Marihuana (1936/I)

User Rating:

3.6/10   

Director:

Dwain Esper

Writer:

Hildegarde Stadie (story)

Release Date:

May 1936 (USA)

Genre:

Crime | Drama

Tagline:

Daring drug expose'

Plot:

A young girl slowly becomes a dope pusher.

Plot Keywords:

Party | Marijuana | Drugs | Beach | Skinny Dipping

Cast

Harley Wood	...	Burma Roberts aka 'Blondie'
Hugh McArthur	...	Dick Collier
Pat Carlyle	...	Nickolas 'Nicki' Romero
Paul Ellis	...	Tony Santello
Dorothy Dehn	...	Elaine Roberts Stewart
Richard Erskine	...	Morgan Stewart
Juanita Fletcher	...	Mrs. Roberts (as Juanita Crosland)
Hal Taggart	...	Burma's Customer's Fiancée
Gloria Browne	...	Gloria, The Child (as Gloria Brown)

Also Known As:

Marihuana, the Devil's Weed (USA) (reissue title)
Marihuana, the Weed with Roots in Hell! (USA) (reissue title)

Runtime:

57 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.37 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono

Filming Locations:

Los Angeles, California, USA

Company:

Roadshow Attractions

Trivia:

The original trailer for the film included a shot of a girl's leg getting grabbed at the weenie roast, and a close-up of hands clutching for a row of needles. These shots do not appear in the final film.

Goofs:

Continuity: The positions of Burma's hands when she is visiting the panicking female customer.

Quotes:

Teenaged boy: [pouring a drink] This is gonna be a slippery drink for sliding girls.

Movie Connections:

Referenced in The Hemp Revolution (1995)

Soundtrack:

Egmont Overture

Fun to watch, but wow is this a sleazy mess of a film!!

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.