Monthly Archives: March 2013

‘Executive Suite’: Life and Death at the Top

Executive Suite Poster:  Funny, but completely misleading.  That chick with Bill Holden is supposed to be June Allyson -- she looks more like va-va-voom Elaine Stewart from 'The Bad and the Beautiful.'

Executive Suite Poster: Funny, but misleading. That chick with Bill Holden on the upper left is supposed to be June Allyson — she looks more like va-va-va-voom Elaine Stewart from ‘The Bad and the Beautiful.’

Metro’s classy 1954 boardroom drama, “Executive Suite,” never gets the respect it deserves. The picture is engrossing from the first moment till the last shot.  It opens with sounds of traffic and pedestrians over which veteran television anchorman, Chet Huntley, announces:

It is always up there, close to the clouds, on the topmost floors of the sky-reaching towers of big business. And because it is high in the sky, you may think that those who work there are somehow above and beyond the tensions and temptations of the lower floors. This is to say . . . that it isn’t so.

Executive Suite Titles

BONNG!

Immediately after, you hear a great bell in a clock tower roll out a big, sonorous D:  BONNG!  EXECUTIVE SUITE

Then another BONNG!  WILLIAM HOLDEN; BONNG! JUNE ALLYSON; BONNG!  BARBARA STANWYCK BONNG!. . . and so on through the all-star cast.  It’s incredibly portentous, and even a little bit silly, in a nice way.

The director, Robert Wise, stages the opening scene in an unusually imaginative way for a big studio picture:  the POV puts us in the shoes of Avery Bullard, dynamic president of the Tredway Corporation (a furniture manufacturing concern).  He has just finished a meeting on Wall Street and is now on his way back to his headquarters in Pennsylvania.  First, he stops in at the Western Union office in the lobby.  We see only his hands as he writes out the following:

Avery Bullard sends his final wire.

Avery Bullard sends his final wire.

He hands it to the telegrapher.  We hear him say “Straight wire.”  He pays, we go out onto the street with him (we’re still in his shoes), he hails a taxi . . . then the son of a bitch drops dead of a stroke in the midday sun.  His wallet flies out of his hand as he falls; a passerby scoops it up, pockets the cash and throws his billfold away in a wire trash basket.  From this opening sequence till the last frame, it’s a non-stop joy ride, skillfully directed and acted, cleverly plotted and scripted.

Fredric March, William Holden, Walter Pidgeon:  Contenders three:  conniving bean-counter, crusading hero, weak sister.

Fredric March, William Holden, Walter Pidgeon — Contenders three: conniving bean-counter, crusading hero, weak sister.

The sudden death of Bullard leaves the top position at Tredway open for five ambitious veeps to snarl over, which makes up the balance of the picture.  Along with all the corporate jiggery-pokery and hanky-panky, it also offers a prescient commentary about the wrong path down which American business was heading in the post-War boom years, and (ahem) still is. The depiction of how businessmen work their swindles and advance their careers is necessarily simplified and steamed-up — but the central argument of the picture is sound.  It’s one of the most enjoyable movies I know.  I liked it the first time I saw it, but repeated viewings have made me like it more and more. Most unusually, the movie has no score other than the loud tolling of the clock that is housed in Tredway Corp.’s gothic deco headquarters (known as “The Tower”).  The movie’s climax is a board meeting at 6:00 p.m. the following day, so throughout the movie, dramatic scenes are punctuated by the tolling of this clock, which lets us know how near we are to the dramatic conclusion.  It’s an all star cast headed by William Holden, Barbara Stanwyck, Fredric March, Louis Calhern, Paul Douglas, Shelley Winters and several others, and they really know how to slice the bologna thin.  As the late Bullard’s secretary, Nina Foch, in the smallest of the starring roles, gives the busiest performance.  She’s quietly, desperately in love with the man she worked for.  Apparently, he never knew.  Foch makes sure as hell we do . . .

Foch -- rhymes with bosh:  Miss Foch's hands work busily a day . . .

Foch — rhymes with bosh: Miss Foch’s hands work busily a day . . .

She was the only cast member to be nominated for an Oscar, of course.  She lost.  (At the time, she was married to that puling ghoul from the Actors Studio, James Lipton.  Strike two . . . )

The script is by Ernest Lehman (who also wrote “North by Northwest” and “Sweet Smell of Success”), so it’s full of hard-boiled dialogue that’s a pleasure to listen to for its own sake.  Lehman didn’t get a nomination, unfortunately.  That year George Seaton’s adaptation of Clifford Odets’ “The Country Girl” (also starring William Holden) won best adapted screenplay.  Another Holden picture was also nominated, “Sabrina.”  “Executive Suite” was robbed.

The picture is full of great star turns.  Shelley Winters is more controlled than usual and is quite touching as the lovelorn secretary of her married boss, Paul Douglas, who always looks like an ad for Alka-Seltzer.

Paul Douglas, Shelley Winters:  'Honey, it'll be all right.'  Oh, no it won't.

Paul Douglas, Shelley Winters: ‘Honey, it’ll be all right.’ Oh, no it won’t.

I could watch Louis Calhern in anything — he’s one of Peter Arno’s beefy businessmen, half-mast eyes on a martini & palm on a blonde’s caboose. Here’s a test:  look at the four images below and see if you can tell which one is the real Louis Calhern.  I chose these pictures, and even I have trouble picking him out of the lineup.

Number One:

'Fill 'er up.'

‘Fill ‘er up.’

Number Two:

Sizzling Platter

Sizzling Platter

Number Three:

'Look, I told you I was busy.  Wait for me at the bar . . . at the bar!'

‘Look, I told you I was busy. Wait for me at the bar . . . at the bar!’

Number Four:

Makes you kind of pleased to be an American, doesn't it?

‘Makes you kind of pleased to be an American, doesn’t it?’

If you guessed Number Three, congratulations.  If you were here right now, I’d shake you a nice, bone-dry martini.  I’ll have much more to say about Louis Calhern at another time, in another post.  For now, have a look at this clip.  He always earned his salary fair and square.

William Holden is the hero of this picture, an idealistic industrial designer named Don Walling.  Near the end of the picture, he delivers a long speech before the board of directors in which he lays out the wrong direction American business is heading.  Holden handles the material masterfully.  This may be the first picture in which Holden really came into his own as an authoritative voice of reason.  After this picture, at any rate, Holden was never again a boy — even when a script required him to be.  He gives a fine performance in “Picnic,” which came out a year later — in that one, he looks great, sounds great, is great, but he’s also at least fifteen years too old for the role:  he’s a man, not a callow youth.  Holden is such a likable, attractive presence, one is willing to overlook the miscasting, but the story hardly makes sense with a man in a part written for a boy.  But the role of Don Walling is tailor-made for him . . . and incidentally, no actor ever wore a business suit better than Bill Holden.

Jiggery pokery at the top of The Tower.

Jiggery pokery at the top of The Tower.

But the performance I especially love is Fredric March’s.  As Loren Shaw, Tredway’s comptroller, March is the embodiment of sweating duplicity — a man who lives for his charts and matrices:  a skulking, heartless spinner of webs and counter of beans; the only evidence of his humanity is his visible discomfort whenever he’s in the presence of the people over whom his ambition hopes to vault.  Every time his integrity or honesty is challenged, he breaks out in a sweat as he parries the thrusts, and he habitually strokes the palm of one hand with the fingers of the other as he speaks.  He’s Uriah Heep and Richard Nixon stuffed into one gray flannel suit.  He follows every confrontation with his colleagues (which is to say whenever he comes into contact with them) with the same ritual:  he wipes his palms with his handkerchief, then dabs his lips with it, before he returns it to his pocket.  After one such collision, he disposes of the handkerchief after soiling it and retrieves a new one from his desk drawer:  his drawer is full of them.  But he’s really at his funniest when he has to express sympathy or compassion — his bloodless insincerity is a marvel to behold.

March as Loren Shaw: 'That's priced merchandise - it serves a definite purpose in the profit structure of this company. We're not cheating anyone.'

March as Loren Phineas Shaw: ‘That’s priced merchandise — it serves a definite purpose in the profit structure of this company. We’re not cheating anyone.’

Mr Skeffington

Claude Rains as Mr Skeffington:  The patience of Job.

Claude Rains as Mr Skeffington: The patience of Job.

Why isn’t “Mr Skeffington” a better picture than it is?  Why is it one of the least satisfactory Bette Davis/Claude Rains pairings?  Davis was particularly fond of “Mr Skeffington.” It’s hard to tell why.  Her performance is a tour de force, as is Claude Rains’, so perhaps that was enough for her.  It’s enough for me, too, to a limited extent.  Yet, I can’t help disliking the picture for many reasons, the most important being that it could so easily have been so much better than it is.  The picture is a mess:  the story is interesting, individual scenes work well enough, and there are several fine performances. But it lacks the narrative momentum that was a hallmark of Warner Bros. pictures of that era — even the lousy ones.  At two and a half hours long, it’s almost a full hour longer than the average Warner Bros. picture of the mid-40s, but after sitting through it a number of times, I realize now that it’s not the running time that’s to blame:  it’s the direction by Vincent Sherman.

Judging from numerous Sherman interviews, and from the commentary tracks he did for DVD releases of his pictures, he was a thoroughly decent, hard-working, conscientious man.  According to him, Claude Rains not only liked working with him, but saw him socially at least twice a month.  That’s evidence enough for me to accept that he was in no way a martinet or an egomaniac, and that his colleagues respected and liked him.  But it’s not enough to make him a director worthy of Rains and Davis.

Sherman seems most to blame for what’s wrong with “Mr Skeffington.”  The suspicions I’ve long had about why the picture doesn’t work better are confirmed by the commentary track he supplied for the DVD.  When a scene doesn’t quite work, he’s honest about it — as, for instance, the scene after the society belle, Fanny Trellis (Davis), marries Wall Street magnate, Job Skeffington (Rains), for his money.  (On the DVD, it’s Chapter 10.)  Job is richer than Fanny (she and her deadbeat brother, Trippy, have run through the family fortune), but he’s from a poor background.  Fanny has social standing and breeding, but she lacks soul and heart . . . and the capacity to love.

Bette Davis, Claude Rains: Wedding Bell Blues

Bette Davis, Claude Rains: Wedding Bell Blues

On their wedding night, they take a boat ride round Manhattan; there’s a trio of musicians (violin, accordion, guitar) who stroll the deck; when they encounter a pair of newlyweds, they stop and serenade them.  Eventually, the strolling players cross the path of Skeffington and his new bride, take a brief look, shake their heads and move on.  On the commentary track, Sherman laments that the scene doesn’t quite work.  In a significant way, he’s right; in a significant way, he’s wrong.  He’s not specific about what he thinks is amiss, but he clearly believes that it’s either the actors or the writers or a combination of both that keep the scene from making its point.  He’s dead wrong:  the acting is meticulous, intelligent, heartbreaking, and in every way superb.  It could not be more brilliantly performed.  But the staging is terrible, and it makes the scene’s underlying purpose far too obvious.  Points are made with tools that sharpen, not with blunt objects.

So what’s wrong with it?  Sherman relies almost entirely on close-ups — the bluntest object in a director’s toolkit:  it allows us to see only one face at a time and severely impairs the sense of human, spontaneous interaction.  Here we have a scene performed by two consummate actors and Sherman denies them the opportunity to act the scene together, and to let us see the sparks fly.  Mind you, they’re both terrific:  their individual reactions are specific, interesting and well-performed.  It is clear that Fanny doesn’t love Job; it is clear that Job loves Fanny.  But we need to see them in the SAME shot to get the full sense of the poignancy of their mésalliance.  It’s yet another case of a director who underestimates the potency of great acting.  Claude Rains and Bette Davis together don’t need their performances to be spliced together in a cutting room:  put the camera in the right place and let them go at it.  This entire scene could have been done in a single shot and the effect would have been devastating.  As it is, the acting is so exceptional that even Sherman and his editor couldn’t entirely wreck it.  When I consider how William Wyler or John Huston would have staged and cut that scene, I can’t help resenting Vincent Sherman’s lack of imagination and sensitivity.

Here is the dialogue from that scene, accompanied by stills.  The cinematographer was Ernie Haller, who did his usual beautiful work.  But as you can see by these stills, the whole scene is done in close-ups rather than two shots.  The acting and writing in this scene are wonderful, in every way beyond reproach.  The individual shots are gorgeous.  But it’s a ping-pong match rather than an unhappy love mis-match.

Job:  [to deckhand, asking about the musicians] What’s going on?

Deckhand:  Oh, that’s Tony, Joe and Luigi serenading a couple just got married over in Joisey.  They go looking for them!

That's Tony, Joe and Luigi . . .

That’s Tony, Joe and Luigi . . .

[Musicians strike up “Here Comes the Bride.”]

Job:  How do they tell?

Deckhand:  I dunno, but they do.  You know, they ain’t messed up on a couple in over ten years.  Can ya beat dat?

[Skeffington returns to Fanny.]

Fanny:  Job . . . Could you tell they’d just been married?

Member of Wedding Party:  He’s a very lucky boy. [Happy couple stare into each other’s eyes]

Yer a very lucky boy!

He’s a very lucky boy!

Job:  I think I could.  The way she’s looking at him, you couldn’t miss it.

Fanny:  I see what you mean.  The way I’m looking at you.

I see what you mean.  The way I'm looking at you.

I see what you mean. The way I’m looking at you.

Job:  No.  Your look is cordial, not connubial.  I’ve married you, Fanny, but I haven’t won you.

No.  Your look is cordial.

No. Your look is cordial, not connubial.

Fanny:  [Shocked] Job!

Job:  No.  So far, I’ve merely taken you away from the others. . . .

So far, I've merely taken you away from the others.

So far, I’ve merely taken you away from the others.

Do you think that night two months ago, when I broke into your dinner party, do you think that was the first time I’d seen you?  No. . . .

Do you think that was the first time I'd seen you?  No.

Do you think that was the first time I’d seen you? No.

. . . I’d seen you many times before that.  Dining at Sherry’s, dancing at the Waldorf . . .  You never noticed me.  When I saw you in your home, on the night I came to see Trippy, you looked very beautiful . . . very unattainable.  That’s why I commissioned Howard Vanya to paint your portrait . . . At least I’d have that . . .

Fanny:  [Cheerfully] Well, now you have both!  The portrait and me.

Well, now you have both!

Well, now you have both!

Job:  What you mean is I own both.  It isn’t quite the same thing.

Fanny:  Do you know why I came to your office that day to sell you bazaar tickets?  Because I made up my mind, even then, that I was going to marry you.

Job:  [Nervous but hopeful] Why?

Fanny:  Because you’re good and kind, and your eyes are special . . . in a St. Bernard sort of way. . .

In a St. Bernard kind of way . . .

. . . in a St. Bernard sort of way . . .

And although I’ve never really seen you smile, I always have the feeling that you’re laughing at me.  And I find that attractive.  Besides the fact you’re very rich . . .

Besides the fact you're very rich . . .

Besides the fact you’re very rich . . .

Would you like to kiss me?

[There’s a long pause as Fanny goes through the ordeal of unpinning her veil and putting it up.  Skeffington looks on, as Tennyson put it, “His eyes full of that life-long hunger.”  Finally they kiss; she opens her eyes wide, mid-kiss and looks off into the distance, as if distracted.  Absently, she pushes a curl back into place.  Then she pulls away, gently.] 

Prelude to a Kiss.

Prelude to a Kiss.

This shot reminds me of Shakespeare's Sonnet 93: 'Thy looks with me, thy heart in other place.'

This shot reminds me of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 93: ‘Thy looks with me, thy heart in other place.’

Fanny:  [Brightly]  We’re about to be serenaded.

We're about to be serenaded.

We’re about to be serenaded.

[The musicians pause briefly, shake their heads and move along.]   This, apparently, wasn’t broad or bald enough to satisfy Sherman, who on the commentary track complains that the scene isn’t clear enough.  Jesus.  Just reading the dialogue and looking at the stills makes it more than clear enough, as far as I’m concerned.  Rains and Davis make the underlying problem even clearer:  we need no musicians shaking their heads scornfully to tell us this is not a match made in heaven.  But Vincent Sherman disagrees.  If he had it to do over again, I suppose he’d add a title card to explain what we’d just seen.

The newlyweds fail the acid test.

The newlyweds fail the acid test.

Ah, I haven’t the heart to go on with this analysis.  It’s too upsetting.  The acting is of such a high calibre, and the foolish direction is appalling.  Vincent Sherman, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is the same dude who thought  Miriam Hopkins stole “Old Acquaintance” from Bette Davis . . . I rest my case.

The Brothers Epstein, who wrote “Casablanca,” wrote “Mr Skeffington.”  There’s a lot of good dialogue in the picture, but one must put up with the incompetent direction to take it all in. Perhaps this is an exaggeration, but as far as I can remember I’ve never made it all the way through in a single sitting.  Every fifteen minutes or so, I throw up my hands and walk out of the room . . . as I am doing at this very moment.