One Third of the Nation (1939) is a
window on the world of the late 1930s where the view is clear only because some
of the grime has been rubbed off the pane with our fist, allowing us to look
out. Some of what we saw then, we see today. The clothes and the speech may be
out of date, but the problem isn’t, and neither is the desperation.
Classic
film buffs recall 1939 as a marvelous extravaganza, an abundance of well-made
and well-loved films, running the gamut between The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind and a list as long as your arm of other Oscar nominees. One Third of the Nation is far down in
the pack; it doesn’t sparkle much as a social message film with its lukewarm
hero and a pat ending and the heroine that seems to drift emotionally (which
may echo our national malaise after a decade of Depression). It is not as well-remembered,
perhaps, as the giants that the studios produced in that year, but its roots
are legitimate and its theme has lasted and it is more relevant today than most
of the most beloved films of 1939.
It
began as a stage play, one of the experimental works produced by the Federal Theater
Project in 1938. Written by Arthur Arent, it was part of the Living Newspaper
series which dramatized conditions of the day, this one with a message of the
common man versus the big men, including the landlords, about the slum
conditions in New York City, how they came to be, how they are maintained, and
who profits from them.
Along
with its New York run, the play was produced in several other cities across the
nation and garnered a great deal of publicity and praise, except by
congressional conservatives who were offended by its message. Conservatives
were not fond of funding the Federal Theater Project as they regarded it as an
incubator of left-wing ideas and dangerous messages—dangerous to them, one
presumes—but though it’s been reckoned that actually something like less than
10 percent of its play productions had a left-wing message, nevertheless, Congress decided to quit funding the Federal Theater Project in 1939, and that exciting experiment that kept writers, actors, and directors working during
those terrible years in the Depression and that spawned such important works, was
killed.
The
title of the play, adapted for the movie in 1939, comes directly from the line
in President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Second Inaugural address in January
1937: “I see one-third of the nation ill-house, ill-clad, ill-nourished... The
test for progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have
much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
We’re
still grappling with that idea.
The
movie’s plot diverges a little from the stage play in that it has a less
experimental presentation (except for a few scenes when the boy has a
conversation with the firetrap tenement that he lives in, but we’ll get to that
in a minute). Instead, it follows a more conventional line of the damsel in
distress, a hero who comes to her aid, and a happy ending.
The
film opens on the East Side of New York with kids playing in
the streets, turning on fire hydrants and being chased away by the cops,
overshadowed by tenements. We get inside views of one particular building with
the walls falling apart so that we are able to see the exposed lathing, of
trash in hallways, of railings that need to be repaired. A fire starts in the
basement of this tenement building. It quickly spreads and its residents
attempt to escape in all directions, stumbling out of doors, scrambling out of windows,
from fire escapes that will not hold their weight, screaming. A crowd gathers
in the street, the fire department arrives, and we see a line of dead bodies
already covered on the sidewalk waiting for the morgue.
As
the fire rages, at the top of the building we see a boy climbing a fire escape
to try to reach the roof because he is blocked from getting to the ground. The
ladder on which he is clinging breaks and he falls to the ground. It is a
sickening scene, and through the crowd his sister rushes forward in horror. She
is played by Sylvia Sidney, fresh off her gig in a similar environment in Dead End (1937). Miss Sidney had the chops to play fearless
dames, but her sophisticated appearance, maybe just her distinctive beautiful
eyes set wide in her porcelain face, left her an aura of glamour no matter what
setting.
In
the back of the crowd, we see a man in an automobile and his snide,
wisecracking best friend, rubbernecking at the tragedy. Leif Erickson plays the
hero of the piece, and Hiram Sherman is his pal who, not even before the movie
is half over, we want to strangle for his smug, sophomoric arrogance. It was
Sherman’s only film, then he went on to a lot of TV and theatre. It’s interesting
to note that a lot of players in this movie had few movie credits, but had more
career traction in TV and theatre.
Leif
Erickson reaches Sylvia Sidney as supposedly helpful people are picking up her
brother, who is unconscious, probably suffering from head and neck injuries, and
handle him like he was a sack of potatoes.
If nothing else, our ideas about first aid have certainly changed for
the better over the decades.
Erickson
offers to drive him to the hospital and Sidney is very grateful and goes along.
She thinks he means that they will take her brother to City Hospital which is
for poor people, but he is taking him to the better Surgeons Hospital. Appalled,
she asks “Isn’t that just for swells?”
Leif
Erickson is rich. He tells her not to worry, and it is not until after the
operation when they find out that her brother will survive but will be crippled
that she discovers that Erickson has paid all the bills. She is grateful, of
course, but intends to pay him back, though she has no idea how.
She
is furious at the slumlord who owns the building but will not repair it or keep
it maintained. She asks Erickson “Isn’t that murder? Shouldn’t a man like that
be in jail?” Erickson agrees, but he will soon learn from his trusted family business
manager that he owns the firetrap building. A large slum area of New York has
been in his family’s possession for decades.
Mr.
Erickson is not the only man in Sylvia Sidney’s life these days; Myron
McCormick plays Sam, her longtime beau she cannot marry yet because they have
no money. She says of him smiling, “He's sort of left, if you know what I mean.”
Sam does not appear to be an agitator or an anarchist, but he is an intelligent
and fearless thorn in the side of Erickson and anyone will he thinks makes a
profit off other people’s misery. Miss
Sidney’s remark tells us that, like many of the poor, she has no political
convictions, and is only concerned with the landlord that won’t fix the light
in the hall or the boss that won’t offer a raise; her social concerns are
largely about herself. McCormick seems
airy to her because he sees the big picture; Sylvia’s driven by her own
personal needs. The very rich and the
very poor aren’t always too far apart in ideology.
There
is a brief inquiry with Otto Hulett playing the assistant DA, and Erickson
manfully stands up and takes responsibility, against the expressed wishes of
his business manager played by Percy Waram and his obnoxious sister, played by
Muriel Hutchison. They are intent on protecting the family name and the family
dough.
At
one point in the hearing, one of the tenants is questioned about the conditions
of the building, but it is difficult for him to give an objective report
because he lost his wife and children in the fire and he is too shocked, too
broken up to want to even discuss the matter. He is an immigrant and whimpers “My little babies.” He is gently told that he can go now.
He
looks up astonished, “Where?”
It
seems that the rich family of Leif Erickson is legally off the hook because
this tenement was built before 1901 and therefore it does not need to adhere to
new safety regulations. We are given an insight to the inefficient and bungling
bureaucracy which allows this system and we get facts and figures almost like a
docudrama in parts. We are told that such firetraps where low-income people
live are not rare in the city, that there are over 67,000 of them.
Sylvia
Sidney is angry and wants Leif Erickson interrogated on the stand, and he is
only too happy to discuss the situation because he has thus far been ignorant
about what kind of property his family owns. He has never really been involved
in the business. His business manager, Mr. Waram, explains that Sylvia Sidney’s
family would have to pay more – mother, father, younger brother, and herself all live in a one-room
apartment – which goes for $10 a month rent. If Erickson did all the repairs
and upkeep that she demands, they would have to be charged at least $25 a month
rent.
Such
rents for 1939 actually seem remarkably low for a city like New York. Other
towns certainly, but I would’ve thought New York, even its most rundown
apartments, would have charged at least $30 a month.
Nevertheless,
we see that Sylvia Sidney’s situation is compounded by the fact that she is
kind of the Winnie Winkle the Breadwinner of the group. (For those of you
familiar with the old comic strip, Winnie supported her mother, her younger
brother, and her shiftless father, which is why she was called the Breadwinner.)
I
have a Winnie Winkle coffee mug on my desk that I keep pens in. It was a gift.
I always had a soft spot for Winnie Winkle the Breadwinner.
Her
father played, by Charles Dingle, whom most probably remember as the conniving elder brother in The Little Foxes (1941), is not working
and it seems inferred that he is not looking too hard, either.
Erickson
comes to Sylvia Sidney’s tenement to see what conditions are like for himself,
runs into her boyfriend Myron McCormick, who slugs him and when Erickson falls
through a rotten railing, it occurs to him that the place really is a rattrap.
The
film takes an interesting turn when her young brother is released from the
hospital. He looks hale and hearty, but he walks with crutches and he will for
the rest of his life. He is played by Sidney Lumet.
This
was young Sidney Lumet’s only movie, though he did small roles in one TV show
and a bit part in a movie many decades later, but we know him best as the
director of over eighty films. He was certainly a talented filmmaker, but just
from this one film he seems a very talented child actor.
We
see the slum through Lumet’s eyes more than anyone’s. His friends welcome him
home but then they are cruel to him because he is a "cripple." They tease him,
they won’t let them play their games; he is too slow for them and the boy
begins to spend a lot of time on his own. He sits on the pier watching the
other boys swim in the river, he broods outside on the steps of his building.
He does not want to go into the building on his first day home, he stays out
until quite late because he is afraid and depressed. We know the fire has left
him emotionally scarred and he does not want to enter a building which he knows
he can be trapped in at any time, especially now that he is not able to walk
easily and less able than before to escape in an emergency.
But
his anguish is more than that. His troubled soul is absorbing the despair of
this neighborhood and the people who live in it, in that building that has seen
so many generations of despair. He talks to the building. He tells the building
that he hates it and in his imagination the building talks back to him with an
eerie voice.
He
tells the building, “Look what you done to me.”
The
building taunts him and gloats that it has made victims of its residents for
decades. We have a brief foggy flashback to the 1870s when the building was
younger, but no less dangerous. We see people in clothes of the time period, a
doctor’s visit and the whispered dreaded word: Cholera! The screams of the
dying from cholera and their terrified families, which was very common in the nineteenth
century in crowded buildings with poor sanitation. The factory town I grew up
in had a cholera epidemic, and maybe yours did too.
Lumet
threatens the building, “I’ll get you some day. I’ll get you – just wait.”
The
scenes with Sidney Lumet staring up at the building, he stares directly into
the camera – are haunting and unnerving, his piercing, fevered expression of a child
half-crazed with the superior knowledge of someone who knows personally how grim
the stakes are. For a kid without a whole lot of screen experience, he’s
pretty impressive.
Unfortunately,
there are no resources to help, medically, emotionally, not from the city, not
from charities, not from his own family. The real burden of poverty is that one
is essentially alone.
Leif
Erickson struggles with his conscience. Sylvia Sidney struggles with the idea
of paying him back for the hospital bill. Erickson’s family struggles with
trying to distract him away from what they regard as his naiveté.
At
last Erickson wants to make a move to tear down the houses in that section and
put up new housing – we assume he means for the selfsame low-income residents,
but historically in such cases, usually it’s to gentrify the area and jack up
the rents.
Sylvia
Sidney believes that he is going to give them a shiny new neighborhood and she
is thrilled, and her young brother Sidney Lumet taunts the building, his
worst enemy, “They’re gonna tear you down. How do you like that, old stinkpot?”
Unfortunately,
Erickson has to humor his sister and he confesses to Sylvia Sidney that it will
take time to put these plans into motion. Her disappointment in Erickson is
such that she loses all hope and rants to her little brother about her
desperation and how things will never change. It is a cruel thing to do to a young
boy who is obviously emotionally and psychologically brittle, but nobody is
paying attention to him
It
puts him over the edge and he sets fire to the building. It goes up like a
torch and another crowd gathers and the firemen come and the same old scene is
repeated. This time, the building kills the kid brother.
In
the dim, gray aftermath, Myron McCormick commiserates and Erickson answers, “The
time may come when men like you all realize that men like me are human beings,
just the way that I’ve begun to suspect that you are.”
The
building is torn down, McCormick and Sylvia Sidney plan to pool their resources
as best they can and get married, not wanting to wait any longer. Erickson may
be the hero of the piece but he’s not going to play Prince charming to
Cinderella and take her out of the ashes, literally. He's still going back to his
own kind.
We
have a montage scene of new buildings being constructed with playground areas.
We are meant to understand that the people living in them will experience a
kind of poverty Shangri-La, with the cleanliness and privacy and community
spirit with all of them pitching horseshoes and raising their children in the
sunlight. It’s not suburbia – nobody predicted suburbia yet – but for a city
dweller in a firetrap tenement, it might very well have seemed like the next
best thing to paradise. At least the producers thought so.
One
segment of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Monument in Washington, D.C. is devoted
to his “one third of a nation” speech.
It is depicted here above in this photograph in the collection of the
Library of Congress.
The
bronze statues by George Segal, are titled The Rural Couple
and The Breadline located in Room Two of the memorial.
We
have another legacy: Today, one of the main reasons why people continue to struggle
financially and even live in poverty are the cost of healthcare and the cost of
housing. We have revisited young Sidney Lumet’s nightmare on a much grander
scale. Though most of us who enjoy classic films enjoy the nostalgia of them
– we spend a lot of time looking at the furniture, the clothes, the music, the speech
expressions as evidence of a long-ago world – for those who are not fans of
classic films it is probably more important not to concentrate on these things,
but to concentrate on the heart of the message, on the emotion of the story,
and thereby finding in these, whom they might regard as hokey characters, a lot more in common than they
thought possible.
Come
back next Thursday when we conclude this series on the 1930s and their messages
for today with Make Way for Tomorrow
(1937), and an elderly couple whose retirement has left them helpless,
homeless, and dependent on grown children. Take a look at those spinning
headlines – they’re from today.
*****
1930s series:
Part 1 - Gentlemen Are Born (1934)
Part 2 - Our Daily Bread (1934)
Part 3 - Wild Boys of the Road (1933) and Girls of the Road (1940).
*********
Jacqueline T. Lynch
is the author of Ann Blyth: Actress.
Singer. Star. and Memories
in Our Time - Hollywood Mirrors and Mimics the Twentieth Century. Her newspaper
column on classic films, Silver Screen, Golden Memories is syndicated
nationally.
4 comments:
A timely series! I only wish that it weren't, that we had learned something that stuck with the Great Depression.
Indeed, Lady Eve. I fear it will become even more easy for us to relate to this era in months to come.
A well-intentioned if heavy-handed tale, but the importance of the message must be smashed into the hearts and minds of some.
Young Lumet broke my heart. I believe that was his father as that poor immigrant witness. The talent in some families runs deep.
Yeah, that boy really was impressive. I can think of a few well-known child stars that wouldn't have done it better. I did not know that his da was the immigrant witness. Thanks for that.
Post a Comment