MovieChat Forums > Hallelujah I'm a Bum (1933) Discussion > Political skittishness

Political skittishness

posted 15 years ago by Local Hero
2 replies | jump to latest

What I find most interesting in the U.S. Depression-era films is finding out what the filmmakers braved or didn't brave saying in political terms.

Like most (but not all) Hollywood films of the time, Hallelujah I'm a Bum takes such clear pains to defang its political impact that-- whether Hecht et al. intended it or not-- it's not difficult to argue that the ultimate effect of the movie is rather reactionary. In other words, it could almost have been a script concocted by the wealthy and powerful to convince the newly impoverished masses that they should simply enjoy their newfound freedom and-- for God's sake!-- NOT challenge the fairness of the system in any way.

This is done most prominently early in the film when the 'happy bums' of Central Park (about whom the city mayor cares so much) angrily reject the 'radical,' 'red' grumblings of 'Egghead,' who suggests there are freeloading parasites atop the economic system as well as at the very bottom. There are numerous other lines and plot moments that drill in this message: 'Homelessness can be fun if you look at it the right way, so don't get any ideas about clambering for social justice.'

That said, there are least two mild exceptions to this message that are allowed to slip through:

1. Many Depression-era films have an 'Egghead' character to distance the impoverished main characters from the dangerous Marxist types. Usually these characters are buffoonish cartoons, and usually they turn out to be nefarious and hypocritical in the end. In this film, Egghead does have his expected moment of 'inconsistency,' and he is certainly rather cartoonish in his dopey demeanor, but he is ultimately allowed to remain a positive character to the end.

2. One surprising line from Frank Morgan's Mayor character is left in the movie: When Bumper insists on distributing his thousand dollars to all the homeless of Central Park, the city mayor says something like, "OK, go ahead with your socialism if you insist," and then the ensuing distribution of money to all the poor is clearly shown in a positive light, even if some of the tramps don't spend the money in the most prudent of manners.

However, it is no surprise that this films ends with the protagonist making a supreme sacrifice for the sake of the happiness of the wealthy, and resigning himself to his permanently impoverished state.

[–] funkyfry 14 years ago

I do see what you're talking about in the movie. But I think at the same time, the movie was advocating more of a bum mentality or philosophy than trying to convince people that being homeless was better than being rich. It was almost to make us envious of his state. It reminds me even of modern films like "The Big Lebowski" in that way ("You lost Lebowski: the bums will always lose!") or Gilliam's "Fisher King." Oddly both films star Jeff Bridges -- but this film features many scenes of homeless Robin Williams cavorting around Central Park, Williams inspires his fellow bums with music ("I love New York in June, how about you? I love a Gershwin tune, how about you?"), and he constructs a version of Central Park and homelessness that has the contours of a faerie tale with a damsel in distress much like Jolson's Bumper. There's also a scene where Bridges tries to give a bunch of money to Williams' character and Williams goes and gives it to another bum. So there's this idea that money is not going to solve anybody's problems. I don't think it has to apply just to the Depression is what I'm saying, I think a lot of the ideas in this film are just expressing universal human truths through this particular story. I also think this film is a triumph of Lorenz Hart's cynical but ultimately optimistic view of humanity.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

[–] Antoine_Bugleboy 14 years ago

Firstly, yes to your first exception: "Many Depression-era films have an 'Egghead' character to distance the impoverished main characters from the dangerous Marxist types."
As an admirer of Mischa Auer and Leonid Kinsky, I smile in recognition of that enchanting stereotype of the 30's-'40's.

I didn't find any of this fine movie's politics especially staggering
for the time. A bit more liberal than the average I guess (back when
"liberal" meant to most folks how Websters defines it). I rejoice in
a film made at this crucial point in the Great Depression that presents
a truely satirical and fairly unexagerated portrait of homeless vs. the City/State. Unlike modern revisions (see Iron Weed et alia) which glamorize the impoverished at the expense of unbalancing the wider portrait of society at the time.
One of the rare examples in modern movies where they get the balace right is in The Big Lebowski. Naturally, the Coen's follow-up that takes place in the deepest dark Depression (O Brother, Where Art Thou?) is -like much Preston Sturges- too farcical to look at as direct commentary on society. Albeit, I'm certain Art Thou?) was deeply influenced by movies like Bum and just plain Hallelujah (Vidor's ahead-of-it's-time all-back musical).

Come on, everybody, see The Square !