Somewhere in the Caribbean sits an island that may seem like a beautiful slice of paradise, but is the refuge for criminals from all around the world, who make their way to this isolated utopia in the hopes of hiding from the law, not realizing that even when surrounded by fugitives, it is very likely that they will face consequences, some of them more brutal than had they turned themselves into the proper authorities. This is the starting point for Safe in Hell, in which director William A. Wellman, who has started to be recognized as more than just a director-for-hire and instead has been cited as one of the great journeyman filmmakers of the era, tells the story of a prostitute on the run from the law after accidentally killing her pimp, and after finding refuge on this unnamed island, she thinks she is safe, only to realize that she is surrounded by people more than willing to sacrifice whatever paltry morals they may have to take advantage of someone who is a vulnerable individual, and one that has a lot more to lose than the rest of them. A strange and off-beat film that plays on many common perceptions of law and order, and is driven by a sense of moral chaos, Safe in Hell is quite a bizarre achievement, but one that fits in perfectly with the era in which it was made, both for the subject matter and its delivery, which is captured in vibrant detail by a director who helped set the foundation for filmmaking at a time when it was perhaps too bound by conventions. Strange but very entertaining, the film has a unique sense of humour and a lot of peculiarities that immediately make it essential viewing, especially for those who love their films with a touch of absurdity in between severe psychological torment, which is perhaps the most appropriate description we can give to this film.

Over the years, I’ve made my fondness for the pre-code era known, since this was the period in which some of Hollywood’s greatest writers, directors and actors were given the chance to take advantage of the more morally ambigious standards in-between moments of censorship to push the boundaries of what was possible in their craft. Many films produced during this time only touched on more scintillating ideas, and used them as the source of a slight sensation of scandal, rather than having these concepts become part of the film’s overall identity. In the case of Safe in Hell, the intention was the craft the entire film around the concept of moral turpitude, and there are very few films made during this time that are more insistent on taking advantage of the more lax approach to censorship than this one, which is all the more interesting as a result. The film is based on the play of the same title by Houston Branch, and adapted by Joseph Jackson and Maude Fulton, and many aspects of the stage production would have likely been cut had this film been subjected to the draconian and arbitrary rules of the Hayes Code, but which managed to remain in the film as a result of the censorship system not being fully established yet, allowing for the more controversial aspects of the play to be brought to screen, which is one of the many reasons behind the film’s distinctly offbeat tone and ability to touch on more challenging subjects in a direct and unfurnished way, not needing to rely on allusion or implication to get the message across. There are certainly versions of this story that look at similar subjects, but with harsh rules in place, they were not able to be nearly as jagged and rough around the edges as this film, which is primarily why Safe in Hell has been repurposed as one of the best works of the pre-code era.

Wellman has rarely been given the credit he deserves in terms of being one of the most fascinating filmmakers working in the 1930s – not only was he notoriously prolific (directing up to half a dozen films in a given year), but he was also a bridge between the silent and sound era, and while he was always overtaken by some of his contemporaries like William Wyler and Michael Curtiz (to whom he is often closely compared, at least in terms of directorial approach and the kinds of films that were usually produced under their guidance), it is important to note that his importance extends far beyond only the films he made, with projects like Wings and The Public Enemy being amongst the most influential films ever made. Safe in Hell is a decidedly more subtle affair, and it doesn’t promote itself as a spectacle of impressive filmmaking, but a smaller and nastier production that tackles darker subject matter. A lot of the story has to do with the tone – the narrative is already quite intriguing, but it is ultimately a stage adaptation, and it wasn’t enough to simply transpose a plot from one medium to another without making a few changes to how it is executed, which is precisely the reason why Safe in Hell is such a major achievement, with the atmosphere Wellman creates being masterful. Even over ninety years later, we can still feel the sweltering heat that played on the very humid sense of tension that governs this film, which is a credit to not only the writing, which is sharp and quite provocative but also Wellman’s direction. He used the camera with much more fluidity than many of his peers, and here it is fully utilized as the foundation of many of the film’s more daring moments, setting the mood of the entire story and making it very clear what this film represented, both morally and artistically.

Safe in Hell is a film about bad people running away from the consequences of their actions, and finding their home amongst one another – but rather than being a haven from the authorities, this island becomes the stage for an extensive game of psychological cat-and-mouse, especially when the young and alluring Gilda Karlson is introduced into the fray, which causes quite a stir amongst this community of criminals. The casting in this film was very important, especially since it is a story built from the fact that almost no one is all that good – even the more likeable characters who serve as the voice of reason have some sense of immorality by extension, and the entire premise is built around the idea of some criminals not facing the consequences. Dorothy Mackaill is not spoken about all that often anymore, despite a prolific career that had its origins in the silent era, and continued with multiple films a year. Her retirement at the end of the 1930s could be a factor since she ceased acting for several decades before a couple of television appearances in the late 1970s, but her talent was certainly enough to make us wonder why she has slightly faded into obscurity. Her raw, unfiltered style of acting is incredible, and she brings every role to life with such incredible honesty and profound complexity, which makes her a perfect fit for the morally ambigious Gilda, a character that is built on the audience developing conflicting feelings about her actions. She is joined by a strong supporting cast, which includes other veterans like Donald Cook, Morgan Wallace and Ralf Harolde, and most notable Nina Mae McKinney and Clarence Muse, who many have noted are playing the antithesis of the kinds of roles normally given to black actors during this period, one of the few aspects of the pre-code era that carried a level of social importance. Much like the film, the performances in Safe in Hell are sinister and unusual, and it all contributes to the feeling of psychological despair that lingers over the film and makes it such a unique experience.

As we have seen with numerous films produced during the pre-code era, Safe in Hell is one that was essentially forgotten until contemporary audiences started to discover the film, which proved to be quite a peculiar work, and one that stood out considerably from many of the other films produced at the time. Tonally, it defies categorization, combining melodrama, psychological thriller and dark comedy to create a jumble of ambitious ideas that all go back to the core of the story, which was to explore what life is like for those who successfully manage to evade the authorities, but at the cost of having to live with their conscience, which can sometimes be an even more brutal fate than whatever consequences they would have to face at the hands of the law. These ideas are woven together in this challenging drama that gives us unique insights into the psychological state of its characters, who prove to be far more intriguing than we initially expected, especially in how they are developed beyond mere archetypes and become fully formed, engaging characters all of their own, which is a great achievement in itself, and one that Wellman ensures that he focuses on for the duration of the film, rather than allowing them to resort to stereotypes. It isn’t the most exciting pre-code film, and some of its content does feel quite dated (although the elements that linger with us the most are the moments where the film feels profoundly modern in how it looks at certain ideas), but as a holistic experience, Safe in Hell is extremely impressive, and always quite engaging, even at its most unnerving. Wellman deserves a lot more credit as one of the defining filmmakers of his generation, and the subtle but forthright approach he brought to every one of his films is incredible. Safe in Hell may not be his defining work, but it is certainly one of the many entries into a long career that is finally starting to receive the respect it deserves.