sketchy, especially the mother and the reverend brother. Were I more optimistically inclined I would say his portrayal was religious satire, but being realistic, I exclude this point of view; it is hard enough to find religious satire in contemporary Hollywood productions, accordingly the presence of it in Hollywood in 1931 is highly unlikely. On the other hand the technical aspects are great for a production of its time, namely apt use of camera movement and good sound editing for such an early 'talky'.
The film is commendable to any viewer who wants to explore the golden age of Hollywood, the early spoken films and the start of the prison genre.
Now my take on the content of the film, which as previously stated contains some criticism on the ideology and working of the United States, in particular the 'Bible belt' states. The southern states, having lost their right to hold slaves after the ending of the civil war (which did not mean the slavery system was abolished in all forms in the years following the death of Abraham Lincoln), have found a new, just as profitable, way to exploit human beings. This is the only description I can give to the system of the chain gangs.
The scene which conflicted most with my sense of justice was the defense of said chain gang system; a desecration of human rights and glorification of egotistical capitalism. How can a land be 'of the free' if capitalism is more important than individual rights; the effect of the economisation of all aspects of society, while also pretending Adam Smith was right about the free market (the economical crisis of 2008 proved otherwise, as did the one in 1973 and 1929). 'Land of the brave'? Yes, I can definitely see the people who opted to stay in the United States as brave.