Welcome to the past …. kind of.

I say “kind of” because, even though the 1983 film Under Arrest takes place in the 20s, 30s, and 40, it’s obvious that the production didn’t have the budget necessary to really splurge on getting all the period details correct.  All of the characters wear slightly old timey clothing but they’ve all got haircuts that come from straight from the 70s and 80s.  One or two vintage cars make an appearance but otherwise, Under Arrest takes place in a world where the characters tend to a lot of walking.  To be honest, if not for the film’s narration, the viewer could easily assume that the film was supposed to be taking place in 1974.

It starts out as something of a gangster film.  We’re told that Phil Thatcher (played by Paul Martin) was one of California’s most notorious criminals.  Having watched the film, I can only guess that California had an extremely elastic definition of “notorious.”  Phil does commit some crimes.  He steals a lot of things.  He carries a gun with him, though he does mention that he’s never used it.  That said, he’s hardly John Dillinger or Clyde Barrow or Pretty Boy Floyd.  He does manage to escape from a few reform schools but, for the most part, he’s a passive participant in these escapes.  Everyone else does all the work and Phil just kind of goes along for the ride.  For the most part, Phil is a well-mannered thief who had a bad habit of trusting the wrong people.

At one point, Phil mentions that jail felt more like home than his actual home did.  It’s hard not to blame him for feeling that way because every prison in the film is surprisingly clean and pleasant.  Phil does meet one cruel loan shark, a man called Patrino (Richard Moll).  And Phil is forced to break rocks in the sun, though he also gets to hang out with all of his friends while doing so.  Halfway through the film, Phil has a moral reawakening when he reads a bible that was sent to him by his mother.  This leads to Phil abandoning all of his plans to escape from prison and instead, he writes letters to everyone that he’s stolen from and promises to repay them.  Phil says that he’s prepared to finish out his sentence and accept his punishment but has he really changed or has he just realized that the prison is the nicest place in California?

When he’s released on parole, the newly religious Phil is told that he has to find a job or he’ll be sent back to Folsom.  Good luck with that!  Actually, the film brings up an important point about why it’s so hard for some people to stay out of prison.  Making employment a condition of parole and/or probation may sound like a good idea but it’s extremely difficult for someone who has a record to find a job.  That was true in Phil’s day and it’s still true today.  Will Phil be able to find a job or will he be sent back to prison?

Under Arrest is based on a true story.  The real Phil Thatcher not only found a job but also started a prison ministry.  It’s not a bad story but the film itself suffers from low production values and amateurish acting.  As so often happens with films like this, good intentions could not make up for poor execution.  Still, the film does make an important point.  What’s the point of a society locking people up if it’s going to just abandon them once they’re released?