Gangs Inc. (1941)

Reading the comments on "Paper Bullets" (aka "Gangs Inc.,) readers are disappointed that it didn't make more sense. But what did you expect? It's a PRC film and they were churned out in a few days. At least, it's a chance to see a very young Alan Ladd who had his cool charisma down pat before he became a star. On the other hand, if you're baffled by Joan Woodbury's rise from prison inmate to gangland queen, you're probably ahead of the writers whose job was to knock out something resembling a script, then go one to the next low budget thriller. As a return to the days when small neighborhood movie houses were shut out of the films from the major studios -- and forced to rely on Monogram and PRC -- it's a colorful bit of history. And as a movie, it really isn't that bad.

This movie is still alive and kicking today thanks to the presence of Alan Ladd. This is good in one way because the movie has some interesting things to say, but bad in another because everyone who watches it expecting that tough-guy Ladd is going to hoop through his usual paces, is going to be mighty disappointed. Without fanfare or introduction, Ladd is suddenly introduced in the third reel. True, his role is a key one but it's small and likely to get lost in the shuffle. There are many key roles in former newspaperman Martin Mooney's ambivalent screenplay which hits out at all political alliances and quite ruthlessly denigrates Reform candidates. It's the lovely and extremely talented Joan Woodbury who ties the various strands of the wide-ranging story together. Unlike the usual Hollywood production, the plot actually proceeds in a series of jumps, much like the films later turned out by the French "New Wave", though easier to follow here, especially if you are aware that the film's original title was Paper Bullets. Nonetheless, some of the film's narrative and character switches are a little disconcerting, particularly in the role played by Jack LaRue who has wisely elected to act the part in a strangely non-committal way. One of Jack's best acting jobs ever, but no-one is likely to notice, alas!

This obviously was a pretty low budget production, but the cast was pretty decent, the basic premise had promise, and something more could have been done with it, but the script wasn't that great- the plot is incoherent and seems almost random at times and the dialog is stilted and terrible.Basically, a girl's father gets whacked by fellow gangsters, and later she becomes a robber, and wants to avenge his death, and then it goes into a mob protection racket involving corrupt politicians.Alan Ladd gets top billing but he really plays a very minor role.I have to say I found it mildly entertaining in its archaic B-grade hokiness but it really is shoddy and pathetic.

My question is what was the worst element of this movie? Was it the acting? directing? script?. Maybe it was the waste of Alan Ladd and Jack LaRue. LaRue and, especially, Ladd are capable of bringing extreme sinisterness to a role. In this movie, it was hard to tell who the bad guy was. Granted, Ladd was playing an undercover good guy, but even in his good guy roles, he could be very chilling. So, the net result was a potentially good movie bereft of any feeling of conflict.