An idealistic doctor, Paul Henreid, is a counselor or something at a new prison for naughty young girls. No walls, but humane treatment -- that sort of thing. The fly in the ointment is the headmistress or foreman or whatever she is, the top sergeant, who runs the place on a day-to-day basis. And what an old-fashioned meanie she is, groomed like Mrs. Danvers or maybe the wife in "American Gothic".<br /><br />This movie was one of a spate that came out in the post-war years dealing with one or another social problem, often, as here, penology. Among the others were "The Snake Pit," "Sniper," "Gentleman's Agreement," "Crossfire," others whose titles don't come to mind at the moment. This is a lesser example of the genre, but not entirely without interest.<br /><br />What makes it interesting is that, though Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman's husband in "Casablanca" seven years earlier, was by now over the hill and reduced to B pictures, the movie is full of those naughty young girls, including the 18-year-old Rita Moreno and the 19-year-old Ann Francis. They run around in their skivvies, get into fights, talk nasty, are cynical about everything, trying to run away -- in other words, these luscious young beauties are just begging to be spanked. That's all they really need. They don't need an understanding headmaster, just a couple of whacks. Oh, not savage whacks. Not at all. Rather, deeply caring whacks, whacks of love, so to speak, not enough to hurt but just enough to warm. Why didn't Paul Henreid try that instead of this antiquated humanism? Huh? I'll bet he WANTED to turn Ann Francis over his knee, that lanky and insinuating blond vixen, and teach her a lesson. You can see it in his face. The gentle smile can't mask the lascivious grin of the maniac underneath. Come to think of it, if that didn't work, why he could just have THEM spank HIM. They'd be learning a trade too -- professional dominatrix. <br /><br />Anyway, if he didn't, he must be as crazy as the rest of this unimaginative movie. Some of the shots are striking; in others the lighting alone could have been handled by an alert ten-year-old kid. But why go on?<br /><br />This movie is "reformist" in the same way that Cecil B. DeMille's early movies showed a lot of nudity, just to make sure we knew how sinful nudity was; or in the same way as one of those anti-war pictures that show us the brutality of combat before we inevitably win the battle. What hypocrisy.