. . . while their 16 "talking head" colleagues were contributing here to PROHIBITON OPENS THE FLOODGATES. Whatever it was, it must have been prohibited in polite company, as the acknowledgments here mention this absent trio though they're nowhere to be seen. In the Organized Crime Biz, we call that a pretty thin alibi. As always, this 2006 DVD extra serves primarily as a sales incentive for viewers' further purchases from the Warner Bros. back- back- back-catalog. Film clips and talking head comments are arranged fairly haphazardly, with mainly repetitive themes, and very few out-sourced facts. One "film authority" speaking up here asserts that Illinois had 46,000 illegal "speakeasies" in the 1930s, each protected by its own circle of a dozen corrupt government officials, including cops, mayors, councilmen, district attorneys, and judges (that's more than half a million taxpayer-funded crooks, for the mathematically challenged). He further implies that the legacy of this rampant corruption in the "Land of Lincoln" will persist right through tomorrow, having installed a "community organizer" in the White House, among other things. It's all enough to drive a man to drink!
3 Reviews
Who knows what Haden Guest, Frank Miller, and Martin Scorsese were up to . . .
oscaralbert1 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The gangster hero
bkoganbing7 April 2015
This short documentary is put together with clips from the old Warner Brothers gangster films and commentary from folks who are both in front of and behind the camera. It concerns the affects of Prohibition on the Hollywood film industry as well as on the country at large.
We are still to this day feeling the affects of that pathetic attempt to legislate morality that was forced on us by the 18th amendment and the Volstead Act starting in 1920. Mind you this was foisted upon us by the same people who are today fighting against same sex marriage.
Of course people flouted the law with abandon and a new class of criminal was born, the bootlegger who supplied a service people wanted. He became a hero of sorts and eventually the illegal industry was organized and systematized. The phrase 'organized crime' came into being.
As Hollywood always follows popular trends the careers of such people as James Cagney, Edward G. Robinson, George Raft, Humphrey Bogart, etc. came into being. Gangsters became screen romantic heroes. The legend stayed even after the 18th amendment was repealed. Organizations that were illegal also stayed to this day just finding different outlets for criminal enterprise.
The gangster genre was really born in the sound era. There were silent films about criminals as protagonists, but the snappy dialog is what made the gangster film. I can't conceive of a silent Cagney for instance.
Some good points are made about the genre and some wonderful reminders from the best of Warner Brothers who did the gangster film far and away the best.
We are still to this day feeling the affects of that pathetic attempt to legislate morality that was forced on us by the 18th amendment and the Volstead Act starting in 1920. Mind you this was foisted upon us by the same people who are today fighting against same sex marriage.
Of course people flouted the law with abandon and a new class of criminal was born, the bootlegger who supplied a service people wanted. He became a hero of sorts and eventually the illegal industry was organized and systematized. The phrase 'organized crime' came into being.
As Hollywood always follows popular trends the careers of such people as James Cagney, Edward G. Robinson, George Raft, Humphrey Bogart, etc. came into being. Gangsters became screen romantic heroes. The legend stayed even after the 18th amendment was repealed. Organizations that were illegal also stayed to this day just finding different outlets for criminal enterprise.
The gangster genre was really born in the sound era. There were silent films about criminals as protagonists, but the snappy dialog is what made the gangster film. I can't conceive of a silent Cagney for instance.
Some good points are made about the genre and some wonderful reminders from the best of Warner Brothers who did the gangster film far and away the best.
Gang crime movies and their tie to Prohibition
SimonJack4 November 2016
This 2006 documentary video is on the DVD with "A Slight Case of Murder." It has interviews with several film historians, writers and others from the film industry. It has snippets of headlines during prohibition and scenes from movies. It links prohibition with organized crime and then fawns over the 1930s crime genre. It's also a clear propaganda piece for the film industry (especially Warner Brothers). It's content is interesting but shamefully misleading.
The film implies that Prohibition (1920 – 1933) was something foisted on the people by the government. In reality, Prohibition became the law of the land when three-fourths of the states ratified the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was a constitutional ban on the manufacture and sale of alcohol that was approved by the people. The Volstead Act, referred to in this film, was a law Congress passed in 1920 for federal enforcement of the 18th Amendment – i.e., Prohibition. As the mood of the nation changed, Congress in January 1933 passed a resolution providing for another constitutional amendment to repeal the 18th amendment. On Dec. 5, 1933, Prohibition was repealed when Utah became the 36th state to ratify the 21st Amendment.
The video also skips over the historical events that led to the support for prohibition. Alcoholism, family violence, and saloon-based political corruption were the main things that led activists to take up the cause of prohibition. It skips over the widespread temperance movement that began in the late 19th century. The rise of public temperance societies and the Anti-Saloon League led to a constitutional amendment to ban commerce in alcohol. The federal government was not the culprit that this film makes it out to be. The film also implies that Prohibition was responsible for organized crime in the US. In reality, Prohibition reduced crime in its early years, but then fueled a rapid spread of organized crime.
The film notes that as violent crime increased, so did the public mood about Prohibition. As more of the public enjoyed drinking, it was becoming fed up with the local corruption of law enforcement and politics. That led to the eventual constitutional amendment to repeal another constitutional amendment.
Warner Brothers could have made a nice contribution to public education with this film, by making it a straightforward picture of the background, reasons, and origins of Prohibition. And then, showing (as it does) how Prohibition created a ripe field for the cinema to exploit. Because of its lack of an accurate overview, and its misleading implications, this film can't be considered a good historical reference. Too bad!
The large number of people interviewed are more interested in the genre of films about organized crime during the period. Among those are writers and/or authors Nicholas Pileggi ("Goodfellas" of 1990 and "Casino" of 1995), Michael Druxman ("Dillinger and Capone" of 1995), Eric Lax (co- author of "Bogart" in 1997), and Anthony Slide ("Silent Players" of 2002). From academia are Drew Casper and Rick Jewell, professors of American Film as USC, and Vivian Sobchack, Assoc. Dean of UCLA School of the Theater, Film and TV.
Others in the film are Patricia Hanson, editor of the American Film Institute Catalog; film historian Lincoln Hurst; producers Irwin Winkler ("Goodfellas") and Robert Evans ("The Cotton Club" of 1984); actress Talia Shire ("Rocky" of 1976 and sequels); and actor Michael Madsen.
This film gets only four stars for three reasons. It skips some important background to understanding Prohibition. It misleads viewers by implying that the government forced prohibition on an unwilling public. And, it shamelessly promotes the genre of crime films as desirable results from the oppression of the public. I enjoy many crime and mystery thrillers. I also enjoy and appreciate having true and honest portrayals of the history behind films. This self-serving, misleading propaganda short evokes the basis for Hollywood's moniker of Tinseltown.
The film implies that Prohibition (1920 – 1933) was something foisted on the people by the government. In reality, Prohibition became the law of the land when three-fourths of the states ratified the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was a constitutional ban on the manufacture and sale of alcohol that was approved by the people. The Volstead Act, referred to in this film, was a law Congress passed in 1920 for federal enforcement of the 18th Amendment – i.e., Prohibition. As the mood of the nation changed, Congress in January 1933 passed a resolution providing for another constitutional amendment to repeal the 18th amendment. On Dec. 5, 1933, Prohibition was repealed when Utah became the 36th state to ratify the 21st Amendment.
The video also skips over the historical events that led to the support for prohibition. Alcoholism, family violence, and saloon-based political corruption were the main things that led activists to take up the cause of prohibition. It skips over the widespread temperance movement that began in the late 19th century. The rise of public temperance societies and the Anti-Saloon League led to a constitutional amendment to ban commerce in alcohol. The federal government was not the culprit that this film makes it out to be. The film also implies that Prohibition was responsible for organized crime in the US. In reality, Prohibition reduced crime in its early years, but then fueled a rapid spread of organized crime.
The film notes that as violent crime increased, so did the public mood about Prohibition. As more of the public enjoyed drinking, it was becoming fed up with the local corruption of law enforcement and politics. That led to the eventual constitutional amendment to repeal another constitutional amendment.
Warner Brothers could have made a nice contribution to public education with this film, by making it a straightforward picture of the background, reasons, and origins of Prohibition. And then, showing (as it does) how Prohibition created a ripe field for the cinema to exploit. Because of its lack of an accurate overview, and its misleading implications, this film can't be considered a good historical reference. Too bad!
The large number of people interviewed are more interested in the genre of films about organized crime during the period. Among those are writers and/or authors Nicholas Pileggi ("Goodfellas" of 1990 and "Casino" of 1995), Michael Druxman ("Dillinger and Capone" of 1995), Eric Lax (co- author of "Bogart" in 1997), and Anthony Slide ("Silent Players" of 2002). From academia are Drew Casper and Rick Jewell, professors of American Film as USC, and Vivian Sobchack, Assoc. Dean of UCLA School of the Theater, Film and TV.
Others in the film are Patricia Hanson, editor of the American Film Institute Catalog; film historian Lincoln Hurst; producers Irwin Winkler ("Goodfellas") and Robert Evans ("The Cotton Club" of 1984); actress Talia Shire ("Rocky" of 1976 and sequels); and actor Michael Madsen.
This film gets only four stars for three reasons. It skips some important background to understanding Prohibition. It misleads viewers by implying that the government forced prohibition on an unwilling public. And, it shamelessly promotes the genre of crime films as desirable results from the oppression of the public. I enjoy many crime and mystery thrillers. I also enjoy and appreciate having true and honest portrayals of the history behind films. This self-serving, misleading propaganda short evokes the basis for Hollywood's moniker of Tinseltown.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews