# Prohibition and Gangsters on Screen: a comparison of their Representation in Gangster Films from the 1930s and the 2000s/2010s

Fanélie Delasalle

► To cite this version:

Fanélie Delasalle. Prohibition and Gangsters on Screen: a comparison of their Representation in Gangster Films from the 1930s and the 2000s/2010s. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2024. dumas-04988322

HAL Id: dumas-04988322

https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-04988322v1

Submitted on 12 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Prohibition and Gangsters on Screen:

A comparison of their Representation in Gangster Films from the
1930s and the 2000s/2010s

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>*Boardwalk Empire*, opening credits, Terence Winter, HBO, 2010-2014</figcaption></figure>

Fanélie Delasalle

Master 2 LASO Anglais– 2023-2024

Soutenance le 9 septembre 2024

Sous la direction du Docteur Marianne Kac-Vergne
Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my supervisor, Doctor Kac-Vergne for guiding me during this research. I am
also grateful for her support and her useful advice.
Table of contents

<table><tr><td>Acknowledgments</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Table of contents</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Introduction</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>I- The representation of Prohibition</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>A- The forgotten aspects of Prohibition</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>1- The beginnings of Prohibition and its Repeal</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2- Where are the people in favor of Prohibition?</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>3- Prohibition in the countryside</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>B- What aspects of Prohibition are shown?</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>1- Development of organized crime through the sale of alcohol</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>2- Everyone is drinking</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>3- Prohibition in the city</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>C- Nostalgic or critical representation</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>1- A criticism of bootleggers and Prohibition</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>2- The different forms of nostalgia in gangster movies from the 1930s and 2000s-2010s</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>3- Nostalgia deforms reality</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>II- The representation of the gangster's identity</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>A- Ethnicity and stereotypes</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>1- Accent and dialogue</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>2- Gestures and skin color</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>3- Costume</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>B- The gangster's violent traits</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>1- Ethnic stereotypes and explicit violence</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>2- Aggressive masculinity</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>3- Victims of the gangster's violence</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>C- Nostalgic representation of gangsters</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>1- A nostalgic character</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>2- Ethnicity as nostalgia</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>3- A nostalgic portrayal of violence and aggressive masculinity</td><td>102</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusion</td><td>108</td></tr><tr><td>Bibliography</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>Table of Figures</td><td>117</td></tr></table>
Introduction

Almost a century after the release of the first talking gangster films, the genre “remains popular to this day.”¹The character of the gangster is still relatable, and the depiction of Prohibition is still a source of fascination. Prohibition was established in the United States after a century-long battle against alcohol: “From 1920 to 1933, the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution banned the production, sale, or transportation of alcoholic beverages.”<fnref n="2" /> The heavy drinking habits of Americans during colonial times were partly due to the fact that whiskey was more affordable than milk. For instance, in 1930, the average US citizen over the age of 15 drank the equivalent of eighty-eight bottles of whiskey per year, which is three times more than his 21st-century descendants.<fnref n="3" /> The growing alcohol consumption raised concerns about health and family issues because “liquors corrupted elections, wife beating and child abuse were common.”<fnref n="4" /> Groups of people started to advocate for abstinence from alcohol, like the evangelical Protestants. Measures were taken in 1851 with the Maine law, which prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcohol except for medical and mechanical use.<fnref n="5" /> Pressure groups were formed, like the Woman's Christian Temperance Union founded in 1874 and the Anti-Saloon League created in 1893 and were efficient at pushing anti-liquor legislation. The Eighteenth Amendment was passed in December 1917, in the context of war, and was encouraged to avoid food shortages, by forbidding the distillation of any foodstuffs for example. It was ratified in more than a year as it was completed in January 1919. The Amendment took effect in January 1920 and was reinforced by the Volstead Act, named after Andrew J. Volstead, chairman of the House of Representatives Committee. This law defines beverages as alcoholic when containing a 0.5% alcohol minimum, which includes wine, cider and beer. The 18th Amendment was particularly successful in the first few years, as the consumption of alcohol dropped by two-thirds in the early twenties.<fnref n="6" /> However, toward the mid-1920s, there was a rise in bootlegging activities and gang violence which led many Americans to turn against Prohibition. The 1920s also marked the end of the saloon and the emergence of the speakeasy. Organizations for Repeal were created rapidly, like the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment created in 1922 and the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform

<footnote n="1">¹ Ron Wilson, *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in American Cinema*, New-York: Wallflower, 2015, 2.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² William J. Rorabaugh, *Prohibition: a Concise History*, Oxford University Press, 2018, 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Ken Burns, Lynn Novick, *Prohibition: Une Expérience Américaine 1920-1933*, Arte Editions, 2012.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ William J. Rorabaugh, *Prohibition: a Concise History*, Oxford University Press, 2018, 2.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Norman H. Clark, *Deliver Us From Evil: an Interpretation of American Prohibition*, New-York: W.W. Norton & company, 1976, 45.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ William J. Rorabaugh, *Prohibition: a Concise History*, Oxford University Press, 2018, 3.</footnote>
founded in 1929, which were influential in political spheres. The Twenty-First Amendment was presented by Congress in order to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment. It was passed in the context of the Great Depression, in order to recover taxes on alcohol and fight the economic crisis. The Amendment took effect in December 1933.

As Ron Wilson explains, the word “gangster” was initially used in 1884 in the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette. He explains that the word was a derogatory term used to indicate “an individual or individuals who are beneath contempt.”<fnref n="7" /> He also adds that it is a topical term linked to actual events as it was circulated in a newspaper article. Furthermore, the word is related “to an urban environment, as well as to a type of strong-arm behaviour that would become commonplace in turn-of-century American politics.”<fnref n="8" /> During the nineteenth century, millions of European people immigrated to the United States in order to flee poverty, starvation, or religious persecution. Once they arrived on American soil they often gathered in communities. Tensions grew between the different communities. Thus, gangs emerged from the immigrant neighborhoods as a way to protect their communities, maintain order and defend their territory. The gangs served as an army in conflicts. Once these communities were integrated into the country, there were new waves of immigration with different immigrants who faced the same difficulties. They adopted the same way of protecting themselves. Gangs and the Mafia in the United States were born from their ranks.<fnref n="9" /> At the beginning of the twentieth century, groups of delinquents were calling themselves by original names, they often went to prison and did not intend to ever go back to jail, which led them to join organized gangs protected by the police and political influence. Their activities gravitated around burglary, prostitution, vandalism, gambling, usury and extortion of merchants for instance. A common interest united gangsters and politicians, which was protection against the police in exchange for help. Gangsters used violence to intimidate people and influence their vote. Other people or organizations hired them to protect their interests, like Unions or employers. In the 1920s, Prohibition raged in the United States at a moment when the first generation of European Jews and Italians raised in the US was entering adulthood, gangs were forming according to origin and ethnicity. They dominated the traffic of alcohol along with Irishmen, their main motivation was to become rich as they often came from a poor background. Prohibition gave them the keys to success, and the opportunity to continue the activities they were practicing before along with other activities emerged such as bootlegging, racketeering, violation of the Volstead Act, control of information,

<footnote n="7">⁷ Ron Wilson, *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in American Cinema*, New-York: Wallflower, 2015,3.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ *Ibid*.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Jo Durden Smith, *Mafia: l'histoire complète du crime organisé*, Champs-sur-Marne: Music & entertainment Books, 2009, 53.</footnote>
hijacking, infiltration in unions, investment in legal enterprise such as oil, the construction industry, real estate in order to launder money. <fnref n="10" />

As historian Jo Durden Smith explains, the word “Mafia” officially appeared for the first time in 1863 in Sicily, at the premiere of a play. The origins of the word are unclear, it could come from an alteration of the Arabic, *ma fia*, which means a “place of refuge” or *mahjahs* which means “to boast”. The word could also come from a secret acronym used by Sicilians when they rose against the Norman invaders.<fnref n="11" /> The geographical location of Sicily, in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, made it a perfect spot for occupiers, and the Romans established it as a feudal colony. The lack of authorities within the territory favored the growth of crime on the island. Banditry became a career for many young people who were supported by their families. It was a means to resist the occupiers, a way to claim their identity. These bandits were also hired as an army to protect the territory from aristocrats. Thus, they earned money from the owners and the farmers to protect both sides. Racketeering of protection, corruption as well as familial support and working as a secret society were particular to Sicily and are what characterize the Mafia. These practices existed long before the nineteenth century before people first heard and acknowledged the Mafia.<fnref n="12" /> The Mafia first arrived in the United States in 1880, when Giuseppe Esposito fled Sicily for New Orleans and organized his own gang following the model of the gang of his own chief and called it the “Black Hand.”<fnref n="13" /> Between 1900 and 1910, there was a wave of immigration in the United States including Italians and more particularly Sicilians who were mainly escaping poverty and the oppression of the land owners. One of the criminal organizations that developed in America under the influence of the Sicilian Mafia is called La Cosa Nostra, which means “this thing of ours.”<fnref n="14" /> The Mafia grew exceptionally thanks to Prohibition. <fnref n="15" />

Gangster films have been made since the 1900s<fnref n="16" /> and the early 1930s witnessed an explosion of the genre. Gangster films represented 11% of the studios' productions in 1930 and 20%

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Annick Foucrier, *Les Gangsters et la Société Américaine* (1920-1960), Ellipses, 2001, 25,27,29,30.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Jo Durden Smith, *Mafia: l'histoire complète du crime organisé*, Champs-sur-Marne: Music & entertainment Books, 2009, 19.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² *Ibid*, 15, 16, 17, 18.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ *Ibid*, 25.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ George S. Larke-Walsh, *Screening the Mafia: Masculinity, Ethnicity and Mobsters from the Godfather to the Sopranos*, Jefferson, N. C.: McFarland & Co Inc, 2010, 116.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ Jo Durden Smith, *Mafia: l'histoire complète du crime organisé*, Champs-sur-Marne: Music & entertainment Books, 2009, 29.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Ron Wilson, *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in American Cinema*, New-York: Wallflower, 2015, 11.</footnote>
in 1931.<fnref n="17" /> The popularity of the genre can be explained by “the way sound technology influenced not only performance style but also streamlined the visual style of the gangster film.”<fnref n="18" /> Indeed, early 1930s gangster films were the first talking pictures of the genre. The movies did not have to present inter-titles and thus offered a new form of narrative. The rise of the production of gangster films during this period can also be understood in the context of the Depression since the budget for films was cut. Studios had to find ways to produce low-budget films. One of the strategies was to make headlines films, exploiting a “current “big news” event.”<fnref n="19" /> *Little Caesar, The Public Enemy* and *Scarface* are considered as part of the headline films and they “helped establish the narrative and stylistic conventions of the genre.”<fnref n="20" /> Consequently, they are referred to as the “classic” gangster films. The genre of the gangster film evolved into sub-genres and this fragmentation is representative of the genre now: “Generic variations will become a standard practice of the gangster genre and continues through such contemporary variations as the mob comedy, Mafia films, hit man films, and witness protection films.”<fnref n="21" />

Prohibition in gangster films has been studied by scholars, in order to explain the context in which the early 1930s gangster films were made, the context of the plot of the films and also to understand the shift of the gangsters' activities and organizations. For example, David E. Ruth in *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, demonstrates that before the mid-1920s the gangsters' activities concentrated on robberies, crimes of theft, burglaries and after 1920, the gangsters' activities consisted of racketeering, bootlegging, and violation of the Volstead Act. Indeed, "it was bootlegging and racketeering that provided the clearest evidence of the expansion of criminal enterprise."<fnref n="22" /> Similarly, Jonathan Munby in *Public Enemies, Public Heroes: Screening the Gangster from Little Caesar to Touch of Evil*, shows that the gangster as a bootlegger during Prohibition changed the gangster imagery. He became a cultural hero, and embodied hope for ethnic urban communities: "The gangster, in bucking Prohibition, embodied not only a desire for material improvement but a desire for freedom from many established forms of legislation and moral constraints."<fnref n="23" /> Finally, Ron Wilson in *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in*

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Annick Foucrier, *Les Gangsters et la Société Américaine (1920-1960)*, Ellipses, 2001, 87.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ Ron Wilson, *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in American Cinema*, New-York: Wallflower, 2015, 32.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ *Ibid*, 40.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ *Ibid*.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ *Ibid*, 53.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996, 45.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ Jonathan Munby, *Public Enemies, Public Heroes: Screening the Gangster from Little Caesar to Touch of Evil*, Chicago, The University of Chicago press cop. 1999, 25.</footnote>
*American Cinema*, confirms that the character of the racketeer dominated the early 1930s gangster films and altered their representation because the gangsters changed activity to offer services and provide goods. He declares that “Prohibition created an opportunity for organized lawlessness in the form of bootlegging, rum running, and racketeering.”<fnref n="24" /> Consequently, there was a shift in the way the gangster dressed and organized his gang. Moreover, “Gangster film narratives originate from headlines, topical events, and true-crime narratives of newspaper and tabloid publications.”<fnref n="25" /> Thus, gangster films from the early 1930s produced stories dealing with the circumvention of the 18th Amendment.

The representation of the gangster in gangster films has also been studied by scholars. I will
particularly base my paper on the research of David Ruth in *Inventing the Public Enemy: The
Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*. In this book, he adopts a cultural studies approach. Ruth
examines the gangster during the period of Prohibition. He exposes various theories that tried to
identify the criminal in society, which revealed stereotypes about ethnicity and class. Ruth also
demonstrates that the gangster was a symbol of modern criminality, the gangster “dramatized the
development of an impersonal, highly organized, consumption-oriented urban society.”<fnref n="26" /> He
highlights the fact that the gangster was more of a cultural image invented by newspapers and then
films, rather than a reality. The figure of the gangster served as a vessel to cope with the changing
world. Similarly, in a more critical approach, Jonathan Munby in *Public Enemies, Public Heroes:
Screening the Gangster from Little Caesar to Touch of Evil*, analyzes the influence of the Code on
1930s gangster film and its effects on the representation of the gangster. For instance, he argues that
the censorship imposed on gangster films was an attempt to control the transgressive potential of the
gangster, which was his ethnicity and “otherness”, which was particularly made evident by the
panic of moral guardians triggered by the sound of early 1930s gangster films, which revealed the
gangster’s ethnic identity through dialogue. Furthermore, In *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success In
American Cinema*, Ron Wilson analyzes the evolution of the genre of gangster films, therefore, he
tackles the development of the image of the gangster throughout films: “The gangster was presented
differently at different historical junctures and circumstances.”<fnref n="27" /> He recalls the origins of the
gangster’s image, the fragmentation and appearance of sub-genres of the genre throughout the years
with the loosening up of censorship for instance. He mentions the shift in the representation of

<footnote n="24">²⁴ Ron Wilson, *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in American Cinema*, New-York: Wallflower, 2015, 37.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ *Ibid*, 3.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996, 2.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ Ron Wilson, *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in American Cinema*, New-York: Wallflower, 2015, 2.</footnote>
ethnic gangsters in films, especially since the 1970s, with movies that tend to celebrate cultural
heritage and represent ethnicity more positively on screen. Finally, George S. Larke-Walsh in
*Screening the Mafia: Masculinity, Ethnicity and Mobsters from the Godfather to the Sopranos*,
focuses on the portrayal of ethnicity and masculinity especially in post-classical gangster films. He
studies these notions through Mafia myths. He demonstrates that these films are often considered to
depict reality, and thus participate in perpetuating the mythology of the Mafia. In this book he
“investigate(s) this modern era of American filmmaking as one that has displayed an intense
fascination with the Mafia.”<fnref n="28" /> My paper shall draw a comparison between the representation of
Prohibition and gangsters in the early 1930s gangster films and more recent films and series of the
2000s and 2010s in order to determine whether their representation has evolved, changed or
remained relatively the same.

This dissertation shall demonstrate to what extent the representation of Prohibition and
gangsters in gangster films and series of the 2000s and 2010s has evolved compared to the films of
the early 1930s.

It is based on a corpus of films and series that includes the three classic gangster films of the
early 1930s, and three productions released between 2002 and 2014. First, the corpus includes
gangster films set during Prohibition and contemporary to the period. *Little Caesar* was released in
1931 and directed by Melvyn LeRoy. It depicts the life of Caesar Enrico “Rico” Bandello, played
by Edward G. Robinson. The latter decides to move to Chicago in order to become successful, thus
he joins the gang of Sam Vettori. Rico becomes more and more powerful and eventually replaces
his boss. The film *Scarface* was released in 1932 and directed by Howard Hawks. The plot takes
place in Chicago during the 1920s. The main character Tony Camonte, played by Paul Muni, craves
power and decides to join Lovo’s gang, which makes money thanks to the traffic of alcohol during
Prohibition. Tony first works as a bodyguard and then gains power within Lovo’s gang. Then the
film, *The Public Enemy* was released in 1932 and directed by William A. Wellman. It follows the
story of Tom Powers, played by James Cagney, during Prohibition. He starts as a little thug and then
joins a gang in Chicago in which he gains more and more power by eliminating the competition.
Secondly, the corpus includes movies and series taking place during Prohibition, released almost a
century later. The film *Road to Perdition* was released in 2002 and directed by Sam Mendes. The
film is based on the comic book, *Road to Perdition*, drawn by Richard Piers Rayner and written by
Max Allan in 1998. The movie starts in the winter of 1931. It follows the story of Michael Sullivan,
played by Tom Hanks, who works for a mob boss called John Rooney. When his son Michael Junior
witnesses a murder committed by Rooney’s son, Connor, in one of the warehouses filled with

<footnote n="28">²⁸ George S. Larke-Walsh, *Screening the Mafia: Masculinity, Ethnicity and Mobsters from the Godfather to the Sopranos*, Jefferson, N. C.: McFarland & Co Inc, 2010, 2.</footnote>
bootleg alcohol, they are forced to flee to Chicago. Michael seeks revenge after Connor killed his wife and youngest son. He and his eldest son are pursued by a killer hired by his former gang. The movie *Lawless* was released in 2012 and directed by John Hillcoat. The movie is based on the historical novel *The Wettest County in the World* written in 2008 by Matt Bondurant, the grandson of Jack Bondurant. The plot takes place in the state of Virginia, in Franklin and narrates the story of three bootleggers, the Bondurant brothers. The characters are played by Tom Hardy, Shia LaBeouf and Jason Clarke and see their activities temporarily disturbed by Prohibition. They will adapt to the new situation, and satisfy the needs of their customers and neighbors until the Amendment is abrogated by producing and selling their own alcohol. The movie portrays the different ambitions of each brother regarding the future of this illegal business. Finally, the series *Boardwalk Empire* was released from 2010 to 2014 on HBO and directed by Terence Winter. The series is based on the book *Boardwalk Empire*, written by the historian Nelson Johnson. The five seasons of the series recount the life of Enoch “Nucky” Thompson, treasurer of Atlantic City, played by Steve Buscemi. He decides to start an illegal business of alcohol as soon as the Prohibition Amendment is passed. His business grows rapidly and he makes alliances and faces competition with bootleggers from other big cities like New York or Chicago. His illegal activities draw the attention of federal agents.

Early 1930s gangster films received a negative reception from critics: "The post-Crash talking gangster film only put more panic into panic-mongers, helping to fuel a restrictive resolution in 1931 and aid on the formation of the Production Code."<fnref n="29" /> The public opinion was shocked, there was a fear of glamorizing crime, as it was shown as entertaining and profitable in films. Moral guardians feared it would encourage criminality and disrespect for the laws. Moreover, the moral panic in the 1930s was triggered by the sound in gangster films that "highlighted the problems of modernity and the urban environment"<fnref n="30" />, as it laid an emphasis on the social class and ethnicity of the gangster. Will Hays, the first chairman of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America at the time, declared a moratorium on gangster film production in 1935, to reinforce the code of censorship already existing on gangster films since 1930 and to demonstrate that "the Code could be an effective instrument of Hollywood's self-regulation and to offset the demand to establish an external federal censorship agency."<fnref n="31" /> The Code was particularly severe on the depiction of crime, sex, and violence on screen. It was applied as soon as the script was written. For instance, *Scarface* was forced to cut and add scenes, to satisfy censors' demands which delayed its

<footnote n="29">²⁹ Jonathan Munby, *Public Enemies, Public Heroes: Screening the Gangster from Little Caesar to touch of Evil*, Chicago, The University of Chicago press cop. 1999, 5.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ Ron Wilson, *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in American Cinema*, New-York: Wallflower, 2015, 32.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ Jonathan Munby, *Public Enemies, Public Heroes: Screening the Gangster from Little Caesar to touch of Evil*, Chicago, The University of Chicago press cop. 1999, 7.</footnote>
release. After the moratorium of Hays, *Little Caesar* and *The Public Enemy* were prohibited from
exhibition until 1953. The censorship imposed on the 1930s gangster films shaped the way
Prohibition was represented, imposing a favorable opinion on the 18th Amendment.

The first part of this paper shall first identify the aspects of Prohibition that have been erased
from gangster films presented in the corpus. The 1930s gangster films have a tendency to forget the
establishment of Prohibition, the temperance movements and repeal, as well as the advocates of the
18th Amendment and rural areas, which is partially corrected in 2000s-2010s gangster films and
series. It will then analyze the aspects that the films are focused on, including the rise of criminality
linked to the trafficking of bootleg alcohol, people who flaunt the 18th Amendment and the urban
areas, aspects that are more developed in the recent gangster films. Finally, it will concentrate on the
critical and nostalgic representation of Prohibition, conveyed through different techniques and
expressed in different manners in the 1930s and 2000s-2010s pictures. The second part of this
dissertation shall first concentrate on the ethnic representation of gangsters. The representation of
gangsters in 1930s movies is marked by stereotypes visible through dialogue, gestures and
costumes, these stereotypes disappear to a certain extent in 2000s-2010s productions. Then, it will
dwell upon the representation of violence engendered by the character of the gangster, gangster
films from the 1930s represent violence implicitly and as an ethnic stereotype, they portray
aggressive masculinity as individual and the victims of this violence are often women and gangsters
themselves whereas recent productions represent violence more explicitly and extend aggressive
masculinity to the collective and depict a larger range of victims of the gangsters' violence. Finally,
it will demonstrate to what extent the representation of the character of the gangster in gangster
films and series from the 1930s and 2000s-2010s is nostalgic, as it draws its inspiration from
historical figures, it portrays an ideal of lost masculinity and aesthetic violence.
# I- The representation of Prohibition

This part shall analyze the representation of Prohibition in gangster films and series from the 1930s and 2000s-2010s. Some aspects of Prohibition are often erased from gangster films such as the beginning and the end of the movement, the people advocating for Prohibition and Prohibition in rural areas. These aspects are partly reestablished in recent productions to offer more context to the viewer who is not as familiar with it as the audience of the 1930s for instance. Other aspects of Prohibition such as the rise of the traffic of alcohol, people disobeying the law and Prohibition in rural areas are much more focused on in gangster films. These notions are often more represented and detailed in recent productions as they are not limited by censorship. Finally, this part shall concentrate on the critical and nostalgic representation of Prohibition. In the 1930s, films tend to be critical of people disobeying the 18th Amendment and recent productions are more critical of the Amendment itself. Gangster films from the 1930s were already nostalgic for the period of Prohibition as it was more prosperous than the Depression. Recent films resort to different forms of nostalgia that sometimes lead to the distortion of reality.

## A-The forgotten aspects of Prohibition

This part shall demonstrate that some aspects of Prohibition are often erased from the storyline of gangster films and series, such as the history of the establishment of the 18th Amendment. The movies and series focus on the characters opposed to Prohibition and offer a limited or nonexistent representation of characters in favor and take place in urban areas, neglecting rural areas.

## 1- The beginnings of Prohibition and its Repeal

In gangster films set during the 1920s and early 1930s, the context of Prohibition is primordial and central to the plot, however, the movies do not share the reasons why such an Amendment exists. Uninformed modern viewers accept its existence without understanding what the reasons that motivated its establishment were while being confronted with a majority of characters ideologically against it. Researchers and historians such as William J. Rorabaugh in *Prohibition: a Concise History*, Clark H. Norman in *Deliver Us from Evil: an Interpretation of American Prohibition*, and Thomas Coffey in *The Long Thirst* analyze the period of Prohibition by
focusing first on the beginnings of the movement, including the various reasons why it was
established. This part of history is often erased from the gangster film genre.

As Clark H. Norman noted in *Deliver Us From Evil: an Interpretation of American Prohibition*, it is
important to understand why Americans were drinking often to morbidity and why this was a social
concern so major it engendered Prohibition movements: “Indeed, without this historical key, any
interpretation of Prohibition will be colorful combinations of bias and legend.”<fnref n="32" /> Figures testify of
the compulsive drinking in the United States, for instance, in 1810 the country produced 25,499,382
gallons of ardent spirits, of which 133,823 gallons were exported. However, 8,000,000 gallons were
imported, which rose the domestic consumption to 33,365,559 gallons.<fnref n="33" /> C. Norman concluded that
reasons for compulsive drinking were the integration of alcohol in ceremonies, rituals, the daily
expectations, the very fabric of cultural values of the society in which the drinking occurs, the
availability of alcohol in quantity, the fact that drunkenness was culturally acceptable, and personal
anxiety. Neal Dow, one of the main Prohibition advocates, established the first real Prohibition law
in the state of Maine in 1851, called the Maine Law, which prohibited the manufacturing and the
sale of alcohol to abolish public drunkenness. The Maine law was adopted by thirteen states before
1855 and removed before the Civil War. One of the motivations of Neal Dow for advocating for
temperance was the fact that men who consumed alcohol were violent toward their wives and
children, and could not ensure the well-being of their families as they spent their wages in saloons:
“The values of self-discipline, family loyalty, and responsibility for children as well as of personal
ambition, self-reliance, and accomplishment were at the heart of the Prohibition Movement.”<fnref n="34" /> In
1874, this became the main argument of prohibitionists, as women became more active in the
movement. They fought what is called the “Women’s War”<fnref n="35" />, at a time when there were 100,000
saloons, they were able to close thousands of them across the United States. They also organized the
first convention of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. In 1880, the consumption of beer
rose from 2.7 to 17.9 gallons and the number of saloons increased to 150,000 in 1850.<fnref n="36" /> This caused
many men and women to join the Republican Party to promote Prohibition and to demand that the
question of the saloons become a political question. The movement grew through the decades,
however, Prohibition Amendments were successful only in a few States such as Rhode Island,

<footnote n="32">³² Jonathan Munby, *Public Enemies, Public Heroes: Screening the Gangster from Little Caesar to touch of Evil*, Chicago, The University of Chicago press cop. 1999, 7.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ Norman H. Clark, *Deliver Us From Evil: an Interpretation of American Prohibition*, New-York: W.W. Norton & company, 1976, 19.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ *Ibid*, 42,43.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ *Ibid*, 50.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ *Ibid*, 50.</footnote>
Kansas, and Maine. In 1882, Frances Willard founded the Home Protection Party, shaped around her prediction that women would "lift the banner of the party that declares for home protection and saloon destruction."<fnref n="37" /> She was at the head of the WCTU in 1879 and wanted to shape a "new consciousness"<fnref n="38" /> in the United States. Home protection was at the center of her program for temperance and equal suffrage. In 1902, WTCU achieved temperance education with textbooks available to public schools. Her main achievement was to integrate conservatives, moderates, and radicals in the temperance movement during the 1890s. Another important organization was the Anti-Saloon League founded in the 1890s in Ohio, which became "the most effective pressure group in American political history."<fnref n="39" /> The first convention of the League took place in 1895. It aimed at the abolition of the saloon by putting in place restrictions thanks to municipal and state legislation that prohibited the sale of alcohol to minors, the closing of saloons on Sundays, and established saloonless territories around schools for example. They obtained the support of churches, business groups, and civic organizations. For a majority of states, the movement toward Prohibition was passed thanks to successful political measures. The Anti-Saloon League supported the election of legislators and governors in favor of the prohibition of alcohol, called dry. In late 1913, the ASL began to take measures in order to bring Prohibition to a national level. Thousands of men and women of the ASL and WTCU marched to the Capitol asking for an Amendment in the Constitution that would prohibit "the sale, manufacture for sale, transportation for sale, importation for sale, of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes."<fnref n="40" /> Wayne Wheeler, a lawyer and spokesman of the League defended the law before the Supreme Court with success. The League used its political influence over the elections of 1914 and 1916, consequently, the dry members of Congress became more numerous than the wets. This was a victory, Prohibition at a federal level would finally be possible, indeed the election of 1916 rendered the 18th Amendment effective. The war against Germany reinforced the Prohibition sentiment and the wish for a strong and healthy nation, as well as the rejection of anything foreign like German beer. In December 1917, the required two-thirds majority of Congress voted in favor of the 18th Amendment. Consequently, the Amendment was submitted to the states. 27 states already had dry laws and ratified immediately, and in January 1919 the ratification was complete. The National Prohibition Enforcement known as the Volstead Act came into effect in January 1920.

<footnote n="37">³⁷ Norman H. Clark, *Deliver Us From Evil: an Interpretation of American Prohibition*, New-York: W.W. Norton & company, 1976, 75.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ *Ibid*, 85.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ *Ibid*, 93.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ *Ibid*, 118.</footnote>
Contrary to what Prohibition-era gangster films suggest, the Prohibition Act was not a lightly taken decision established overnight without the consent of the citizens, it was for many people the most important reform in American history and a long process that took more than a century to establish. In *The Public Enemy*, a title card indicates the year 1920, and in the next scene there is a close up of a storefront where it is written “Family liquor store, owing to Prohibition our entire stock must be sold before midnight”, the viewer can witness people buying hastily as much alcohol as they can. This scene introduces the context of Prohibition and is the only one to refer to the implementation of the Amendment. Yet, the movie begins in 1909, in order to offer a retrospective of the childhood of the main character Tom Powers and could have taken advantage of it to showcase the premises of the temperance movement. Still, it seems to suggest the issue of alcoholism, by showing children drinking at the beginning of the movie, and also Tom being beaten by his father as a punishment, a scene that implies the effects of alcohol on working men, especially considering that protecting the family was at the heart of the temperance movement.

The length of the film seems to limit what could have been shown, however, movies of the early 2000s and 2010s like *Road to Perdition* and *Lawless* do not offer more explanations on the subject. In *Lawless*, the narrator directly informs the viewer that the story is set during Prohibition whereas in *Road to Perdition*, the word Prohibition is not used, the historical context is implied through the setting and the characters' behavior around alcohol. The TV series format allows for the representation of more information and details. Indeed, at the beginning of the first season of *Boardwalk Empire*, even though the series also begins in 1920, we witness a meeting of the Women's Temperance Movement very early in the show, which implies its importance in the establishment of the incoming Prohibition Amendment. They are represented and given a voice and are given a chance to explain their motives. During this meeting, the main character Enoch Thompson is invited and delivers a speech. He is the treasurer of Atlantic City and shares a moving story about how alcohol destroyed his family because his father was unable to provide for his family since he was drunk and spent his wages on alcohol. He recalls how as a child he had to take the responsibility of finding food for his family during winter, how he was poorly dressed and hunted rats for dinner. Enoch lays an emphasis on why people should be for Prohibition and how “Prohibition means progress”, as he says. His story reflects the reality of many people at the time. The viewer can understand one of the motives that led to the implementation of the law. In season 1, episode 5, at another meeting, the members of the temperance movement mention that alcohol is still being consumed. They share the names of places where they know alcohol is being sold and stored. One of the women shares the dramatic story of a woman who decided to sell alcohol in order to provide for her children. She made it herself at home until one of her children drank it and died. They try to find solutions to prevent the sale of alcohol from continuing. Such dramatic stories were
common during the era of Prohibition, for instance, a 23-year-old woman called Jennie Justo was given a sentence of six months to a house of correction and a $500 fine for bootlegging and selling liquor to students in Madison, Wisconsin in 1932. She defended herself by saying she only wanted to support her family and offer an education to her younger brother.41 At the end of season 1, episode 5 of *Boardwalk Empire*, the members of the Women's Temperance Union manage to arrest the owner of a warehouse full of barrels of beer while they stand outside the warehouse, singing and holding signs (Figure 1). This kind of demonstration is representative of the actions undertaken by movements such as the WTCU to encourage the closure of saloons (Figure 2). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that contrary to what is shown in the series, in real life women were often wearing white to march. White not only made them recognizable but also emphasized the morality and purity of the cause they were defending, as white is associated with these notions and they were advocating for the eradication of vices linked to the consumption of alcohol. As portrayed in Figure 1, the series depicts women predominantly wearing dark colors. Perhaps the darker colors worn by women in this scene emphasize the difficulty of their fight. This artistic choice takes some distance from reality and evokes the defeat and failure of the movement, foreshadowing that Prohibition will eventually be repealed. The clothes may represent the symbolism associated with the movement today with hindsight and therefore contrast with reality and offer a distorted vision of it.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: The Women's Temperance Union holding a sign in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 1, episode 5, Taylor, Alan, Winter, Terrence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2010.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Women's Christian Temperance Union Marching on Spruce Street, Morgantown, W.Va, undated/West Virginia University.</figcaption></figure>

Still, the movement and the reasons that encouraged its foundation are given very little screen time and they completely disappear in the following seasons. Moreover, the movement is represented in a farcical light as it doesn't seem to hold much power. Its members only make insignificant actions

<footnote n="41">41 Thomas Coffey, *The Long Thirst: Prohibition in America: 1920-1933*, New York: Norton, 1975, 295.</footnote>
and arrests and are manipulated by people they don't suspect to be important gangsters, like Enoch Thompson. In season 1, episode 5, the head of the Women's Temperance Union and Margaret Schroeder, played by Kelly Mcdonald, visit Thompson and inform him of the existence of a suspicious warehouse close to her home, where deliveries of alcohol are made. He feigns surprise and disgust and promises that his brother, the sheriff, will shut it down. Before leaving, the President of the Union says to Nucky: "Mr. Thompson, we are grateful, as always", indicating that the Union often resorts to him to solve similar issues. Nucky doesn't keep his promise and does nothing to close the warehouse which actually belongs to him. The futility of the movement is highlighted by the character of Margaret Schroeder, who quickly stops being a member to embrace the gangster lifestyle. The series gives just enough context to the audience in order to understand the establishment of Prohibition. This aspect of the era is completely absent from the other films. However, this information may not be considered vital to the plot in movies from the 1930s, since the majority of the audience was aware of the historical context because it took place in their lifetime or their parents'. However, the absence of a portrayal of opposition to gangsters tilts the balance in their favor and encourages a glamorized representation.

The movies do not focus on another aspect of Prohibition: the organization for repeal, which started as early as 1922 with the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment and also in 1929 with the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform. The turning point in the fight for repeal was the publication of the Wickersham Report in January 1931. The National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement created by President Hoover, whose goal was to investigate the efficiency of Prohibition and make changes accordingly gave its final report. In the individual conclusions, two of the eleven members were in favor of repeal, five suggested revision or repeal, which would restore legal liquor under the control of a government monopoly corporation, two asked for an extensive revision and the last two wanted the 18th Amendment and its enforcement to remain unchanged. This damaged the dry cause, in addition to the loss of Rockefeller Jr.'s and the Women's Temperance Union's support. The wets gained seats in the House and Senate and Roosevelt obtained the vote of the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform which had become "the nation's most effective citizen's group against Prohibition."<fnref n="42" /> Roosevelt won the election, and on the 5th of December 1933, Utah was the 36th state to ratify the 21st Amendment, guaranteeing the 3/4th of all states majority required for the adoption of the Amendment, which canceled the effects of the 18th Amendment.

These events would have been interesting to witness in *Road to Perdition*, and *Lawless* since the stories take place at the end of Prohibition or mention it, and especially in *Boardwalk Empire*, as the

<footnote n="42">⁴² Thomas Coffey, *The Long Thirst: Prohibition in America: 1920-1933*, New York: Norton, 1975, 311.</footnote>
last season gravitates around the fact that Prohibition is about to end. Moreover, because the show started with the Women's Temperance Movement, which fought for the establishment of the 18th Amendment, it would have offered an interesting parallel, by finishing with women fighting for the repeal of this Amendment. A few scenes in *Boardwalk Empire* mention the repeal of the 18th Amendment. For instance, in season 5, episode 1, we witness political discussions between Nucky Thompson and Senator Wendell Lloyd. Thompson prepares for the repeal of Prohibition by making sure it will occur in order to legalize his business. Wendell expresses his opinion on Prohibition saying "Eleven years of Volstead and all they've managed to achieve is... you're as aware as anyone." This sentence sums up the discontent most people started to express about Prohibition in the late 1920s, conveyed by the result of the Wickersham Report. Wendell illustrates the failures of Prohibition by giving numbers: "$900 million a year in liquor taxes and licenses the government isn't getting." The need to recover from the Depression was one of the reasons that motivated people to give up on Prohibition. The majority voted for Roosevelt in the presidential election because he favored repeal, which was one of his strategies to regain financial prosperity. In one of his speeches during his election campaign, Roosevelt stated, "I propose to increase the federal revenue by several hundred million dollars a year by placing a tax on beer."<sup>43</sup> Moreover, in the extract, Wendell reveals to Nucky that Hoover is unable to repeal the 18th Amendment since his campaign was supported by the drys and he is indebted to them. Therefore, the only solution they can contemplate is the election of a new president, this foreshadows the election of President Roosevelt. In the movies of the early 1930s, the timeline depends on the average life expectancy of the main character, who often dies before the end of Prohibition. Moreover, the movies do not focus at all on the political aspect of Prohibition and consequently show neither its establishment nor its repeal.

Movies from the 1930s and 2000s-2010s mostly do not show the social and political reasons that motivated the establishment and the repeal of the 18th Amendment, although they are essential for understanding the stakes of the era. Those aspects of Prohibition are barely tackled in movies and series from the 2000s-2010s. *Road to Perdition* gives no explicit explanations of the historical context, in the same vein as *Little Caesar*. The two movies give even less information than the two other 1930s movies in the corpus. The film *Lawless* mentions the beginning and ending of the Prohibition, but does not give further explanations and does not explain the reasons that motivated the implementation of those political measures. On the contrary, *Boardwalk Empire* gives more insight into the subject, integrating prohibitionists' actions and repeal discussions into the main character's storyline, even though they are scarce.

<footnote n="43"><sup>43</sup> Thomas Coffey, *The Long Thirst: Prohibition in America: 1920-1933*, New York: Norton, 1975, 309.</footnote>
## 2- Where are the people in favor of Prohibition?

Gangster films taking place during the 1920s and early 1930s tend to portray characters who are generally against Prohibition, and ready to flaunt the law without hesitation in order to quench their thirst for alcohol, or to profit from bootlegging. Consequently, they convey an image of a disobedient and angry nation, against an Amendment that supposedly shrank their liberty. There are few characters in favor of Prohibition in both movies from the 1930s and from the 2000s-2010s and they have barely any screen time since the movies focus on the gangsters. In addition to standing in the shadow of the criminals, they are not represented in a favorable light. Movies from the 1930s and 2000s-2010s have different intentions which influenced the way characters in favor of Prohibition are represented. The goal of the 1930s films was to dissuade people from disobeying the law and condemning bootleggers and they chose to predominantly represent people flaunting the law, making them the main characters, to lay an emphasis on their vile characteristics. Modern movies are not propaganda films, but they drew their inspiration from 1930s films and perpetuated the scarce representation of Prohibition advocates, favoring the identification of the viewer with the gangster characters.

As mentioned earlier, many people were in favor of the prohibition of alcohol. In the movies of the early 1930s, there are no characters explicitly in favor of Prohibition, the only ones that can be associated with this cause are the characters who enforce the law and ensure that it is respected. They are generally relentless police officers, such as the sheriff in *Scarface*. There is a scene where Tony confronts him. The sheriff is forced to let Tony go, but threatens him and assures him he will catch him eventually: "You can hide behind a lot of red tape, crooked lawyers, politicians with 'gimmes', rights of habeas corpus, witnesses that don't remember, but we'll get through to you just like we got all the rest." This sentence shows the determination of the sheriff and his faith in justice, as he is convinced that he will arrest every gangster eventually.

In *The Public Enemy*, Tom's brother does not particularly support the Prohibition Amendment, but he believes in respecting the law in general. He appears as an antagonist to Tom and represents what is right as he enrolls in the army during the First World War and he refuses to participate in the illegal activities of his brother, even by simply accepting a beer from him because he knows what it represents.

In later films, the characters that can be seen as in favor of Prohibition are also law enforcers, like Prohibition Agent Van Alden, played by Michael Shannon, in *Boardwalk Empire*, who is determined to stop the traffic of alcohol at the beginning of season 1. He is very strict and ruthless when it comes to enforcing the law. He represents the puritanism in the United States, a way of thinking tied to Protestantism and advocating for Prohibition through the first temperance
movements. Thomas Coffey considers that Prohibition movements in the United States partly found their roots in the Puritan way of thinking widespread in the country.<fnref n="44" /> Contrary to Tom’s brother and the sheriff in *Scarface*, Van Alden is a firm believer in Prohibition because of his religious convictions. He uses any resources in his possession to enforce the 18th Amendment and often feels limited by his superiors and the budget for law enforcement. In season 1, episode 5, Margaret comes to him to denounce the illegal activities of one of her neighbors, who stores alcohol in his warehouse. Van Alden shows her a map where all the places storing, distilling or selling alcohol known by the police are marked with thumbtacks, to make her understand it isn’t their priority since there are too many and they don’t have the resources necessary to shut down 10% of them. Van Alden is obsessed with the idea of cleansing the city from sin. In season 1, episode 12, he gives a speech to the new Prohibition Bureau recruits and warns them against corruption, temptation and vice. One of the agents makes a joke, implying he finds this aspect of the job fun, which infuriates Van Alden, who slaps him across the face. Later in the episode, Van Alden tells his wife he was offered a permanent job in Atlantic City but turned it down because he has doubts about the rightfulness of his actions. She reassures him by saying, “You’re doing God’s work there”, which shows the strength of the couple’s faith and convictions. In a twist of fate, Van Alden ends up disobeying the law, consuming alcohol, hiring a prostitute and ironically becomes a gang member. These events happen because the police discover that he drowned Agent Sebso in an attempt to make him confess he was corrupted. Moreover, his wife discovers that he cheated on her and is expecting a baby with his mistress. The loss of his job and the wanted notice issued for him as well as his divorce put him on the path of criminality. In the show, both gangsters and the supposedly good and honest characters like Van Alden, succumb to the temptation of money and power, as if no one is immune to the appeal of sin and lawlessness.

In *Lawless*, there is a character similar to the ones cited before. Prohibition agent Charlie Rakes, played by Guy Pearce, hunts down gangsters and doesn't back down from any demonstration of violence to reach his goal. However, he doesn't share Van Alden's moral convictions and his obsession for arresting gangsters seems to be motivated by the thrill of the hunt. Both characters are excessive and radical in their beliefs and methods, which makes them unsympathetic. These negative representations of Prohibition agents tend to make the gangsters look sympathetic by comparison. For instance, in a scene in *Lawless*, Charlie Rakes visits Cricket's home. He is menacing from the start, announcing that this is not a social visit and holding a shotgun. He interrogates Cricket, asking him where the still, the money and the liquor are. Jack arrives and claims that Cricket knows nothing. Rakes threatens him with his gun and starts beating him up as

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ Thomas Coffey, *The Long Thirst: Prohibition in America: 1920-1933*, New York: Norton, 1975, 3.</footnote>
soon as he learns he is a Bondurant. Jack is scared, unarmed, drunk and unable to defend himself. Rakes hits him until he is covered in blood and passes out on the ground (Figure 3). Rakes' violent outburst is unjustified and cruel, he seems to hurt people simply out of pleasure since he learns nothing from Jack in this scene. By comparison, the Bondurants commit violent actions to defend and avenge themselves or others. At the end of the movie, during the confrontation between the police and the Bondurants, Jack shoots Rakes down (Figure 4). The unsympathetic representations of Prohibition agents establish the intent of modern films as different from the one of 1930s films, which was to make the viewers sympathize with righteous and good characters in favor of Prohibition. Modern films offer a representation of people favoring Prohibition with nuanced characters.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Rakes hitting Jack in *Lawless*, Hillcoat, John. *Lawless*. 2012.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: Jack shooting Rakes in *Lawless*, Hillcoat, John. *Lawless*. 2012.</figcaption></figure>

Women are known to have been particularly active in the Prohibition movement. They are scarcely represented in the films and series or completely absent.

The mothers of the gangsters in movies of the early 1930s correspond to the generation of women who fought for temperance, but this is not evoked. They are either loving mothers who do not mind that their sons disobey the law, or are disapproving mothers and antagonists to their sons. In both cases they do not show a political opinion. For instance in *The Public Enemy*, when Tom Powers gives money to his mother, she accepts it and is very grateful without being suspicious of how he earned it and when he brings a barrel of beer to the table, she does not question where he found it, unlike Tom's brother. However, in *Scarface*, Tony's mother is strongly opposed to his activities and she does not want him to have a bad influence on his sister. It suggests that his mother believes in respecting the law and perhaps by extension, that she is in favor of Prohibition and the values defended by the temperance movements. In movies of the early 1930s, there are few characters in favor of the 18th Amendment and they are not portrayed as supporters of this specific law, but as respecting the law in general. Their purpose is to be moral guardians and redirect the opinion of the audience, to highlight the contrast between good and bad people.
In *Lawless*, there is no depiction of female figures supporting Prohibition or representing the struggles women went through which pushed them to be involved in temperance movements. In *Road to Perdition*, there are few female characters. However, Annie Sullivan, played by Jennifer Jason Leigh, is killed as well as her son because her husband, Michael Sullivan is involved in a gang. The representation of women and children as victims of male violence is reminiscent of the will to protect families advocated by prohibitionists.

Women as active advocates of Prohibition is more developed in the series *Boardwalk Empire*, especially with the character of Margaret. At the beginning of the series, she is a member of a women's temperance union. She reflects the reality of what many women underwent at the time, she is a victim of domestic violence. Her husband is a violent alcoholic, who hits not only her but also their two children. She has a dominant role in the series, as she is one of the main characters and she plays in all five seasons of the show. However, her character is not a significant addition to the representation of women in the temperance movement as she abandons her values by accepting to live as a woman maintained by Nucky Thompson, the very man who is responsible for the death of her husband, and who provides the city with alcohol, the substance that destroyed her family for many years. What makes this situation even more paradoxical is that she is motivated by the need to protect and provide for her children. This differentiates her from the other kept women in 1930s gangster films, who gravitate around gangsters to get a taste of their luxurious lifestyle. They are represented as superficial, whereas Margaret is a multifaceted character who often questions herself. She eventually regrets taking this path by saying: "I've stolen and cheated, and deceived, and now I'm being punished for those sins as are the ones I love" in season 2, episode 11. At the end of the series, Margaret reconsiders her stand on Prohibition, stating it was the worst thing that ever happened to her while sharing a drink with Nucky in season 5, episode 4. She represents the two kinds of women activists during Prohibition, the members of the Women's Christian Temperance Union who advocated for Prohibition and the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform who fought for repeal. Margaret publicly advocates for women's right to vote and therefore she also represents this fight, which is a milestone of the 1920s and is linked to some extent to the successful passage of the 18th Amendment. This event is also completely absent from the other gangster movies in my selection. As women gained political power the movements also grew stronger. This idea is reinforced by Clark H. Norman's statement: "Though one cannot demonstrate this with statistics, there is almost every reason to suppose that the women's suffrage movement reinforced the Prohibition Movement."<fnref n="45" />

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ Norman H. Clark, *Deliver Us From Evil: an Interpretation of American Prohibition*, New-York: W.W. Norton & company, 1976, 105.</footnote>
Another prominent woman in favor of Prohibition is Esther Randolph, played by Julianne Nicholson. She is inspired by the real-life personality Mabel Walker Willebrandt, who was Assistant Attorney General from 1921 to 1929. Her character is honest and dedicated to law enforcement. She is the only female character who holds considerable power and she is the only character who remains true to her beliefs. In season 3, episode 8, Randolph joins forces with Nucky Thompson to plan the arrest of George Remus, played by Glen Fleshler, and the destitution of Attorney General Harry Daugherty, played by Christopher McDonald. Remus is at the head of one of the largest bootlegging organizations, based in Cincinnati and Daugherty is the Attorney General, who instead of prosecuting gangsters, has made arrangements with many of them, including Remus and Thompson. Their deal consisted of guaranteeing they avoid being convicted in exchange for large sums of money. Randolph wants to use Nucky's resources to arrest criminals more important than him and sets boundaries to keep their relation to a business agreement and avoid being corrupted. She refuses the theatre tickets Nucky offers her by saying "Let's keep the favors to a minimum" and leaves the room to avoid getting too involved in his schemes. Randolph appears to be a faithful depiction of Willebrandt who was a firm believer in self-discipline and had become a lawyer by attending night school while teaching in the daytime. Her position on liquor was tolerant, but she put an end to her personal drinking habits when Prohibition was passed because she believed in law enforcement.<fnref n="46" /> She dedicated all of her energy to prosecuting criminals and was one of the most efficient Prohibition agents. She was the instigator of the raid at Death Valley Farm in 1921 which resulted in the arrest of George Remus, among her other achievements. This event is depicted in the series, but her involvement is overshadowed by Nucky's participation. Randolph differentiates herself from the police officers depicted in *Scarface* and *Little Caesar* because she is a lawyer and holds a higher position. Her determination to do her job right motivates her to organize raids and arrests and send gangsters to jail, whereas the police agents from the 1930s films seem to want to fulfill a personal vengeance and do their job correctly. Since she is Assistant Attorney General, she is only directly confronted by gangsters in the courtroom and is never aggressive towards them, she remains professional, unlike agents from *Scarface* and the *Little Caesar* who, as field agents, are often confronted by gangsters and sometimes have a violent attitude toward them.

The people in favor of Prohibition are few in the movies, but they allow to give an overview of the different stakeholders of Prohibition. In 1930s films, they are represented by law enforcers and characters close to gangsters who serve as their antagonists. They do not necessarily believe in the usefulness and righteousness of the 18th Amendment but believe that the law should be respected, except for a few characters with moral values, like Tony's mother in *Scarface*. The people in favor

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ Thomas Coffey, *The Long Thirst: Prohibition in America: 1920-1933*, New York: Norton, 1975, 82.</footnote>
of the prohibition of alcohol are slightly more represented in modern films and series like *Lawless* and *Boardwalk Empire*. They portray similar characters to 1930s films, like Rakes and Van Alden, who both are Prohibition agents determined to arrest gangsters. *Boardwalk Empire* goes further, offering a larger range of characters in favor of Prohibition, with Margaret and Esther Randolph. Moreover, the characters in the show are not one-dimensional and many cross the line between respecting the law and breaking it.

### 3- Prohibition in the countryside

Gangster films concentrate on urban areas and the plot is rarely set in rural ones. Since Prohibition occurred in the entire country, it is surprising that the countryside is underrepresented. First, during the century before Prohibition, rural areas tended to predominantly vote dry and were opposed to the existence of saloons. There was an opposition between rural and urban areas.

> Prohibition elections do seem to define a rural-urban tension, even a rural tyranny, for it is surely true that while the rural towns and counties were militantly dry, the people of Boston, Chicago, Denver, or St. Louis, when they could vote on the issue, usually registered wet majorities.<fnref n="47" />

However, this separation between rural and urban areas is not as obvious as it may seem. Indeed, it is important to determine who were the voters, and dry voters were predominantly middle-class white native Protestants, not necessarily located in the countryside. However, considering the history of temperance in rural areas, Prohibition tended to be more respected as the people voted in favor and thus events occurring in the countryside were not as reported in newspapers as the agitation in the big cities, where the majority of the Prohibition-era gangster films are set. *Lawless*, is an exception as the plot takes place in Franklin, Virginia referred to as “The Wettest County” in the World by Matt Bondurant, in the title of the novel which inspired the film. The historical and geographical contexts are established at the beginning of the movie, with the voice-over of Jack Bondurant and the camera wandering in the countryside landscapes of Virginia. Jack’s narration is the following: “This was dangerous times. In 1920 they passed the Prohibition Act, the sale of alcohol was illegal. At least it was supposed to be. Me and my brothers were moonshiners, bootleggers.” Jack relates the political context of the time which contrasts with his everyday life. He reveals the dominant climate of disobedience in Franklin, which is enhanced by the sale of alcohol

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ Norman H. Clark, *Deliver Us From Evil: an Interpretation of American Prohibition*, New-York: W.W. Norton & company, 1976, 135.</footnote>
to the local sheriff. Prohibition in the countryside is shown in a similar light as in the city, as it focuses on the people's disobedience of the 18th Amendment, like in movies set in urban areas. It offers a new dimension concerning the representation of Prohibition because of the change of scenery. Thus, it provides a slower pace, and a sense of peacefulness, conveying the idea that even though they are breaking the law, the main characters are not in the wrong as they are offering a service to their community. The movie negates the fact that rural areas, especially in the South, were ideologically dry. The film does not hint at the fact that this story of rural bootleggers is an exception, spreading the belief that the situation in the countryside was the same as in the city.

The focus on urban areas in gangster films was also due to the fact that: "American distrust of the city dated at least from independence, and since the late nineteenth century the difficult transition of a rural society into one predominantly urban had captured the attention of millions of Americans."<fnref n="48" />

Gangster films of the 1930s tried to make people trust the city and show how to live in the city through escapist gangster imagery. However, these films still offered a vision of the city that was dangerous. Modern movies don't have to deconstruct what living in the city can be like.

**B- What aspects of Prohibition are shown?**

In this subpart, I will analyze the aspects of Prohibition that the movies and series focus on and see if they remain the same across the decades. I will start with the obvious, the development of organized crime through the sale of alcohol, and determine who the people drinking alcoholic beverages are, to end with the depiction of the city in gangster films.

**1- Development of organized crime through the sale of alcohol**

One of the main goals of Prohibition-era gangster films is to show the development of organized crime through the opportunity of trafficking alcohol. The movies focus on the main activity of the protagonist, the gangster. He uses this business to rise in society. As Ron Wilson states: "The cultural image of the racketeer dominates the early sound films of the 1930s because of its topicality to the entrepreneurial activity of bootlegging during the Prohibition era (1919-33)."<fnref n="49" /> Gangster films from the 1930s do not represent in a detailed manner the activities of the gangsters, even though the official purpose of the movies is to show them breaking the 18th Amendment in

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996, 6.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ Ron Wilson, *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in American Cinema*, New-York: Wallflower, 2015, 36.</footnote>
order to dissuade the audience of the time from choosing this path. The mystery around the manufacture and sale of liquor can be explained by the heavy censorship that limited what movies could show to prevent the audience from copying what they saw on screen. The Hays Code forbade the detailed representation of criminal activities like theft and smuggling.<fnref n="50" /> Movies from the 1930s are more vague in their representation of the liquor business, whereas modern films are generally more explicit. *Little Caesar* doesn't even show or mention the activities of its protagonist, it is simply implied that they are illegal. The movie being set during Prohibition leads the audience to deduce that Rico is involved in the liquor trade and gang warfare. *The Public Enemy* and *Scarface* share more information on the gangsters' business. The movies show how they get their supply of alcohol and what means they use to distribute it and impose their fees. However, the movies contain only a couple of short scenes that remain elusive and draw an incomplete portrayal of the gangster's activities. A scene in *Scarface* shows Lovo coercing other members of other gangs into joining forces with him and another shows him making bar owners buy his alcohol for higher prices than the competition. There is a similar scene in *The Public Enemy*, where Tom destroys the merchandise of a bar owner because he didn't get his supply from him and instead bought a cheaper beer. The *Public Enemy* also shows how the gangsters get their supply of alcohol, by transferring it directly from the government warehouse to the truck, using a hosepipe (Figure 5). The alcohol produced before the law of Prohibition came into effect was kept in warehouses under the surveillance of customs. Gangsters sometimes resorted to theft or corruption to seize this merchandise. Sometimes they even bought the warehouses and discreetly withdrew the merchandise to sell it. This was notably how George Remus got his supply, by buying most of the warehouses in Cincinnati in 1920.<fnref n="51" />

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Tom stealing alcohol in *The Public Enemy*, Wellman, William. *The Public Enemy*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ Annick Foucrier, *Les Gangsters et la Société Américaine* (1920-1960), Ellipses, 2001, 93.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ Thomas Coffey, *The Long Thirst: Prohibition in America: 1920-1933*, New York: Norton, 1975.</footnote>
Furthermore, *Scarface* reveals another trick used by gangsters to supply themselves with alcohol in a scene where the sheriff informs his deputy that gangsters import alcohol from one state to another hidden in legal merchandise boxes. He states: "Say you better put the screws on that 22nd Street freight house. I hear they're bringing them in fruit boxes." The movie also showcases the police chasing trucks transporting alcohol in a scene ending with a car crash. *Scarface* and *The Public Enemy* give few indications about the customers, but the gangsters are seen selling their merchandise to bar owners.

Contrary to gangster movies from the 1930s, modern films and series are generally more detailed and complete in their portrayal of gangsters' activities. They show directly the production, importation and sale of liquor, as well as indicating who the customers are. The movie *Road to Perdition* is an exception as it directly follows in the footsteps of the 1930s films by maintaining the mystery around the gangsters' business. This may be because the movie tries to emulate the same atmosphere as its precursors, or rather because it chose to focus on Michael Sullivan fleeing from his gang. Consequently, the production, supply and sale of liquor are not shown and the movie remains mysterious about the gangsters' activities. There is only a scene where barrels stored in a warehouse can be seen with difficulty through a hole in a wall (Figure 6).

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6: Michael Jr. looking into the warehouse through a hole in *Road to Perdition*, Mendes, Sam. *Road to Perdition*. 2002.</figcaption></figure>

*Lawless* and *Boardwalk Empire* are much more detailed, especially *Boardwalk Empire*, considering the show is five seasons long. Like *Scarface*, the series shows collaborations between gangsters, but in a more Pacific way and with more details. Nucky Thompson is often seen making deals with fellow gangsters from other states, like Rothstein from New York, played by Michael Stuhlbarg and Torrio from Chicago, played by Greg Antonacci. He sells them the alcohol he can get thanks to his strategic location in Atlantic City and his connections on the Rum Row. As seen in the series, gangsters in New York benefited from the port and the border with Canada, and took control over
the docks through unions, in order to take over the distribution of alcohol in one of the biggest
cities. Moreover, to hide and transport alcohol, the gangsters in the show use the same trick with
fruit boxes as the ones in *Scarface*. However, instead of being mentioned, it is explicitly shown. In
the 4th season of *Boardwalk Empire*. Nucky uses half-filled orange boxes to transport liquor from
Tampa, Florida to Atlantic City, New Jersey (Figure 7).

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7: liquor hidden in orange boxes in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 4, episode 8, Van Patten, Tim, Winter, Terence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2014.</figcaption></figure>

There is an instance of gangsters being arrested in 1925 for using a food company, called the Pure
Olive Oil Company to hide and transport rye whiskey in olive oil cans. In the same vein, in 1921, in
Harlem, a grocery store sold liquor in beans and tomato cans. *Boardwalk Empire* further develops
on where and how gangsters could get their merchandise, whereas *Scarface* only indicates that it is
imported. In season 1, episode 1 and as shown several times throughout the series, Nucky gets his
supply from rum-runners, notably at the beginning of season 2, episode 1. One of his suppliers is
Bill McCoy, the founder of Rum Row. The series often refers to the Rum Row, but never shows it
or better explains its operation. Alcohol was imported from Canada, Europe, Mexico, and the West
Indies on freighters that anchored at the limits of the American territorial waters, forming the Rum
Row, and at nightfall, bootleggers met them with small boats to provide themselves with the
merchandise.<fnref n="52" /> Furthermore, *Lawless* and *Boardwalk Empire* show another way used by gangsters
to be supplied with alcohol that isn't mentioned in 1930s films. Some characters produce their own
alcohol in the United States and resort to tricks to hide their stills from the police. The film *Lawless*
shows that the Bondurants produce liquor themselves, by showing their main distillery. Toward the
end of the movie, Jack gives a tour of the distillery to his girlfriend Bertha. It is hidden in a barn in
the middle of the forest, the steam coming out far from indiscreet eyes (Figure 8). Jack explains it is
the biggest still in the county that can produce a thousand gallons a week (Figure 9). Hiding their
production in hidden rural environments was a common technique used by bootleggers. George

<footnote n="52">⁵² Thomas Coffey, *The Long Thirst: Prohibition in America: 1920-1933*, New York: Norton, 1975, 102.</footnote>
Remus notably used Death Valley Farm (Figure 10), an isolated property in Cincinnati, as a bottling plant, storage depot and transfer point.<fnref n="53" />

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8: The Bondurants' distillery hidden in the woods in *Lawless*, Hillcoat, John. *Lawless*. 2012.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9: Barrels of alcohol produced in this barn in *Lawless*, Hillcoat, John. *Lawless*. 2012.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10: Death Valley Farm in *The Cincinnati Enquirer*, page 31, Monday, January 21, 1952./ Newspapers.com.</figcaption></figure>

In *Boardwalk Empire*, Nucky Thompson owns several distilleries and warehouses. This production of liquor is of low quality and is intended to be sold to people from the working class contrary to the imported liquor which is of high quality and meant for wealthy customers and sold in Nucky's bars, nightclubs and casinos. On the contrary, in *Lawless*, the Bondurants' production constitutes their whole supply and is intended to be sold to all their customers. They are seen making home deliveries to regular customers or selling alcohol in their bar. They sell their productions to all sorts of people across the county and even to the local authorities. *Lawless* also shows how the Bondurants transport their homemade merchandise, using trucks and risking getting caught by the

<footnote n="53">53 Thomas Coffey, *The Long Thirst: Prohibition in America: 1920-1933*, New York: Norton, 1975, 83.</footnote>
police by taking the only roads and bridges providing access to the city, just like portrayed in *Scarface*.

The movies and series focus on the traffic of alcohol, which is the main and most profitable activity of gangsters during Prohibition. Gangster films from the 1930s are generally less detailed in their portrayal of gangsters' activities than modern productions. Among the 1930s gangster films of the corpus, *Little Caesar* is the one that gives the least information. *Road to Perdition* is similar in that regard, as it tries to stay faithful to the mystery around the subject established in films from the 1930s and therefore stands out from the other 2000s-2010s films and series. *Lawless* and *Boardwalk Empire* are more explicit and directly show the different steps of the liquor business.

## 2- Everyone is drinking

When watching gangster films, the viewer is under the impression that most people were drinking during the period of Prohibition, even more than before. The phenomenon appears to have increased over the decades, as now even more characters in modern movies and series are shown consuming alcohol. The intense and compulsive drinking in films set during Prohibition adds to the legend because Prohibition laws successfully reduced alcohol consumption. Figures show that annual liquor consumption per capita between 1906 and 1910 was estimated at 2.60 gallons, whereas it decreased to 0.97 in 1934.<fnref n="54" /> In the late 1920s, alcohol was more available compared to the beginning of Prohibition, when it was very rare. The majority of people who remember Prohibition have associated the availability of alcohol in great quantity with the entirety of the period, creating a legend that people were drinking more than ever before. This was highlighted by the journalists of the time, who spread stories of people flouting the law therefore adding to the legend that everyone was drinking.<fnref n="55" /> Furthermore, buying alcohol was very risky and expensive, for instance in 1928, when the annual family income was about $2,600, a quart of bootleg beer cost 80 cents, up 600 percent from 1916.<fnref n="56" /> It is also interesting to note that most Americans, especially outside the big cities, “never knew a bootlegger, never saw a speakeasy, and would not have known where to look for one.”<fnref n="57" />

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ Norman H. Clark, *Deliver Us From Evil: an Interpretation of American Prohibition*, New-York: W.W. Norton & company, 1976, 146.</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ *Ibid*, 148.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ *Ibid*, 147.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ *Ibid*, 145.</footnote>
In movies from the 1930s, most characters consume alcohol, but there are some exceptions. The line between good and evil is made very clear by the portrayal of good characters as sober and bad characters as drinkers. Law enforcers such as Sargent Flaherty in *Little Caesar*, Officer Pat Burke in *The Public Enemy*, and the sheriff in *Scarface* do not drink and despise gangsters who break the 18th Amendment. The other characters who do not drink are those who believe in respecting the law, like Tom's brother in *The Public Enemy* and Tony's mother in *Scarface*. An exception to this separation of good and evil is Rico in *Little Caesar* who never drinks alcohol, which can be surprising for the audience who is not used to seeing a gangster and bootlegger who never consumes his merchandise himself. However, some famous gangsters like George Remus were known to never drink alcoholic beverages.

In movies and series from the 2000s-2010s there isn't a clear association between not drinking alcohol and being good like in older movies. Moreover, the majority of characters drink, even those who are supposed to enforce the 18th Amendment. In *Lawless*, the sheriff and his deputy are seen buying alcohol at the beginning of the film and the new prosecutor Wardell tries to make a deal with the Bondurants to get a share of their profit, which shows his interest in alcohol and might suggest he drinks. In *Boardwalk Empire*, Attorney General Daugherty and most law enforcers are seen drinking, especially considering that the series focuses on those who work with gangsters. Assistant Attorney General Randolph is one of the only law enforcers who never drinks. Some characters are opposed to drinking at the beginning of the show but end up changing their minds, like Agent Van Alden. In addition to working hard for the enforcement of the 18th Amendment, he firmly believes drinking is a sin, but succumbs to it after being deeply frustrated about his failure at work.

In gangster films and series, the majority of characters consume alcohol and gangsters are seen drinking the most. In *The Public Enemy*, the main character Tom consumes alcohol, even right in the morning. There is a scene when he asks his girlfriend to pour him a drink, but she argues that she does not think it is a good idea to drink before breakfast. He insists and says: "I didn't ask you for any lip. I asked you if you got a drink." This excerpt justifies the fact that he should not drink because he has a tendency to become violent, which is highlighted in the next scene, as he smashes a fruit in his girlfriend's face. There are several scenes where he and his gang consume alcohol, there is even a scene where Tom is obliged to stay in his boss' house, and while waiting he drinks to the point of being intoxicated. The next morning, he has trouble remembering the night before. However he is only seen with a glass of alcohol or pouring a drink, but he never actually drinks it. In *Lawless*, the character who drinks the most is Howard, played by Jason Clarke. He is constantly under the influence of alcohol and holding a bottle in his hand. In *Boardwalk Empire*, the character of Eli Thompson, Nucky's brother, and the sheriff of Atlantic City, played by Shea Whigham, is similar to Howard. He consumes unreasonable amounts of alcohol when he encounters hardships,
and his heavy drinking leads to memory loss and violent outbursts. In the series, most characters drink automatically. Nucky pours himself a drink each time he enters his office, one of his nightclubs or someone's home and systematically offers one to his guests or business partners. In recent movies, the characters do not necessarily drink more, but it is more shown. Alcohol in general is on display, in larger quantities than in earlier films. In the gangster films of the 1930s, the villains were the only characters who drank. Later, the consumption of alcohol was glamorized by Hollywood stars and became more widespread in pictures. Norman H. Clark explains that movies in the 1930s improved the reputation of drinking by associating it with fashionable characters played by popular stars such as James Cagney, Greta Garbo, Jean Harlow and Humphrey Bogart. As he says: "For the good people, drinking was the symbolic action suggesting sexuality, a finely sharpened identity, a cool sophistication. But even more significantly, the movie star cults were becoming lifestyle cults."<fnref n="58" />

Women also drank and it is portrayed in the films and series. This information can appear contradictory, considering the involvement of women in temperance movements. Indeed, the 1920s were also a time when women emancipated and freed themselves from former rules. As explained in the documentary *Prohibition, Une Experience Américaine*, before Prohibition, women could not drink in saloons as they were open only to men. However, during Prohibition, with the appearance of the speakeasy which had no specific rules, men and women were drinking side by side for the first time.<fnref n="59" /> There was also a generation gap between the women who fought for temperance and the right to vote and their daughters who led a hedonistic life. Indeed, "equal suffrage leaders born before the Civil War were more likely to be Prohibitionists than were those born after 1865."<fnref n="60" /> The new generation did not share the same priorities and values as their predecessors. The emblematic women of the 1920s, the flappers, are the most represented in the gangster films and represent this new generation of women. In the gangster films from the early 1930s, the flappers are criticized for their way of life, their smoking, drinking, and sexual freedom. They are portrayed as very passive, submissive, and not very bright and as trophy women for gangsters. For example, in *Scarface*, Tony's sister, Cesca played by Ann Dvorak, is tempted by her brother's lifestyle but her mother and brother dissuade her from trying to experience it. Her character represents the independent woman of the 20th century who makes her own choices, as David Ruth explains: "The gangster genre offered little reason to believe that strong patriarchs could or should continue to force women into

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ Norman H. Clark, *Deliver Us From Evil: an Interpretation of American Prohibition*, New-York: W.W. Norton & company, 1976, 212.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ Ken Burns, Lynn Novick, *Prohibition: Une Expérience Américaine 1920-1933*, Arte Editions, 2012.</footnote>

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ Norman H. Clark, *Deliver Us From Evil: an Interpretation of American Prohibition*, New-York: W.W. Norton & company, 1976, 106.</footnote>
nineteenth century roles.”<fnref n="61" /> In *The Public Enemy*, the first introduction of female characters occurs in a speakeasy. The two women are eating and drinking in the company of gangsters. They do not drink on screen but it is suggested by the empty bottles on the table.

In *Lawless*, one of the first customers we witness at the very beginning of the movie is an old woman. Later we are introduced to the main female character, Maggie, played by Jessica Chastain. She is an independent woman who works at the Bondurants’ bar to sustain herself. She is active as she saves Forrest’s life, and makes the first step in their romantic relationship. She is also shown as the victim and survivor of violent drunken men who rape her. *Boardwalk Empire* offers a larger range of female characters, still, they remain in the minority compared to male characters. As Rachel Robinson-Green points out, “At a time when women are coming together to end oppression, the main female characters of *Boardwalk* are remarkably adept at contributing to that oppression.”<fnref n="62" /> For example, Lucy Danziger, played by Paz de la Huerta, appears to be the weakest female character of the show, and is reminiscent of the women seen in the movies of the 1930s. She is represented as being not very smart, a sentiment echoed in the song played on several occasions “The Dumber They Come” performed by the character of Eddie Cantor. He was inspired by the real-life singer of the same name who performed the song for the first time in 1924. Lucy is a showgirl stuck in an oppressive and submissive way of life, where she wants a man to provide for her. She enjoys this lifestyle, she smokes, drinks, and wears stylish clothes, but she ends up being literally kept prisoner by Agent van Alden. She is exactly the kind of character that can be found in the 1930s films. For instance in *The Public Enemy*, Gwen Allen, played by Jean Harlow, is Tom Powers’ second girlfriend. She confesses to him that she has known many men and is attracted to his strength and power. She is elegant and lavishly dressed and her beauty is used for the betterment of Tom’s public image. As we can see in Figure 11 and Figure 12, the two women are very similar in appearance and behavior. They are both very elegant and wearing fashionable clothes and jewelry. They stand by their partner’s side, holding their hand as a sign of support and holding a cigarette with the other hand.

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996, 101.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶² Richard, Greene, *Boardwalk Empire and Philosophy: Bootleg This Book*, Chicago (III.): Open Court, 2013, 157.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11: Lucy and Nucky in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 1, episode 2, Van Patten, Tim, Winter, Terrence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2010.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12: James Cagney and Jean Harlow in *The Public Enemy* (1931), Warner Brothers Inc., Encyclopaedia Britannica.</figcaption></figure>

Another prominent female character in *Boardwalk Empire* is Margaret. At first, she appears to break the image of weakness stereotypically shown in gangster films. She shows intelligence, especially in season 1, episode 4, when asked about the women's right to vote, she confronts the senator who asked the question and says that she comes from Ireland, a country where women already have the right to vote and adds that most civilized countries have it. Her answer contrasts directly with the one Lucy gave a few minutes earlier when Nucky and his friends discussed their thoughts on women's suffrage. His friends believe that women are not made to understand politics, and to prove it they ask Lucy what her thoughts are on the League of Nations. She doesn't know what it is, she appears childish as she mimics a baby's voice to answer and makes everyone laugh. Nucky concludes by saying that "Perhaps she's not the best example". Margaret's intelligence can be qualified, as Margaret ends up completely dependent on the same man as Lucy. She is used and manipulated by Nucky Thompson, for instance when he asks her to deliver a speech in front of women voters, to influence their vote towards the mayor that he wants elected. She starts fostering the same habits as Lucy, including drinking. Angela, Jimmy's wife, played by Aleska Palladino, is also a character seen drinking. She seems miserable and obliged to live a life she does not want, as the caretaker of her home and child. Drinking is one of the only things she has control over and that can provide her some pleasure in her unsatisfying life. Moreover, it can temporarily make her forget her unhappiness. In her case, drinking does not contribute to her emancipation, on the contrary, it makes her dependent on alcohol. She relies on alcohol to find the strength to carry on living and therefore it provides her a brief relief that prevents her from making radical choices that could lead her to true happiness. For instance, in season 2, episode 8, she drinks after an honest talk with her
husband about their future as a couple. He shows he wants to be honest about his job from this moment on and asks for a second chance. When he asks her if she loves him, she avoids the question by asking him back. Yet, she still agrees to stay with him for the sake of their child. The fact that she drinks after this discussion reveals her sadness and resignation. On the one hand, the consumption of alcohol can appear as a sign of female emancipation, insofar as women gained as much right to drink as men and share their fun. On the other hand, this drinking habit often hides misery. Gillian Darmody, Jimmy's mother, played by Gretchen Mol, consumes quite a large amount of alcohol. She is a strong character who has to survive by herself in this world. She was raped when she was 13 years old by the Commodore, played by Dabney Coleman, and became pregnant with Jimmy. This event changed her destiny and consumed her every day of her life. This unfolds when she confides in her son after drinking all night long, saying that she is "just the loneliest person on earth" in season 2, episode 11. Alcohol makes her vulnerable and therefore she drinks often but rarely to the point of intoxication. She controls her consumption of alcohol because she wants to keep her appearance intact in order to appear strong, whereas she is broken inside. She seems to drink to cope with her trauma as well as being socially acceptable in the eyes of the wealthy and powerful people surrounding her. On the contrary, Sally Wheet, played by Patricia Arquette, one of the strongest female characters in the series considers drinking as a personal preference and choice. She rose herself to the level of male gangsters, by opening her own bar and bootlegging business. Her alcohol consumption doesn't seem to be the consequence of unhappiness, dependence or a longing for social acceptance as she seems to be living her life fully, she is happy, and fulfilled and makes her own choices without being influenced by anyone. She is an independent character, drinks, fights and is shown as the equal of Nucky Thompson. They are both business partners and romantic partners. Contrary to Nucky's past girlfriends, Margaret and Lucy, she does not depend on him, she makes her own money, lives by herself, and plays a part in his business management.

The legend of general drinking during Prohibition intensified as decades passed. In the gangster films of the 1930s characters shown drinking were mostly villains, which creates a clear line between the good and the bad characters. In modern movies, this line is blurred as the majority of the characters drink. The women drinking aren't generally associated with emancipation, independence, and freedom in the movies instead alcohol represents a way of escaping their harsh reality, however, there are a few exceptions in recent films.
### 3- Prohibition in the city

Gangster films were directly based on events reported in newspapers. Journalists covered events happening in the city because there was more action and disobedience. As Ron Wilson states: "The gangster film can thus be viewed as a historical film that documents how urban crime was interpreted at particular junctures in American history."<fnref n="63" /> The urban areas generally fostered a wet sentiment. The population made of wage-earning and working-class immigrants from ethnic backgrounds elected wet politicians.<fnref n="64" /> The movies concentrated on the cities where Prohibition was the most flouted and disobeyed and turned into an opportunity to enter a profitable criminal activity. David Ruth describes how the city was seen at the time: "As staged in the underworld, the city was a disorderly place of dangerous strangers, of rapacious capitalists, unmanly men and unwomanly women, of seekers of pleasure and shirkers of responsibility."<fnref n="65" /> Gangster films therefore tried to play a part in improving the city's image by drawing a positive portrait of the city's dynamism, opportunities and diversity and pushing for "the acceptance of urbanism as a norm"<fnref n="66" /> as well as offering a cultural escape with the gangster imagery.

In *The Public Enemy*, *Little Caesar* and *Scarface*, the action takes place in Chicago. Chicago was where Al Capone and his gang operated and often made the headlines of newspapers. It was considered the capital of crime for a generation, with "550 gang-style murders in Chicago between 1920 and 1930."<fnref n="67" /> Moreover, historically Chicago voted wet and notably elected Big Bill Thompson mayor in 1927 after he publicly gave his support to gangsters. It seems only natural that movies from the early 1930s set their stories in the cities where outbursts of violence often occurred and made the headlines. However, the city is scarcely shown on screen in 1930s gangster films. The movies contain few shots of the city, probably for budgetary reasons, and favor indoor scenes, except for *The Public Enemy*. The beginning of the movie shows high-angle shots of crowds (Figure 13) and shots of buildings (Figure 14).

*Road to Perdition* also takes place in Chicago, establishing itself as the closest film to 1930s gangster films. Since the movie follows the flight of Michael Sullivan, it isn't exclusively set in

<footnote n="63">⁶³ Ron Wilson, *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in American Cinema*, New-York: Wallflower, 2015, 15.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ Norman H. Clark, *Deliver Us From Evil: an Interpretation of American Prohibition*, New-York: W.W. Norton & company, 1976, 135.</footnote>

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996, 8.</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996, 8.</footnote>

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ Norman H. Clark, *Deliver Us From Evil: an Interpretation of American Prohibition*, New-York: W.W. Norton & company, 1976, 149.</footnote>
Chicago. This highlights the difference between the stifling atmosphere of the city and the much quieter and less populated countryside, where the pace is slower. The movie directly associates the city with criminality by suggesting that the characters have to leave in order to escape from a life of crime. *Road to Perdition* shows more shots of the city than 1930s gangster films and represents it in a spectacular way, with low-angle shots of its gigantic buildings (Figure 15) and high-angle shots of large crowds of people filling its streets (Figure 16). These shots are similar to those in *The Public Enemy*, although in this film the shots are less spectacular and show fewer extras. The shot from *The Public Enemy* in Figure 13, makes the height of the building contrast with the small cars but the low-angle shot from *Road to Perdition* in Figure 15 makes the buildings look even more impressive. In the same way, the high-angle shot from *The Public Enemy* in Figure 14, shows how busy and crowded the city is however *Road to Perdition* goes a step further in Figure 16, showing a crowd of people filling the screen as far as the eye can see.

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 13: Chicago in *The Public Enemy*, Wellman, William. *The Public Enemy*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure 14: a crowd in the streets of Chicago in *The Public Enemy*, Wellman, William. *The Public Enemy*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Figure 15: Chicago in *Road to Perdition*, Mendes, Sam. *Road to Perdition*. 2002.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Figure 16: a crowd in the streets of Chicago in *Road to Perdition*, Mendes, Sam. *Road to Perdition*. 2002.</figcaption></figure>
Even though Chicago is the most represented city in the gangster films of the corpus, especially the ones from the 1930s, some recent productions depict other cities. As mentioned above *Lawless* is set in the countryside, in Franklin and in *Boardwalk Empire*, the action mostly takes place in Atlantic City. As Richard Greene and Rachel Robinson-Greene noticed, “the tie that binds together the various storylines of *Boardwalk Empire* is Prohibition.”<fnref n="68" /> Indeed, the real-life Nucky Johnson, who inspired the main character of the series, Nucky Thompson, had control over Atlantic City and seized the opportunity of the traffic of alcohol, making sure that the city never ran out in order to attract tourists. Furthermore, the city’s strategic geographic location facilitated the importation of alcohol by sea. Rod Carveth explains the city’s relation with Prohibition: “Under Prohibition Atlantic City was one of the few cities where people could in practice openly drink alcohol, and drink they did. Atlantic City became one the most popular holiday destinations and won the nickname the “World’s Playground.””<fnref n="69" /> This description corresponds to the depiction of Atlantic City in *Boardwalk Empire*, there even is a close up on a sign indicating the city’s nickname (Figure 17).

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Figure 17: The Atlantic City sign in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 1, episode 9, Anderson, Brad, Winter, Terrence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2010.</figcaption></figure>

The boardwalk is very dynamic and colorful and gives off the atmosphere of a fair because of the hawkers and street performers (Figure 18). The storefronts are illuminated and there are many hotels, restaurants, bars, clubs and casinos playing music and filling the city with joyous people. The use of high-angle shots shows the considerable size of the boardwalk (Figure 19) and the crowds it attracts.

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ Richard, Greene, *Boardwalk Empire and Philosophy: Bootleg This Book*, Chicago (III.): Open Court, 2013, xi.</footnote>

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ *Ibid*, 76.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>Figure 18: street performers entertaining passersby on the boardwalk in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 1, episode 9, Anderson, Brad, Winter, Terrence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2010.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Figure 19: The boardwalk in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 2, episode 6, Podeswa, Jeremy, Winter, Terrence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2011.</figcaption></figure>

The city is shown as the theater of the most violent crimes, for instance when Michael Sullivan guns down Rooney's gang in *Road to Perdition*, or when Tom Powers attacks a rival gang in a shop in *The Public Enemy*. The large buildings and crowds of people, in addition to the rainy weather, give off an oppressive atmosphere whereas the countryside is shown as more peaceful when it is represented in movies primarily set in urban areas, like *Road to Perdition*.

I have demonstrated that some aspects of Prohibition are not shown in gangster films from the 1930s such as the temperance movement and the establishment and the repeal of the 18th Amendment and are sometimes mentioned in recent productions. Then, I concentrated on the themes related to Prohibition that both set of movies focus on including the development of organized crime through the traffic of alcohol and the drinking habits of the different characters.. Now, I will discuss through what lenses these themes are portrayed.

## C- Nostalgic or critical representation

In this part, I shall examine the different representations of Prohibition the movies and series of the corpus offer. First, I will demonstrate the critical aspects of the films and series, then I will analyze their nostalgic dimension and the techniques used to trigger the effect of nostalgia, in order to understand the point of view chosen and how it impacts the depiction of Prohibition.

## 1- A criticism of bootleggers and Prohibition

Movies of the early 1930s do not question the Prohibition Amendment, but the criminality engendered by it. They try to raise awareness about the rise of criminality during Prohibition
motivated by the lure of profit, and try to discourage disobeying the law by laying stress on the vile and tragic aspects of the gangsters' lives. They offer "A critique of Prohibition that appealed to contemporary audiences"<fnref n="70" /> according to Ron Wilson. These movies confronted societal issues, notably by criticizing the gangsters through characters acting as moral guardians. Tony's mother in *Scarface* discourages her daughter from embracing her brother's lifestyle and criticizes him by calling him "bad" and "a no-good", a sentiment shared by the police. Moreover, the title card in *The Public Enemy* explains that the movie's purpose is to: "honestly depict an environment that exists today in a certain strata of American life, rather than glorify the hoodlum or the criminal." The primary goal of the 1930s movies wasn't entertaining and offering a form of escapism, like most films of the time. Ron Wilson explains that "many of the films of this period are often viewed as escapist and non-topical entertainments created to take the minds of the audiences off the outside world"<fnref n="71" /> whereas gangster films offered "a critique of the American Dream at a time when it had become the American Nightmare."<fnref n="72" /> Still, they remained appealing to those who wanted to picture themselves in the gangsters' skin, without considering leading this life for real, as David Ruth explains, the movies offer a "cultural escape with the gangster imagery."<fnref n="73" /> They do not criticize the 18th Amendment itself, even though the movies were released more than ten years after the beginning of Prohibition.

It is important to keep in mind that the classic cycle of the early 1930s was ruled by a code of censorship that regulated "the depiction of sex, crime, vice, and violence on screen"<fnref n="74" /> imposing strict censorship visible through moral disclaimers explaining the goal of the movies. It is expressed through title cards at the beginning of *Little Caesar*, *The Public Enemy* and *Scarface*. The one from the latter says:

> This picture is an indictment of gang rule in America and of the callous indifference of the government to this constantly increasing menace to our safety and our liberty. Every incident in this picture is the reproduction of an actual occurrence, and the purpose of this picture is to demand of the government: "What are you going to do about it?" The government is your government. What are YOU going to do about it?

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰ Ron Wilson, *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in American Cinema*, New-York: Wallflower, 2015, 41.</footnote>

<footnote n="71">⁷¹ *Ibid*.</footnote>

<footnote n="72">⁷² *Ibid*, 42.</footnote>

<footnote n="73">⁷³ David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996, 7.</footnote>

<footnote n="74">⁷⁴ David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996, 49.</footnote>
The title card denounces the lack of actions undertaken by the government to counter gang criminality but also lays an emphasis on the responsibility of individuals, who are a part of the government. The movie commits itself to the fight against gangsters and asks the audience to do the same. Recent films and series have more distance from this period and could be expected to have a more critical and unbiased gaze upon it and offer an accurate retelling of what Prohibition was like. However, they often focus on the first years of Prohibition and convey a criticism insisting on the ineffectiveness of the Amendment. For example, in *Road to Perdition*, Harlen McGuire, the killer, played by Jude Law, is in a diner sitting in front of Michael Sullivan. When the latter gets a flask out of his pocket, McGuire says to him: "Don't mind me, sir, it is a free country, it used to be anyhow." It is interesting to notice the perspective of the character on Prohibition, seen as a law oppressing personal freedom, in opposition to the point of view of *Scarface* which views gangsters as the real menace against liberty.

The movies and series from the 1930s and 2000s-2010s reflect the shifting point of view on Prohibition from the 1920s to the 1930s. The general opinion in the early days of Prohibition was that it was necessary for the betterment of American society, which is embodied by the 1930s movies that embraced Prohibition and portrayed gangsters negatively. Movies from the 2000s-2010s are influenced by the growing opinion in the late 1920s that Prohibition was a failure, which led to its repeal. Pauline Sabin, who later founded the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform notably stated in 1929:

> Prohibition ... has led to more violations of and contempt for law, both by private individuals and public officials, and to more hypocrisy than anything else in our national life. ... To tell citizens what they must do or must not do in their strictly personal conduct as long as public safety is not affected is a function which government should not attempt.<fnref n="75" />

Prohibition was increasingly accused of encouraging lawlessness, which is highlighted by the title of the movie *Lawless*. This title implies that the characters have no consideration for the laws whatsoever since they choose to break the 18th Amendment and start a cycle of contempt for the laws in order to escape from prosecution. Through the modern gaze, this lawlessness seems justified by the fact the characters simply want to benefit from a right that has been unjustly taken from them because modern audiences know Prohibition failed, but are not aware of the stakes like audiences from the 1930s were, since they had firsthand experience of the Amendment. Characters from 1930s films do not convey an opinion on Prohibition, whereas, in modern films, they voice their

<footnote n="75">⁷⁵ Thomas Coffey, *The Long Thirst: Prohibition in America: 1920-1933*, New York: Norton, 1975, 258.</footnote>
disapproval of the Amendment. For instance, in season 5, episode 4 of *Boardwalk Empire*, Margaret says to Nucky “Do you know the worst thing that ever happened to me?” and then adds “Pro...hi... bi...tion” to which he answers “I hear you sister”. Those characters voice an opinion that corresponds to the opinion modern audiences generally share when looking back on Prohibition that couldn’t be uttered in 1930s films because of the political context during which they were released. Gangster films of the early 1930s criticize the criminality engendered by Prohibition whereas modern gangster films and series criticize the Amendment itself, with the knowledge of its failure.

## 2- The different forms of nostalgia in gangster movies from the 1930s and 2000s-2010s

The concept of nostalgia is tied to photography and cinema since they offer a material fragment of a memory that can be revisited endlessly. However, this memory is incomplete and draws from the imagination of the audience, triggering this nostalgic feeling. As Jason Sperb explains, “Like nostalgia itself, the frame isolates; it blocks off as much about the past as it reveals.”<fnref n="76" /> Therefore, this materialization of a memory is a deception. The moment the memory is captured, it is deformed; since it is only partial it is condemned to be completed by the subjective gaze of the audience, increasing the feeling of a gap between the past and the present. Different forms of nostalgia can be found in films, some are coincidental or unconscious and others are intentional or even commercial. Gangster films and series from the 2000s and 2010s are more inclined to be nostalgic since they deal with the past. However, gangster films from the 1930s were already nostalgic.

Films such as *The Public Enemy*, *Scarface* and *Little Caesar* have led to a form of nostalgia Sperb calls “affective” and describes it as unintentional nostalgia that can only be acquired over time. The movies were set in the recent past when they were released and they didn’t seem to appeal to a melancholic audience, however today they trigger a yearning for the past by drawing from a distant collective memory. These movies were the first talking gangster films and are regarded today as references in the genre. Annick Foucrier describes the characteristics these movies normalized in those words: “The sound of Tommy gun shootings, the purr of the engines, the screech of tires in the car-chases, the violence exploding in the voices.”<fnref n="77" /> The feeling of nostalgia that emanates from these films increases as time passes. Moreover, these movies were already nostalgic when they were

<footnote n="76">⁷⁶ Matthew, Leggatt, *What is Yesterday?: Nostalgia in Contemporary Film and Television*, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2021,16.</footnote>

<footnote n="77">⁷⁷ “Le tac-tac des fusillades, le ronflement des moteurs, le crissement des pneus dans les poursuites, la violence qui explose dans les voix.” Annick Foucrier, *Les Gangsters et la Société Américaine* (1920-1960), Ellipses, 2001, 88.</footnote>
released in the early 1930s, insofar as they were shot during the Depression when Americans felt
nostalgic for the lost abundance of the early days of Prohibition. As Ron Wilson explains: “The
gangster film was designed to “reflect the discontent and alienation, the deep anxiety and hostility,
of many Americans facing the Depression.””<fnref n="78" /> The movies depict a time that occurred a few years
earlier, except for *Little Caesar* which was released in 1931 and is set in the early 1930s. *Scarface*
was released in 1932 while the story takes place in the 1920s, and *The Public Enemy* was released
in 1931 and the story spreads from 1909 to the 1920s. Jason Sperb identifies this type of nostalgia
as the direct consequence of a traumatic event, in this case, the financial crisis of 1929 and the Great
Depression that followed. He adds that “These narratives involve a dissatisfaction with the present
(and, often implied, a fear for the future).”<fnref n="79" /> The main political issue switched from Prohibition to
the Depression, which led Americans to feel nostalgic for their former biggest preoccupation since
the deprivation of alcohol seemed less serious than the general financial instability.

Films and series from the 2000s-2010s present an intentional form of nostalgia Sperb calls
“peripheral” which refers to movies “where nostalgia is clearly one possible source of appeal.” To
trigger a nostalgic feeling, they use prominent techniques such as “star vehicles (which can refer to
well-known writers or high-profile directors, as well as established actors) and franchise
property.”<fnref n="80" /> The use of a famous artist whose previous work is thematically connected or similar to
the current film or series they star in makes the audience feel nostalgic. The viewers recall this
celebrity in works they have seen before and it can appear like the artist is reprising a beloved role.
Gangster movies and series from the 2000s-2010s are purposefully nostalgic since they recreate a
time period and events that happened in the past, using devices that trigger a fascination for this
past. One of those devices is the choice of Martin Scorsese as director of the pilot of *Boardwalk
Empire*, considering his well-known career and specialization in the gangster film genre. Another
device is the imitation of a preexisting genre, in this case, gangster films, and drawing from this
genre's characteristics which are familiar to the audience. As Sperb says: “New movies call forth
the history of preexisting genre conventions before them, offer up an engagement with (but not
necessarily a dependence on) earlier media and forms.”<fnref n="81" /> This is put forward by the recreation of a
scene from *The Public Enemy* in season 1, episode 1 of *Boardwalk Empire*. A passerby pushing a
stroller filled with bottles of alcohol can be spotted in both productions (Figures 20 and 21).

<footnote n="78">78 Ron Wilson, *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in American Cinema*, New-York: Wallflower, 2015, 41.</footnote>

<footnote n="79">⁷⁹ Matthew, Leggatt, *What is Yesterday?: Nostalgia in Contemporary Film and Television*, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2021, 22.</footnote>

<footnote n="80">⁸⁰ *Ibid* , 20.</footnote>

<footnote n="81">⁸¹ *Ibid*.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>Figure 20: A couple with a stroller filled with alcohol in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 1, episode 1, Scorsese, Martin, Winter, Terence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2010.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>Figure 21: A couple with a stroller filled with alcohol in *The Public Enemy*, Wellman, William. *The Public Enemy*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

Season 3, episode 2 of *Boardwalk Empire* also recreates a scene from *Little Caesar* where gangsters eat a plate of spaghetti with coffee in a diner. (Figure 22) The character of Rosetti, played by Bobby Cannavale in *Boardwalk Empire* first asks for alcohol but is reminded it is forbidden and has to settle for coffee (Figure 23).

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>Figure 22: Rico and Joe eating spaghetti and coffee in *Little Caesar*, LeRoy, Mervyn. *Little Caesar*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>Figure 23: Rosetti and Tonino enjoying their coffee and spaghetti in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 3, episode 2, Sakharov, Alik, Winter, Terence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2012.</figcaption></figure>

*Road to Perdition* draws the inspiration for the nighttime shooting scene under heavy rain from a scene in *The Public Enemy*, where the main character walks through the rain in the night before entering a restaurant and killing his enemies (Figures 24 and 25).
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>Figure 24: shooting in the rain in *Road to Perdition*, Mendes, Sam. *Road to Perdition*. 2002.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>Figure 25: Tom in the rain before the shooting in *The Public Enemy*, Wellman, William. *The Public Enemy*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

Sperb talks about the representational form of nostalgia; “the ways in which (...) a text might seek to emulate a nostalgic time and place”<fnref n="82" /> which is manifested through the recreation of the settings, costumes and props from the era. Modern movies and series, notably draw attention to the vehicles driven by gangsters, which are the same type of cars that can be seen in the 1930s gangster films and were used in the 1920s. The characters in *Road to Perdition* drive a 1931 Buick (Figure 26) and Nucky owns a 1921 Rolls-Royce limousine in *Boardwalk Empire*. (Figure 27)

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>Figure 26: M. Sullivan's Buick in *Road to Perdition*, Mendes, Sam. *Road to Perdition*. 2002.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>Figure 27: Nucky Thompson's Rolls in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 1, episode 7, Coulter, Allen, Winter, Terence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2010.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="82">⁸² Matthew, Leggatt, *What is Yesterday?: Nostalgia in Contemporary Film and Television*, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2021, 20.</footnote>
Some movies also use the narrative form of nostalgia by portraying “Stories explicitly about
nostalgic impulse.”<fnref n="83" /> *Road to Perdition* is narrated by an adult Michael Sullivan Jr. who recalls the
six weeks he spent with his father before he died. The movie’s structure is a loop, it begins and ends
with the scene showing Michael alone on the beach after he witnessed the murder of his father. He
is seen from the back, facing the sea in a meditative state of mind, while the narrator begins his
retrospective journey, taking place before the event that changed the course of his life. Moreover,
the movie includes two other nostalgic narrative devices, road trips and a return to nature. First,
according to Sperb, road trips are nostalgic since they imply a form of home-coming “where there is
the assumption or hope that at the end of the journey, one will enter into a physical space that is
either literally or symbolically associated with an earlier period’s in one’s life (a place often, but not
always, associated with childhood).”<fnref n="84" /> Indeed, Michael Jr. fled the city with his father to find shelter
on the beach where they used to come when he was younger. Secondly, the film’s plot expresses a
longing for a return to nature. Sperb defines nature in “opposition to competing notions of “society,”
“modernity,” “civilization,” and other concepts that work in some way as a code for the
complexities, temporalities, and challenges of everyday, modern life from which nostalgic impulses
offer an escape.”<fnref n="85" /> The characters escape from the consequences of the modern city life, and offer
the same opportunity to the viewers. Likewise, in *Lawless*, the rural setting and small town lifestyle
trigger a feeling of nostalgia for a return to nature which is essentially a return to a simpler time:
“The key is that such locations (sandy beaches, wooded forests and small towns) offer the
protagonists a reassurance or escape from the realities of the modern world (i.e., the present).”<fnref n="86" />

Moreover *Lawless* uses the same nostalgic device as *Road to Perdition* by making Jack Bondurant, the youngest character, the narrator who recalls his life and his brothers’ during Prohibition. The Prohibition era took place at the same time as the formative years of this character and disrupted his everyday life. The use of a retrospective narrative lays an emphasis on the nostalgic feeling emanating from the movie. It also mirrors the fact the film is based on a book, *The Wettest County in the World* written by Matt Bondurant, grandson of Jack Bondurant, who relates this eventful episode of his ancestor’s life.

In recent films, this form of nostalgia is inevitable from the moment they are set in a past era,
whereas movies from the 1930s present a more intriguing form of nostalgia since they are close in

<footnote n="83">⁸³ Matthew, Leggatt, *What is Yesterday?: Nostalgia in Contemporary Film and Television*, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2021, 20.</footnote>

<footnote n="84">⁸⁴ *Ibid*, 21.</footnote>

<footnote n="85">⁸⁵ *Ibid*, 21,22.</footnote>

<footnote n="86">⁸⁶ *Ibid*, 22.</footnote>
time to the period represented. I analyzed that in the movies from the early 1930s and the films and series from the 2000s-2010s nostalgia manifests itself in different forms, now I will define if there are noticeable differences on screen.

## 3-Nostalgia deforms reality

People in the 1930s generally knew what the movies were about and what they referred to since they lived in this context and were informed through the newspapers. Today, viewers trust movies to inform them about history whereas they should make extensive research about the context in which they are set in order to differentiate the truth from fantasy. In Season 1, episode 1 of *Boardwalk Empire*, after Nucky finishes his speech in front of the Women's Temperance Union, he has to go to another meeting and his driver Jimmy Darmody asks him about the accuracy of the story he told. Nucky answers by saying "First rule of politics, kiddo, never let the truth get in the way of a good story". This sentence sets the tone for the rest of the series, suggesting that for the sake of the plot line, storytelling, and drama, the writers didn't hesitate to change or exaggerate reality. The series is a docudrama, a mix of documentary and dramatic film, and drama indicates that the story must be exaggerated to increase tension. This genre was popularized in the 1980s and is composed of several subgenres, like the historical docudrama; a fictionalized retelling of a period of history. As Rod Carveth states; "The act of adapting an event to standard narrative formulas changes reality in the process. It is this changing of reality that can cause viewers to misperceive how events actually happened."<fnref n="87" /> In the early 1930s, the audience who had access to newspapers or lived in places inhabited by gangsters didn't necessarily see a discrepancy between screen and reality, whereas the audience today experiences a drastic gap that triggers a feeling of nostalgia for a time period they never experienced.

Modern movies try to recreate the atmosphere of the 1920s Prohibition era. The costumes and settings built for the occasion aspire to be as accurate as possible. The creator of *Boardwalk Empire*, Terrence Winter, when asked about the accuracy of the series said: "I can't give you an actual percentage, but I would say we're running in the high ninety [percent] in terms of historical accuracy."<fnref n="88" /> This effort of making a production historically accurate, while producing it in a time period different from the one in which it is set, necessitates a large budget. *Boardwalk Empire*'s costs of production rose to 18 million dollars for the pilot episode only. The stakes of representing

<footnote n="87">⁸⁷ Richard, Greene, *Boardwalk Empire and Philosophy: Bootleg This Book*, Chicago (III.): Open Court, 2013, 77.</footnote>

<footnote n="88">⁸⁸ *Ibid*.</footnote>
the Prohibition period were widely different in the 1930s compared to the 2000s-2010s. Making gangster films in the 1930s was an economical choice, motivated by the Great Depression. Contrary to modern movies, there was no need to recreate costumes, props and settings, and therefore it was easier to keep the movie low-budget. Gangster films of the 1930s weren't well-regarded, since their subject was still sensitive and they were crushed by censorship. However, as Jonathan Munby explains: "The film industry found increasingly sophisticated ways to circumnavigate censorship strictures and meet audience demand for an adequate representation of American life."<fnref n="89" /> On the contrary modern gangster films benefit from the prestige associated with big budget historical dramas. This type of movie is popular and guaranteed to meet its audience and is still directed today and is more and more rewarded. Jason Sperb notices that "Movies with their action set in other time periods have been booming at the box office. Of the nine Best Pictures Oscar winners between 2011 and 2019 (The King's Speech, The Artist, Argo, 12 Years a Slave, Birdman, Spotlight, Moonlight, The Shape of Water, and Green Book), only one was set in the present."<fnref n="90" /> This applies to the recent movies and series in the corpus. In 2003, *Road to Perdition* won six Academy Awards including Best Cinematography.<fnref n="91" /> In 2011, *Boardwalk Empire* won the Golden Globes Award for Best Television Series-Drama<fnref n="92" /> and *Lawless* was nominated for the Palme d'Or at the 65th Cannes Film Festival.<fnref n="93" />

Gangster films and series from the 2000s-2010s have a modern gaze on Prohibition expressed through the recent techniques of filmmaking. The main technical difference is the use of color. Color is used as a device to increase the realism of the movies, but also to preserve modern audiences' attention. The treatment of color in modern films and series has become normalized, with a dominance of blue, like in *Boardwalk Empire* and *Road to Perdition*. Blue is a color associated with nostalgia and water, that is present in the form of the ocean in *Boardwalk Empire* and the rain in *Road to Perdition*. Blue can also be linked to urban areas, where concrete buildings and roads spread as far as the eye can see under the sky. *Lawless* interchanges the dominance of blue for green, more suitable for the rural setting of the film. There is an inversion in the way audiences experience the movies released in their epoch, in the early 1930s, people saw Prohibition in black and white in movies since it couldn't be captured in color, as they had experienced it,

<footnote n="89">⁸⁹ Jonathan Munby, *Public Enemies, Public Heroes: Screening the Gangster from Little Caesar to touch of Evil*, Chicago, The University of Chicago press cop. 1999, 145.</footnote>

<footnote n="90">⁹⁰ Matthew, Leggatt, *What is Yesterday?: Nostalgia in Contemporary Film and Television*, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2021, 3.</footnote>

<footnote n="91">⁹¹ Website of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.</footnote>

<footnote n="92">⁹² The Golden Globes website.</footnote>

<footnote n="93">⁹³ Website of the Festival de Cannes.</footnote>
contrary to audiences today who watch Prohibition in color while having black and white photographs and movies as historical references. This materializes in season 5, episode 7 of *Boardwalk Empire*, which displays a crosscutting of original black and white footage of the 1930s with shots of the actors which are gradually colorized. The scene starts with Robert Hodge, United States Attorney for the southern district, giving a speech on the radio. He describes the state of the country plagued by gang criminality and explains the legal actions that will be put in place in order to put an end to this war. The rest of Hodge's speech continues as a voice-over, while shots of newspapers, real crime scenes photographs and characters inspired by real gangsters are shown and switch from black and white to color (Figure 28). For example, the characters of Lucky Luciano (Figure 29) and Meyer Lansky (Figure 30) are integrated into the editing. The archive images are linked to the footage of the series by their integration into the setting (Figure 31). The transition between the two kinds of shots is highlighted by the return to color. The use of real images sets the series in reality, and links the past to the present, adding to the series' realism. Moreover, the addition of black and white triggers a feeling of nostalgia for 1930s black-and-white gangster films.

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>Figure 28: the Attorney's speech on the radio in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 5, episode 7, Coulter, Allen, Winter, Terence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2014.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>Figure 29: Lucky Luciano from black and white to color in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 5, episode 7, Coulter, Allen, Winter, Terence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2014.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>Figure 30: Meyer Lansky in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 5, episode 7, Coulter, Allen, Winter, Terence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2014.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>Figure 31: archive images and the series' footage in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 5, episode 7, Coulter, Allen, Winter, Terence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2014.</figcaption></figure>

The three movies from the 1930s mainly use fixed shots, which was an inexpensive filming technique, in contrast with more recent movies, which use sophisticated modern techniques, like tracking shots, zooms and pan shots. Martin Scorsese, who directed the pilot of *Boardwalk Empire*, confirms this phenomenon. Deborah Mellamphy analyzes it in *Boardwalk Empire and Philosophy: "Scorsese established the show's visual flamboyance and its often frenetic pacing using his*
anachronistic camerawork and editing techniques including rapid montages, quick zooms towards characters, and tight close-up.”<fnref n="94" /> *Road to Perdition* differentiates itself from other recent productions by reproducing the film techniques used in 1930s movies, like long fixed shots. For instance, this shot is used to shoot a long discussion between Michael Sullivan and his son in a moving car (Figure 32). Similar scenes, although a bit longer, can be seen in *Scarface* (Figure 33) and *Little Caesar* (Figure 34). Yet, *Road to Perdition* also resorts to modern techniques, often in order to make a scene more dynamic. The film uses tracking shots to follow characters moving and handheld camerawork, to make a scene more impactful, for example when John Rooney hits his son.

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>Figure 32: Michael and his son talking in the car in *Road to Perdition*, Mendes, Sam. *Road to Perdition*. 2002.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>Figure 33: Tony and a gang member in the back of their car in *Scarface*, Hawks, Howard. *Scarface*. 1932.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /><figcaption>Figure 34: Rico and Joe in their car in *Little Caesar*, LeRoy, Mervyn. *Little Caesar*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="94">⁹⁴ Richard, Greene, *Boardwalk Empire and Philosophy: Bootleg This Book*, Chicago (III.): Open Court, 2013, 187.</footnote>
Furthermore, the musical choices for the soundtracks of 2000s-2010s movies and series cement the modern take on Prohibition. Movies from the 1930s exclusively use original instrumental scores, while recent films also use popular songs both modern and from the 1930s. Matthew Leggatt explains the reasons for the use of music from a past period in modern films set in this period and its effect on viewers: “Yet more than simply helping establish the mood of the era, nostalgic music also offers a greater sense of intimacy between past and present, allowing the viewer to feel a more direct engagement with the period in question.”<fnref n="95" /> This applies to *Boardwalk Empire*, in which the use of songs can be seen as an additional realistic element since the characters evolve in nightclubs and theaters, but can also fuel the nostalgic appeal of the series. The series harbors a mix of modern music and popular tunes from the 1930s and before, interpreted by the actors. For instance, the series portrays real-life singers Eddie Cantor who sings his tune “The Dumber They Come” in several episodes in season 1 and “Life’s A Funny Proposition After All” in season 1, episode 12 and Sophie Tucker who sings “Some Of These Days” in season 1, episode 9. The dated style of these songs brings the viewers back to the 1920s. Even though the name of the singer or the specific song isn’t known to the audience, the style is recognizable because it has been associated with the time period by different media. The nostalgic appeal is noticeable in the use of songs and especially “*Dream a Little Dream of Me*.” In the series, the song is introduced by the character of Daughter Maitland, a singer who performed in Chalky’s club. She recorded the song and plays the record for Chalky and Narcisse, a gangster she worked for. She asks for Narcisse’s help to launch her career, the scene’s tone is melancholic and tragic, as she begs him to help her and as Chalky is about to sacrifice himself for her, which is enhanced by the lyrics and the melody of the song. The song is a famous jazz standard that has been interpreted by the likes of Doris Day and Louis Armstrong since its first recording in 1931. Modern audiences probably know one of the interpretations of the song and can connect it to their own memories and this makes this particular song more recognizable than the other ones. In the series, the songs from the 1930s and before contrast with more recent music. For instance, the music from the opening credits is a catchy tune that sounds modern to correspond to the standards of television. *Road to Perdition* uses an original instrumental score which sounds particularly melancholic to fit the tone of the film. Meanwhile, *Lawless*’ soundtrack is filled with modern songs inspired by the country music genre that fit the rural setting as well as bringing the audience closer to the characters.

Movies from the 2000s-2010s try to recreate the Prohibition era as accurately as possible in terms of settings and costuming for instance. However, they also have the purpose of appealing to modern audiences and resort to recent filmmaking techniques and nostalgia to do so. The movies’ historical

<footnote n="95">⁹⁵ Matthew, Leggatt, *What is Yesterday?: Nostalgia in Contemporary Film and Television*, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2021, 24.</footnote>
accuracy is impaired by the need to please a modern audience, which also influences the choices of the production. Some consequences are the quick pace, the aestheticized settings, props and costumes and the anachronistic music. Consequently, their representation of Prohibition is altered. Meanwhile, 1930s movies were limited by the restrictions of censorship and budget cuts.

The gangster films and series of the early 1930s and 2000s-2010s, make different choices in the way they represent Prohibition. All the movies in the corpus have a critical point of view on Prohibition, but criticize different aspects of the period. In the same way, all the films of the corpus are nostalgic for the Prohibition era, but in a different manner for 1930s movies and 2000s-2010s movies. Furthermore, the pictures put in place different devices to trigger nostalgia such as narrative, visual and auditive techniques.

In the following part, I will focus on analyzing the representation of the character of the Prohibition-era gangster in gangster films from the 1930s and 2000s-2010s.

## II- The representation of the gangster's identity

This part shall concentrate on the different aspects of the gangster's identity such as his ethnicity, masculinity and the violence he engenders. In the 1930s, the representation of ethnicity on screen was used to define ethnic people as "others", which led to the implantation of different stereotypes concerning dialogue, gestures and costumes. Today, ethnicity is represented through a different lens and stereotypes about ethnicity partially disappear from recent productions. In the 1930s violence was also associated with ethnic stereotypes which was evident in gangster films from the 1930s. Violence was also depicted implicitly and became more graphic and explicit through time. Aggressive masculinity is associated with the character of the gangster in both sets of movies, it is related to individuality in gangster films from the 1930s and it is linked to collectivity in gangster films and series from the 2000s-2010s. The victims of gangster violence remain the same through time, that is to say, women and gangsters themselves, in addition to children in gangster films and series of the 2000s-2010s. Finally, this part analyzes the different forms of nostalgia used to represent the figure of the gangster. The gangster appears to be a nostalgic character in both 1930s and 2000s-2010s productions as he is inspired by historical figures. Ethnicity is also used as a tool for nostalgia and distanciation. The representation of violence can be perceived as nostalgic in recent productions as it echoes the representation of violence in gangster films from the 1930s. The gangster's masculinity is also represented in a nostalgic way as it promotes the longing for simpler times.
massive immigration triggered a will to control it and preserve Americanness, through the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924, and the Volstead Act (1920-1933).<fnref n="99" /> The hostility toward people with an ethnic background is therefore palpable in 1930s gangster films. Furthermore, the Production Code was stricter since 1934, and prevented positive portrayal of gangsters: “Gangster films must not provide anti-social role models by portraying lawbreakers in a sympathetic light.”<fnref n="100" /> The characters’ dialogue and accents set them apart as different. For instance, Rico in *Little Caesar* speaks with an Italian-American accent. He talks in a rapid and nasal tone. He often uses an informal register, contractions, and short sentences as we can hear when he says “You can dish it out, but you can’t take it no more, you’re through?”. In this sentence, he uses the slang expression “dish it out” which means criticizing other people, he prefers contractions to the full words, he uses “can’t” and “no more” instead of “cannot” and “anymore”. He also pronounces this sentence at a very quick pace and barely articulates. Tony in *Scarface* also uses simplified language, he talks with an Italian-American accent as well: “Listen, little boy, in this business, there’s only one law you gotta follow to keep outta trouble: do it first, do it yourself, and keep on doin’ it.” In this sentence, he uses an informal register, contractions like “gotta” and “outta” instead of the correct words “have got to” and “out of”, and doesn’t pronounce words like “doing” to the end. He also says a few Italian words such as “Capisce” and “Stupido.” Finally, Tom in *The Public Enemy* speaks with an Irish vernacular accent, with working-class elements. He talks in a fast rhythm and dry tone. He uses a lot of contractions and slang for example “I ain’t so tough”. The way these characters express themselves has a pejorative connotation because it associates their identity, social background and ethnicity with criminality, and brutal and immoral behavior. Their accents demonstrate that they are different and outside the norm. This is confirmed by the fact that the other characters, especially the ones embodying the authority, have no accent which contrasts with the gangsters, who are the only characters with ethnic vernacular accents. This creates an opposition between authority and criminality and nativists and ethnic characters, which is essentially an opposition between good and bad. This kind of binary is the same that is set between the characters who consume alcohol and those who don’t, which I have analyzed in the first part. From the outset, the way gangsters speak in these films creates a distance between them and respectable society. This underlines their difference compared to those who embody the moral values of this society, positioning them as figures on the margins.

<footnote n="99">⁹⁹ Jonathan Munby, *Public Enemies, Public Heroes: Screening the Gangster from Little Caesar to touch of Evil*, Chicago, The University of Chicago press cop. 1999, 30.</footnote>

<footnote n="100">¹⁰⁰ “Dans les films de gangsters, il ne faut pas fournir de modèles antisociaux en présentant de façon sympathique ceux qui enfreignent les lois.” Annick Foucrier, *Les Gangsters et la Société Américaine* (1920-1960), Ellipses, 2001, 93.</footnote>
In recent productions, the characters also are inspired by real-life Prohibition gangsters and some have distinct ethnic backgrounds. However, the main characters, whether the Bondurants, Michael Sullivan or Nucky Thompson, do not speak in a distinct ethnic vernacular accent. The movies and series portray another side of the character. The main goal of the gangster is to be successful, and in a sense to be integrated into society. His way of attaining it is to acquire a certain financial stability, and then become a consumer. He changes his appearance for instance by buying new clothes and moving into nicer apartments, but he also refines his personality into a stylish and charming one. In order to do so, he learns to master the art of small talk, as Ruth says "Unlike his gorilla-like forebears in thug-dom, he (the gangster) has abandoned his jimmy and his bludgeon for a winning smile and a suave voice."<fnref n="101" /> I believe that the movies and series of the 2000s and earlier 2010s depict this version of the ethnic gangster. A gangster who is already successful, established and assimilated. To understand this switch in representation, it is important to take into account the movies that were released between the 1930s and the 2000s.

The movies made by Scorsese and Coppola since the 1970s tend to celebrate Italian culture which led to the building of a positive depiction of the gangsters and the Mafia. This period marks an ethnic revival and a rise in the depiction of cultural heritage on screen. Ron Wilson explains that: "The scrapping of the Hays Production Code and the subsequent implication of a rating system by the MPPDA in 1968 also bolstered this boom in ethnic-related content on screen."<fnref n="102" /> Ethnicity on screen was represented more positively and realistically. Wilson also talks about *The Godfather* and "its reclamation of sympathetic gangsters as a central character, and its total immersion into a cultural heritage that emphasizes family traditions and values."<fnref n="103" /> Therefore, post-classical gangster films often encourage the audience to feel sympathy for the main characters, which is the opposite goal of the gangster films of the early 1930s. Today, the gangster is often portrayed as "the central narrative focus and is typically portrayed by the star actor, thereby creating sympathy toward the character."<fnref n="104" />

In recent movies, the language and accent of the gangsters are not used to differentiate or mock them. On the contrary, since these characters are the ones predominantly represented, they set the norm in the spectators' eyes. The post-Godfather era developed new language and dialogue in the genre. The movies were very influential and developed Mafia myths. For example, the word

<footnote n="101">¹⁰¹ David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996, 79.</footnote>

<footnote n="102">¹⁰² Ron Wilson, *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in American Cinema*, New-York: Wallflower, 2015,82.</footnote>

<footnote n="103">¹⁰³ *Ibid*, 94.</footnote>

<footnote n="104">¹⁰⁴ *Ibid*, 40.</footnote>
“respect” is used by Don Corleone. Thus, “respect” is used as a greeting, to show one’s allegiance to other brothers, but also to assert respect for their ethnic identity.”<fnref n="105" /> This new dialogue and notion influenced the following movies dealing with Mafia whether they portrayed Italian-Americans or other ethnicities. In *Road to Perdition*, the notion of respect is essential, this is visible in a scene where Michael and Rooney have a discussion to negotiate the return to peace and order. They express their mutual respect, inspired by their professional skills and the father/son bond they share. Rooney is moved and confesses he loves Michael like a son and gives him a chance to leave and spare his other son Connor. This exchange highlights the stereotypes concerning family bonds established by movies like *The Godfather*. It is also demonstrated in the film *Lawless*, the Bondurants share the same dynamic made of mutual respect inspired by their place in the hierarchy they established and fraternal love. The movie respects the codes established to represent the Mafia even though the characters are not ethnic gangsters. Therefore they don’t have an accent based on their ethnicity but they have a rural accent. Forrest and Howard’s are the strongest, they barely articulate their words and use contractions.

In *Boardwalk Empire*, the main character, Nucky Thompson, who is of Irish descent, has a neutral accent. He is a politician, which explains why he adopted this accent, to blend in the higher circles of society. He is a remarkable orator, which can be heard in his multiple speeches. This and his mastery of small talk with people from different social classes leads him to use full sentences, clear articulation and avoid contractions. The series features a large panel of characters, some of them have strong ethnic accents like Rosetti, who has an Italian accent, and Chalky, who speaks with an African-American vernacular accent. These are the most stereotyped characters, they echo the way gangsters were represented in the 1930s. Many other characters have accents based on their ethnicity like Luciano, Lansky and Rothstein. Their accents are not used to represent them in a pejorative light, unlike in the movies from the 1930s. This can be explained by the romanticization of the Mafia in movies released between the 1930s and 2000s. The gangsters are represented in a more nuanced way and are more likely to be seen as sympathetic, which leads to perceiving their accents as a celebration of their cultural heritage. This more positive representation of ethnic characters was allowed by the loosening of censorship in the late 1960s. Consequently, this led to the reclaiming of ethnic characters on screen. Therefore ethnic gangsters were used to restore the image of an ethnicity that was previously erased or degraded. Their ethnicity is no longer used to picture them as inherently bad, this is henceforth determined by their actions and morality.

<footnote n="105">¹⁰⁵ George S. Larke-Walsh, *Screening the Mafia: Masculinity, Ethnicity and Mobsters from the Godfather to the Sopranos*, Jefferson, N. C.: McFarland & Co Inc, 2010, 74.</footnote>
## 2- Gestures and skin color

Another aspect that differentiates the gangster from the others while being intrinsically linked to his ethnicity is his gestures. Larke-Walsh considers that “Gestures are also extremely important to representations of the Mafia.”<fnref n="106" /> The actors’ noticeable gestures in the gangster films of the 1930s became the model for gangster demeanor. In his book, Ruth expounds theories that try to identify who the criminals are in society. Some believed that the criminal belonged to a separate group, for instance, the eugenicsaffirmed that the criminal was different from ordinary people. Their theory included markers of important social divisions: “the born criminal validated existing ethnic and racial categories” and “appearance distinguished the criminal from respectable folk and linked him to dangerous ethnic groups.”<fnref n="107" /> They linked different crimes and behaviors to different ethnicities. Nativists shared this type of reasoning as they believed that “Poles, Jews, Slavs, Italians, and others made ‘the American type’ [...] smaller and darker and more mercurial.”<fnref n="108" /> Determinists and nativists also referred to a criminal “type” or “class”, which invoked economic divisions. Ruth cites Conklin, one of many eugenists who linked ethnicity to crime: “And it is this class which constitutes the greatest biological danger [...] Any measure which would prevent the growth of this class of persons of low intelligence would to a large extent reduce the immense amount of crime and lawlessness in this country.”<fnref n="109" /> A line of difference separated the members of respectable society and immigrants from the laboring lower class. Ethnicity was associated with crime: “Categories of defect and criminality blurred into categories of economic class, race, and ethnicity”<fnref n="110" /> which motivated the restriction of immigration and surveillance of the immigrants already present on the territory. Ethnicity as a factor of differentiation persisted in some of the moralist and determinist narratives: “Subtler hints of racial determinism would persist in moralistic accounts of Italian and Jewish gangsters in the late twenties and early thirties.”<fnref n="111" /> Therefore, portraying gangsters in the movies of the 1930s as part of an ethnic group was a tool to expose the dangers of urban diversity. This depiction of the criminals was “unsurprising among a native-born

<footnote n="106">¹⁰⁶ George S. Larke-Walsh, *Screening the Mafia: Masculinity, Ethnicity and Mobsters from the Godfather to the Sopranos*, Jefferson, N. C.: McFarland & Co Inc, 2010, 74.</footnote>

<footnote n="107">¹⁰⁷ David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996, 13.</footnote>

<footnote n="108">¹⁰⁸ *Ibid*, 14.</footnote>

<footnote n="109">¹⁰⁹ *Ibid*.</footnote>

<footnote n="110">¹¹⁰ *Ibid*, 15.</footnote>

<footnote n="111">¹¹¹ *Ibid*, 28.</footnote>
population only beginning to shed its xenophobia about ethnically different whites.”<sup>112</sup> The gangsters of the 1930s films are marked by an exaggeration of their manner. Little Caesar is “rude, arrogant and gaudy”<sup>113</sup>, Tom Powers and Tony Camonte have aggressive manners. Through the character of Tom Powers, James Cagney established the shoulder shrug (Figure 35), “It is like a nervous tic or part of a boxer's warm-up pose, used to assert some kind of bravado brought on by a lack of "respect" from others.”<sup>114</sup>

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /><figcaption>Figure 35: Tom Powers's shoulder shrugs in *The Public Enemy*, Wellman, William. *The Public Enemy*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

There is an animalistic dimension to the representation of these Italian and Irish characters. For instance, Rico Bandello does a rictus while emitting sounds that resemble snarling several times during the film (Figure 36). As mentioned before Tom Powers moves rapidly, and Tony Camonte's untamed aspect is conveyed through his aggressive stance and predatory glance (Figure 37). Their behavior draws attention to them, and establishes them as different from the rest of society, just like their accent and dialogue: “The development of gangster stereotypes at this stage includes references to class or immigrant status.”<sup>115</sup>

<footnote n="112"><sup>112</sup> David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996, 29.</footnote>

<footnote n="113"><sup>113</sup> George S. Larke-Walsh, *Screening the Mafia: Masculinity, Ethnicity and Mobsters from the Godfather to the Sopranos*, Jefferson, N. C.: McFarland & Co Inc, 2010, 187.</footnote>

<footnote n="114"><sup>114</sup> George S. Larke-Walsh, *Screening the Mafia: Masculinity, Ethnicity and Mobsters from the Godfather to the Sopranos*, Jefferson, N. C.: McFarland & Co Inc, 2010, 75.</footnote>

<footnote n="115"><sup>115</sup> *Ibid*, 187.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_38.png" /><figcaption>Figure 36: Rico's rictus and snarling in *Little Caesar*, LeRoy, Mervyn. *Little Caesar*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>Figure 37: Tony's threatening stare in *Scarface*, Hawks, Howard. *Scarface*. 1932.</figcaption></figure>

In most recent productions, the main characters do not have gestures that differentiate them from others. However, some secondary characters stand out because of their gestures as well as a few main characters. *Lawless* is the only exception of the corpus, the Bondurants have distinguishable gestures. They are not ethnic gangsters but their body language is reminiscent of the gestures established by the 1930s gangsters. The Bondurants are white Americans from the laboring class which shows that the film focuses on class instead of ethnicity. The white "hillbillies" replace ethnic gangsters as the new Other. The Bondurants have an animalistic way of moving, for example, Howard often quietly prowls and has violent outbursts (Figure 38).

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>Figure 38: Howard's violent outburst in *Lawless*, Hillcoat, John. *Lawless*. 2012.</figcaption></figure>

In *Road to Perdition*, Michael Sullivan is stoic, he measures his gestures, and he is reserved. In *Boardwalk Empire*, Nucky's gestures are also measured, simple and more sophisticated. The series offers several references to the portrayal of the ethnic gangsters that resonates with the 1930s gangster films especially when it comes to Italian characters. These characters directly refer to the gangsters in the films from the 1930s, they embody the same stereotypes about gestures. For
instance, Rosetti's way of moving is animalistic, he moves quickly in an unpredictable way, which is enhanced by his impressive stature and considerable strength. The animalistic parallel is underlined in the show through the racist comparison between Italians and monkeys made by several characters. In season 1, Episode 9, Rothstein says "You know what the nice thing is about the Bronx Zoo, Charlie. There're bars between you and the monkeys" after dealing with the D'Alessio family. In season 3, episode 3, Rosetti imitates a monkey while dining at the restaurant with Nucky (Figure 39). Nucky uses the expression "In your neck of the woods" to designate Rosetti's lands and realizes that he might feel insulted, which makes him add "Not that I think you live among trees". Rosetti answers "Like a monkey or something?", pretending to be offended to scare him before miming a monkey and imitating its grunts. He then smiles and the two of them laugh it off. Rosetti is more complex than his predecessors because he is aware of the stereotypes and plays with them with self-deprecation. The character is entirely fictional and serves as a vessel for all the stereotypes about Italian gangsters. This creates a contrast between the representation of historical gangsters and stereotypical ethnic gangsters. Since the stereotypes are channeled in one character, the others can be portrayed in a more nuanced and realistic way. Moreover, Rosetti is portrayed as the antagonist in season 3 which echoes the portrayals of gangsters in 1930s films. This makes it difficult for the audience to grow attached to him and makes the other gangsters look more sympathetic by comparison. Furthermore, he is killed at the end of the same season he first featured in, which can be interpreted as the symbolic end of the stereotypes about Italian gangsters.

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /><figcaption>Figure 39: Rosetti imitating a monkey in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 3, episode 3, Podeswa, Jeremy, Winter, Terence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2012.</figcaption></figure>

Another important physical aspect in the representation of gangsters besides their gestures is their skin color. During this period, the gangsters' ethnicity was linked to their immigrant status. They were mostly Italian, Jewish or Irish, but the cultural specification was less important than the general assumption that the gangster was an immigrant or an "other" American. The ideal male at
the time was white and European, meaning that the Italian and Irish gangsters logically should not have feared being rejected based on their race. However, at the beginning of the twentieth century, an American WASP identity had developed from the Europeans who colonized the West. Therefore, the immigrants arriving from Europe to help industrialize the Northeast were not part of this American community especially since many were not Anglo-Saxon or Protestant. This means that “they occupied an ambivalent position of white ethnicity.”<sup>116</sup> This term designates the place of immigrants who came to the United States but had not adopted the American culture yet. Over time, the concept of “white ethnic” was less used as groups such as Italians, Irish or Polish slowly integrated and assimilated into American society. This can explain why in recent productions ethnic gangsters are not distinguished because of their ethnicity like in the 1930s gangster films. They generally do not have specific features or markers that display their ethnic background, not even cultural pride. White ethnicity is mainly based on cultural differences rather than physical differences. As George S. Larke-Walsh explains “Although Italian radical characteristics can sometimes be defined as dark-skinned, this is not an insurmountable barrier to assimilation into white culture as in the case of say African-American racial characteristics.”<sup>117</sup> This is perfectly exemplified in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 3, episode 11 when Gyp Rosetti pays a visit to Chalky White. He comes to introduce himself and tells him that he will be running the town from now on. He offers him money in exchange for delivering Nucky to him. In order to connect with Chalky, Rosetti says: “I mean look at me, look at you, we have a lot in common, hun?” Chalky responds, skeptical: “How is that?” and Rosetti answers: “We both got left out in the sun too long, maybe you

a little longer, hun?” The interaction between these characters underlines both their similarities and differences. It shows how their skin color can help them connect but also sets them apart (Figure 40). It demonstrates how it would be easier for Rosetti to integrate into society: “Assimilation is possible for Italian-Americans more easily than some others, because of the absence of any overt physical signifiers of difference.”<sup>118</sup> Rosetti

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>Figure 40: Rosetti and Chalky in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 3, episode 11, Coulter, Allen, Winter, Terence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2012.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="116"><sup>116</sup> George S. Larke-Walsh, *Screening the Mafia: Masculinity, Ethnicity and Mobsters from the Godfather to the Sopranos*, Jefferson, N. C.: McFarland & Co Inc, 2010, 166.</footnote>

<footnote n="117"><sup>117</sup> *Ibid*,</footnote>

<footnote n="118"><sup>118</sup> George S. Larke-Walsh, *Screening the Mafia: Masculinity, Ethnicity and Mobsters from the Godfather to the Sopranos*, Jefferson, N. C.: McFarland & Co Inc, 2010, 169.</footnote>
could easily assimilate if he embraced the American culture, then there would be no noticeable
markers left to differentiate him. He is seen as Other because of his ethnicity while Chalky is
ostracized because of his race, which isn't something he can erase by adopting the American way of
life. The series is also the only one of the corpus to represent Black gangsters.

In *Lawless*, there are Black characters but they do not have important roles. They are a community
and buyers of the bootleg alcohol made by the Bondurants. Furthermore, Black and white people
are separated in the movie, because there are segregation laws in place, as the viewer can see
through signs written “white” on it to indicate a place reserved for white people only. *Boardwalk
Empire* represents African-American mobsters, through the fictional characters of Chalky White and
Valentin Narcisse. At first sight, Nucky and Chalky appear as equals, they are business partners and
friends. In season 3, Chalky is given more importance as he owns his club on the boardwalk.
However, the audience realizes that the friendship between Chalky and Nucky “is based entirely
upon their mutual desire to remain in power and in possession of material wealth.”<fnref n="119" /> Nucky is only
interested in Chalky to control the African-American community. Therefore, Chalky remains
someone working for Nucky, he is part of his plan to have complete control over the city. This can
be seen in season 2, episode 1, after an attack by the Ku Klux Klan in one of Chalky’s warehouses,
Nucky makes a speech to console the African-American community, but later he is seen defending
the actions of the KKK to an all-white church. Valentin Narcisse appears to be more powerful,
influential and independent than Chalky. Therefore, he appears to be an equal opponent to Nucky in
seasons 4 and 5. He is well-educated and he has his own network of influence in Harlem, New
York. He is involved in several legal and illegal businesses like the traffic of drugs. He refuses to be
assimilated, he does not consider the United States to be his home and country. Despite being in the
U.S. for twenty years, he never asked for citizenship. He also participates in the Universal Negro
Improvement Association which is a Black nationalist organization that campaigns for the return of
Black people to Africa. Furthermore, he is depicted as a very unsympathetic character and the main
antagonist in season 4. He is portrayed as cruel to everyone, he orders the murder of many people
without mercy. The only person he seems to care about is a singer named Daughter whom he uses
and abuses since he killed her mother who was a prostitute before her eyes, and took her under his
wing. He renamed her Daughter, used her talent as a singer to make money, and persuaded her that
she depended on him to live. Narcisse has a tragic end as he is killed by Luciano’s gang. Narcisse is
opposed to Chalky in terms of power and ambition, even though they both are part of the Black
community. Moreover, Narcisse refuses to assimilate into the American culture whereas Chalky
wants to be respected by other gangsters. This will to belong in a predominantly white society is

<footnote n="119">¹¹⁹ Richard, Greene, *Boardwalk Empire and Philosophy: Bootleg This Book*, Chicago (III.): Open Court, 2013, 50.</footnote>
hinted at through his name, Chalky White. His name is also ironic and accentuates the fact that the
character shares characteristics with the stereotype of Uncle Tom. He is eager for the approval and
recognition of powerful white characters and is obedient to them. He often follows Nucky's orders,
trusting he knows best and is unsuccessful when he tries to stand up to him. Black characters seem
to replace ethnic whites as Others in *Boardwalk Empire*. The ethnic gangsters managed to assimilate
to a certain extent, something Black gangsters have not achieved because they evolved in a racially
segregated society. Yet, the treatment of Black characters as Others does not necessarily make them
antagonistic, they are as qualified as the other characters, it is their morality and actions that define
whether they are good or bad people. Rosetti and Narcisse with their evil portrayal resonate with the
characters of the classic gangster films. They suffer from stereotypes and represent the struggle of
ethnic and racial representation on screen.

3-Costume

Finally, another emblematic aspect of the gangster is the way he dresses which makes him
recognizable: “The tailored suit is the uniform of the Mafia and embodies all the conventions of
generic iconography.”<fnref n="120" /> In the gangster films of the early 1930s, the main character tries to succeed
in life, which he progressively does during the films. He transforms himself through material
consumption. As David Ruth mentions: “Capone’s rise confirmed that modern commercial society
awarded to the worthy the chance to remake themselves. Any person, even from the lowest stratum,
had the opportunity to earn the purchasable pleasures that marked success in modern society.”<fnref n="121" />
The gangster’s appearance changes as he acquires new “clothes, jewelry, automobiles, and leisure
luxury items.”<fnref n="122" /> He distinguishes himself not only by his ethnicity and class but also by his
excessive consumption and accumulation of wealth. However, as Ron Wilson explained: “This
excessive consumer activity and style was a façade that attempted to hide the gangster’s ethnic
origins and class status.”<fnref n="123" /> The gangster’s stylish consumption threatened the established social

<footnote n="120">¹²⁰ George S. Larke-Walsh, *Screening the Mafia: Masculinity, Ethnicity and Mobsters from the Godfather to the Sopranos*, Jefferson, N. C.: McFarland & Co Inc, 2010. 71.</footnote>

<footnote n="121">¹²¹ David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996, 136.</footnote>

<footnote n="122">¹²² Ron Wilson, *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in American Cinema*, New-York: Wallflower, 2015, 39.</footnote>

<footnote n="123">¹²³ *Ibid*, 39.</footnote>
order<sup>124</sup> and led “to moral panic and eventual censorship of gangster films in the 1930s.”<sup>125</sup> This shows that even though the gangster tries to integrate into society by changing his appearance he is still excluded and distinguishable. On the one hand, overexerting to blend in can be precisely what leads him to be even more excluded. On the other hand, it can successfully grant him a more respectable status: “Clothing and appearance no longer seemed reliable guides for differentiating between good and evil.”<sup>126</sup> Therefore, in the films of the 1930s, the gangster’s transgressive reputation extended to his clothing, associating luxurious suits with criminality. Moreover, the gangsters in the 1930s films follow the example of businessmen who dress well by wearing suits. They mimic this outfit but they tend to choose more showy and luxurious attires. They remain businessmen first and foremost, even though their line of work is illegal. This transformation from a gangster to a businessman was inspired by Capone: “The Capone paradigm of the racketeer [...] reflects the cultural shift of the gangster image from the street hoods’ survival of the fittest’ criminality into organized crime that established along modern centralized business methods”<sup>127</sup> (Figure 41 and 42).

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>Figure 41: Al Capone, 1930. Chicago History Museum.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /><figcaption>Figure 42: Attorney William F. Waugh of the American Legion talking with gangster Al Capone, Chicago, Illinois, March 1929. Chicago History Museum.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="124"><sup>124</sup> David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996, 71.</footnote>

<footnote n="125"><sup>125</sup> Ron Wilson, *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in American Cinema*, New-York: Wallflower, 2015, 39.</footnote>

<footnote n="126"><sup>126</sup> David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996, 40.</footnote>

<footnote n="127"><sup>127</sup> Ron Wilson, *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success in American Cinema*, New-York: Wallflower, 2015, 39.</footnote>
In *Little Caesar*, *Scarface* and *The Public Enemy*, the main characters have a wardrobe change that coincides with their professional success: “When he finally wears the sharp new suit the gangster has also donned a new identity”<fnref n="128" /> (Figures 43, 44 and 45).

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /><figcaption>Figure 43: Rico Bandello's outfits in *Little Caesar*, LeRoy Mervyn. *Little Caesar*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /><figcaption>Figure 44: Tony Camonte's outfits in *Scarface*, Hawks, Howard. *Scarface*. 1932.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /><figcaption>Figure 45: Tom Powers's outfits in *The Public Enemy*, Wellman, William. *The Public Enemy*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="128">¹²⁸ David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996,69.</footnote>
In *The Public Enemy* and *Little Caesar*, Tom Powers and Rico Bandello can be seen attending a tailor-fitting which marks their rise. In *Little Caesar*, Rico feels uncomfortable during his fitting, another member of the gang says: "You look good, boss" to which he responds "Yeah, but I feel terrible." Later Rico attends a business meeting with his boss wearing a formal outfit. His boss comments on it and Rico answers: "I thought I'd better put on a monkey suit." These scenes show that the wardrobe change is not an easy transformation. The film's cinematography also lays an emphasis on the use the character makes of his newly gained wealth through close-ups of his jewelry (Figure 46).

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /><figcaption>Figure 46: close up of Rico's ring in *Little Caesar*, LeRoy, Mervyn. *Little Caesar*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

The gangsters' outfits contrast with the ones worn by other characters. They are too showy and luxurious with their style, patterns and jewelry. The male characters who are not gangsters wear plain suits and less ostensible signs of wealth. Their respectability is expressed by their moderation. For instance, in *Scarface*, the policemen don't wear uniforms except for their insignia. They wear plain dark three-piece suits, simple white shirts and slouch hats with plain ties with no patterns or jewelry (Figure 47). In *Little Caesar*, the police officers also wear dark plain suits and coats without any embellishments or accessories (Figure 48).
<figure><img src="image_49.png" /><figcaption>Figure 47: A police officer's outfit in *Scarface*, Hawks, Howard. *Scarface*. 1932.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /><figcaption>Figure 48: A police officer's outfit in *Little Caesar*, LeRoy, Mervyn. *Little Caesar*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

The 1930s films established the codes for the way gangsters are dressed on screen. Contrary to their predecessors, recent productions showcase gangsters after their social rise. They are already successful businessmen wearing the expected clothing. The depiction of their journey is unnecessary, their line of work and their wardrobe are enough to imply it, since the viewer is already familiar with the genre: "It is interesting to note the extent to which costume signifies Mafia or organized crime. A suited criminal suggests crime as a business, which in turn suggests organized crime and the Mafia."<fnref n="129" /> The costume reflects classical gangsters and also serves as a genre signifier, since across time "any suited criminal has come to signify the gangster within crime films."<fnref n="130" /> In *Road to Perdition* and *Boardwalk Empire*, the main characters are already dressed in fine clothing when they are first introduced. Michael Sullivan wears an outfit similar to those of the gangsters in the 1930s films. He always wears the same three-piece suit with a red tie, a long coat and a slouch hat (Figure 49).

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /><figcaption>Figure 49: Michael Sullivan's outfit in *Road to Perdition*, Mendes, Sam. *Road to Perdition*. 2002.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="129">¹²⁹ George S. Larke-Walsh, *Screening the Mafia: Masculinity, Ethnicity and Mobsters from the Godfather to the Sopranos*, Jefferson, N. C.: McFarland & Co Inc, 2010. 70.</footnote>

<footnote n="130">¹³⁰ *Ibid*.</footnote>
Michael's outfit and the way he wears it declines as the film progresses. His clothes are rumpled, and looser, his shirt and vest are unbuttoned and his sleeves are rolled up. Overall, his clothes look dirty as he wore them for several days. Consequently, his wardrobe evolution mirrors his flight and the fact that he pulls away from his criminal activities (Figure 50). This journey is reminiscent of Rico's in *Little Caesar* (Figure 51). In these cases, their clothes foreshadow their tragic destiny, their evolution shows that they are no longer assuming their role in their criminal organization and follow an unpaved way that lead them to perish alone.

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /><figcaption>Figure 50: Sullivan's outfit at the end of *Road to Perdition*, Mendes, Sam. *Road to Perdition*. 2002.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /><figcaption>Figure 51: Bandello's outfit at the end of *Little Caesar*, LeRoy Mervyn. *Little Caesar*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

In *Boardwalk Empire*, Nucky's wardrobe is luxurious, lavish and colorful at the beginning of the show. He wears multiple tailored suits, sometimes with stripes or other patterns. He pairs them with colorful ties, heavy coats, floppy hats or straw boaters and a gold pocket watch (Figure 52). His wardrobe is more sophisticated and has a larger color palette than the characters in *Road to Perdition*. His outfits strongly contrast with those of characters from higher social spheres who are respected among the elite like Gaston Means, a special investigator for the Department of Justice who is an intermediary between Attorney General Daugherty and gangsters. He wears dark monochrome suits, especially brown paired with ties of a neutral color that matches the suit instead of contrasting with it, like Nucky's. He also wears minimal accessories like a pocket watch and a ring (Figure 53).
<figure><img src="image_54.png" /><figcaption>Figure 52: Nucky's outfit at the beginning of *Boardwalk Empire*, season 1, episode 1, Scorsese, Martin, Winter, Terence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2010.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /><figcaption>Figure 53: Gaston Means' outfit in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 3, episode 8, Van Patten, Tim, Winter, Terence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2012.</figcaption></figure>

Nucky's costumes are drastically different from those of Means and other non-ethnic characters from the upper class, his colorful and patterned outfits can be seen as extravagant and un-WASP. As the show progresses, Nucky's wardrobe evolves, he wears darker colors and plain suits and ties (Figure 54).

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /><figcaption>Figure 54: Nucky's outfit after the third season of *Boardwalk Empire*, season 5, episode 8, Van Patten, Tim, Winter, Terence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2014.</figcaption></figure>

He seems to settle for outfits that evoke the uniform of 1930s gangsters. This change is triggered by his withdrawal from the role of Treasurer and the assassination of Jimmy by his own hand. At the end of season 3, this shift is symbolically represented by the removal of the red flower he used to wear on his jacket. From this moment on he truly becomes a gangster, he leaves his past as a politician behind and becomes merciless, he is more likely to kill people. For instance, in the season which follows the murder of Jimmy, Nucky orders the assassination of two very young men who robbed one of his warehouses without negotiating first as he would have done before.
Some characters in *Boardwalk Empire* still go through the same rise to success as the characters in the 1930s films. For instance, Al Capone is first introduced as Torrio's bodyguard since the story starts in 1920. This allows the show to depict the iconic journey of Al Capone which creates anticipation since the viewer knows where the story is heading. As he gradually gains influence, he experiences a sartorial change. In the beginning, he wears plain brown suits with a beret (Figure 55) and later he wears three-piece suits of different colors, blue, green or white, with fedoras and jewelry like gold rings (Figure 56). His wardrobe evolution mirrors his journey from the bottom of his gang's hierarchy to a successful businessman, at the head of his gang.

In *Lawless*, the audience witnesses the similar transformation of the younger brother, Jack Bondurant. Since the brothers are not part of the Mafia, they wear casual rural clothing. They wear simple shirts and cardigans with fedoras that are dirty and used which shows that they are workers (Figure 57). Throughout the film, Jack is the only brother who demonstrates his ambition to become a successful gangster like the ones he admires such as Floyd Banner and Al Capone. His ambition is materialized through the way he dresses, he starts to wear patterned three-piece suits with colorful ties (Figure 58).

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /><figcaption>Figure 55: Al Capone's outfit before his rise in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 1, episode 10, Cellan Jones, Simon, Winter, Terence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2010.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /><figcaption>Figure 56: Al Capone's outfit in *Boardwalk Empire*, season 3, episode 4, Skogland, Kari, Winter, Terence, HBO, *Boardwalk Empire*. 2013.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /><figcaption>Figure 57: Howard and Forest's outfits in *Lawless*, Hillcoat, John. *Lawless*. 2012.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /><figcaption>Figure 58: Jack's outfit in *Lawless*, Hillcoat, John. *Lawless*. 2012.</figcaption></figure>
The other brothers don't seem to feel the need to try to be integrated and respected in the milieu they live in because they already are and Jack only wants to dress up as what he believes a gangster should look like, especially in the cities. Jack is inspired by Irish and Italian gangsters although he is not an ethnic gangster.

This highlights the influence of ethnic gangsters who set the standards for anyone working in organized crime. This underlines the necessity of a wardrobe change to be respected in the business. Moreover, Jack feels the need to dress up in order to assimilate, not because of ethnicity but of class. Recent productions perpetuate the tradition of dressed-up gangsters with sophisticated and lavish clothes that make them recognizable and signify their financial success. The costumes were a tool for their integration but through time became a means to recognize them. Thus, this leads once more to the association of criminality with ethnicity through costumes alongside language and gestures.

## B- The gangster's violent traits

The notion of violence in gangster films has been the subject of many debates. For instance, in *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Ruth analyzes the use of violence by gangsters as a business tool and a way to assert their virile traits. He also mentions the link between violence and ethnic stereotypes. In *Public Enemies, Public Heroes: Screening the Gangster from Little Caesar to Touch of Evil*, Jonathan Munby explains the establishment of censorship in 1930s gangster films to avoid the glamorization of crime. In *The Gangster Film: Fatal Success In American Cinema*, Ron Wilson analyzes the development of the depiction of violence in gangster films which became more graphic and realistic through time with the loosening up of censorship or even became stylized and hyper-realistic. He mentions aggressive masculinity used by gangsters in films as a tool to succeed. George S. Larke-Walsh in *Screening the Mafia: Masculinity, Ethnicity and Mobsters from The Godfather to The Sopranos*, also tackles the more graphic representation of violence in modern gangster films. He explains that violence serves as a genre signifier for gangster films and that violence tends to be more accepted and expected in more recent gangster productions. Moreover, Larke-Walsh explains that in gangster films aggressive masculinity can be explored and asserted by portraying exclusive groups of men. Finally, *The Book Boardwalk Empire and Philosophy: Bootleg This Book*, particularly focuses on the representation of violence in HBO productions. The authors focus on the intense representation of violence in the series, the issue of aesthetization and glamorization of violence today, as the audience enjoys watching such shows.
In this subpart, I will analyze the violence engendered by the character of the gangster. First I will deal with the evolution of the portrayal of violence and its link to ethnicity through time. Then I will dwell upon the concept of aggressive masculinity and the way it is expressed in the different productions. Finally, I will identify who the victims of the different forms of violence displayed by gangsters are.

# 1- Ethnic stereotypes and explicit violence

Violence is a pillar of the gangster film, and this violence is often engendered by the character of the gangster: “Gangsters are professionals of violence, who sell their power of intimidation to those who pay for it.”<fnref n="131" /> In the gangster films of the early 1930s, the violent character of the gangster is linked to ethnic stereotypes. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, Ruth explains the different theories that link ethnicity to criminality. He demonstrates that some believed that the criminal was part of a different class of people; dangerous ethnic groups. Theorists linked different violent behaviors and crimes to different ethnicities:

> Irish were drawn to crime by alcoholism resulting from an inherited "unstable nervous organization"; Italians, with their "highly excitable and emotional disposition," excelled at kidnapping, blackmailing, and crimes of violence; Russians and Poles, at "gainful crimes such as robbery, larceny, and receiving stolen goods"; Jews, at white slavery and prostitution.<fnref n="132" />

The three classic gangster films of the corpus are marked by the influence of these stereotypes in the depiction of the main character's violence. For instance, both Rico Bandello and Tony Camonte are from Italian backgrounds and they are portrayed as excitable and emotional, becoming angry very fast and quickly resorting to violence to solve their problems. In *Little Caesar*, Rico is informed that Tony is going to denounce their gang to a priest. He rushes to stop him by car and shoots him on the steps of the church. A medium long shot shows Tony walking towards the church and Rico's car passing in the foreground. We can hear the sound of a machine gun and see some smoke before Tony collapses and falls down the stairs. Rico isn't shown firing but it is obvious he is the perpetrator (Figure 59).

<footnote n="131">131 “les gangsters sont des professionnels de la violence qui vendent une force d’intimidation qu’ils mettent à la disposition de ceux qui les paient” Annick Foucrier, *Les Gangsters et la Société Américaine* (1920-1960), Ellipses, 2001, 30.</footnote>

<footnote n="132">132 David E. Ruth, *Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934*, Chicago, University of Chicago press, 1996, 13.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_61.png" /><figcaption>Figure 59: Rico (in the car) shooting at Tony in *Little Caesar*, LeRoy, Mervyn. *Little Caesar*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

This scene shows that Rico's immediate response to betrayal is murder, he does not even get out of the car or try to dissuade Tony from denouncing them, he kills him without second thoughts. In *Scarface*, Tony is capable of extreme violence and is short-tempered. Toward the end of the movie, he learns that his sister has moved in with a man and immediately decides to confront them. For a second, he is surprised to see his friend open the door but shoots him when he sees that his sister is with him. The murder happens offscreen and is implied by a reaction shot of the sister. She is horrified and screams at Tony (Figure 60). We hear gunfire and then see Tony's friend slowly falling to the ground. In this scene, Tony is driven by his emotions, he just learned his sister is in trouble and intends to kill the man she ran away with. Tony sticks to his plan even though he discovers the man is his friend. This situation could have been avoided if he had asked for an explanation as Cesca tells him they just got married afterwards.

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /><figcaption>Figure 60: reaction shot of Cesca in *Scarface*, Hawks, Howard. *Scarface*. 1932.</figcaption></figure>

In *The Public Enemy*, Tom Powers is from an Irish background and he is indeed seen drunk several times in the movie, he is drawn to crime to traffic alcohol and he is also unstable and nervous as we
can see through his behavior and gestures that I studied in the previous part. He is seen throwing punches and hitting and killing people throughout the film. For example, he pays a visit to Putty Nose, accompanied by Matt, another member of his gang. He hits Putty who is scared and begs them not to kill him. Putty tries to make them remember the time they shared together and plays a song he taught them on the piano. Tom stands behind him and pulls his gun out. The camera moves toward Matt who is petrified while Tom kills Putty offscreen (Figure 61), which is implied by the gunshot followed by the noises made by the piano when Putty's head falls on the piano tiles. Tom and Matt leave the room together and the camera follows them without showing Putty's body.

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /><figcaption>Figure 61: reaction shot of Matt in *The Public Enemy*, Wellman, William. *The Public Enemy*. 1931.</figcaption></figure>

It is interesting to note that the representation of violence was limited in these films due to censorship: "Emphasis on murder techniques, brutal assassinations and the justification of revenge are forbidden"<fnref n="133" />, yet, violence is still very much present. Just like with the representation of the traffic of alcohol during Prohibition, the filmmakers found ways to circumvent censorship. Thus, the violence on screen is implicit, and portrayed through new technologies like sound effects, through the noise of the guns for instance.

This link between violence and ethnicity in these movies is even more evident as gangsters are the only characters who perform this kind of violence. There are no other characters who are not part of a gang who are violent and who carry guns. The only exception is the police, who intervene at the end of both *Little Caesar* and *Scarface* and kill the protagonists. However, their violence is not a result of a violent outburst or revenge. It seems justified as they perform their duty, and stop criminals. In *Little Caesar*, Rico is walking in the street when he is ambushed by the police who ask him to surrender. He refuses and hides behind a billboard, waiting for them with his gun. They fire

<footnote n="133">¹³³ “L’insistance sur les techniques de meurtres, les assassinats brutaux, et la justification de la vengeance sont proscrit.” Annick Foucrier, *Les Gangsters et la Société Américaine* (1920-1960), Ellipses, 2001, 35.</footnote>
at him through the billboard with a Tommy gun and the next shot shows him falling on the ground. In *Scarface*, the police try to arrest Tony in his home, they break down the door. Tony goes down the stairs, armed, and tries to shoot at them. A policeman shoots him in the hand and he loses the gun. He begs for mercy and tries to run away. The police fire at him and he falls dead on the ground. The actor is seen contorting himself while gunshots are heard. In both films, the police give the gangster a chance to surrender and shoot him when he refuses. In these situations, the police are led to violence by the gangster's reckless behavior and refusal to follow the law.

In recent productions, the gangster's violent character is not always linked to his ethnicity. Violence was always a pillar of gangster films but the decline of the Production Code in the 1950s and 1960s allowed a more explicit depiction of violence.<fnref n="134" /> Therefore, the viewers got more and more used to seeing explicit violence on screen: "By the nineties, violence is more accepted or expected in gangster films."<fnref n="135" /> The movies and series *Road to Perdition*, *Lawless* and *Boardwalk Empire* depict violence more explicitly than gangster films from the early 1930s. In *Lawless*, Forrest and Howard are particularly violent and beast-like. As mentioned before, they are not ethnic gangsters but represent the new Others as white hillbillies, therefore their mannerisms and behavior are similar to ethnic stereotypes. Like 1930s gangsters they systematically resort to violence to defend and assert themselves. The kind of violence they inflict is heightened and sometimes comes to torture. For instance, there is a scene in which two clients of the Bondurant's bar become aggressive, when they refuse to leave, Forrest starts punching them with knuckles. There is a close up of one of the intruders when he receives a punch in the throat. This shot is very graphic, the viewer can closely see the injury which causes the man's mouth to bleed heavily (Figure 62).

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /><figcaption>Figure 62: Forrest punching a man in the throat in *Lawless*, Hillcoat, John. *Lawless*. 2012.</figcaption></figure>

In *Road to Perdition*, Michael Sullivan is different from the gangsters in 1930s films. He is always calm and collected and never gives in to violent outbursts, contrary to Tom Powers who is also Irish

<footnote n="134">¹³⁴ George S. Larke-Walsh, *Screening the Mafia: Masculinity, Ethnicity and Mobsters from the Godfather to the Sopranos*, Jefferson, N. C.: McFarland & Co Inc, 2010, 4.</footnote>

<footnote n="135">¹³⁵ *Ibid*, 81.</footnote>
and shaped by ethnic stereotypes. Michael's actions always seem thought-through and justified because he defends his gang or his family, unlike Tom's who are impulsive and aim to satisfy his ambition. Moreover, Michael is portrayed in a more sympathetic light, the audience relates to him because he defends common values like family and justice. The storyline depicts him as a victim which makes his quest for revenge justified. The audience roots for him because he is shown as a human being, both strong and vulnerable as well as honorable, as Larke-Walsh explains: "The gangster film [...] encourages an audience to glory in the gangster's acts of violence, but this appeal is encouraged by his "weakness as much as his power and freedom.""<fnref n="136" /> Furthermore, the audience is even more likely to identify with Michael because he contrasts with characters like Connor, who is reminiscent of Tom Powers because he kills to defend his own interests which are motivated by greed, which aligns with Irish stereotypes. Toward the beginning, Connor and Michael are ordered to check if one of their fellow gang mates is still loyal to Rooney. When the man implies he knows something that could harm Connor, he immediately kills him, defying Rooney's orders. This scene showcases Connor's impulsiveness and irrationality, as he is willing to threaten his position in the gang to defend his personal interests. Contrary to Connor, Michael resorts to violence because he follows his boss' orders which shows his loyalty. Later he decides to avenge the murders of his wife and son and methodically starts to kill Rooney's associates until he kills his son Connor. His decision doesn't seem rushed but thought-through. His character resorts to violence but not to torture and he only uses guns. For instance, the shot shows the bathroom door open from the outside while Michael enters and he aims his gun low and shoots. For a moment, the viewer believes that the scene implicitly depicts violence such as in 1930s gangster films (Figure 63). However, on his way out Michael moves the door which has a mirror on it, and by closing slowly reveals the body of Connor with a hole in the forehead and blood all over and around him (Figure 64).

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /><figcaption>Figure 63: Michael killing Connor who is off screen in *Road to Perdition*, Mendes, Sam. *Road to Perdition*. 2002.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="136">¹³⁶ George S. Larke-Walsh, *Screening the Mafia: Masculinity, Ethnicity and Mobsters from the Godfather to the Sopranos*, Jefferson, N. C.: McFarland & Co Inc, 2010, 52.</footnote>