"
You and Me"
*** 1\2 (out of ****)
It's a relatively simple question, when has a person repaid their debt to society? Fritz Lang's Depression era drama, "You and Me" (1938) - a socially liberal message movie - poses the question.
Mr. Morris (Harry Carey) is a department store owner who has hired 50 ex-convicts as part of his staff to the dismay of his wife. He believes these individuals, primarily men, have repaid their debt to society. Understanding the social stigma and financial struggles these men will face as they re-enter society and the work force, Mr. Morris feels compelled to assist them during this transition.
One of the men is Joe Dennis (George Raft). Joe served time in prison with some of his co-workers at the department store. What a coincidence! Perhaps this creates too much temptation to fall back into his old life because very early into this movie, Joe is discussing plans to leave town and head to California. Or could Joe be leaving because he has developed feelings for one of his co-workers, Helen (Sylvia Sidney)? Any romantic entanglement may lead to a violation of his parole, which prohibits marriage.
In the hands of another filmmaker I suppose "You and Me" could have been the story of Joe and Helen falling in love and the dramatic buildup of whether or not Joe will reveal his criminal past. All of that has already happened even before the movie has begun. Helen accepts Joe and we can tell they are both in love with each other. Lang however has other tricks up his sleeve.
To me one of the themes at work in "You and Me" and practically all of Lang's movies is morality. Yes, Joe and his co-workers are criminals but they live by their own moral code. Joe felt an obligation to reveal his past to Helen and not be a man with a mysterious past. Mr. Morris believes it is his moral responsibility to help ex-convicts get on the right path to start over again. In Peter Bogdanovich's invaluable book, Who the Devil Made It - a collection of interviews with Hollywood's most distinguished filmmakers from the Golden Era - Lang states, "the main theme that runs through all of my pictures - this fight against destiny, against fate." I can see Lang's point but initially the most alluring aspect of "You and Me" was the potential of a social conscience that the movie alluded to.
That potential was suggested by having Kurt Weill compose the movie's score. Weill was a highly accomplished German composer best known for his collaborations with Bertolt Brecht, the well known socialist playwright. Together the two men worked on "The Threepenny Opera" and "Happy End". Once the Nazi Party gained control both men fled their homeland.
The Brechtian influence is most prominently seen in the movie's opening sequence. It is a montage of images set to music explaining "you can't get something for nothing" as we see all the things money can buy you and the lavish lifestyle great wealth can bring.
But the "you can't get something for nothing" message isn't
really an economic critique of the Capitalist system. Instead it's a variation of the message "crime doesn't pay", and that weakens the movie a bit in my eyes. It isn't a bold piece of ambitious filmmaking but instead results in a playing-it-safe Hollywood product. As Hollywood began making more and more gangster movies in the 1930s - "Scarface" (1932) - featuring Raft's breakout performance,
"Little Caesar" (1931), "The Public Enemy" (1931), and "The Roaring Twenties" (1939) - some in the U.S. Government felt these movies were romanticizing gangsters. That somehow the public would find the characters to be symbols of the American Dream gone wrong and relatable during the economic hardship of the Great Depression. Desperate men driven to desperate means. Within this environment the "crime doesn't pay" message was hit hard and hit often. On top of that the Hays Code - a Motion Picture code of moral guidelines - was being enforced. What could Lang do?
Unfortunately, what "You and Me" becomes is a standard love story following the old formula of boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl in the end. The movie abandons an economic / social message in the process and even goes so far as giving us a mathematical explanation on why crime doesn't pay.
Without revealing too much, another character is revealed to have a secret in their past. Lang however never plays this up for suspense. There is no sequence creating a heightened sense of anxiety that the secret will be revealed. Disappointingly, the character doesn't go through a moral dilemma contemplating their decision not to come clean either.
What "You and Me" does however is try to find humor within this story. In Bogdanovich's book, Lang confesses to always striving to find humor in his movies. One sequence working on multiple levels involves the ex-convicts reminiscing about Christmas time in prison. It would be the only time they would get a turkey for dinner. Now that they are free and can get a turkey any time they wish, it is no longer as special. It is funny to hear inmates have fond memories about their time in jail and it serves as a commentary on freedom.
The casting of George Raft was within itself a self-referential joke. Raft was a very popular actor in the 1930s, known for playing gangsters. Years later Billy Wilder would cast him in "Some Like It Hot" (1958) for the same purpose as here, to have Raft play against type. The first time we see Raft he is in a close-up praising a "racket". Is his character getting ready to go back to his old ways and plan a final score? Nope. The camera pans back and we discover he's talking about a tennis racket. Perhaps unknown to many, George Raft's greatest contribution (?) to pop culture may have been his influence on the Batman villain, Two-Face. In "Scarface" Raft's character has a habit of flipping a coin. This gesture would become identified with the Batman villain.
Additionally, Lang casts a colorful cast of character actors in supporting roles - Roscoe Karns, George E. Stone, Warren Hymer, and Robert Cummings, who would go on to great fame. All of these actors had a light comedic touch and knew how to stand out in a crowd. That's something that has been sorely missing in Hollywood over the decades - great character actors. I'm not sure who the modern day equivalents would be but men like Karns and Stone were reliable hands the studios could always turn to, to add a little flavor to otherwise unmemorable roles.
Fritz Lang is one of my favorite filmmakers. For me his greatest achievement was
"Metropolis" (1927), which I place among my all-time favorite films. He was an exemplary figure in German cinema during the 1920s and early '30s with the release of such masterworks as "Metropolis",
"Spiders" (1919), and "M" (1931). After leaving Germany in 1933, Lang arrived in America in 1936. Although his American films sadly weren't as celebrated, these films had a harder edge to them and were piercing looks into human behavior. I personally respond to the themes Lang was working with in these films and the moral quandaries the characters found themselves in. It is why over the last 15 years on this blog I have often come back to Lang's work. Naturally I wanted to include him in my year long tribute honoring my favorite artists and filmmakers, which I have dubbed "the year of me".
I therefore find it maddeningly infuriating that Hollywood has not honored the legacy of this distinguished filmmaker. Fritz Lang has not only never won a competitive Academy Award, he has never even been nominated! Usually in such cases when Hollywood has shamefully ignored the work of a great artist, that artist is presented with a special honorary award (i.e. the lifetime achievement). Lang has not even been the recipient of this kind of award. Nearly all of his contemporaries have received such awards. But not Lang. It has contributed to Lang's diminished reputation among modern movie fans.
Could this have to do with movie politics and Lang's notoriety as a cruel director? In two of Roger Ebert's Great Movie reviews he references Lang's behavior when discussing his work. In his review of "M", Ebert writes of Lang "He was often accused of sadism towards his actors; he had Lorre thrown down the stairs into the criminal lair a dozen times". As he reviews "Metropolis" Ebert comments on the movie's production stating "the extras were hurled into violent mob scenes, made to stand for hours in cold water, and handled more like props than human beings." If it is because of such behavior that Hollywood has turned its back on Lang, I can assure you he was not the only filmmaker to have acquired such a reputation. Alfred Hitchcock was another notorious figure with a cruel streak and yet he is still celebrated today.
Watching a movie like "You and Me" however shows the error of the Hollywood community in not recognizing Lang's talent. "You and Me" isn't a perfect movie. It has flaws. But when the movie works, it works. For as much as it is a product of its time, it remains relevant today. Gen-Z viewers, who are immersed in identity politics and social issues, would probably find much to echo. For example in 2023 there are several states - 9 in total - where voting rights are not restored to ex-convicts. In 1938, for Lang and "You and Me" to make such arguments about repaying a debt to society, was ahead of its time. It wasn't a common issue being brought up in movies. Changes in voting rights for ex-convicts didn't occur in the U.S. until the 1950s!
That's what makes "You and Me" a frustrating experience. It starts off as a strong critique about society and economics but because of the restrictive environment in which it was released, it had to cop out and lessen its blow. Lang still finds much to target and comment on and succeeds in making a thought provoking movie. I wouldn't consider "You and Me" the best starting point to delve into Lang's work but it should be one of the two or three American movies he directed you immediately watch, along with
"Fury" (1936), my choice for his best American movie and "You Only Live Once" (1937). Coincidentally Sylvia Sidney stars in all three of these movies.
Posts
