Exploitation Season: The 1930’s. Movie #5 ‘Ten Nights In A Barroom’ (1931)

A temperance movement is a social movement against the use of alcoholic beverages. Temperance movements may criticize excessive alcohol use, promote complete abstinence, or pressure the government to enact anti-alcohol legislation. I mention this, as it was Timothy Shay (T.S.) Arthur (1809 – 1885) who originally wrote the highly successful temperance novel ‘Ten Nights In A Barroom’. The novel was so popular that it was made into several movies throughout the silent era and a very well received play.

The version that I am reviewing is the 1931 adaptation. It begins as a simple tale of a miller, Joe Morton, a teetotaling put upon family man, whose daughter is very ill with a mystery illness. Hope is brought to the Morgan’s (Joe, his wife, mother and young daughter) with the arrival of a young doctor. This comes as a huge relief to the town as they had to: ‘Drive out to see Dr Spock, ever since Dr Burton died!’ Joe tracks down the new doctor to the local tavern, where he is antagonized by the snide manager (‘Are you too good for my place Joe?’).

It is here that Joe gets involved in a fight and afterwards partakes in one celebratory drink. There is a bizarre comedy moment when a man falls through a door, knocking down the cleaning lady. She is helped up by a sinewy old codger who asks: ‘Did it hurt ya Fanny?’ to which she replies: ‘No, it hurt my elbow’. Comedy gold people. The saloon is full of Barbershop Quartets and young roustabouts who moonwalk and tumble for the punter’s entertainment. If there is one thing that public houses are missing in this day and age, it’s young men who are willing to tumble for the amusement of their peers.

A few short hours later and Joe is on top of the world, as well as being pissed as a coot. He falls in the door shortly afterwards, dismissive of his nagging mother, who proclaims that ‘There isn’t a Morgan man who won a battle with the whiskey’. Oddly enough, making a very early reference to the ideal that alcoholism is hereditary and a disease, something that would not become a common opinion for several decades.

Joe’s decline into the bottle is a swift one. Within six months he wears nothing but black, unshaven and crazed looking; he begs, borrows and steals drinks wherever and whenever he can. Nothing more than a barfly, he sinks so low as to sign over his house to the bar manager in a bid to clear his tab and buy more. He sinks to new lows as his family start to depend on local charity and Joe gets an unsavory reputation.

In structure and tone, this is the classic story of the alcoholic. It has been retold many times in recent decades and this piece holds its own very well. Considering its age of over 80 years, it remains a startling piece of cinema. A great deal of which can be attributed to the climactic finale, which is one of the most unexpected and shocking that I have seen of late.

The main surprise is just how enjoyable this film is, far from being the dull, preachy rhetoric that I expected; it was a delight and a pleasure to watch.

A brief snippet can be seen HERE.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.