MovieChat Forums > I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932) Discussion > James Allen had the worst lawyer ever S...

James Allen had the worst lawyer ever SPOILER

posted 18 years ago by stryder9898
11 replies | jump to latest

Why didn't his lawyer up north get everything in writing about serving the additional 90 days followed by a pardon? After this huge uproar over his escape, Allen just agrees on some guy's word that they'll set him free and voluntarily returns to the chain gang hell. What use was his northern lawyer or the southern one as well that he paid all that money to? I wonder if this is really how it went down real life. I actually didn't feel to sorry for him the second time, he could have avoided the whole second extended stay by having his lawyer get it all legally in place before returning. Still an excellent movie though.

[–] bosochima 18 years ago

I agree totally. All the Chicago lawyer got was the southern lawyer's word that they would let him go. As the saying goes, oral agreements are worth the paper they're written on. I was wondering what he could have done to get that "insurance" though. Maybe he could have gotten a pledge from the FBI that they would go down and get him if he wasn't realeased?

[–] kyle-garabadian-1 18 years ago

This movie was made in the early 1930's. Verbal agreements were still not an uncommon practice back then. Therefore it would not have seemed unusual to audiences back then. I think you must allow the movie some leeway. Besides it sort of makes the whole spectacular chase sequence ending possible

[–] CaperGuy 18 years ago

Good point about the lawyering, but I didn't hang on this issue when I first saw this film several years ago. I noticed it, and I thought it was a case of negligence on the lawyer's part. However, that didn't stop me from thoroughly enjoying this film. I immediately became a fan of this movie and I cheered for Muni's character throughout his ordeal with prison and his gold-digging, unloving woman. James Allen was/is a classic example of a person pulling himself up by his own bootstraps. Every now and then, it's good to revisit this film if only to appreciate the plot development and superb acting and to contrast this with the watered-down plots and weak character development of many modern-day films. This movie also serves to remind us that our own circumstances can change unexpectedly and that there is always a way to make our situations better if we have the will and tenacity to make it happen.

As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. - Proverbs 23:7

[–] henrik-260 16 years ago

i wouldn't think this movie essentially is about "the self-made man" or whatever. Allen was never a bad man, he is portrayed as a good person from the get-go. He just chanced upon some hard times and even though he was forced to rob the diner at gun-point he got nine years of hard labor. That he made it once he managed to break out and get across the state-border doesn't seem surprising.
What LeRoy wants to show is how cruel the chain gang system is and how it can grind a decent citizen down until there is nothing but a shadow left. That is what is so significant about how it ends. Allen choses a life that seems like no life at all rather than staying on the chain gang to see if he'll eventually get out. He cuts his way back to the life he had in every sense.

[–] don_storleone 16 years ago

Can't remember whether it was the lawyer or the governor, but one of them recommended Allen to decline the offer. Allen refused, adding a certain depth to his perceptions of society. I'd like to see what Robert E Burns (was that his name?) gives as a reason in the novel, since it seems as though he was well enough regarded to resist the extradition indefinately.

[–] connorarroyo-1 15 years ago

James Allen's Chicago attorney did indeed strongly recommend AGAINST returning to that redneck state with nothing more than the promises of the representative of that state sent to retrieve him, he returned against legal advice.

[–] clore_2 15 years ago

How dumb can one be? The guy reveals all in a letter to his brother. No writing in code, just spill it all out about the police still looking for him.

It ain't easy being green, or anything else, other than to be me

[–] Ed in MO 12 years ago

I don't know. The governor could have spelled it all out in a contract and swore on a stack of Bibles that he would release Allen after 90 days, and then later violate the contract based on some made-up pretext because "conditions have changed." I see the powerful do it all the time with their "campaign promises" and "party platforms" which mean absolutely nothing, so I doubt a written contract would have provided Allen with much more in the way of protection than a verbal one. It might have embarrassed the State of Georgia in some small way to keep Allen in, but I think the desire for revenge against Allen far out-weighed any temporary embarrassment that the State would feel.

[–] sonofbeach-sheet 11 years ago

Allen was downright gullible and a bad judge of character, probably like Burns himself. I would have gotten away from that c&nt of a woman he rented the room from ASAP or else never rented it in the first place, that b!tch totally ruined his life!

[–] DeepFriedJello 10 years ago

Allen/Burns should have gotten a better lawyer when he was arrested the first time. Decorated war vet, first offense, good references from his family and friends. And 10 years for $5. The state of Georgia must have been really hard up for cheap labor. I'm guessing the diner guy that got robbed had his panties in a wad or something.

[–] jmillerdp 7 years ago

I can't believe Muni's character believed for a second that he would get a thing they were promising. Especially since he had outed their system.

As great as this film is, I think they should've had signed papers saying he would be paroled, but then come up with a technicality that the state used to deny him parole. As it is, without anything signed, he was done for sure.

I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood