A good entry in the early prison-drama cycle.Spencer Tracy is good as the cocky inmate.Arthur Byron has an unusual part as the sympathetic warden of Sing Sing.There aren't too many of them in movies.The action sequences in the movie are expertly handled by Curtiz.Bette Davis does a good job in a small part.Louis Calhern is suitably slimy.The ending is typically of the times in which it were made.
45 Reviews
Smart and Stylish, especially for 1932!
CountessM15 September 2002
One of the best movies from the early era of sound. Both Spencer Tracy and Bette Davis display the wonderful talents that made them legends. In a time when most films were simplistic and performances still laced with pantomime, this movie truly stands out. The script is clever and engaging and director Michael Curtiz displays his vision and prowess in creating one of the first great crime films.
Another success for the pre-code Warner Bros. studio
ALauff14 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This overachieving prison drama is yet another success for the pre-code Warner Bros. studio, which seemed to churn out brisk, deceptively artful crime films like this one by the dozen. Typically, the film's force derives from raw depictions of societal conditions coupled with blunt performances, montage-heavy storytelling, inspired use of light and shadow, and brash, innovative sound design. 20,000 Years's title sequence begins with a pan across a row of prisoners, each identified by a blown-up numeral designating his sentence. The film opens proper with a train containing cocky new inmate Tom Connors (Spencer Tracy) hurtling towards Sing Sing, the central conflict between penitentiary depersonalization and a larger-than-life personality set into motion in just two scenes. An avuncular warden (Arthur Byron) embodies the other half of this dialectic, a trusting, unfailingly decent man whose implausible kindness flies in the face of Hollywood logic relative to jail-keepers. (The story, adapted from real-life Sing Sing warden Lewis E. Lawes's memoirs, hinges on a preposterous act of compassion that simply must have been embellished in the retelling.) As mentioned, photography by Barney McGill is stellar throughout, especially during an escape attempt that shifts perspective between the prisoners and their captors with astonishing skill, and boasts a slyly subversive motif of guards' shadows menacingly creeping closer to foil the plot. Michael Curtiz has an innate gift for knowing where to place the camera and his editing acumen is evidenced by a montage of Tracy's glum face superimposed over strictly ordered prison routines that covers a month's time. While 20,000 Years might not be in the same class as The Public Enemy or The Roaring Twenties, its final scenes have a cold, clear logic that anticipate noir and the final shot is a wavering counterpoint to one of the warden's sturdy philosophies that draws a fitting close to the Tracy-Byron relationship. This is another intelligent entertainment from a productive period in studio film-making that doesn't belabor its social relevance but moves with an assured touch.
A standout among the precode prison films...
AlsExGal26 April 2023
... and there were several. Some highlighted the brutality of the incarcerated men, others the brutality of their situation, several highlighted both.
It's based on a book by the warden at Sing Sing, portrayed by Arthur Byron who plays the role tough but fair. Tommy Conners (Spencer Tracy) is sentenced to 5-30 years for robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. He arrives with a bad attitude, and no wonder as he is given a prison uniform big enough for three Spencer Tracys. He is confined to his cell and, true to the warden's prediction, is eventually happy to work on the rock pile just to get out of that cell.
Tommy is still determined to get out though and falls in with a group planning to break out, but when the actual time comes to escape he refuses to go along with the escapees, who wind up dying in the attempt. This isn't to say he's a reformed guy at this point. I think he is somewhat confused as to why he refused himself, and attributes it to Saturdays being bad luck for him. However it is probably that he is beginning to see a correlation between his actions and consequences, and he is unsure about the consequences of a prison break.
Over time, Tommy and the warden both come to the conclusion that the other is not such a bad guy. And then comes the news that Tommy's girlfriend Fay (Bette Davis) has been injured in an automobile accident and is not expected to live. At this point the warden makes a decision that should have been suicide for his career no matter what happens. Complications ensue. Where Warner's earlier film "I Was a Fugitive From a Chain Gang" revealed the brutality of prison, this film suggested a remedy.
James Cagney was supposed to play the role of Tommy, but he and WB were having one of the first of their many contract disagreements, so Tracy got the job since he had a resume of playing convicts both on stage and screen, and was thus borrowed from Fox. Once again director Michael Curtiz paid attention to photographic detail by working with actual photographs of Ossining prison for art design and using the sets for the 1930 film The Big House, which were still standing at MGM.
The result is one of those relatively short but powerful precodes Warner Brothers was known for.
It's based on a book by the warden at Sing Sing, portrayed by Arthur Byron who plays the role tough but fair. Tommy Conners (Spencer Tracy) is sentenced to 5-30 years for robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. He arrives with a bad attitude, and no wonder as he is given a prison uniform big enough for three Spencer Tracys. He is confined to his cell and, true to the warden's prediction, is eventually happy to work on the rock pile just to get out of that cell.
Tommy is still determined to get out though and falls in with a group planning to break out, but when the actual time comes to escape he refuses to go along with the escapees, who wind up dying in the attempt. This isn't to say he's a reformed guy at this point. I think he is somewhat confused as to why he refused himself, and attributes it to Saturdays being bad luck for him. However it is probably that he is beginning to see a correlation between his actions and consequences, and he is unsure about the consequences of a prison break.
Over time, Tommy and the warden both come to the conclusion that the other is not such a bad guy. And then comes the news that Tommy's girlfriend Fay (Bette Davis) has been injured in an automobile accident and is not expected to live. At this point the warden makes a decision that should have been suicide for his career no matter what happens. Complications ensue. Where Warner's earlier film "I Was a Fugitive From a Chain Gang" revealed the brutality of prison, this film suggested a remedy.
James Cagney was supposed to play the role of Tommy, but he and WB were having one of the first of their many contract disagreements, so Tracy got the job since he had a resume of playing convicts both on stage and screen, and was thus borrowed from Fox. Once again director Michael Curtiz paid attention to photographic detail by working with actual photographs of Ossining prison for art design and using the sets for the 1930 film The Big House, which were still standing at MGM.
The result is one of those relatively short but powerful precodes Warner Brothers was known for.
very early Tracy and Davis
blanche-221 August 2011
Spencer Tracy is on death row in "20,000 Years in Sing Sing," a 1932 film from Warner Brothers. Tracy here plays Tom Connors, basically a Cagney role, an arrogant tough guy who plans on taking over the prison. He soon finds that he can't. When he finds out that his girlfriend (Davis) is in critical condition after a car accident, the warden risks his reputation by letting Tom out to see her. The warden is sure that he'll return. But will he? The studio didn't know what to do with Tracy when he first started there - he looked like a character actor, so he was put into Wallace Beery parts and roles like this until they figured him out. His authoritative acting made him suitable for dramatic leads.
Nevertheless, Tracy pulls off this role, and Bette Davis is adorable as his girlfriend Fay. Lyle Talbot is on hand as a fellow prisoner, and Arthur Byron has a good turn as the warden, whom he makes decent and sympathetic.
This is no "I Was a Fugitive From a Chain Gang," but it's pretty good.
Nevertheless, Tracy pulls off this role, and Bette Davis is adorable as his girlfriend Fay. Lyle Talbot is on hand as a fellow prisoner, and Arthur Byron has a good turn as the warden, whom he makes decent and sympathetic.
This is no "I Was a Fugitive From a Chain Gang," but it's pretty good.
Graphic
tedg10 November 2006
As I write this, "Shawshank Redemption" is IMDb's number two top movie of all time. I find that absolutely fascinating.
The prison movie isn't quite a genre to itself because the story possibilities vary so. But there is a definite collection of cinematic devices that are used in nearly all of them, only "Silence of the Lambs" excepted that I can recall.
This film may be the first to set that collection of cinematic devices. It has a lame redemption story and quite ineffective acting styles. But the way the story is told in images is masterful. The filmmaker is Michael Curtiz, who you will know as the man who took a B movie and framed it beautifully as "Casablanca."
His is an approach very much like the "graphic novel" trend sweeping across Hollywood right now. Simple compositions, starkly presented to be easy to read. A consistent pulse in the way scenes change. Strict attention to the way the brightness is modulated slowly throughout the thing. And of course within this, some shots of prison life that have since become almost mandatory. (Thank God, that slamming door sound effect hadn't found its way into movies yet.)
So, if you are interested in cinematic storytelling, this is something of a must for you.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
The prison movie isn't quite a genre to itself because the story possibilities vary so. But there is a definite collection of cinematic devices that are used in nearly all of them, only "Silence of the Lambs" excepted that I can recall.
This film may be the first to set that collection of cinematic devices. It has a lame redemption story and quite ineffective acting styles. But the way the story is told in images is masterful. The filmmaker is Michael Curtiz, who you will know as the man who took a B movie and framed it beautifully as "Casablanca."
His is an approach very much like the "graphic novel" trend sweeping across Hollywood right now. Simple compositions, starkly presented to be easy to read. A consistent pulse in the way scenes change. Strict attention to the way the brightness is modulated slowly throughout the thing. And of course within this, some shots of prison life that have since become almost mandatory. (Thank God, that slamming door sound effect hadn't found its way into movies yet.)
So, if you are interested in cinematic storytelling, this is something of a must for you.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
Retains enough dramatic intensity to keep it watchable
JamesHitchcock6 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
20,000 Years in Sing Sing" is set in the notorious jail in New York State; the title refers to the combined length of the sentences being served by all the inmates of the prison. It was based upon a book written by Lewis E. Lawes, the warden of Sing Sing at the time the movie was made. The character of Paul Long in the film is a thinly-disguised portrait of Warden Lawes. Some prison dramas from this era, notably "I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang", highlighted harsh prison conditions and called for reform, but this one is generally supportive of the system.
The film opens with a gangster named Tommy Connors arriving in Sing Sing after being convicted of robbery and assault with a lethal weapon. His associate, Joe Finn, attempts to bribe the warden to get Tommy special treatment, but Warden Long indignantly refuses. (Apparently at one time it was commonplace for wealthy or well-connected prisoners in Sing Sing to use their money or influence to obtain special privileges, but Lawes and his predecessor had put an end to such malpractices). At first Tommy proves a cocky, troublesome and rebellious prisoner, but his attitude gradually changes under the influence of Long's discipline.
In the early part of the film Long seems a strict-but-fair disciplinarian, but we see a more liberal side to his character when a telegram is received stating that Tommy's girlfriend, Fay, has been seriously injured in a car accident. He grants Tommy a 24 hour leave to see her, on Tommy giving him his word of honour to return at the end of that period. On arrival, however, Tommy gets involved in an altercation with Finn, who has been paying attentions to Fay. A fight breaks out which ends with Finn being shot dead. Tommy now has to decide whether to keep his promise to Long and return to the jail, even though he knows that to do so could result in his conviction and execution for murder. The fatal shot was in fact fired by Fay, but her confession is not believed by the authorities, who think that she is just trying to shield her boyfriend.
Spencer Tracy, who normally played the hero, unusually plays a criminal, although in this case one who eventually reforms. Indeed, by the end of the film Tommy has redeemed himself to such an extent that he can be regarded as the film's hero. This means that the role cannot have been an easy one to play, but Tracy handles it well, making us believe in all the stages through which Tommy passes, from arrogant thug to man of integrity. We also get to see a young, pre-stardom Bette Davis as Fay.
In its subject-matter and plot the film seems to prefigure the film noir style which was to evolve in the following decade, although it lacks the expressionist photography which was so characteristic of noir. Its main weakness is that the plot is not always easy to follow, but Tracy's performance and the way in which director Michael Curtiz handles Tommy's central dilemma- whether to stay true to his word at the possible cost of his life- means that it retains enough dramatic intensity to keep it watchable even today, more than seventy years after it was made. 7/10
The film opens with a gangster named Tommy Connors arriving in Sing Sing after being convicted of robbery and assault with a lethal weapon. His associate, Joe Finn, attempts to bribe the warden to get Tommy special treatment, but Warden Long indignantly refuses. (Apparently at one time it was commonplace for wealthy or well-connected prisoners in Sing Sing to use their money or influence to obtain special privileges, but Lawes and his predecessor had put an end to such malpractices). At first Tommy proves a cocky, troublesome and rebellious prisoner, but his attitude gradually changes under the influence of Long's discipline.
In the early part of the film Long seems a strict-but-fair disciplinarian, but we see a more liberal side to his character when a telegram is received stating that Tommy's girlfriend, Fay, has been seriously injured in a car accident. He grants Tommy a 24 hour leave to see her, on Tommy giving him his word of honour to return at the end of that period. On arrival, however, Tommy gets involved in an altercation with Finn, who has been paying attentions to Fay. A fight breaks out which ends with Finn being shot dead. Tommy now has to decide whether to keep his promise to Long and return to the jail, even though he knows that to do so could result in his conviction and execution for murder. The fatal shot was in fact fired by Fay, but her confession is not believed by the authorities, who think that she is just trying to shield her boyfriend.
Spencer Tracy, who normally played the hero, unusually plays a criminal, although in this case one who eventually reforms. Indeed, by the end of the film Tommy has redeemed himself to such an extent that he can be regarded as the film's hero. This means that the role cannot have been an easy one to play, but Tracy handles it well, making us believe in all the stages through which Tommy passes, from arrogant thug to man of integrity. We also get to see a young, pre-stardom Bette Davis as Fay.
In its subject-matter and plot the film seems to prefigure the film noir style which was to evolve in the following decade, although it lacks the expressionist photography which was so characteristic of noir. Its main weakness is that the plot is not always easy to follow, but Tracy's performance and the way in which director Michael Curtiz handles Tommy's central dilemma- whether to stay true to his word at the possible cost of his life- means that it retains enough dramatic intensity to keep it watchable even today, more than seventy years after it was made. 7/10
Even a Warner Brothers gangster can have integrity.
mark.waltz27 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The very same year that Barbara Stanwyck went up the river in "Ladies They Talk About", Spencer Tracy took the Metro North up to Sing Sing. He's guilty of many heinous crimes, and has a 5-30 year stretch for a robbery charge with assault and battery. But if Tracy has his way, his "visit" to Sing Sing will have him whistling a happy tune. He doesn't count on warden Arthur Byron stepping on his toes, turning down his crooked attorney's (Louis Calhern) request for special treatment. After months of confinement in his cell (having been told he'd be longing for the rock pile), Tracy gets out, grabs his sledge hammer, and is happy to finally see the light of day. Eventually, his better behavior lands him a job working in the shoe department.
When Calhern begins to put the moves in on Tracy's gal (a young Bette Davis), Tracy plots his breakout, but of course, it happens on Saturday, which he considers his "unlucky" day. The warden, trusting Tracy, gives him a temporary leave when he learns that Davis has been in a car accident and will probably not survive. Tracy intends to return (even if facing execution), but is involved in a murder, and the warden faces the wrath of the press and considers resigning his job.
This prison drama doesn't totally sugarcoat conditions in the penal system, but something tells me that even in Pre-Code Hollywood, there was more going on at Sing Sing than what is presented here. An honest warden, strict but essentially kindly guards, and the privilege of temporary leaves made me a bit cynical. Still, when you've got an actor like Tracy, a rising star like Davis, some sizzling dialog, and tight direction by Michael Curtiz, the result is a cracking crime drama that made Warner Brothers movies the most realistic and gritty before that nasty production code come along and took the sass out of their sails.
When Calhern begins to put the moves in on Tracy's gal (a young Bette Davis), Tracy plots his breakout, but of course, it happens on Saturday, which he considers his "unlucky" day. The warden, trusting Tracy, gives him a temporary leave when he learns that Davis has been in a car accident and will probably not survive. Tracy intends to return (even if facing execution), but is involved in a murder, and the warden faces the wrath of the press and considers resigning his job.
This prison drama doesn't totally sugarcoat conditions in the penal system, but something tells me that even in Pre-Code Hollywood, there was more going on at Sing Sing than what is presented here. An honest warden, strict but essentially kindly guards, and the privilege of temporary leaves made me a bit cynical. Still, when you've got an actor like Tracy, a rising star like Davis, some sizzling dialog, and tight direction by Michael Curtiz, the result is a cracking crime drama that made Warner Brothers movies the most realistic and gritty before that nasty production code come along and took the sass out of their sails.
"Sounds like a chop suey joint."
utgard1430 July 2015
Great Pre-Code prison flick from Warner Bros. stars Spencer Tracy as an arrogant hoodlum sent to prison where he learns he's not the big shot he thought he was. Gradually he's humbled by a stern but fair warden and we learn he's not such a bad guy after all underneath all that tough talk. Tracy's good in an early role. The fine cast backing him up includes Bette Davis, Louis Calhern, Lyle Talbot, and Arthur Byron. This was the only screen pairing of Tracy and Davis. Bette's likable and pretty here with one nice scene to display her melodramatic acting chops. This might be the first prison movie to use the plot device of a convict being granted 24-hour leave for but doesn't return on time for one reason or another. It would be used in other prison dramas in the years to come. I'm not certain this is the first but I think it might be. It's also notable for having many scenes filmed on location in Sing Sing. It's solid entertainment that any fan of the types of crime dramas WB was known for in the '30s will enjoy.
A standout among the prison-gangster films of its era
vincentlynch-moonoi25 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Although I hadn't seen it in many years, this was a film that I remembered. Some of the scenes are simply unforgettable, even including the opening credits where as the convicts walk past their number of years follow them in white letters, leading up to "20,000 YEARS" and then the main title. A number of things made this film stand above the typical gangster flicks of the time. For example, much of the dialog is rather sophisticated for a prison yarn. A few select scenes seemed to be filmed on location along the Hudson River.
I always saw Spencer Tracy's breakout film as being "Fury", made 4 years later, but after seeing this again, I would have to say this was a dramatic breakthrough for him. And, here he wasn't as guilty of talking loudly to look tough or "in charge" (as he often did in "Riffraff", for example).
Time does take its toll, however. There was clearly part of a scene missing from the print supplied to TCM, roughly at the 26 minute point. when the Tracy character is being tested so as to determine what his job should be.
I couldn't find anything online to support the idea that Sing Sing allowed a few prisoners out on the honor system, although I did find an article dating to the 1920s that supported the concept in general, although it did not mention Sing Sing. So, while this part of the plot seemed illogical...well, perhaps. I have to admit that it was handled well in the script. James Cagney had been the original star slated to star in this film, but I can't imagine him pulling this off as well as did Tracy.
One thing that particularly interested me was the supporting role by Louis Calhern...the earliest film I have seen him in...and in this case the slick villain lawyer. Two other performances worth mentioning here are that of Bette Davis as Tracy's love interest...really quite beautiful here; and that of the warden, played superbly by Arthur Byron.
A fine movie. Thank god it was Spencer Tracy and not Jimmy Cagney.
I always saw Spencer Tracy's breakout film as being "Fury", made 4 years later, but after seeing this again, I would have to say this was a dramatic breakthrough for him. And, here he wasn't as guilty of talking loudly to look tough or "in charge" (as he often did in "Riffraff", for example).
Time does take its toll, however. There was clearly part of a scene missing from the print supplied to TCM, roughly at the 26 minute point. when the Tracy character is being tested so as to determine what his job should be.
I couldn't find anything online to support the idea that Sing Sing allowed a few prisoners out on the honor system, although I did find an article dating to the 1920s that supported the concept in general, although it did not mention Sing Sing. So, while this part of the plot seemed illogical...well, perhaps. I have to admit that it was handled well in the script. James Cagney had been the original star slated to star in this film, but I can't imagine him pulling this off as well as did Tracy.
One thing that particularly interested me was the supporting role by Louis Calhern...the earliest film I have seen him in...and in this case the slick villain lawyer. Two other performances worth mentioning here are that of Bette Davis as Tracy's love interest...really quite beautiful here; and that of the warden, played superbly by Arthur Byron.
A fine movie. Thank god it was Spencer Tracy and not Jimmy Cagney.
Warden, I never broke my word, see - not even to a rat, and I won't break it now to a square guy.
hitchcockthelegend9 February 2020
20,000 Years in Sing Sing is directed by Michael Curtiz and adapted to screenplay by Wilson Mizner, Brown Holmes, Courtney Terrett and Robert Lord from the book written by Warden Lewis E. Lawes. It stars Spencer Tracy, Bette Davis, Lyle Talbot, Arthur Byron, Grant Mitchell and Warren Hymer. Music is by Bernhard Kaun and cinematography by Barney McGill.
Cocksure hoodlum Tom Connors (Tracy) enters Sing Sing Prison and is instantly disrespectful towards those in authority. Could it be that the tough - but compassionate for reform - warden can put Connors on the right road?.
Out of Warner Brothers, this crime/prison melodrama manages to rise above its social conscience heart to become gutsy entertainment. This is due in most part to a committed turn from Tracy, the real location photography, the use of real prisoners for key prison scenes and the sense of realism brought about by the adaption from real life Sing Sing Warden Lawes' literature source. Curtiz manages to keep it from being a torrid "message" movie, even keeping a grim feel to proceedings, though his one failing is not to rein in the sometimes over the top perf from Davis as Tom's love interest moll. 7/10
Cocksure hoodlum Tom Connors (Tracy) enters Sing Sing Prison and is instantly disrespectful towards those in authority. Could it be that the tough - but compassionate for reform - warden can put Connors on the right road?.
Out of Warner Brothers, this crime/prison melodrama manages to rise above its social conscience heart to become gutsy entertainment. This is due in most part to a committed turn from Tracy, the real location photography, the use of real prisoners for key prison scenes and the sense of realism brought about by the adaption from real life Sing Sing Warden Lawes' literature source. Curtiz manages to keep it from being a torrid "message" movie, even keeping a grim feel to proceedings, though his one failing is not to rein in the sometimes over the top perf from Davis as Tom's love interest moll. 7/10
Betty Davis looked Fantastic
whpratt130 August 2005
Lived in Ossing, New York for a few years and lived only a few blocks from Sing Sing, I found this film to be quite interesting and very realistic. The photography inside and outside the prison showed just what Sing Sing was like in the early 30's. Betty Davis (Fay Wilson,) "Hell's House",'32, looked like a knock out in those days, as a very sexy looking blond that caused Spencer Tracy(Tom Connors),"Bottoms Up",34, to say to her that, '"She was So Hot", she drove him Crazy with Desire". Tom Connors was a big shot crook who thought he could control Sing Sing and make it an apartment suite. Louis Calhern, (Finny),"Duck Soup",'33, was a crooked lawyer for Tom Connors and also decided to hit on sexy Fay Wilson, while his client was working in Sing Sing on the Rock Pile. Great film classic, with great veteran actors and Betty Davis looking her very best.
Watch for Tracy, Davis, and some of the moments in Sing Sing
gbill-748771 April 2017
One of the biggest draws of this movie is that it features a couple of legends, Spencer Tracy and Bette Davis, a little bit before they hit it big. Tracy plays a big-time criminal who is imprisoned, and Davis is his girlfriend waiting for him on the outside. Both turn in good performances, with Tracy in particular playing the scenes in which he's called upon to be aggressive well. Partially filmed on location in Sing Sing, director Michael Curtiz does a good job of making use of the setting and varying his camera angles. I loved how he superimposed the number of years the convicts had served while they were walking around at the beginning and end of the film.
As for the story, I have to say, it goes beyond plausibility at times relative to how respectfully the inmates are treated. Real life Sing Sing warden Lewis E. Lawes had creative control over the movie, and that may have played a role in that. I liked how there is a sense of honor from both the screen warden (Arthur Byron) and Tracy's character, even though they are on different sides of the law. I also liked the touching simplicity of some of the scenes on death row towards the end. It's not a great film, but it's certainly watchable, and good stuff.
As for the story, I have to say, it goes beyond plausibility at times relative to how respectfully the inmates are treated. Real life Sing Sing warden Lewis E. Lawes had creative control over the movie, and that may have played a role in that. I liked how there is a sense of honor from both the screen warden (Arthur Byron) and Tracy's character, even though they are on different sides of the law. I also liked the touching simplicity of some of the scenes on death row towards the end. It's not a great film, but it's certainly watchable, and good stuff.
Spence the mug
bkoganbing25 January 2006
It's unfortunate that the one and only teaming of Spencer Tracy and Bette Davis was early in their careers when neither really had a chance to show what they were capable of.
Tracy was under contract to Fox at this time and Fox loaned him to Warner Brothers and at that time Tracy was playing all kinds of mug parts. Here he does a role that James Cagney must have turned down over at Warner Brothers.
Tracy is a gangster who's freshly arrived at Sing Sing doing a five to thirty year stretch for some unnamed offense. He's accompanied by Louis Calhern his crooked politician attorney. While Tracy's being processed in, Calhern is upstairs trying to bribe warden Arthur Byron. It doesn't work and Tracy begins life at Sing Sing on the wrong foot.
Gradually things warm up between the two of them, Tracy and Byron and Byron gives Tracy a 24 hour furlough from Sing Sing on the honor system. While in New York Tracy and Calhern mix it up, because Calhern's now on the make for Tracy's girlfriend Bette Davis.
Now one could argue that this was an example of progressive thinking on the warden's part. Stuff like that just wasn't done back in the day, in fact some "progressive" release policies are what kept Michael Dukakis from becoming president.
Not even players of the caliber of Tracy and Davis could make me swallow this one. I will say that Louis Calhern is the best one in the film, he is one sleazebag for the ages.
In fact 20,000 Years in Sing Sing only gets as high a rating as it does because of Tracy and Davis. Good thing Davis fought for better roles and Tracy's potential was only really explored after he got to MGM.
Tracy was under contract to Fox at this time and Fox loaned him to Warner Brothers and at that time Tracy was playing all kinds of mug parts. Here he does a role that James Cagney must have turned down over at Warner Brothers.
Tracy is a gangster who's freshly arrived at Sing Sing doing a five to thirty year stretch for some unnamed offense. He's accompanied by Louis Calhern his crooked politician attorney. While Tracy's being processed in, Calhern is upstairs trying to bribe warden Arthur Byron. It doesn't work and Tracy begins life at Sing Sing on the wrong foot.
Gradually things warm up between the two of them, Tracy and Byron and Byron gives Tracy a 24 hour furlough from Sing Sing on the honor system. While in New York Tracy and Calhern mix it up, because Calhern's now on the make for Tracy's girlfriend Bette Davis.
Now one could argue that this was an example of progressive thinking on the warden's part. Stuff like that just wasn't done back in the day, in fact some "progressive" release policies are what kept Michael Dukakis from becoming president.
Not even players of the caliber of Tracy and Davis could make me swallow this one. I will say that Louis Calhern is the best one in the film, he is one sleazebag for the ages.
In fact 20,000 Years in Sing Sing only gets as high a rating as it does because of Tracy and Davis. Good thing Davis fought for better roles and Tracy's potential was only really explored after he got to MGM.
Better than average prison drama.
michaelRokeefe27 April 2000
Can you imagine Spenser Tracy as a bad guy? Well he is not as bad as he would like to think. He plays tough guy Tommie Connors, who thinks his connections on the outside will make his prison term an easy one. Think again. A stern, but kind hearted warden and a faithful girlfriend are key figures in the plot.
This is the only time Tracy and Bette Davis shared the screen. The younger Davis was quite eye catching this early in her career. Her scenes with Tracy seemed magical and romantic. Also in this jailhouse drama are Lyle Talbot, Louis Calhern and Grant Mitchell. The famed Michael Curtiz directed. The title doesn't make sense until the final moment before the credits.
This is the only time Tracy and Bette Davis shared the screen. The younger Davis was quite eye catching this early in her career. Her scenes with Tracy seemed magical and romantic. Also in this jailhouse drama are Lyle Talbot, Louis Calhern and Grant Mitchell. The famed Michael Curtiz directed. The title doesn't make sense until the final moment before the credits.
An ambitious project slipped into confusion
marko-1578 October 2007
This is a story about good-hearted crook Tommy Connors (Spencer Tracy), the warden of the prison he's in (Arthur Byron) and his girlfriend Fay Wilson (Bette Davis) in that order of importance. The warden agenda of order and fair treatment initially brings him in conflict with Tommy, but after Tommy realizes there is no other way, they get along much better. Warden even lets him to visit Fay in distress, which has fatal consequences.
The whole film is an ambitious attempt to describe situation in prisons, relations between inmates and the system and between inmates and beloved ones outside the prison. It indeed gives us insight into this issues, however the story lacks coherence. Because of poor screenplay and uninventive direction we are just jumping between different scenes. Furthermore, even after I watched corresponding scenes several times, I still do not get what exactly happened to Fay and what was her real medical state.
The only character that displays considerable inner feelings is well described by Spencer Tracy's fine acting. But I miss more depth from other two main characters. Bette Davis is pale portraying Fay, which is - to my amazement - presented as a refined girl. Despite Bette Davis does know how to make something even from seemingly minor characters, like the character of Arlene in largely underestimated film Fog over Frisco (1934), there is simply nothing seriously to act. Fortunately, she fought hard for better roles and showed us her abilities in later films. The rest of the crew is easily recognized as a standard reliable Warner Bros troupe which almost invisibly slips from one film to another.
It is worth watching Spencer Tracy in his early acting role (not so for Bette Davis) and for the objective review of prison life in 1930s. Even if this does not seems much, I think a good film lover should see it for a record.
The whole film is an ambitious attempt to describe situation in prisons, relations between inmates and the system and between inmates and beloved ones outside the prison. It indeed gives us insight into this issues, however the story lacks coherence. Because of poor screenplay and uninventive direction we are just jumping between different scenes. Furthermore, even after I watched corresponding scenes several times, I still do not get what exactly happened to Fay and what was her real medical state.
The only character that displays considerable inner feelings is well described by Spencer Tracy's fine acting. But I miss more depth from other two main characters. Bette Davis is pale portraying Fay, which is - to my amazement - presented as a refined girl. Despite Bette Davis does know how to make something even from seemingly minor characters, like the character of Arlene in largely underestimated film Fog over Frisco (1934), there is simply nothing seriously to act. Fortunately, she fought hard for better roles and showed us her abilities in later films. The rest of the crew is easily recognized as a standard reliable Warner Bros troupe which almost invisibly slips from one film to another.
It is worth watching Spencer Tracy in his early acting role (not so for Bette Davis) and for the objective review of prison life in 1930s. Even if this does not seems much, I think a good film lover should see it for a record.
Prison Trouble for Spencer Tracy
wes-connors6 August 2011
After several assaults with a deadly weapon, gangster Spencer Tracy (as Thomas "Tommy" Connors) goes to spend 5-30 years in New York's "Sing Sing" prison. At first, Mr. Tracy good-naturedly jokes about jail. But he loses his cool when the clothing is too baggy, and punches out a policeman. Tracy is made to wear his underwear - long johns, actually, and nobody changed the scripted line about how Tracy's legs made him look like Marlene Dietrich, after the wardrobe change...
Tracy is allowed kissing time with shapely blonde girlfriend Bette Davis (as Fay Wilson). He tries to get along with reform-minded warden Arthur Byron (as Paul Long) and stay out of trouble with sneaky inmate Lyle Talbot (as Bud Saunders). For responding well, Tracy is allowed time out of jail to see Davis. Unfortunately, this leads to bigger trouble for Tracy "20,000 Years in Sing Sing" are the total years the inmates are serving there. This was the only pairing of Tracy and Davis.
****** 20,000 Years in Sing Sing (12/24/32) Michael Curtiz ~ Spencer Tracy, Bette Davis, Arthur Byron, Lyle Talbot
Tracy is allowed kissing time with shapely blonde girlfriend Bette Davis (as Fay Wilson). He tries to get along with reform-minded warden Arthur Byron (as Paul Long) and stay out of trouble with sneaky inmate Lyle Talbot (as Bud Saunders). For responding well, Tracy is allowed time out of jail to see Davis. Unfortunately, this leads to bigger trouble for Tracy "20,000 Years in Sing Sing" are the total years the inmates are serving there. This was the only pairing of Tracy and Davis.
****** 20,000 Years in Sing Sing (12/24/32) Michael Curtiz ~ Spencer Tracy, Bette Davis, Arthur Byron, Lyle Talbot
Early prison drama benefits from direction by Michael Curtiz...
Doylenf4 December 2007
Warner Bros. began their grim social dramas in the '30s and 20,000 YEARS IN SING SING is a good companion piece to their other blockbuster drama I WAS A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG.
If this one had been made ten years later, it would have starred Humphrey Bogart (a much more convincing tough guy prisoner than Tracy), and Ann Sheridan would have played the gangster's moll. Here the roles are essayed by SPENCER TRACY and BETTE DAVIS, both of them effective although not as well cast as Bogart and Sheridan would have been.
Tracy is the swaggering bully who thinks life owes him something, even in prison, and only after some hardships behind prison walls does he begin to respond to the humanity of a good warden. All of the prison scenes are well done and probably are a true reflection of what life behind bars was like during this time period. LYLE TALBOT has a good supporting role as a rebellious prisoner bent on making a break and LOUIS CALHERN is fine as Joe Finn, a con man who gets his comeuppance from Tracy and Davis in a well staged fight scene.
Good, grim social drama has all the usual melodramatic overtones of the '30s dramas but still packs a punch even though it's a time capsule of prison life then. There is virtually no background music throughout unless montages are being shown, something that would change drastically in just a few more years.
If this one had been made ten years later, it would have starred Humphrey Bogart (a much more convincing tough guy prisoner than Tracy), and Ann Sheridan would have played the gangster's moll. Here the roles are essayed by SPENCER TRACY and BETTE DAVIS, both of them effective although not as well cast as Bogart and Sheridan would have been.
Tracy is the swaggering bully who thinks life owes him something, even in prison, and only after some hardships behind prison walls does he begin to respond to the humanity of a good warden. All of the prison scenes are well done and probably are a true reflection of what life behind bars was like during this time period. LYLE TALBOT has a good supporting role as a rebellious prisoner bent on making a break and LOUIS CALHERN is fine as Joe Finn, a con man who gets his comeuppance from Tracy and Davis in a well staged fight scene.
Good, grim social drama has all the usual melodramatic overtones of the '30s dramas but still packs a punch even though it's a time capsule of prison life then. There is virtually no background music throughout unless montages are being shown, something that would change drastically in just a few more years.
Very Good Movie - Worth a Look
mcalfieri15 February 2017
I watched this movie for the first time last night. I was blown away by the acting of Tracy and Arthur Byron (who plays the warden at Sing Sing). Byron has a commanding voice (he was a famous stage actor) and it is well used here. Director Curtiz obviously liked him because Byron gets a lot of screen time. There are a lot of reaction shots from Byron and Curtiz lets the camera linger on him - his thoughtful face fills the screen. Bette Davis is surprisingly feminine and very sexy. Her characters got edgier later in her career. Here she is very attractive and interesting to watch. The acting from the other supporting actors is not very good and the script is bad. The script simply does not make sense in places. Rockcliffe Fellowes plays Tracy's friend near the end of the picture. Fellowes was the excellent star of 1915's Regeneration (Raoul Walsh dir.)but his career nosedived in talkies. He is worth seeing. If you like pre-Code drama this is definitely worth a look.
One of the better prison movies.
planktonrules5 April 2018
Like so many films made during Hollywood's classic era, this one was re-made just a few years later as "Castle on the Hudson" (with John Garfield). Both are quite good but I prefer this original film...slightly.
The film begins with Tommy Connors (Spencer Tracy) arriving at Sing Sing. He's cocky and assumes that with his connections he'll get all sorts of special privileges. The warden (Arthur Byron) puts Tommy in his place...and informs him that if he doesn't want to work or wear a prison uniform, he didn't have to...even if that meant going outside in the winter in rags! Eventually, Tommy gets with the program and develops a grudging respect for the warden...and vice-versa. So how does this new-found respect end up backfiring for both of them? Watch the picture.
The acting in this one is simply wonderful. Tracy, as usual, is great but so is the supporting cast. The script also is quite nice...and make for an enjoyable viewing experience.
The film begins with Tommy Connors (Spencer Tracy) arriving at Sing Sing. He's cocky and assumes that with his connections he'll get all sorts of special privileges. The warden (Arthur Byron) puts Tommy in his place...and informs him that if he doesn't want to work or wear a prison uniform, he didn't have to...even if that meant going outside in the winter in rags! Eventually, Tommy gets with the program and develops a grudging respect for the warden...and vice-versa. So how does this new-found respect end up backfiring for both of them? Watch the picture.
The acting in this one is simply wonderful. Tracy, as usual, is great but so is the supporting cast. The script also is quite nice...and make for an enjoyable viewing experience.
Tough humanity
TheLittleSongbird9 March 2020
There were many reasons for wanting to see '20,000 Years in Sing Sing' in the first place. There are some fine prison films out there, old and new. Spencer Tracy and Bette Davis, both in early roles in their only film together, have both been great in other things. Michael Curtiz was a fine director, who directed two of my favourite films. Those two being 'Casablanca', with one of the all-time great screenplays and male screen performances, and 'The Adventures of Robin Hood', the definitive film version of the legendary outlaw.
'20,000 Years in Sing Sing' is a very worthwhile and well done film. With a lot of recommendable things. It is not a great film though, a case of starting promisingly but losing its way later on. Tracy and Davis both gave better performances when they had properly found their strengths and styles (both still finding them here) and, while he comes over very well and one of the main reasons as to why the film is worth viewing, Curtiz is not at his best either.
Will start with what '20,000 Years in Sing Sing' could have done better. Somewhere around the later half (like when Connors is granted leave, which didn't seem realistic to me considering what Connors was in for in the first place), the story starts to get pretty implausible and not particularly easy to swallow, especially the climax which didn't have quite enough the amount of tension needed.
Davis is alluring and very affecting in her role, giving a good account of herself, but she deserved much more than her too short screen time and not particularly meaty character which only shows glimmers of what was to come later. The social message resonates and is surprisingly relevant now, very admirable, but maybe could have done with more subtlety.
However, Tracy is a commanding lead and manages to make a brash character likeable. The other cast standout is a empathetic yet at other times firm Arthur Byron. Good too is a slimy Louis Calhern. All the cast are solid. Curtiz's direction is tight and sleek, never allowing the film to drag and boasting some beautifully framed visuals. '20,000 Years in Sing Sing' is beautifully and stylishly shot, some inventive camera angles, and the music while not continuous (a good thing) doesn't come over as too stock or overpowering.
It is a well written film too, intelligently done and taut as well as entertaining in a gutsy way. The story loses its way in the second half but starts off really, really well, with some nice suspense and not trivialising prison life shown in all its tough grimness while showing some hope too. The very end is moving and while not perfectly delivered, the messaging is well intended and is not out of date now really.
All in all, good if not great. And it would have been the latter if the second half was as strong as the first. 7/10
'20,000 Years in Sing Sing' is a very worthwhile and well done film. With a lot of recommendable things. It is not a great film though, a case of starting promisingly but losing its way later on. Tracy and Davis both gave better performances when they had properly found their strengths and styles (both still finding them here) and, while he comes over very well and one of the main reasons as to why the film is worth viewing, Curtiz is not at his best either.
Will start with what '20,000 Years in Sing Sing' could have done better. Somewhere around the later half (like when Connors is granted leave, which didn't seem realistic to me considering what Connors was in for in the first place), the story starts to get pretty implausible and not particularly easy to swallow, especially the climax which didn't have quite enough the amount of tension needed.
Davis is alluring and very affecting in her role, giving a good account of herself, but she deserved much more than her too short screen time and not particularly meaty character which only shows glimmers of what was to come later. The social message resonates and is surprisingly relevant now, very admirable, but maybe could have done with more subtlety.
However, Tracy is a commanding lead and manages to make a brash character likeable. The other cast standout is a empathetic yet at other times firm Arthur Byron. Good too is a slimy Louis Calhern. All the cast are solid. Curtiz's direction is tight and sleek, never allowing the film to drag and boasting some beautifully framed visuals. '20,000 Years in Sing Sing' is beautifully and stylishly shot, some inventive camera angles, and the music while not continuous (a good thing) doesn't come over as too stock or overpowering.
It is a well written film too, intelligently done and taut as well as entertaining in a gutsy way. The story loses its way in the second half but starts off really, really well, with some nice suspense and not trivialising prison life shown in all its tough grimness while showing some hope too. The very end is moving and while not perfectly delivered, the messaging is well intended and is not out of date now really.
All in all, good if not great. And it would have been the latter if the second half was as strong as the first. 7/10
Very effective prison drama from "Warner Bros."
alexanderdavies-9938226 August 2017
"20,000 Years in Sing Sing" was the only film Spencer Tracy made at "Warner Bros." He was a last minute replacement for James Cagney who had been suspended by the studio at the time. I thought Tracy did a fine job as the arrogant and pompous hoodlum who thinks he will be treated like royalty whilst serving a prison sentence. He applies a similar acting method in that he is naturalistic. In spite of his average height, Spencer Tracy is quite imposing by his sturdy build. After being given a bit of a rude awakening by the prison governor, Tracy comes to realise that he will need to tow the line like every other convict. Bette Davis doesn't have much screen time but when she is in the film, she has good scenes with Spencer Tracy. The direction is solid and the dialogue is pretty good. There is some effective action and a good supporting cast. This and "Each Dawn I Die," are the best prison films "Warner Bros." made.
Decent prison drama
grantss1 December 2014
A decent prison drama.
Starts well enough: a hard-bitten criminal slowly fits into prison life. You see his transformation and think of all the possibilities for the plot beyond that.
However, the direction the plot then takes is a tad implausible, idealistic and trite. Turns out its all about honour. Not necessarily a bad theme, but is handled fairly clumsily here.
Ending just seemed unnecessary. No, I'm not saying all endings should be a happy, typically-Hollywood, one, but this just seems...contrived.
Solid performances by Spencer Tracy, Bette Davis and Arthur Byron.
Starts well enough: a hard-bitten criminal slowly fits into prison life. You see his transformation and think of all the possibilities for the plot beyond that.
However, the direction the plot then takes is a tad implausible, idealistic and trite. Turns out its all about honour. Not necessarily a bad theme, but is handled fairly clumsily here.
Ending just seemed unnecessary. No, I'm not saying all endings should be a happy, typically-Hollywood, one, but this just seems...contrived.
Solid performances by Spencer Tracy, Bette Davis and Arthur Byron.
Tame prison drama
Ursula_Two_Point_Seven_T4 September 2005
This movie is a tame, toothless wannabe prison/crime drama that doesn't hold a candle to its pre-Code siblings such as Scarface, Little Caesar, and Public Enemy, to name a few. I was quite disappointed.
The movie starts out promising enough, with Spencer Tracy as a hardened tough guy being hauled off to Sing Sing. The problem with this movie is that is was really all over the map -- it didn't pick one genre and stick to it. At times it was a crime flick (or was pretending to be), at other times a light-hearted comedy, at other times a buddy flick (with the prison warden and Tracy being the buddies, no less!). The actors did well with their individual roles (including a very young and beautiful Bette Davis) and the story moved fairly apace, but in the end it added up to a whole lot of nothing for me.
To top it off, there were some inconsistencies and/or hard-to-follow plot developments that bothered me:
1 - During a psychological test session to determine which manual labor to place the prisoners in, Tracy and Lyle Talbot do good enough on their puzzle to earn the "shoe shop" (top of the line job at the prison, according to the story), but dolt Hype can't fit the square piece into the square slot even after 5 minutes, so he is assigned lavatory duty. However, minutes later when we see the boys toiling away in the shoe shop, there's Hype too!
2 - While on his honor leave, Tracy decides he needs to get out of town rather than returning to prison. He talks to one of his buddies to make arrangements to leave on a train, and even hands over $5,000 to help grease the wheels and make the escape happen. Then, a scene or two later, we see Tracy showing back up at prison. What gives?
3 - The whole business with Tracy's lawyer and his girlfriend and the $5,000, I just didn't understand it. The movie tried to explain it but either they did a really bad job of it, or there were things going on in 1932 that you just had to be there to understand it (and hence my 2005 mind didn't quite catch), or I'm as big of a dolt as Hype. (I prefer not to think it's the latter!)
Overall, it was fun to watch Tracy and Davis early in their careers, but honestly wasn't really worth having to sit through this movie in order to do so.
The movie starts out promising enough, with Spencer Tracy as a hardened tough guy being hauled off to Sing Sing. The problem with this movie is that is was really all over the map -- it didn't pick one genre and stick to it. At times it was a crime flick (or was pretending to be), at other times a light-hearted comedy, at other times a buddy flick (with the prison warden and Tracy being the buddies, no less!). The actors did well with their individual roles (including a very young and beautiful Bette Davis) and the story moved fairly apace, but in the end it added up to a whole lot of nothing for me.
To top it off, there were some inconsistencies and/or hard-to-follow plot developments that bothered me:
1 - During a psychological test session to determine which manual labor to place the prisoners in, Tracy and Lyle Talbot do good enough on their puzzle to earn the "shoe shop" (top of the line job at the prison, according to the story), but dolt Hype can't fit the square piece into the square slot even after 5 minutes, so he is assigned lavatory duty. However, minutes later when we see the boys toiling away in the shoe shop, there's Hype too!
2 - While on his honor leave, Tracy decides he needs to get out of town rather than returning to prison. He talks to one of his buddies to make arrangements to leave on a train, and even hands over $5,000 to help grease the wheels and make the escape happen. Then, a scene or two later, we see Tracy showing back up at prison. What gives?
3 - The whole business with Tracy's lawyer and his girlfriend and the $5,000, I just didn't understand it. The movie tried to explain it but either they did a really bad job of it, or there were things going on in 1932 that you just had to be there to understand it (and hence my 2005 mind didn't quite catch), or I'm as big of a dolt as Hype. (I prefer not to think it's the latter!)
Overall, it was fun to watch Tracy and Davis early in their careers, but honestly wasn't really worth having to sit through this movie in order to do so.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
