Synanon (1965)

Better than most people think

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

A study of drug addicts in an real life treatment center.This is a good film with an interesting cast. Third billed Alex Cord is actually the main character, the weirdly named Zankie Albo, a slick braggart with an addiction to heroin. Stella Stevens (one of her best performances) is Joaney, a divorcee with a young son who resorted to prostitution to pay for her habit. She gets involved with the charming but dangerous Albo. Top billed Chuck Connors (fresh from The Rifleman) is Ben the ex con who kicked his "H" addiction but has to contend with trouble maker Albo, who was his cell mate in prison and has a beef against him. Oscar winner Edmond O'Brien is Chuck the head of Synanon, he uses tough talk and punishments like having heads shaved and wearing humiliating signs for breaking the rules. Other "dope fiends" are played by Richard Conte, Eartha Kitt and Bernie Hamiliton.Anyone who is interested in 1960s black and white films about lurid subjects or is a fan of any member of the cast should seek this one out.

Studies of drug use and addiction in these United States show there wasn't really what could be called a "societal problem" until after passage of the Harrison Act of 1913, the law outlawing so many drugs.Marijuana was outlawed about 25 years later, and all the drug prohibition has faithfully followed the pattern set by alcohol prohibition in the 1920s: crime and misery and violence and bloodshed.And huge profits for the people willing to break the laws against selling and distributing those products.Opponents of prohibition believe, with much research and evidence backing their position, that the laws cause more problems than do the drugs.There is really not much support for the drugs themselves, although there is growing support for the freedom to choose, and even the most ardent opponent of prohibition recognizes that at least some people suffer badly from drug use and especially from drug addiction.Synanon was founded by a former substance abuser to help addicts kick their habits. This movie is about him and that effort.It could have been a cheapie exploitation movie, and the original advertising plan did seem to appeal to the sensational. But it had, instead, an intelligent and apparently honest script and some of Hollywood's most talented actors.I started watching a TCM presentation with trepidation, prepared to switch channels, but found myself fascinated.Especially by the actors.Chuck Connors is one of my favorites and I sat in awe of his very low-key performance. Yes, he stayed busy, even having two TV series, but I don't think he got the respect he should have.Edmond O'Brien is one of the greatest, an actor capable of probably any type of characterization.Richard Conte is another of my favorites, and again his low-key performance fit his role just perfectly.Many others also deserve praise, but I've gone on too long. Let me just say I highly recommend "Synanon."

This is a very well made film about addiction and an early drug treatment facility in California. However, when I learned the FULL story about Synanon, it sure opened my eyes....but a bit about that later.I noticed that some reviews did seem to think that "Synanon" pulled a lot of its punches. While I would agree, on the other hand, for 1965, the film was VERY insightful and well done. I particularly liked the down-beat ending--it made the story seem more realistic as 'you can't win 'em all' when it comes to addiction. Plus, the acting was nice--with Edmund O'Brien, Chuck Connors and Alex Cord a turning in excellent and gritty performances. All this was very good and very watchable--and you certainly can't blame the film makers for what happened AFTER the movie based on the real Synanon treatment center was released. Here's where it gets REALLY intereststing. It seems in the 1970s, Synanon slowly transformed itself into a cult, of sorts--a very paranoid and violent one at that! Wild accounts of beatings, rattlesnake attacks(!) and, eventually, the leader (Charles Dederich) resuming his heavy drinking and the dissolution of the program! Although a VERY discouraging story, it is the real account of Synanon and would actually make a pretty exciting film. Still, as I said, they didn't know about any of this stuff that would one day happen when they made the movie--and, taken on its own, "Synanon" is a very good film.

Synanon was formed because there was pretty much nowhere an addict could find help back in the fifties. Even Alcoholics Anonymous wouldn't accept them. Heroin addicts were regarded as hopeless cases. In fact, the founder of Synanon came to believe addicts had to remain in a confined supportive community for the rest of their lives in order to avoid relapse. The movie is a remarkably realistic portrayal of what rehab was like for drug addicts back in the day. Countless Therapeutic Communities were patterned after Synanon. Residents who broke the rules underwent a variety of punishments: anything from wearing humiliating signs around their necks to digging "graves" 6 feet deep, 8 feet long and 4 feet wide every morning for a week. Until it was outlawed, sleep deprivation was a common punishment. A resident might be made to stay awake for 72 hours straight. This movie is a fascinating glimpse into the early days rehabilitation.