Edward G. Robinson (right) is a cop turned gangster. Image: The Retro Set
Almost nobody made better gangster films than Warner Bros. in the 1930s.
The studio ground out these movies on notoriously economical budgets. The films were gritty and smart, featuring characters who talked in a machine-gun staccato and dispensed canny observations: “Whenever mugs get into a jam, the first thing they do is start knocking each other.”
The studio made no apologies for these films. As exec Jack Warner famously said, “I don’t want it good. I want it Tuesday.”
One such film is Bullets or Ballots (1936), starring Edward G. Robinson as Johnny Blake, a police detective who is unexpectedly fired from the force. Blake then joins an organized crime outfit, managed by Al Kruger (Barton MacLane).
There is genuine affection and respect between policeman Blake and criminal Kruger, so when Kruger finds out Blake’s been canned, he offers the former cop a job – and is mildly surprised when he accepts.
However, when Kruger’s #2 man, Bugs Fenner (Humphrey Bogart), learns Blake has joined the Organization, he doesn’t believe the former cop has forsaken his law-abiding ways. He becomes even more agitated when Blake outshines him by proposing a numbers racket that could net millions of dollars.
The plot, as we’ve outlined it, sounds simple. But this film squeezes a large story into a speedy 82 minutes.
Gangsters watch actors portraying them on screen. Image: RareFilm
This movie tends to be a bit preachy due to the Production Code‘s insistence that criminals not be glorified. However, filmmakers give us a knowing wink during an early scene.
When gangsters Kruger and Fenner arrive at a movie theatre, they make a point of asking the ticket seller, “What time does the crime picture start?” Then, during the newsreel that discusses their criminal activity, the two men wonder aloud which actors would be portraying them on screen.
Like this fictional newsreel, Bullets or Ballots presents a stark choice to the viewer: Either vote for tougher crime laws or suffer rampant lawlessness.
But the film takes a sly poke at society’s hypocrisy. In one scene, crime boss Kruger observes, “Seven million people in this town, and all of ’em looking for easy money.”
In another scene, a nightclub owner (Joan Blondell) is disappointed Blake has joined the city’s criminal element, and then becomes upset when she learns he’s taking over her numbers racket. She reminds Blake about “friends finding an easy place to break your back.”
Here’s why the Warner Bros. gangster movies from the 1930s are brilliant: They cram societal expectations, gangster violence and unintended consequences into engaging 70-90 minute films. In Bullets or Ballots, for instance, the long history (and affection) between Blake and Kruger is outlined for us in under two minutes.
Director William Keighley cleverly uses the camera to fortify the sparse script. In one scene, we are given a tour of the “operation”, a large room staffed by dozens of men swarming around desks piled with money. Director Keighley places the camera on a dolly and sweeps past the immense wealth as it’s sorted and dispersed. This, right here, is the very definition of Organized crime.
Bullets or Ballots is filled with sardonic lines and menacing characters, but it also treats relationships with tenderness. The result is a smart, entertaining film with a surprisingly moving conclusion.
Note:
- What is a numbers racket? “The game is run by local crime figures in the same way as the national or state lottery, except on a much small[er] scale. Each day, the players pay a fee and guess three or four digits. The next day, the people who picked the winning numbers are given a large portion of the winnings.” (Encyclopedia of Scams)
- Read more about the 1930s numbers racket HERE.
Bullets or Ballots: starring Edward G. Robinson, Joan Blondell, Barton MacLane. Directed by William Keighley. Written by Seton I. Miller. Warner Bros.-First National Pictures Inc., 1936, B&W, 82 mins.
Silver Screenings 
Great stuff, Ruth. You’ve really brought alive my memories of this movie alive. All this and Joan Blondell too!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joan Blondell is always a treat, isn’t she? I adore her in everything.
LikeLike
Wow, very interesting stuff! I like that Bogart and Robinson go to the theater to watch themselves in the newsreels–that’s a nice touch. Another one for the “Watch” list. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, you’ve got to see this one, if you can. I love the scene where the gangsters watch themselves portrayed on screen. It’s definitely a Knowing Wink to the audience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cool, I will do that. 🙂
LikeLike
Dear Ruth,
This a very entertaining article. You’re right about Warner Bros. gangster films. I have often noted the same briefness, impetuosity, and brilliance.
I think I may have already invited you to join my blogathon, “The Great Breening Blogathon,” but I can’t remember if I received a response from you. In case I did not, here is the link to the announcement: https://pureentertainmentpreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/extra-the-great-breening-blogathon/. I would be honored if you would join. If I have already invited you, please excuse my redundancy.
Yours Hopefully,
Tiffany Brannan
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the invite, Tiffany. Sadly, I can’t join The Breening Blogathon due to other projects. But I see by the participant list it promises to be a success! Best wishes. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Ruth,
Thank you for your best wishes! Feel free to stop by and read all the articles which will be posted during the blogathon!
Yours Hopefully,
Tiffany Brannan
LikeLiked by 1 person
Terrific piece. The quickly-paced storytelling is most pleasing to me as an audience. The director assumes we will “get” the shortcuts, and even those who don’t at least are entertained.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great point about the “shortcuts”. I truly admire Warner Bros films from this era – so efficient and to the point, yet you don’t feel ripped off. Geniuses, they were.
Some months ago, I read an essay that argued the ideal length for a film is 90 minutes. Now, that can’t possibly work for all releases, but I certainly admire films that get right down to business.
LikeLike
I wish all films would be this economical in their storytelling…if you need three hours for your movie, you generally need an editor!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha! I agree, Paula.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a great write-up, Ruth! I love that you included the footnote explaining what numbers rackets are. When I watch these movies, I often smile at the slang terms the characters use that sound so quaint today. 🙂 And that so many younger people wouldn’t necessarily know.
Also, love your observation about using cinematic approaches to tell the story without making it a 2-1/2 hour slog. Part of the skill of writing screenplays is knowing how much to show, rather than have the characters tell in (usually awkward, stilted, and on-the-nose) dialogue. A lot of today’s movies could benefit from the lessons of these films.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You said it, sister! A lot of recent movies could stand a little trimming here and there…sometimes it feels like filmmakers add pointless scenes (or drag out scenes) to fill a 2-hour time slot. Good grief! (My poor husband is tired of me saying, “They could have eliminated this scene” or “Why didn’t they end the film right here?” As if I’m some sort of film editing expert!)
LikeLike
One of the earliest films I remember seeing that had Bogie and Robinson. For that reason it’s always one I love to revisit and is a great example of the Warners product.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. This is a terrific sample of the Warners’ bread & butter. I love Robinson’s scenes with Bogart.
LikeLike
Thanks for reminding me of this movie! I’m going to add it to the Watchlist 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
You really ought to see this one. I love ALL of the performances here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was so interesting! I feel like a lot of people glance over movies that aren’t Coppola’s Godfather trilogy. I definitely will check this out!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hope you get the chance to see this film. It’s terrific – condensed, smart, savvy…although it is a bit preachy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a great article regarding a fantastic film. I couldn’t agree more that Warner Bros. knew how to combine the elements to create the quintessential gangster film during the 1930s. ‘Bullets Or Ballots’ crackles with electricity and paces beautifully. I’ve written a few posts on the gangster film during the 1930s myself and would love to hear your thoughts on them. Best regards and thanks again!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Glad to hear you’re a fan of “Bullet or Ballots” as well. I’ll drop by your site to check out our Warner Bros gangster posts. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Bullets or Ballots” seems to have an intriguing premise regarding crime and justice. Would you consider it your favorite of the Hollywood 1930’s gangster genre?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure it’s my absolutee favourite, but I sure do enjoy it. Personally, I find it hard to pick a single fave in any genre… You know how it is.
I hope you get the chance to see “Bullets or Ballots”. It can be a little preachy, but that was to satisfy the censors. It’s a fast-paced, entertaining movie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on WILDsound Writing and Film Festival Review.
LikeLike