In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

CHAPTER 2 A DYING SERPENT UNDERSTANDING HOW FILM CYCLES CHANGE OVER TIME In 1940, East Side Kids (Robert F. Hill), the first entry in the East Side Kids cycle (which was itself a spin-off of the successful Dead End Kids cycle of the late 1930s), was released.¹ In his review of the film, the New York Times critic Bosley Crowther expresses his disdain for both East Side Kids and the Dead End Kids cycle as a whole: “A less cautious historian . . . might assert flatly that the end [of the Dead End Kids cycle] has been reached, but a cinematic cycle, like the proverbial serpent, dies hard, with its remote tail flicking cynically, long after the last light has expired from its minute, reptilian brain.” Crowther’s annoyance is somewhat justified: when East Side Kids was released, there were already twelve films made under the aegis of the original Dead End (1937, William Wyler), the film that inaugurated the Dead End Kids cycle and its spin-offs. Besides criticizing this film, Crowther also appears annoyed by the very concept of the film cycle, likening it to a dying serpent. This serpent simile brings to mind some unflattering images: a dumb animal with a “minute brain,” or a predator preying on innocent victims. Indeed, film cycles are often viewed in such polarizing terms: as simplistic, easily accessible films, or as a filmmaking practice aimed at exploiting a successful formula and wringing every last dime out of the moviegoing public. Crowther’s reference to the “proverbial serpent” also recalls the image of a serpent eating its own tail; film cycles, at least on the surface, do appear to consume themselves. The process of systemization that generates a successful film cycle is the same process that ultimately destroys it.² And just as the proverbial snake does not realize that it is dead or dying , even as it continues to consume itself, the film cycle often continues to generate entries even after it has outstayed its welcome with film critics and audiences. 61 A DYING SERPENT My purpose is not to dispute these judgments. Rather, this chapter examines an intergeneric cycle, the original Dead End Kids cycle of the 1930s and 1940s, in order to understand how cycles originate, flourish, and then change over time in an attempt to remain financially viable.³ Although film cycles appear to die or disappear after a few years, in practice their themes and images continue to circulate, even if in a highly diluted or altered form, decades after the original cycle has disappeared.⁴ What appears to be a cinematic death is, in fact, the conversion of the original content of a film cycle into a series of affectless cinematic clichés, available for other, seemingly incompatible generic uses, such as comedy, horror, and science fiction. By studying a social-problem-film cycle, we can investigate also how the process of cyclic evolution alters the meaning and function of the social problems being depicted. For example, Dead End, an earnest and pessimistic social problem film about the plight of post-Depression urban youth, launched three long-running, primarily comic film cycles . Therefore, while the previous chapter abandoned the concept of generic evolution at the macro level of film genres, this chapter reclaims the concept of evolution at the micro level of the film cycle. IDENTIFYING THE SEMANTICS OF THE ORIGINAL DEAD END KIDS CYCLE A film cycle can come into existence only if its originary film, the first film released in the cycle, is financially or critically successful, addresses a topic of contemporary social interest, and has a set of central semantics, including images, characters, and plot formulas that are recognizable enough to be repeated in several more films. The original Dead End Kids cycle of the late 1930s was created because its first entry, Dead End, fits these criteria. Dead End, adapted from Sidney Kingsley’s successful Broadway play (1935) of the same name, focuses on the necessity of a positive environment, including education, religion, and strong role models, for the creation of good citizens. The film offers two possible outcomes for the children living on a crowded New York City block that dead-ends at the dirty East River: become an upstanding (but poor) member of the community like Dave Connell (Joel McCrea) or turn into a hardened (but wealthy) gangster like Baby Face Martin (Humphrey Bogart). The film asks whether these as-yet harmless juvenile delinquents will grow up to be...

Share