wes-connors In sunny California's Los Angeles area, clean-cut white youth gang members are ready to retaliate against a rival Hispanic gang. Later, a friendly police officer tries to talk a young Spanish-accented boy out of continuing his life of crime. Alienated in an "unfriendly" environment, the boy narrates this short drama. It's a social consciousness effort by Sid Davis and Arthur Swerdloff. Most likely, this was shown to 1950s schoolchildren in an attempt to fight juvenile delinquency. Those who've seen the 1961 musical "West Side Story" will notice plot similarities. That show was staged in 1957, and was first proposed as about similar Los Angeles gangs. Among other things, it had Sharks, a concerned officer, an integrated dance and "happiness" in the form of Natalie Wood. "Growing up in an angry world" is repeated as the story's main problem. There are no songs, but "Gang Boy" provides a solution in caring for younger siblings and finding common ground. The film is definitely not art, but it does effectively make its point.***** Gang Boy (1954) Sid Davis, Arthur Swerdloff ~ Curly Riviera

MartinHafer The people who made this short film were very sincere and tried to make a nice film about the evils of gangs and how everyone can just get along. The problem is that even though the film uses real gang members and was in some ways a positive thing, the production is so badly made that it made me laugh! I assume you'll probably feel about the same.One problem with the film is some of the acting. In particular, the cops could barely read their lines and sounded quite robotic. However, the supposedly poignant scene about the boy dying by falling off the cliff--that was amazingly bad! It's OBVIOUSLY a dummy being tossed own the hill and looks just horrible--so bad that you might think it was meant as a joke!! I am sure gang members that were shown this film thought is was hilarious--and you really cannot blame them. A truly awful public service film that was dated when it was made.

dougdoepke Interesting artifact, very much a reflection of its time. During those post-war years, juvenile delinquency grew as a national concern as a teenage sub-culture began to emerge. In urban areas, gang "rumbles" often made headlines as youths clashed with chains, fists, and sometimes, knives, as dramatized in this 30-minute short. These could be seen as "turf' wars or, at times, as racial clashes, but rarely—if I recall the LA area of this short correctly— was anyone killed. Note how the solution portrayed here can be described as a "liberal" one — that is, by appealing to youths' better instincts, instead of the more traditional reform school path.However, gangs-- at least in the last 50 years-- have evolved from street-level "clubs" into criminal enterprises, trafficking in drugs, guns, and other illicit activities that are often connected with adult-level prison gangs like the Mexican Mafia or the Aryan Brotherhood. Unlike the 1950's, rivalries are now routinely settled with "drive-by" shootings, at the same time, the bodies pile up in poorer and minority neighborhoods. Younger kids can easily be recruited since gang membership offers both status and the prospect of a money-making future. Just as importantly, liberal solutions, as portrayed in the Davis short, offer little prospect of success, while only those programs addressing the deeper causes of poverty and racism hold much promise.Nonetheless, this earnest little docu-drama presents an interesting contrast to such sensationalized youth films of the time as Rebel Without a Cause (1955) or The Blackboard Jungle (1955). I am curious, however, where the producers expected the 30-minutes to be shown and to what effect.

boblipton There are a lot of technical problems with this picture that make it pretty bad. The whole thing was shot MOS and the occasional bits of dialogue were looped inexpertly, and often by people who couldn't read the lines with any verisimilitude. In addition, the print I saw -- broadcast on TCM today -- is grainy, fuzzy and the color has distorted over the years.Yet there is tremendous documentary realism in this piece. First, the gang members are played by actual gang members -- several of them are thanked for their help in the opening credits. Combined with the poor prints, that produces a documentary feel to the movie. The narration, spoken with a Latino accent about how the particular gang came together tries to justify the gangs, but it is not very convincing, and that also makes it seem more real.Although undoubtedly intended as a pure exploitation movie -- Sid Davis did a lot of them -- these details make it an accidental masterpiece.