In March 1993, Anthony Summers' book,
Official and Confidential, the Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover raised the
spectre of America's top law enforcer having turned a blind eye to the
rise of organised crime in the U.S. He claimed Hoover, maybe because of
blackmail, let them grow from being a ghetto phenomenon in certain cities
to become reputedly party to an officially covered-up murder of a President.
However, the American public would also
have been baffled about the nature of organised crime by the way Hollywood
introduced it to them. This cinema had at that time just embraced self-censorship.
Censors were already in post when the future of law and order was negligently
compromised.
Law and order in urban America, cannot
be understood without recognising the crucial ethnic interplay. It is popularly
recognised since the era of The Godfather (1972), that organised crime
grew out of the immigration of southern Italian groups. Initially, it could
be said that crime was at its most systematic when it was "wops ripping
off other wops". This Italian core only involved itself with a small number
of neighbouring ethnic groups in the ghettos. Meyer Lansky was the best
instance of the link up with Jews. Today, Hollywood now emphasises the
Hispanic basis of street crime and drug importation in America.
MALCOLM X WAS RIGHT
In the 1960s Malcolm X highlighted how
America's new urban black ghettos were being corrupted by drugs, alcohol
and gambling. His Islamic crusade, and moral and religious campaigns since,
such as those of Jesse Jackson; have tried to confront a tragedy where
America's monster murder figures are mostly blacks killing blacks. Much
of this stems clearly from Mafia mass marketing of narcotics in black ghettos
after the war. It is against this background that the most familiar crime
has arisen which has frightened the censorship lobby.
How could this cycle of degeneration
have been avoided? The obvious and democratic answer would be to have made
the American public aware of what was happening in the ghettos in the 1920s.
Even this could have come as a democratic justification of special programmes
aimed at the Italian communities. Both police action and the nurturing
of alternative grassroots social and economic organisations were probably
needed. A cinema with its finger really on the pulse of the nation in the
1930s would have usefully contributed to such popular enlightenment. Instead
many radical critics and thinkers dreamed of films modelled on Soviet masterpieces.
ROBINSON, BOGART AND CAGNEY
One of Hollywood's clearest such failure
was not being able to represent the ethnic diversity of even America's
white people. This can best be seen in looking at Edward G. Robinson, Humphrey
Bogart and James Cagney.
Bogart must be the biggest problem.
He rose to stardom in the 1930s playing 'gangsters'. However, his screen
persona was almost always - White Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. So his incarnation
of the organised crime figure thus obscured the ethnic nature of the emerging
social problem which he was involved in portraying. In looking down the
list of characters Bogart played, there are few Italian names. These Italians
were a juryman, sailor in a war film and with George Raft the Fabrini brothers
in They Drive By Night (1940).
Edward G. Robinson, by contrast had
the potential to open a more effective representation of the problem. He
played the original sound gangster in Little Caesar (1931). Robinson, a
Russian Jewish immigrant played the role as an Italian immigrant. In retrospect
we can see that the author of the play on which the film was based was
comparitively unfair when he attacked the film for failing to use Italian
actors. Robinson's film was the only one of the classic gangster films
to raise the ethnic issue. Although Paul Muni did an Italian impression
for Howard Hawks' Scarface (1932), Hawks made twisted sexuality the centre
of his representation.
James
Cagney creates as many misunderstandings as Bogart. In Public Enemy (1931),
Cagney represents the New York Irish ethnicity with which he is associated.
His character is involved in a Freudian conflict with his policeman father!
This heralded the flaws in his later gangster portraits. The Irish had
an ethnic hold on the police forces in many American cities. This tribal
problem corrupted local policing which was again illustrated in The Godfather.
The Italian groups could buy off the police, and the bribes filtered down
the ranks better when there was an ethnic bond. The representation of the
basically nice Irish lad gone astray, is at best irrelevant to the U.S.
crime problem and at worst misleading.
George Raft is in many ways the lost
solution to the problem of ethnic representation. Raft played the Italian
sidekick to Paul Muni in Hawks' Scarface. Raft had a German father but
looked like his Italian mother. He grew up in the early Italian ghetto
in New York. He personally knew the people he was involved in representing.
However, Italian men were limited in the roles they could play in the 1920s.
Rudolf Valentino was their only real star and only as the 'Latin Lover'.
Raft was a friend of Valentino and his most common early roles were exploitations
of the image established by his friend.
Later Raft never really got beyond very
flat and fleeting representations of the Italian hood. He was still doing
this in Some Like It Hot (1959) towards the end of his career. Raft's own
career judgement was lacking in as much as he turned down the Bogart roles
in The Maltese Falcon (1941) and Casablanca (1943), which launched the
later on the path to becoming an icon of the era. It is probably only with
Roger corman and Francis Ford Coppola since the 1960s that performers of
Italian origin made it to the major roles.
RURAL MYTHS
The 1930s set the pattern for the two
types of gangster films that predominated until very recently. These were
the urban and the rural crime/gangster stories.
The early classics which we have already
discussed were the mould for the urban film. At least since Nicholas Ray's
Party Girl (1960) the industry was remaking in colour the already ageing
stories with ageing iconography. We see the same game in Brian De Palma's
Scarface (1980) and The Untouchables (1987). the same self-censorship and
looking to old iconography must be seen in Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless
(1959). Much of the other homages to old crime films in the sixties must
be seen in the same light (e.g. Fassbinder and Corman). However, it was
not until Kirk Douglas and Coppola that anyone used the urban films' potential
to expose the ethnic crux.
The rurual film was actually a Polish
myth, which the best film makers at least managed to use to show women
as dominant partners. The rural gangs were not much bigger than a couple
of car loads of people. However, Hoover emphasised them as a threat and
hunted down such as Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde vindictively by comparison
to the urban organisations. They were the easy target and the stuff of
easy public relations exercises.
Fritz Lang made a Bonnie and Clyde film
with You Only live Once (1939) and the story has been regularly remade
since as They live By Night, Breathless, and Sugarland Express to name
but a few. Despite their strong representation of women they still remain
a Hoover inspired distraction when it comes to the representation of crime
in America. Hoover even helped and encouraged the making of a number of
such films as a form of propoganda for his G-men.
AWARDS FOR INFORMING
Kirk Douglas deserves particular credit
against this history. His The Brotherhood (1968) was an innovative but
still not very successful attempt to present organised crime as rooted
in the Italian-American community. Douglas produced the film but probably
weakened it by himself playing the Godfather figure. Many of these fresh
ingrediants would not work together effectively until Coppola's Italians
worked them.
Marlon Brando also stars in an earlier
film particularly deserving of praise. On The Waterfront (1954) was one
of the few films of the era to show organised crime in its changing form
as it took over unions and transport businesses. We were made to recognise
gangsterism without the iconographical underlining. It is interesting that
Kazan turned to this personal project after he had deserted the left for
Hoover-McCarthy's witchhunt. Kazan immediately used his work to point to
the real treason. He had even been preparing to do the film with an Italian
lead - Frank Sinatra who was brought up on the location - while Brando
was boycotting Kazan as a traitor.
CENSORS ON HAND
After surveying such history we can
see how the cinema systematically obscured the nature of organised crime
and organised criminals. The cinema impaired the operation of U.S. democracy
at an important point of vulnerability. This all occurred during, and certainly
not
despite, the operation of the 'Hayes Code' in Hollywood. This was a self-censorship
code drawn-up by the film industry - under pressure from the churches -
in an attempt to forestall an imposed censorship.
Among the roles imposed was one insisting
that crime should not be seen to pay! The consequence was inevitable, organised
crimes was misrepresented as failing. By comparison the crude communist
censorship in countries like Poland after the war was less damaging. Filmmakers
like Andej Wajda could work their way round it to highlight the current
social failings.
CRIME REPRESENTATION TODAY
Today the representation of organised
crime has moved on, mainly thanks to the Martial Arts genre. Films have
been made in the last decade which repeat the norms and iconography of
the thirties gangster films - The Untouchables - but the Martial Arts films
have brought great variety to the representation of both the organisation
and the criminal.
Since its origins in Hong Kong this
genre has represented the 'Triads' and the criminal. More like the 'Western'
than the Hollywood crime film, one just has to identify with those who
are challenging these organisations. This sort of film is thus very suitable
for focussing on the social problem.
The dramatic confrontations are in some
ways more violent than when relying on the firearms of the old genre. It
is therefore not surprising that the narrow minded censorship lobby should
have been so negative towards this 'violent' genre. However, we cannot
now go into detail about these and other admirable qualities to be found
in many of the films of this genre.
There is no need in conclusion to say
more than...that the conservative lobby are addressing the problem in the
cinema decades after the horse has bolted. Their censorious forebears compounded
the problem, which is probably what they will do if they are allowed to
have their way in the debate which they have now begun.
|