Panama Lady (1939)

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

Back in the pre-TV days when the major Hollywood studios were allowed to own chains of theatres across the country to show the films they made and profit from both sides of the business, they had to keep those houses booked and so churned out a steady stream of "programmers" to fill their screens between the major "prestige" releases. Running between 60 and 90 minutes (the equivalent of TV shows today), these films were more than training grounds for later star performer and directors, they frequently provided quality work for studio people between "A List" projects. The quality varied with the studio, but RKO-Radio was one of the best and PANAMA LADY is much better than some suggest. Any fan of Lucille Ball's work should mark it as a "must see." It will strongly remind them of her better known dramatic work for director John Farrow in her next film the same year, FIVE CAME BACK.A product of an era when the words of a screenplay mattered more than the explosions and silly chase scenes, PANAMA LADY (an RKO-Radio release now available mainly in a good print on a long out-of-print 1983 VHS release - #7001 - of a 1955 "C&C Movies for Television" print), was an above average reputed remake of an earlier pre-code/proto-Noir film about a girl caught up in the "white slave" (prostitution) trade. RKO, facing the prudish Production Code and a rising star in Lucille Ball (STAGE DOOR, ROOM SERVICE and a couple of her "Anabel" films behind her and TOO MANY GIRLS, DU BARRY WAS A LADY and BEST FOOT FORWARD still in front of her) expunged most of the references to sex in favor of timely (WWII was raging in China and would start in Europe in four months although the U.S. would hold on to its neutrality for another two and a half years) gun running and jealousy subplots and got solid dramatic performances from Lucy and her co-stars (especially Allan Lane as the good boyfriend and Donald Briggs as the bad).Taken seriously, the 65 minute spring 1939 (May 12) release offers a lot of solid fun. The attempt at twists in the resolution of the South American plot and the O'Henry-esquire finale do come across as a little strained, but the production getting there is generally first rate after the stock footage of New York landmarks in the opening "framing" scene. Had first tier screenwriter Michael Kanin (Garson's older brother, one film away from his Oscar winning WOMAN OF THE YEAR screenplay) worked a little harder on the last five or six minutes, the film might be far better remembered today - or was he done in by second time director Jack Hively (already having edited THE AFFAIRS OF ANABEL with Lucy and one of the SAINT films he would go on to direct) pushing too hard to finish on time and under budget? A decade later, over at Universal International, Hively was also director for one of their rare Broadway musical transfers, ARE YOU WITH IT - one of his last full Hollywood directing credits. It's one of Donald O'Connor's best performances, but also suffers from production and editing indignities which may have left a lot of good material on the cutting room floor.

First off, even though I saw the film some years ago, I can't forget Evelyn Brent's electric performance in a supporting role in which she manages to steal every scene from the star throughout the movie's first half. In fact, as I recall, Lucy just wisely keeps a low profile in her appearances with Ms. Brent, who is just too much to compete with. But finally her character takes a final exit. After that Lucy does come alive as the star and shines from then on, rising above the mediocre material of this B- film. And Lucy Recardo she is not! What I like most is Lucy's line at the story's high-point: "I'm going to take just one more crack at making a gentleman out of you, and if that doesn't work, we're really in trouble!"

If you watch this film, you'll no doubt be surprised how dull and listless this film is. After all, only a little over a decade later, the star of this film, Lucille Ball, would be declared the funniest lady in America. Well, none of this is evident in this movie at all. It isn't funny (nor is it intended to be) and the movie just isn't a quality effort at all. This isn't just because this is a B-movie-- after all, there are some marvelous B-pictures that transcend their modest budgets. No, the problem is that the characters just aren't very likable or believable and the script is just dull and, at times, stupid. Now as far as the stupidity of the script goes, this was really obvious towards the end. The whole way in which Lucy's evil boyfriend is shot is just pure hooey--so much so that it's almost laughable. Then, at the very end, despite it being obvious that the other man is desperately in love with her, a decent guy and very rich, Lucy tries to wander off into the crowd and forget him! Heck, I would have been thrilled to have married him (and I'm a guy)!

1940's The Stranger on the Third Floor is usually cited as Hollywood's earliest example of true noir style, but here's a movie from a year earlier that also incorporates a guilt-ridden protagonist with a past, first-person narration, and a flashback structure. Both were probably inspired by the French film Pepe le Moko (1938), but since this is a remake of a 1931 film called Panama Flo, who knows whether they weren't all present in that version as well? In any case, it's quite a decent little B that gives Lucy one of her toughest and most downbeat dramatic parts, on a par with Dance Girl Dance; if you only know her for her later comedy days, it's well worth seeing these early roles to see the kind of realistic blue-collar gal in the Ginger Rogers mode which she played very well.