I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932) User Reviews

A true classic AND a brave indictment. Excellent!!!

[Night Must Fall · 9/10 · 1 August 2002]

Without a doubt, this is one of the finest films I have seen. Paul Muni's performance is so good, it's practically indescribable. I thought he was extremely believable as the unduly accused and convicted James Allen. This story will rip your heart out, and rightly so. The film is very well done in every way, down to the smallest detail (best example of this: the disgusting looking prison food – if you can call it that). The use of newspaper headlines is extremely effective, as well as the very realistic scenes in the prison and work yard, and the whole environment in which Allen must live. The viewer can almost feel Allen's pain as the other inmate hammers away at his leg chains to give him a glimpse of hope toward freedom. However, even the scenes of Allen's life on the outside still evoke a sense of foreboding. This is a very powerful film.

I saw it as part of the Essentials series on Turner Classic Movies, and Robert Osborne said that the real-life protagonist on whom this film is based acted as a consultant. Since he was still on the run, however, he was not credited. The whole situation is so sad, and this sadness and feeling of oppression hang over the film with such realism, that sometimes it is as though you are watching Allen's life caught on videotape, instead of a motion picture. It is extremely gripping and downbeat, with a killer ending. The fact that it's a true story just adds to the pervasive feeling of doom. Way ahead of its time, and a brave picture to make in its indictment of the justice system. WOW.

TWO FAVORITE MOMENTS: 1) Allen looking directly at the policeman in the barbershop with a determined, steely glare, as if suddenly realizing that he will not be recognized, and simply defying the cop to recognize him. The barber doesn't recognize him either, even though the cop and barber have just been describing Allen. This scene, I am sure, meant to emphasize the incompetence of the police and justice system, without using any words to do so. Fantastically done. I am in awe.

2) Chain gang inmate Barney Sykes (played by supreme character actor Allen Jenkins), finally released from jail, is offered a ride from the prison staff, who are carting the coffin of a dead inmate off the grounds. Very matter-of-factly, as though he has done this before (and thus demonstrating the de-humanizing effects of prison life) Sykes hops up onto the back of the truck and sits right on the coffin. Upon seeing this out the window, the other inmates ruminate on the fact that there are only two ways to leave the chain gang – `get let out, or die out.'

I will not give the ending away, but if it doesn't move you to tears, I don't know what will. Haunting.

My ONLY (minor) problem with the film is that all of the ladies in Allen's life look so similar, I could barely tell them apart!

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!!!! See it.

" I'm not a fugitive from the Law, but from injustice "

[thinker1691 · 9/10 · 1 April 2009]

America has always prided itself on its just laws and it's sense of fairness. However, there are some segments of the country where law and justice, like money, have failed to trickle down into the general public. In some states, the legal system is as harsh and unforgiving as the crime itself. As a consequence, many heartless authorities believe the more brutal a punishment, the more justice is dispense. Indeed, the Southern states, established so sever a retribution on its criminals they became the focus of this accusatory film. The story is taken from the actual exploits of Robert Burns (Paul Muni) who finds himself convicted of the theft of $5.50 and sentenced to ten years Hard Labor. It's bad enough to be sent to a prison, but he's also sentenced to dehumanizing, torturous treatment. The bestial and barbaric practices drive him to dare an escape. Using ingenuity and daring, he makes for Chicago where he does well and soon climbs the ladder of success. Years later, he is discovered and threatened with a return. The Governor and many citizens sponsor his safety. However, using an old legal trick, the prison authorities convince Burns to return with a promise of release in a few months. Trusting them he voluntarily returns. However Burns learns he is not to be released as promised. The stripes, the Ball and Chain await him and upon learning of the deception, plots again to escape but the guards are waiting for him to try. A magnificent Black and White film and one which has established itself as a true Classic ****.

Requiem for an American Dream...

[ElMaruecan82 · 9/10 · 17 September 2019]

• How do you live?
• I steal.

As a movie quote buff, I've been familiar with that brief exchange for almost ten years, ten entire years where I kept wondering what made these lines so memorable. If the protagonist was a fugitive from a chain gang, then what's the big deal about him stealing? Was he seducing a girl? Confessing to a cop? Whatever, there might have been something quite impacting about it, and all through the movie, I was looking forward to hearing that quote, I was anticipating it maybe even more than the film itself, which -you guessed it- took me right till the end and I say it's certainly one of the most haunting and unforgettable endings I've ever watched.

That's why I love watching movies, every once in a while, you have something that blows your mind, that keeps you speechless. I think the last time a similar experience left me that way was Richard Brooks' "I Want to Live!" with Susan Hayward. I think it's interesting that the two movies center on the flaws of the judicial system and on the harrowing journey of not-so innocent (but not plain guilty) protagonists, both victim of unfortunate circumstances and believing till the very end that the system works. Paul Muni is simply extraordinary as James Allen, the man whose soul is literally crashed by the chain gang routine and the barbarian conditions prisoners lived under..

When Allen has his first taste of whatever greasy excuse for a meal they served him, from his facial expressions, I could almost taste the awfulness. And the film is full of small little touches that makes it genuinely effective, notice that even when he's informed that food won't get any better so he better gets used to it, he tries a second bite and he gives up again, it's not as easy as it looks. Allen is like Billy Hayes in "Midnight Express" but this is no Turkish prisons, this is America, it's a shame that a civilized country had such awful places, but it's to its credit to allow the artistic expression to denounce it, and Melvin Leroy does it with the gripping and stark boldness of a neo-Realistic director and Warner Bros must be commanded for making one of the early prison movies with a social soul.

And the film has all the common tropes of the genre: nasty guards, friendly inmates, nightmarish first night, punishments, dying prisoners, and it's all wrapped up in a realism twice courageous since it addresses an audience who's most likely to react with "these guys are no angels, they had it coming". This is a prison movie destined to audiences who're not used to root for prisoners. Of course, it helps to know that Allen is innocent and was once a war hero and idealistic would-be engineer, but it doesn't change anything for the second act shows a man whose rehabilitation is complete and what goes in the last third act is the part that fills your mind with a cool and icy rage, when Allen decides to trust the system and give ninety days of his life to get the governor's pardon and then nine more months, before realizing it's hopeless, so hopeless Allen can't even react.

I'll repeat myself but that's because I'm truly a fan of "Midnight Express", Muni reminded me of Brad Davis' harrowing breakdown when he learned that his four years were extended to perpetuity, nine years wouldn't feel as perpetuity but what tortures Allen is the way he's taken to hell for a crime he didn't technically commit while the so-called representatives of the government can't even honor a promise, that's the real pain, the sense of betrayal. It's seldom that 30s movies would be so defiant toward the system, I said there's something neo-realistic in Melvyn Leroy's atmospheric and documentary-like take on the system but there are also moments of ironic poetry that recall Ford of French pre-war cinema. Paul Muni gives the kind of performance à la Gabin but with something even more detached and cynical at the end.

The film has a few 'naive' moments but when you know where this is leading up to, you just can't dismiss such a gem of the pre-Code era. Anyway, I regretted that Paul Muni, as "Scarface" was reduced to a double-crossing coward at the end not to make gangsters look sympathetic, and here he is the same year, being double-crossed by the system. And watching civilized countries turning good and innocent people into shadows of their former selves was quite a gutsy premise. Speaking of shadow, like I said found one of the most haunting endings ever, the last minute of the film is forever stuck in my memory, especially with Paul Muni's eyes, the way he slips into the darkness and say "I steal". Now, that's how you end a film with pure poetic perfection in an anticlimax that reflects the way a promising life was cut short because of a misplaced judicial zeal.

The film ends abruptly, with the darkness suddenly filling the screen and leaving us unaware of Muni's destination, wherever he's gone, we know he won't be back, but he'll never leave our memories.

"How Do You Live?"

[jhclues · 10/10 · 23 December 2001]

In a society known for freedom and justice, how is that justice truly measured and meted out? When an individual's very life hinges on a verdict of innocent or guilty, is there such a thing as an objective call? Or is a person's life subject to mere perception; a subjective evaluation of `facts' assimilated through a filter of bloated egos and personal agenda? All questions that many, perhaps, would prefer not to have answered, nor indeed, even asked at all. Those who are so secure in the absolutism of our justice system that they will willingly defer to the establishment in all matters, and with a clear conscience. The `system,' after all, is infallible; or at least good enough, isn't it? Good enough, that is, when it's being tested on `someone else.' But what if that glitch in the system becomes personal? What if `you' are the one who falls victim to a miscarriage of justice, and your voice becomes impotent, grinding your pleas into so much pulp beneath the wheels of a machine to which you are nothing more than another insignificant cog? It's a situation examined in the absorbing drama, `I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang,' directed by Mervyn LeRoy, and starring Paul Muni.

James Allen (Muni) returns home from WWI to find his old job in a shoe factory awaiting him. But James is a changed man, with aspirations of doing something meaningful with his life; and he wants to put the experience he received in the Army-- in the Engineering Corps-- to use. He wants to build things-- bridges, roads-- useful things. And toward that end he sets out and scours the East Coast from north to south looking for work, but jobs are scarce. Finally, having taken to `walking the ties,' the rail leads him into St. Louis, just another out-of-work bum in the eyes of society. There he meets up with a guy named Pete (Preston Foster), who tells James he knows where they can get a hamburger as a hand-out. The trusting and somewhat naive James goes along, only to find himself on the wrong end of a stick-up gone bad.

From that point, the justice system moves swiftly, and James Allen finds himself sentenced to ten years at hard labor on a chain gang. His offense? Being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong guy.

Based on the autobiographical story by Robert E. Burns, and written for the screen by Sheridan Gibney and Brown Holmes, LeRoy's riveting film is an inditement of the justice system-- specifically the brutality of the chain gangs-- but also of a society too smug and filled with self-righteousness to realize how fragile and tentative the freedoms we enjoy really are. America is the greatest country in the world-- a veritable bastion of freedom-- but those who would throw out their chests while holding up the Constitution, citing whichever amendment it is that suits their personal agenda, should be made to walk a mile in the shoes of Robert Burns/James Allen. Or for a start, be required to watch this film.

Released in 1932, this film is devoid of the melodrama common to many films of this era, and instead presents the story in very realistic terms, the meaning of which is indisputable. Like Hitchcock's unnerving 1957 film, `The Wrong Man' (also based on a true story), this film is not only disconcerting, but down-right scary when you stop to consider the implications of it. It also evokes a sense of Kafka's `The Trial' (also made into a movie in 1963 by Orson Welles), but without the abstractedness; unlike `The Trial's' Joseph K., James Allen knows exactly what's happened to him and how. What he can't understand is `Why.' Nor would any rational man, betrayed by the very society in which he placed his implicit trust, understand.

Paul Muni gives a dynamic, stirring performance as James Allen, capturing all of the confusion, exasperation, pain and anguish of his inexplicable situation, all of which you can see in his expression, in his eyes and in his body language and demeanor. You feel the darkness into which he is forced to descend, and with him you share that sense of hope fading away more with each passing day. From the tension of the moment when he first attempts to `Hang it on the limb,' to what is one of the most haunting endings ever filmed, you're right there, living it with him. It's a powerful, truly memorable performance by Muni.

The supporting cast includes Helen Vinson (Helen), Noel Francis (Linda), Allen Jenkins (Barney), Berton Churchill (Judge), Edward Ellis (Bomber Wells), David Landau (Warden), Hale Hamilton (Rev. Robert Allen), Sally Blane (Alice), Louise Carter (Allen's Mother), James Bell (Red), William Le Maire (Texan), Edward Arnold (Lawyer) and Willard Robertson (Prison Commissioner). In no way does this film exaggerate the situation it depicts; it doesn't have to. In the end, `I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang' is a wake-up call of sorts, a warning to those who take personal freedom for granted or place too much trust in a flawed system mired in bureaucracy. That a film made in 1932 can still have such an impact today says more than enough about how good it is. And once you've seen it, you'll never forget that final, haunting scene, and James Allen's final words. I rate this one 10/10.

Still powerful

[preppy-3 · 10/10 · 30 July 2004]

Paul Muni comes back from the war (WWI) a hero. He's offered his old job back but declines it--he wants to make it on his own. He inadvetantly gets involved in a stickup and is (unjustly) sent to a chain gang for 9 years. The prisoners there are treated horribly--beaten by sadistic guards and forced to eat wretched food. After a few months Muni has had it. He escapes, changes his name, makes a living for himself and is very successful. But his past begins to catch up on him...

A very early Warner Bros. social drama--and one of their best. It's pretty strong stuff. I remember originally seeing this on TV back in the 1970s and really being shocked by it. It's not graphic but what you hear is even worse then being shown it (the whippings in particular). It also shows a law system that doesn't give a damn about how they treat their prisoners. They should be treated like dirt--and are! The story moves quickly and Muni is just superb. This movie made him and you can see why. Also it has one of the most depressing endings I've ever seen in a motion picture. It hit me hard back in the 1970s and still works today. Muni's haunted face and the final line are harrowing. A true classic--a must-see.

Be warned--some non-cable TV prints cut out the final line!

Masterpiece that keeps influencing as much as it enthrals.

[hitchcockthelegend · 10/10 · 4 March 2008]

Being a man who has a very unhealthy penchant for any film that deals with incarceration, it is with great elation that I can proudly proclaim this to be one of the greatest films of the genre. I had to finally give way and import the film on Region 1 to see what I was missing, boy was it joyous to see how this film has influenced some of my favourite film's of all time.

This is one tough movie, it pulls no punches and the only surprise is that it was made in 1932, that the film is a grizzled masterpiece is down to the astute direction of Mervyn LeRoy and a quite brilliant performance from Paul Muni in the lead role of James Allen. Based on the real life writings of Robert Elliot Burns, the film is a harsh kick in the guts about the brutal penal system that existed when most of us were mere glints in our Father's eyes. It is part of a Warner Brothers controversial classic's box set that is available on Region 1, and its place on any controversial classic list is worthy.

The film had major impact on reviews of the penal system, it caused uproar in Georgia (the film never mentions Georgia, but they knew it was about them), law suits followed and Robert Elliot Burns himself was constantly pursued by the authorities despite the state being privy to the actual facts of his case. I wont be boorish with the details as it is well documented across the net and those who haven't seen the film really need to address that issue. This picture strips it down to a primal story that begs a viewing from anyone interested in the genre - or actually for those interested in brilliant cinema from a golden era - period! 10/10

More Facts For Fans Of This Film

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7 November 2005]

Since the movie ends somewhat abruptly, I was interested in what happened to this character in real life, so I did some research. For those interested, read on:

The man, whose real name was Burns, lived quite awhile in New Jersey, wrote the book with this same title, even smuggled himself into Los Angeles for two weeks to help with the movie, using an assumed name and acting very skittish. He then went back to New Jersey. The state of Georgia, home of these chain gangs, tried to extradite him but New Jersey wouldn't give him up.

Regarding the film........

"Powerful" was a word describing this movie when it came out over 70 years ago, and it still holds true today. It was based on a true story and if injustice bothers you, this film will be disturbing. It certainly was to me, at least the first time I saw it.

I've seen it several times and am always mesmerized by Paul Muni's performance. Just the expressions on his face alone are fascinating. The other members of the cast are so-so, but it's Muni's movie anyway.

Chained for Life

[lugonian · 10/10 · 23 November 2001]

I AM A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG (Warner Brothers, 1932), expertly directed by Mervyn LeRoy, is one of those rare movies released during the early 1930s to really stand the test of time. Although not the very first film to deal with prison injustice and harsh conditions, this is probably the best of its kind. Based on the story by Robert Burns, a war veteran who twice escaped from a chain gang in Georgia, it seems likely that Warner Brothers would be the only movie studio willing to take risks dealing with a social protest story, but here it is. And while actors like Spencer Tracy or James Cagney might have taken up such a challenge for the role, playing it to conviction, as fate would have it, Paul Muni has turned out to be the best and only choice.

The photoplay focuses on a World War Army veteran named James Allen (Paul Muni), who served his country, earning his medals and now respect of his small community. Regardless of being offered back his old job, he decides to find himself by drifting from state to state, job to job, until he finds something to his liking. Along the way, Jim innocently becomes involved in a robbery by a guy named Pete (Preston Foster). A shoot out occurs by the police, killing Pete and arresting Jim. Because the money was found on his person, the judge (Berton Churchill) sentences Jim to ten years of hard labor in a chain gang prison camp. Due to harsh conditions in a living hell, Jim makes a successful escape, becoming a model citizen over the years rising to the top of his profession in a construction firm, only to be betrayed by his gold-digging wife, Marie (Glenda Farrell) for wanting a divorce so he could marry Helen (Helen Vinson), a socialite. Because of his expose to the media, Jim finds he'll never be given his promised freedom after serving 90 days. He makes his second daring escape into the new world now hit by the Great Depression. In spite of his new found freedom, he finds he'll always be chained for life as a wanted fugitive.

Not exactly a family oriented movie, "I Am a Fugitive" is a dark and very realistic drama told in documentary style with a touch of "film noir." It includes violence, though mostly taken place off screen, such as the flogging of the convicts who groan out their pain. Unlike other chain gang movies, this one doesn't feature punished convicts being placed in sweat boxes for long periods of time. While Paul Muni would achieve success in later years for his biographical dramas, winning an Academy Award as Best Actor for "The Story of Louis Pasteur" (Warners, 1936), his role as the doomed Jim Allen, victim of circumstance, is obviously his best and most remembered performance. What makes Muni so different from the other screen actors is that Muni doesn't just play a character, he BECOMES that character.

Full of memorable scenes too numerous to mention, the one that stands out is the scene where Jim, after being brought back to the chain gang on a promise for parole and release within a year, is awaken from his bed by one of the guards to be told that his appeal has been denied and that he will have to serve out his original ten-year sentence. Hearing this, Jim, with unshaved face and looking fairly dirty, looks straight into the camera with tears slowly flowing through his eyes with the expression of disgust and betrayal, making fists with his hands before resting down his head on the pillow. As for the prison escapes, they are well staged, with the second escape more exciting than the first.

Taking support in this hard-hitting drama are Louise Carter (Mrs. Allen); Sally Blane (Alice); Allen Jenkins (Barney, a fellow convict); Edward Ellis (Bomber Wells, Jim's cell-mate); David Landau (First Warden); Edward McNamara (Second Warden); Noel Francis (Linda, the lady of the evening who makes Jim's night's lodging "comfortable") and James Bell as the ill-fated convict who suffers from stomach pains. When the movie played on local television back in the 1960s and 70s, it was presented under a shorter title, "I Am a Fugitive," but when distributed to video cassette in the 1980s, its complete title was restored. Other than Paul Muni's Academy Award nomination as Best Actor for his performance as Jim Allen, the movie was honored the Best Picture award, losing "Cavalcade" (Fox, 1933).

After all these years, "I Am a Fugitive" remains a fast-pace man-on-the-run drama, which holds interest throughout its 93 minutes of screen time, and not so easily to forget once it is all over. With the chain gang system being virtually a thing of the past (younger viewers might ask, "What is a chain gang?"), the movie is a curious look back as to how prison conditions were like in the early part of the twentieth century, and how the judicial system has changed since then. "I Am a Fugitive" available on both VHS and DVD formats, has become a frequent revival on Turner Classic Movies. (****)

And people think old movies are tame

[MissSimonetta · 10/10 · 6 November 2018]

Too often, I hear from noir enthusiasts that all American movies were "childish" and "pure escapism" before WWII. I can only assume they aren't familiar with the pre-code era or films like I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932) or they wouldn't be saying such bull.

This movie is hard-hitting, even now. Muni's character finds himself in an almost Kafka-esque situation, imprisoned by circumstance long before he's framed for a crime he did not commit.

Everything is stunning: the black-and-white photography lends a stark grittiness to the atmosphere and Muni's performance strikes one as quite modern-- not a moment of camp or melodrama in it. There's one moment toward the end, where he learns his pardon has been put on hold "indefinitely," that just broke my heart: the tears welling in his eyes, the way you can see a man's hopes being brutally killed before him-- oh man, Muni was a true genius!

I could not recommend this movie more. The ending alone makes most later noir look downright sunny.

Excellent 'bio pic' from the 30's: worth a rent

[hiproductions · 6/10 · 27 May 2005]

This is a film by director Mervin Leroy from the fledgling years of sound back in the early 30's. It has been referred to as a "bio-pic". The story line was riveting, so much so that I despised the ending even though it delivered the most powerful and appropriate message for this movie.

The movie begins below deck of a states-bound ship from WWI. James Allen, (played by Paul Muni) appeared a bit rushed and unnatural in delivering his lines as did all the characters at first. Time leveled this out and there was a better flow of acting as the film progressed. Muni began to resemble an early "rebel without a cause" character in the dinner scene when he voiced his dissatisfaction with his brother's and mother's plan for his career. It must have seemed very defiant to the audiences of that day as was the provocative dialogue between he and his landlady/first wife. Her come-ons were considered aggressive even by today's standards. I enjoyed the cinematography of this film especially the use of shadow.

I also admired the message portrayed by Leroy when he showed James Allen to be a man willing to pursue his dream and passion despite the cost. The cost was the wrongful charge and unfair punishment of hard labor for stealing. The message of irony in the end that demonstrated how the legal system accomplished the exact opposite of what its designed for was brilliant. The court system, hard labor camp, and cold society made a thief out of an innocent man with a dream. This was successful in eliciting emotion in the audience. I identified with Muni's character in that I wanted to see more of his story: how he evaded the police, wrote/published his book, and secured a position as a Hollywood script consultant. The abrupt "I steal!" ending was very meaningful but I left the screening wanting more.

Brilliant and ahead of its time

[BrandtSponseller · 10/10 · 9 July 2005]

I have an interesting point of view for you--I'm actually in favor of bringing back prison chain gangs/work camps (while at the same time being in favor of legalizing all consensual "crimes"), yet I think that I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang is a simply brilliant film. I mention my unusual view on corrections/institutional punishment to stress that one need not completely agree with the film's surface ideology to think that the film is a masterpiece. And that's as it should be. Films should be appreciated or not as artworks, not adopted or rejected as symbols of political or other views, as if films are campaigning for office and you are wearing a button.

Still, this is a "social conscience" film and important as such. The story was adapted from the autobiography of Robert E. Burns, who ended up on a chain gang in Georgia after he stole less than $6 so that he could eat. Burns has been changed to James Allen (Paul Muni) and the chain gang was relocated in Louisiana (interestingly, Georgia officials still became incensed at Warner Brothers and issued what amounted to threats against studio executives and the artists behind this film).

The film begins with James on a ship, in the military, on his way home from World War I. He returns as a war hero, decorated with a medal. Prior to joining the military, he had been working at a factory in his New Jersey hometown--a job he doesn't at all look forward to resuming. But when he arrives home, he discovers that his Reverend brother and his mother are expecting him to go back to the factory and not make waves. He obliges at first, but he really wants to become an engineer. Exasperated, he leaves home again, looking for work. Times are tough (remember that I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang was made during the Great Depression in the U.S.) and James quickly moves from state to state trying to find and retain work.

Things do not go so well. James ends up traveling along rail lines and staying in homeless shelters. At one, he hooks up with a man who says that he can mooch a couple of hamburgers for them from the owner of a diner. The mooching works, but the man suddenly pulls out a gun and initiates an armed robbery. James is forced into participating and gets caught, bringing him to prison. The first section of the film focuses on existence in the chain gang. Later, as one could surmise from the title, James becomes a fugitive, and the story becomes entrancingly complex as he tries to begin a new life. But difficulties keep arising.

As he often did, director Mervyn LeRoy achieves a style that seems remarkably modern. I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang is extremely serious, but never approaches melodrama. Instead, it has a wonderfully gritty atmosphere that tends to be underplayed instead--there are similarities to more recent films that it probably influenced such as Don Siegel's Escape from Alcatraz (1979) and Jim Jarmusch's Down by Law (1986), both excellent in their own right.

The plot is a bit sprawling in terms of the number of events, the number of years and the number of geographic locations covered, yet the screenplay, by Howard J. Green, Brown Holmes and Sheridan Gibney, is extremely tight and logical. Nothing is superfluous. The pacing is always right on target. LeRoy knows exactly when to dwell on a scene versus when to let months fly by with changing calendar pages. The cinematography is also very attractive. LeRoy includes a lot of subtly clever artistic touches such as symbolic continuity in his edits--for example, from a judge's gavel to a swinging sledgehammer on the chain gang.

Muni is simply incredible. He's a perfect fit for the character. His performance makes the film extremely believable, even when the character makes some ill-advised choices. He seems as skilled at action as he is at drama (there are a few action sequences here in the modern sense of that genre term). I haven't seen many of Muni's films yet, but after seeing this one, I'm anxious to check them out. The rest of the cast is fine, but Muni receives 90-something percent of the screen time.

In addition to the "indictment" of the chain gang system, LeRoy and his writers make the film a tragic parable of freedom versus regimentation. James is a freethinking individualist, almost in an Ayn Rand sense, who is constantly trapped in various conformist systems. The military is the first symbol of this, and so is the factory that James dreads going back to. His brother is a symbol of conservative systematization via religion. And of course, the chain gang is the most negative system in which James becomes entrapped. When James is the freest--when he's wandering from state to state--he's also the most disadvantaged in terms of societal norms. His eventual vocation in the film can be seen as a gradual climb towards existential authenticity, and his work is symbolic--he's not just literally building bridges, roads and such. Ironically, he was engaged in the same kind of work on the chain gang, and ultimately, James is not able to achieve the freedom/authenticity that he desires. It's as if the film is making the argument that extreme uniqueness entails marginalization as a fringe element in a way that's often actively negative. Of course, there are many other interpretations possible, but it's difficult to deny some of these messages.

But, however analytical you want to get, I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang is a must-see for any cinephile. The film is enjoyable on many different levels, and is far ahead of its time.

Sharp commentary of the conservative, egotistical ideology of the United States

[De_Sam · 7/10 · 10 November 2015]

Warning, this review contains criticism on the United States of America, reader discretion is advised.

Firstly, the film is well made. On the one hand it starts out slow and some of the acting is sketchy, especially the mother and the reverend brother. Were I more optimistically inclined I would say his portrayal was religious satire, but being realistic, I exclude this point of view; it is hard enough to find religious satire in contemporary Hollywood productions, accordingly the presence of it in Hollywood in 1931 is highly unlikely. On the other hand the technical aspects are great for a production of its time, namely apt use of camera movement and good sound editing for such an early 'talky'.

The film is commendable to any viewer who wants to explore the golden age of Hollywood, the early spoken films and the start of the prison genre.

Now my take on the content of the film, which as previously stated contains some criticism on the ideology and working of the United States, in particular the 'Bible belt' states. The southern states, having lost their right to hold slaves after the ending of the civil war (which did not mean the slavery system was abolished in all forms in the years following the death of Abraham Lincoln), have found a new, just as profitable, way to exploit human beings. This is the only description I can give to the system of the chain gangs.

The scene which conflicted most with my sense of justice was the defense of said chain gang system; a desecration of human rights and glorification of egotistical capitalism. How can a land be 'of the free' if capitalism is more important than individual rights; the effect of the economisation of all aspects of society, while also pretending Adam Smith was right about the free market (the economical crisis of 2008 proved otherwise, as did the one in 1973 and 1929). 'Land of the brave'? Yes, I can definitely see the people who opted to stay in the United States as brave.

James Allen was his own prisoner

[k-boughton · 5/10 · 7 February 2021]

This filmed showcased not only the reality of a man in the southern prison system but the reality of a veteran coming back from war. James Allen throughout the film was always imprisoned though not always in the literal sense of the term. After returning from the war his family expected him to return the same man and continue his former job, but that was no longer the life James wanted for himself but he was stuck in the fact that his family only saw one way of life for him, so he escaped. James of course then tried to make ends meet doing odd jobs in construction only to end up poor and in the wrong place at the wrong time leading to him becoming a prisoner on the chain gang. Once again James escaped leading only to a life of constantly looking behind his back and being imprisoned by the fear of getting caught. Though it seemed he could achieve his original goal of being an engineer, and he did, he was forced into a loveless marriage by a woman who was willing to turn him in and she did. James of course ended up back in the chain gang only to escape and spend his life on the run living a life of crime. James did everything he could to be happy even though everything he did is the reason why he ended up so unhappy. James created a life of imprisonment for himself by chasing a dream that even when he achieved it never brought him happiness. This movie shows in the clearest way that the choices you make lead to real life consequences and if choose to run from your consequences they will find you or you will live in fear of what will come next.

Gutsy, and hard to forget

[rmax304823 · 14 March 2003]

It took some courage to make this movie, and Warner Brothers was up to it. This is one of four such productions on the early 1930s that dealt with crime naturalistically. But the others -- "Public Enemy," "Little Caesar," and "Scarface" -- although investing the protagonists with recognizably human traits like jealousy or male bonding -- were nevertheless on the side of the state. Okay, he might love his Mamma, but he's still a menace to society. They all died violently in the end. Here, on the other hand, is a story in which the protagonist is completely innocent, guilty of nothing more than wanting to strike out on his own and accomplish something constructive after having been through hell in the army in World War I.

The state -- Georgia -- convicts him in error. He was forced into participating in the crime by a stranger, although to be sure he acted guilty enough. And, what with the real James Allen acting as consultant, and the film being based on his autobiographical book, who can really tell how unwilling a participant he was?

Still, the point of the movie is that even if were guilty of robbery, the punishment imposed by the state, the conditions at the chain gang, were inhuman. Let's say many sensible people would consider it "cruel and unusual." So Allen escapes the first time, just as Cool Hand Luke did. According to the movie he rises to prominence as a self-taught engineer, although, again, the point would remain the same even if he never rose above the station of busboy. Coerced into marriage by a domineering, greedy, and self-indulgent wife (whose autobiographical novel should have been a companion piece to Allen's), he finds himself falling for a "nice girl".

But his past catches up with him. His wife betrays him out of spite. The governor of Illinois is understandably reluctant to extradite a prominent citizen who has shown how socially valuable he is, but the representatives of Georgia insist on a symbolic retribution. Return to Georgia voluntarily, says the soothing, expensive Georgian. There'll be only a token service of, say, 90 days in a cushy job, then you'll be pardoned. Alas, he's thrown into an even more horrific penal servitude and his hearing is suspended indefinitely. So he pulls Cool Hand Luke's Excape Number Two, right down to the admiring companion who jumps aboard the truck with him.

This time there is no going back, at least not according to the movie. The final shot is heartbreaking. I don't know how much of this story can be believed insofar as Allen's character is concerned. Suppose you were to write an autobiography. Might you not come out looking a little better than you actually are? Oh, that God the giftie gie' us/ to see ourselves as others see us. But I believe the chain gang sequences allright. If Allen is fibbing about that, he's still done a good job of convincing me that these conditions were real. I've worked with Corrections Officers and while they might be tough and contemptuous towards inmates, they treated them fairly. But I can believe things were quite different in 1925 in Georgia. The South has an interesting way of dealing with deviance. Southerners tend to be polite, compassionate, and helpful. They go out of their way to be friendly -- until you break an important rule. Then you forfeit any claim to humane treatment. (You want to be executed? Murder somebody in Texas or Florida.)

In the course of the 1960s, the state became as much of an enemy as the criminal himself -- maybe moreso. But this movie was released in 1932, a time at which it still took guts to depict a social system so thoroughly corrupt and sadistict.

Catch this one, if you can.

A Masterpiece of Social Injustice!!!

[zardoz-13 · 10/10 · 7 February 2010]

In "Little Caesar" director Mervyn LeRoy's riveting pre-Code prison melodrama "I Am A Fugitive from A Chain Gang," protagonist James Allen's appetite for a hamburger lands him in the worst place on earth—a southern chain gang—because his hunger prompted him to participate as an accomplice in the robbery of a short-order restaurant that yielded only five dollars! Scenarists Sheridan Gibney, Howard J. Green and Brown Holmes derived their sizzling screenplay from Robert E. Burns' autobiographical account of life on a Georgia Prison chain gang. Indeed, the author remained at large while Warner Brothers Studios produced this landmark film about social injustice that gave Georgia a black eye. Actually, the title of the Burns autobiography carried the name of the state where he served time.

Paul Muni was ideally cast as Robert Burns, and he makes a highly sympathetic hero who pays the price for his split-second lack of poor judgment that sent him to jail. Allen was one of the thousands of troops that survived the First World War to return home a changed man. He tells his priest and his family that he does not want to go back to his old factory job, even after his boss meets him at the railroad station and gives him his job back. Instead, Allen wants to go into construction, but the market for construction workers is extremely tight and our hero finds himself moving from one job to another until he meets a shady character in a flophouse. "I Am A Fugitive from a Chain Gang" qualified as one of the earliest films to expose the legitimacy of the United States legal system. Indeed, as TIME magazine reported in 1932, Georgia chain gang warden J. Harold Hardy sued Warner Brothers Pictures Inc. and Vitaphone Corporation for $1,000,000 each for "vicious, untrue and false attacks" in movie. In the film, Burns breaks out of prison and heads north to Chicago. Five years later he has made quite a name for himself as a respectable business man in a bridge-building firm. Bridge-building itself serves as a metaphor in this instance.

Things sour when a dame, Marie Woods (Glenda Farrell of "Gold Diggers of 1935"), discovers his closely guarded secret. Marie blackmails him into marriage, but he falls in love with another woman (Helen Vinson of "They Call It Sin") and begs for a divorce. Ultimately, he is shipped back to Georgia. During his first stint on the chain gang, Allen learns to keep his trap shut when he gets whipped for calling the chain gang warden a skunk for wanting whip a man who is nearly dead from exhaustion. When Allen brings up the idea of escape, the convicts tell him the slang phrase for it is "hanging it on the wire." They explain that anybody who breaks out has to contend with three things: first, the chains, second, the bloodhounds, and third, guards who would rather bring you back dead rather than alive. Later, he entreats the African-American inmate to smash his ankle chains to loosen them so he can eventually slip out of them. Among many memorable scenes is the barbershop scene. While the barber is shaving Allen, a policeman enters the shop and describes James Allen to the barber. Allen demands a hot towel to cover his face. As he is leaving the shop later and trying to hide his face from the cop, the barber inquires if the shave were close enough. "Plenty," replies Allen and vanishes into the evening. The ending is a corker.

"I Am A Fugitive from a Chain Gang" is one of the greatest social problem movies to ever illuminate the silver screen. The film received nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor for Muni, and best sound. According to All Movie, "the publication of Burns' book led to the abolishment of that system and an erasure of Burns' sentence." A film not to be missed. The Burns autobiography was later remade in 1987 as an HBO telefeature: "The Man Who Broke A 1000 Chains" with Val Kilmer playing Burns.

Wow.

[CriticalViewing · 10/10 · 15 May 2016]

The use of sound is greatly used in this film, off-screen sound is impactful, and all notable sound in this film is symbolic or significant, for either audience feeling or for meaning. These sounds include bells, sounds of metal clanking, belts, etc. And the use of close-ups are also masterfully used. These close-ups are indicative of character feeling at crucial moments, keeping the viewer emotionally connected. And the use of music, adding to the overall feeling of each frame. This film was powerful enough to prompt mass social outrage, from feelings of sadness, disgust, and true anger...the emotive impact on social views and action in 1932 was enough to push legislation, and it isn't hard to see why. LeRoy couldn't have done better in the direction of this film, nor could Paul Muni have done a better job of acting in it.

Oh, Man, What a Movie

[Tenkun · 10/10 · 21 May 2007]

You could watch "I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" a thousand times and still be seized with suspense and anxiety during both of James Allen's escape attempts. The story of a man wronged by injustice, a man who gave his youth for his country, his past to his future, and his mind over to civil engineering. Forced at gunpoint to hold up a diner, he is summarily sentenced to 10 years hard labor- on the chain gang. If you have a soul, this movie will move you. You would have to be heartless not to get angry, whether during the scene where the warden causes the death of a sick inmate, when Allen is betrayed for the first and second times by the prison board, when he's betrayed by his loveless wife. It's a movie that draws out involuntary emotions. Strong emotions.

You might just find yourself yelling at the screen, "It's not fair!" I noticed that Paul Muni, toward the beginning, is to a T the prototype of James Dean and Marlon Brando. He epitomizes the frustration of youth as he tells his mother and brother he doesn't want a factory job anymore. He wants to build. He descends into abysmal poverty. He gets caught and thrown on the chain gang. He slaves away before a black prisoner helps him escape. See how progressive this movie is? The guards are white; the saintly inmates are black. He builds a new life for himself from scratch, on only his wits and skill. He's caught again just as he's found himself a woman he really loves. Allen is a tragic figure- his tragic flaw is only his willingness to believe in the American criminal justice system.

The title says it all. It's not "I WAS a Fugitive..." because he never gets away or is permanently caught. Like Al Roberts in "Detour," he flees forever. Parts of the movie are almost nihilistic, as he gets stuck on the chain gang for guys who were too tough for the chain gang. Prisoners cry, "I don't care whether I live or die! What are you gonna do, kill me?" The chain gang breaks a man. It destroys his spirit until he's just a hollow shell that works until it can no longer and then gives out, dies. All with stark B&W cinematography to match the depletion of humanity, the draining of life from the individual and from the nation.

This, along with "Scarface," is Muni's tour de force. He is eternally sympathetic, and we are eternally in chains with him. Stone walls may not a prison make, but when you're on the chain gang long enough, you clearly become stuck in an imprisoned mind frame. As everyone has commented, the ending is one of the greatest of all film endings. This surprising vision of Allen, more a rat than a man, leaping out of the darkness after his final heroic escape, obviously no longer a hero. In the sparse light we get, we see his emaciated and hardened face. He shakes his head when this woman, whose only thought is for him, asks if he'll need money or if he'll come see her. He backs out of the scene, clearly afraid that somebody's traced him there and will have him back on the chain gang in an instant, always running running running, and then she calls out to him like any normal lover would, "How do you live?" But his answer is not that of a lover. His answer is not that of a man. Nor of an innocent man, nor of a hero. We don't know what he is.

"I steal," he hisses in a ghoulish voice whose echoes linger in our ears long after the scene fades and out and THE END rolls with the Warner Bros. logo. "I steal," and we are forever haunted, cursed with this vision of what an innocent man can become. A fugitive. I shiver every time I think of it.

Heady, Fast, Social Justice without the Justice--Muni is brilliant

[secondtake · 10/10 · 16 September 2009]

I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932)

Heady, Fast, Social Justice without the Justice--Muni is brilliant

Filmed a year after Howard Hawks's Scarface (also released 1932), I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang shows the other half of Paul Muni's brilliance. There is no question that both films are masterpieces of their type, with Mervyn LeRoy pulling together a lot of periods and kinds of milieu into a coherent and fast narrative for the later one. But I think both films owe their critical success to Muni's presence on screen, a true Brando or Gable kind of figure with a short list of films to show for his abilities. Watch these both. If Scarface is more dazzling (almost to the point of being dazzling for its own sake), I Am a Fugitive is more moving, and Muni makes us really feel for his situation, or series of situations, as the film proceeds.

The story is based on an autobiographical book written by Robert E. Burns, a man in prison at the time of filming, and one sign of the success of LeRoy and Muni combined is that Burns managed to be released in the film's wake. And to some extent that was the goal of the film--not just the fate of Burns, but the public awareness of the cruelty of parts of the American justice system. There are no secrets about the agenda--it is announced in large type at the start of the movie--but it worked. And works to this day. Of course, O Brother Where Art Thou (2000) owes a lot to this movie, but the humor in the original is incidental, or meant to give life to the characters, not as a way of making the film especially funny. The drumbeat of horrors makes laughing very temporary, and the social realism strikes me, 70 years later, as more or less real.

Jaded (and brilliant) critics like Pauline Kael might refer to this kind of socially concerned film as "naive," but the movie strikes me as necessarily simple rather than blind or stupid in any sense. And it isn't that watching it is simple--there is so much going on, a lot of characters (including as series of women who come and go with surprising rapidity). It's more that the point is simple--chain gangs are cruel. And not unusual, back then. On the level of film-making, the film is sophisticated, rising above its message if necessary.

There is one last element worth mentioning, and that has to do with it being made two years before the Hays code got modified and enforced to its famous repressive heights. This allowed the key, amazing, beautiful ending to survive into the theaters. If you haven't seen it I can say no more, but it's the kind of ending that the censors would have abolished, along with some of the rest of the movie, for its frank violence, its suggestion of sexual indecency, etc. So for another great example of "pre-code" brilliance, look here. A masterpiece for its time, and for ours.

A Socially Critical Masterpiece

[ilvatz · 10/10 · 1 February 2012]

I found this movie to be a stunning journey into the life of the wrongly convicted. The main characters portrayal of the emotions of someone who has done nothing wrong and must suffer the short end of a corrupt system is breathtaking. I find it amazing that this movie comes from the era that it did. It was very socially critical, aware and sought to bring to the publics attention the very things which they were trying to ignore. The camera work in this movie alone makes it worth watching. The camera adds a very cool effect in the action scenes (i.e. the car chase at the end) and a very somber effect in the scene of hopelessness. I found the use of silence in this film to be quite amazing as well. The scene where the main character is getting whipped and the music drops out and all you can hear is the sound of the whip striking and the painful breaths of the wrongly accused adds a stunning effect and truly heightens the feeling of cruelty and hopelessness that the audience feels. The plot of the movie was very well done and takes you on an incredible journey from hope, to despair, from rags to riches and back again. I find it very interesting that the characters motivation to be truly great and not just settle back into the normalcy of his life before he fought in the war was what, by an unfortunate turn of events led him to the very bottom of the social ladder. I find that this is a very accurate representation of how in American life, even to this day, trying to be more than people expect of you and break away from the norm to forge your own path is looked down upon and often punished despite the 'American Dream' of individuality and independence. The scene that I found the most moving in this film was the very last scene where the main characters fades into the darkness and all you can hear is him exclaiming 'I steal.' The irony that an honest man who up until then had never committed a dishonest act and was driven by the very system which was supposed to correct improper behavior to committing crimes in order to survive was truly emotionally cutting. I think that this film, besides being an amazing tale of woe and fortune was very important in its time for exposing the corruption of the chain gang system.

I'm hungry. What would you say to a hamburger?

[yilmazomar · 10/10 · 3 October 2012]

"Boy. I'd take Mr. Hamburger by the hand and say, "Pal, I haven't seen you for a long, long time." and with that line begins one of the darkest most refreshing moments in cinema history. This film is like a film that I haven't seen in a long long time, it's not a happy story or even a sad story, it's portrayed and shot in such a way that it's a story dipped in grit, reality, dirt and dust, a film where our hero loses at the game of life, he loses his love, his passion, his profession, his peace of mind and better yet we don't see how that turns out for him. The films portrayal of law and order is surprising especially for its time, I was truly frightened by the faces of the judges and sound of the chains and the hounds chasing our fugitive, about the fragility of any one mans peace in society, the viciousness and perhaps even the lasciviousness of certain women, the film oh how wonderfully it topples the notion of our old boy coming back home from the war, finding love and finding a job and making pa and pa proud and happy. Paul Muni's acting is superb as well especially his awkwardness at the train station when he's greeted by family and friends and his face of anarchy at the dinner table later that night and let us not forget the look of misery and finally utter deep desperation at the end all of which he acts out so skillfully. The ending and its final lines pack a wallop and is one of the best endings I've ever seen.

arts 272-500

[fauxface · 6/10 · 23 September 2009]

"I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" follows the life of a man, James Allen, who is struggling for control. It seems that his life is not governed by his own choices, but those that are forced upon him. He is an army veteran, returning from basing his day-to-day life off orders and returns to living in his mother's house with dreams of change and finding a job that has importance to him. His mother finds him a clerical job at the factory where he used to work and she tries to force him into it. James spends his days working at the factory with his mind wandering to the construction site he can see through the window and goes there during his lunch breaks. He finally leaves to pursue a life working in construction and hops from town to town looking for work. He finds himself at the mercy of fate when he is offered dinner by a new friend. At the diner, he is held at gunpoint to steal money from the cash register and runs away during the confusion when cops come in. Since he was caught running away with the money on him, he is found guilty even though he was forced to steal.

James is sentenced to ten years of labor in a chain gang and successfully escapes after a year. He finds a new job under the name "Allen James" and through hard work becomes very influential and wealthy. His landlord Marie reads a letter from his brother and learns that he is a fugitive. She blackmails him into marriage so she can live off of his money. He falls in love with another woman Helen and wants to divorce his wife. His wife betrays him and spills his secret and he is approached by officials to negotiate a pardon.

James fulfills his requirements for his pardon but is retained to finish his previous sentence. He escapes again and approaches his lover Helen. Before he leaves her, she asks how he will live without money and as he disappears into the dark he replies "I steal".

These last words have a great significance to the theme of the movie. He is ultimately forced to steal because he was wrongly accused of stealing. The misfortune he encounters takes a good, hardworking man and reduces him into exactly the thing that society was trying to prevent: a criminal.

Swept the Rag Awards - Well Deserved!

[HotToastyRag · 10/10 · 27 February 2019]

It was a running joke in my family that my grandfather always raved about I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, and in particular, Paul Muni. "Have you ever seen I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang? Paul Muni was so great!" he'd say. We always said, "No, we've never seen it," without any real desire to correct our mistake. The title just sounded silly.

When we finally watched it for the first time, we had to take back every joke we ever made. It's fantastic! I couldn't believe it was made in 1932, and I couldn't believe what a wonderful, raw, emotional performance Paul Muni gave. No wonder Grandpa loved him! In the beginning of the movie, Paul talks to his mother about how frustrated he feels. He wants to get out and make his own way in the world; even if he starts from the bottom just digging ditches, at least it's his own accomplishment. It's such a wonderful scene, and so natural, which wasn't the style back then. Normally, an actor given those lines would shout and flail his arms and press the back of his hand to his forehead. Paul just lets his voice do the talking, and it's very powerful.

As the title suggests, Paul's plans go awry, and he finds himself in jail. And, as the title also suggests, it isn't long before he plans a prison break. Even now, 85 years later, the action and chase scenes are incredibly exciting. There's no need to take yourself back in time to appreciate this movie. Go rent it, even if you think it sounds silly. I assure you it's not. You'll discover the bright new star, Paul Muni, who, after only four movies became instantly immortal. And you'll understand why this movie beat out such stiff competition at the first Hot Toasty Rag Awards ceremony, sweeping Best Picture, Director, and Actor.

interesting chain gang movie

[alwaysdubbin91 · 6/10 · 24 September 2012]

i can't honestly say it was the most exciting movie i have watched recently, but it did keep me entertained, and that is what movies are all about. James Allen(Muni) is wrongly accused of stealing from a burger stand and sent to prison to serve on a chain gang, and he can't handle being punished for a crime he did not commit, so he finds a way to escape and somehow gets away with calling himself Allen James instead of James Allen and gets a job on a construction crew, and a few years later once he is rich and famous he is found out by the authorities and taken back to the chain gang under the supervision of the same guard he escaped from the first time around.

Beautiful yet dark.

[c-farrell7 · 5/10 · 15 December 2010]

This is film is an honest look at the treatment of criminals in a southern prison system after World War I. It depicts the effects of the Great Depression on the common man. The basic theme is that every person deserves their basic civil rights despite their background and that anyone can come from nothing to become a prominent figure in society. The lighting of this film is remarkable. Many scenes are dramatically bathed in darkness letting the viewer see only what is important. Sound also played a big role in setting the film, the constant sound of sledge hammers reoccurs to emphasis the constant struggle of the prisoners. The film also makes clever use of off screen action like in the scene where James is taken to another room to be flogged, the camera does not follow him into the room but remains stationary allowing the viewer to hear the hits of the whip and the cries of pain.