Marihuana (1936)

Great Film overall

Fresh and Exciting

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

A young woman slowly becomes a dope pusher.Most people have heard of "Reefer Madness". But if you wanted to see another film that was anti-marijuana in 1936, look no further than "Marihuana", which (not surprisingly) was made by some of the same people.This film is not the cult classic of its step-brother, and with good reason. It is far less humorous, with the only really notable thing about it being a nude swimming scene that never would have passed the censorship code. In fact, the film is not even really about marijuana so much as a drinking party gone wrong and the bad choices made after the fact.

Notorious exploitation film producer Dwain Esper of "Sex Madness" infamy helmed this anti-marihuana propaganda epic with a modicum of finesse. The Hildegarde Stadie screenplay chronicles a clueless young girl's downward spiral into a vortex of crime and narcotics trafficking because she inhaled the wicked demon weed. Indeed, grass emerges as a gateway drug in "Marihuana," but this low-budget melodrama lacks the campy quality of "Reefer Madness." Although both films pontificate about the perils of getting high, "Marihuana" adopts a more straightforward approach, and the consequences of abusing this drug proves far more dangerous for our heroine. Furthermore, the drug dealers here are more sinister individuals. "Marihuana" boasts better than average production values, particularly in its opening bar sequence. Mind you, nothing here which was reportedly based on police files has a puff of credibility. The teenagers who succumb to the scourge of marihuana are led down a path of deception by natty, well-heeled mobsters who resemble Italians. Once these objectionable individuals latch their tentacles onto somebody like our impressionable leading lady, the end is a foregone conclusion. What sets "Marihuana" apart from other drugs-ploitation drivel is one scene where a group of delirious dames disrobe after toking, scramble down to the beach at night, and go for a swim. Esper treats us to some nudity, something almost unheard of in mainstream 1930s cinema. Predictably, our unfortunate heroine lowers her guard among other things with her boyfriend in his convertible and winds up pregnant. Just to exacerbate matters, the boyfriend dies when the authorities catch him toting a bag of marihuana. The gangsters convince our heroine to have her child and then give it up for adoption. Throughout the action, she is jealous of her other sister and eventually, she persuades the two mobsters to kidnap her sister's little girl and hold her for ransom. Our heroine receives the shock of her life when she learns more about his sister's child."Marihuana" opens with this cautionary preamble. "Foreword. For centuries the world has been aware of the narcotic menace. We have complacently watched Asiatic countries attempt to rid themselves of DRUGS CURSE, and attributed their failure to lack of education. We consider ourselves enlightened and think that never could we succumb to such a fare. But--did you know that--the use of marihuana is steadily increasing among the youth of this country? Did you know that--the youthful criminal is our greatest problem today? And that--Marihuana gives the user false courage, and destroys conscience thereby making crime alluring, smart? That is the price we are paying for our lack of interest in the narcotic situation. This story is drawn from an actual case history on file in the police records of one of our large cities. Note: MARIHUANA, Hashish of the Orient, is commonly distributed as a doped cigarette. Its most terrifying effect is that it fires the user to extreme cruelty and license."Burma Roberts (Harley Wood of "Valley of Terror") is jealous of her older sister Elaine (Dorothy Dehn of "Madame Satan") because her mother lavishes more attention on Elaine. Consequently, Burma prefers to party with her boyfriend Dick Collier (Hugh McArthur of "Panama Patrol") and sometimes they park and make out. Eventually, Burma encounters two shady but suave strangers, Tony (Paul Ellis of "Ninotchka") and Nick (Pat Carlyle of "The Irish Gringo"), in a night club. Tony invites Burma and her friends over to his place for drinks next Saturday night. After the party at the nightclub, Dick and Burma park on a hillside overlooking the city in his Ford Model A Roadster,and Dick gets fresh with Burma. She storms off on foot, but doesn't get far before Dick picks up and takes her home. She gets in at 11 PM and asks her mother why she cannot have an evening gown like all the other girls. "Everything that I have is Elaine's," Burma complains. "Why can't I have one of my very own." Her mom asks about her homework and Burma lies that she has finished it.Later, at the party, the guys guzzle alcohol while the gals fire up some marijuana cigarettes. They laugh uproariously and then go skinny-dipping in the surf. As it turns out, one of the girls who went skinny-dipping party--Joan Marsh--swims out too far and dies. When Burma informs her boyfriend about her pregnancy, she bugs him to marry her. Dick assures her everything will be okay and Tony and Nick give him a job. Unfortunately, Dick is helping unload smuggled marihuana when the authorities strike. He dies in his alacrity to escape their clutches. When Burma hears about this news, she leaves home, gives birth to the child and then puts it up for adoption. Burma plunges into harder drugs) and uses needles to inject heroin into herself. During the film's finale, Burma concocts a scheme to abduct her sister's adopted daughter for $50,000. Imagine Burma's surprise later when she finds out that the child is, in fact, her own.

This is a bad movie that purports to be an educational film designed to warn America about the menace of marijuana use. However, like almost all the so-called "educational" films of the 30s and 40s, it was really a shabby little film designed to be snuck past the censors of the Hays Office. In 1934, the major studios all agreed to abide by the dictates of a stronger Production Code--eliminating sex, nudity, cursing and "inappropriate" plots in films (these had actually been relatively common in films in the early 30s). However, in an effort to sneak in smut, small studios created films to shock adults when they learn about terrible social ills, though they were REALLY intended to titillate and slip adult themes past the censors! Such films as CHILD BRIDE, MAD YOUTH, REEFER MADNESS and SEX MADNESS were all schlocky trash that skirted past the boards because they were supposedly educational. Even though they were laughably bad, they also made money due to low production costs and because they offered nudity, violence and sordid story lines--all in the name of education! Many will no doubt watch this film because they are hoping for a similar film to REEFER MADNESS (one of the most laughably bad anti-drug films of all time). While it isn't quite as dopey and unintentionally funny, MARIJUANA is probably a worse film when it comes to being exploitational all in the name of educating our parents. While on drugs, the characters don't madly play the piano or run amok quite as much as they do in REEFER MADNESS--but they DO run amok in the most ridiculous manner. Once they begin puffing this "wacky tobacky", all the characters begin laughing non-stop and acting like total idiots. In addition, the ladies respond by taking off all their clothes and running nude along the beach at night!! And, because of this, the film is very, very explicit--showing lots of "naughty bits" (A Monty Python term for nudity). This film would probably receive an R-rating today if shown in the theaters because of the nudity--and this must have been VERY shocking to audiences of the day. However, audiences today would also be a bit shocked at how extremely unattractive and unappealing these ladies were--I kept wanting to yell at the characters to "put it back on--PLEASE!!". If you are looking for a cheap thrill, this film won't provide it! Now when they aren't showing people running amok, the film actually is much more watchable. Those who sell the drugs are indeed users, but they manage not to behave like morons, so they are more convincing. The story of one of them, Blondie, is somewhat compelling and mildly interesting--though not nearly enough to make up for the rottenness of the rest of the movie.This film is so bad that I would recommend it for a bad movie festival you can stage with your friends. You know, the ones where you laugh at just how bad and stupid films can be. They didn't even bother trying to get decent music for much of the film--using classical tunes that were completely inappropriate just because they were in the public domain.

Dwain Esper, the man who makes Ed Wood look like Orson Wells, came out with this movie around 1935 or so. (Judging by the clothing, I'd say it was filmed about a year earlier.) Films like this were made perporting to show the evils of the world but instead showcased rough acting, stilted writing, sparce sets, bad lighting, static camerawork and starlets lifting their skirts and disrobing in doctors offices. More money was spent and more creative energy invested into hyping the films when they played in rural towns with a public eager to see any film that would show them skin and insanity to take the edge off their boring lives.Harlene Wood gives an uneaven proformance as Burma Roberts, the central character. The other actors, all complete unknowns both then and now, lend even worse acting to their roles as cops, drug addicts, gangsters and teenage girls who look like thirty-five-year-old stag film actresses. The script is also badly written, clearly having been scratched out in a few days time. There are some interesting sets, like the interior of the villains cabin with the stone fireplace and balcony, and some nice camera set-ups, but the filmmakers' megre budget and lack of technical ability is pretty easily discernable throughout.Personally, I like this film. It's amusing, fairly inventive at times (that scene with the drunk spilling his beer at the beginning), and the scene with the girls stripping down and running around on the beach is still hard to beleave (it's certainly not arousing in the least bit, though). Overall, it's a better film than Tell Your Children (1938), more enjoyable and way more misguided.