A naïve, wealthy young man and a poverty-stricken young woman cross paths at a terrible tenement fire, opening new worlds for both, even as the fire cripples the girl's brother for life.
Note those opening scenes. They're a compelling glimpse of what's to come. It's hard, of course, for people to rise above their surroundings, particularly when they're impoverished. The clotted street, the brutal tenements, the jungle-like cityscape— no wonder the street boys play a Darwinian version of kick-the-can, while a disheveled husband slugs his hardscrabble wife. It's hard to care about others when life crushes around you. At the same time, the wealthy young man, Peter, has lived an enclosed life of his own. Surrounded by the privileges of money, he has very little understanding of an outside world. Anyway those opening New York scenes set the stage for what amounts to class conflict 30's style.
It may be hard to rise above class but not impossible, as Mary and Peter ultimately demonstrate (note the biblical names). It turns out, ironically, that each is a captive of the class they were born into. That's clearly the case with slum-dweller Mary whose life prospects are trapped by tenement walls; it's not clear in wealthy Peter's case until he tries to humanize the priorities of his class by tearing down the tenements that are his family's inheritance. Then the machinery of the wealthy class asserts itself, regardless of what he wants. Thus the film's also about an overarching theme in American life—the intersection of class and the individual.
I expect canny viewers know that compromise over an explosive topic like class is inevitable. However, I think, those softening touches are kept to a minimum here. For example, there's a genuine effort at showing what slum-dwellers of the time were up against and its human cost. At the same time, there're the various legal layers cushioning the owners from the slums. I especially like the bureaucratic buck-passing that goes on during the legal inquiry into the fire. Note too how toothless regulations become when there's little money for enforcement. To me that's a contemporary issue wrapped in current debates about the proper size of government. There is one significant compromise, however, and that's when Peter eventually follows through on his promise to tear down his tenements. Of course, good will may solve one individual conflict and send the audience home feeling pretty good. But that's hardly realistic to the scope of the problem itself. Nonetheless, I expect many viewers of the time thought President Roosevelt and his New Deal when they saw the tearing down of the old.
There're a number of good touches in the production. Note how the ugly tenement façade is contrasted with the soaring white cathedral that is the upper-class hospital. There we're introduced to a strikingly different spic and span milieu from what's gone before. Then too, was there ever a more disturbing presence in a movie than Baruch Lumet's Mr. Rosen. Bereft now of his family, his ravaged presence and hollow-eyed stare are the very face of human defeat. And when he forlornly leaves the witness stand, we know his new home is likely to be a park bench, at best. Then there's the grotesque tenement façade that turns into a talking demonic personality. Though a debatable development, it does capture the stubborn resistance of poverty to all those generations harmed by it. When crippled little Joey confronts it in a showdown, it's like the 30's generation burning down a past that has enslaved it, even if the unshackling comes at a high cost. Moreover, taken as a purely visual effect, the nightmarish facade can compete with a lot of today's purely digital creations.
All in all, I take the film as something of a sleeper. Frankly, as an old movie buff, I'd never heard of it before catching a showing on IMDb. Nor in some 60-years of TV watching do I recall its turning up on the tube. Given the really touchy nature of the material, I guess that's not surprising. And if the 30-year post-war period opened a lot of new economic opportunities, echoes of that earlier time are mounting as income inequalities spread. By no means does this nervy 90-minutes amount to nothing more than closed period piece, and is well worth catching up with.
Note those opening scenes. They're a compelling glimpse of what's to come. It's hard, of course, for people to rise above their surroundings, particularly when they're impoverished. The clotted street, the brutal tenements, the jungle-like cityscape— no wonder the street boys play a Darwinian version of kick-the-can, while a disheveled husband slugs his hardscrabble wife. It's hard to care about others when life crushes around you. At the same time, the wealthy young man, Peter, has lived an enclosed life of his own. Surrounded by the privileges of money, he has very little understanding of an outside world. Anyway those opening New York scenes set the stage for what amounts to class conflict 30's style.
It may be hard to rise above class but not impossible, as Mary and Peter ultimately demonstrate (note the biblical names). It turns out, ironically, that each is a captive of the class they were born into. That's clearly the case with slum-dweller Mary whose life prospects are trapped by tenement walls; it's not clear in wealthy Peter's case until he tries to humanize the priorities of his class by tearing down the tenements that are his family's inheritance. Then the machinery of the wealthy class asserts itself, regardless of what he wants. Thus the film's also about an overarching theme in American life—the intersection of class and the individual.
I expect canny viewers know that compromise over an explosive topic like class is inevitable. However, I think, those softening touches are kept to a minimum here. For example, there's a genuine effort at showing what slum-dwellers of the time were up against and its human cost. At the same time, there're the various legal layers cushioning the owners from the slums. I especially like the bureaucratic buck-passing that goes on during the legal inquiry into the fire. Note too how toothless regulations become when there's little money for enforcement. To me that's a contemporary issue wrapped in current debates about the proper size of government. There is one significant compromise, however, and that's when Peter eventually follows through on his promise to tear down his tenements. Of course, good will may solve one individual conflict and send the audience home feeling pretty good. But that's hardly realistic to the scope of the problem itself. Nonetheless, I expect many viewers of the time thought President Roosevelt and his New Deal when they saw the tearing down of the old.
There're a number of good touches in the production. Note how the ugly tenement façade is contrasted with the soaring white cathedral that is the upper-class hospital. There we're introduced to a strikingly different spic and span milieu from what's gone before. Then too, was there ever a more disturbing presence in a movie than Baruch Lumet's Mr. Rosen. Bereft now of his family, his ravaged presence and hollow-eyed stare are the very face of human defeat. And when he forlornly leaves the witness stand, we know his new home is likely to be a park bench, at best. Then there's the grotesque tenement façade that turns into a talking demonic personality. Though a debatable development, it does capture the stubborn resistance of poverty to all those generations harmed by it. When crippled little Joey confronts it in a showdown, it's like the 30's generation burning down a past that has enslaved it, even if the unshackling comes at a high cost. Moreover, taken as a purely visual effect, the nightmarish facade can compete with a lot of today's purely digital creations.
All in all, I take the film as something of a sleeper. Frankly, as an old movie buff, I'd never heard of it before catching a showing on IMDb. Nor in some 60-years of TV watching do I recall its turning up on the tube. Given the really touchy nature of the material, I guess that's not surprising. And if the 30-year post-war period opened a lot of new economic opportunities, echoes of that earlier time are mounting as income inequalities spread. By no means does this nervy 90-minutes amount to nothing more than closed period piece, and is well worth catching up with.