Il dominatore di Wall Street

I call this Wall Street Noir as a way of simple classification, but it's a odd film from Britain's Eagle Lion, directed by the usually "B" director of Bluebeard and Detour, this dark film detailing the rise to financial power of a man who lacks ethics, certainly mirroring many of the financial scandals surrounding us today. Director Edgar G. Ulmer had considerable talent, and here is given a literate script, a popular leading man in Zachary Scott, and lots of outstanding support, namely Sidney Greenstreet, Diana Lynn, Martha Vickers, and in a small,unrecognizable role Raymond Burr. Its a talky film with rich visuals, and it is a sad truth, not to be a crybaby about it, but most available DVDs appear to be made from bad VHS copies taken from a television print. The copies one finds today runs only 86 minutes, while the original film, richer and deeper in motivation, is 104. Apparently the streaming versions are much better--and lets hope the DVD Gods read the various reviews and provide the print this film deserves; I have a suspicion the ratings would ramp up with enthusiasm!

Ruthless is directed by Edgar G. Ulmer and adapted to screenplay by S.K. Lauren, Gordon Kahn and Alvah Bessie from Dayton Stoddart's novel Prelude to Night. It stars Zachary Scott, Louis Hayward, Sydney Greenstreet, Diana Lynn, Lucille Bremer and Martha Vickers. Music is by Werner Jansen and cinematography by Bert Glennon.

Even as a boy Horace Vendig always got what he wanted. Then into adulthood and he manipulates himself into high society. Now a fully fledged tyro of commerce he is even more cruel and impervious to how his actions harm others. But when Horace (Scott) reunites with his old best friend Vic Lambdin (Hayward) and he falls a foul of the bitter Buck Mansfield (Greenstreet), all the resentments come crashing together as one!

"Animals kill for food or love. You and I spoil the jungle because we kill for profit, a taste of victory and revenge. Then we destroy each other after"

It was a one time hard to locate picture, where even in early releases it had been shorn of 25 minutes, but now it's out there, a full one hour and forty four minutes of Ruthlessness! Ok, that might be over selling it a touch, but this is a pretty spicy piece of greedy film noir, a scathing attack on capitalism, a telling of the corruption of a man's soul and the bitter treatment he hands out to those who care for him.

Tagged as a sort of baby brother to Citizen Kane, which is fair enough in fact, but that be in narrative drive more than visual panache. There's some nice expressionistic touches, with Glennon (Crime Wave) proving what a very talented cinematographer he was (see his Westerns output), but the pic does lack for noirish visual menace to marry up with the sour lead characterisation. Which is a crime given it's Ulmer (The Black Cat/Bluebeard/Detour/Strange Illusion) in the directors chair.

However, where the pic shines bright is with the performances, Ulmer getting his cast to turn in impressive portrayals of the human condition. The ladies are especially great (Lynn has a dual role) as they nail the respective heartbeats of women buffeted by Horace's duality of twisted emotions and lofty avarice ambitions. In short we get very mature turns in a film that's very much mature in thematics. Add it to your Ulmer "to see lists" post haste. 7.5/10

While in a philanthropic meeting promoted by the millionaire Horace Woodruff Vendig (Zachary Scott), the guest Vic Lambdin (Louis Hayward) tells the history of the beginning and end of his friendship with the host to his date Mallory Flagg (Diana Lynn). When they are boys, Horace is a poor boy from a dysfunctional family and Vic's best friend that saves the wealthy girl Martha Burnside from drowning in a river. Horace is adopted by the rich Burnside family and later sent to Havard and gets engaged to Martha, for whom Vic has a crush. When the ambitious Horace meets the wealthier Susan Duane (Martha Vickers) that belongs to a more influent family, he calls off his engagement with Martha and moves to New York with Susan continuing his social raise. Later he meets the shark Buck Mansfield (Sydney Greenstreet) and seduces his young wife Christa (Lucille Bremer) to profit in business, leading to tragic consequences.

I was zapping the cable TV this raining Sunday morning in Rio and I found this rare film-noir by chance, which has never been released on VHS or DVD in Brazil. Edgar G. Ulmer made a magnificent movie with a timeless plot of merciless ambition of a poor and selfish boy that wishes to climb financially and socially using and disposing wealthy women and friendships. The screenplay uses flashback to perfectly develop the lead character and his acquaintances, supported by awesome black and white cinematography and camera work. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Insaciável" ("The Insatiable")

Note: On 23 Aug 2019 I saw this film again.

Edgar G. Ulmer (1904-72) may be best remembered for the pessimistic 1945 film noir Detour, but that is only one of his several directing credits, many of which have fallen out of fame over the past decades. One of Ulmer's lesser known works is his 1948 drama Ruthless, a character study of a superficially successful but inwardly broken man, in some ways evoking memories of the themes in Orson Welles' legendary debut feature Citizen Kane (1941).

Like many noirs, Ruthless utilizes extensive flashbacks in its narrative. The frame story takes place in a high society party where Vic Lambdin (Louis Hayward) and his lady friend Mallory Flagg (Diana Lynn) have arrived to meet Vic's old friend Horace Vendig (Zachary Scott), a millionaire philanthropist. Upon meeting Mallory, Vendig is startled by her resemblance to a girl called Martha Burnside, Vic and Vendig's common friend who was once engaged to marry the latter. Several flashbacks then cast light on what has happened between Vendig, Vic, Martha and other figures from the past, some of whom are present at the party. In spite of his generous donations to charitable organizations, in his personal life Vendig is revealed to be far from perfect.

Vendig's personality is seen stemming from his childhood trauma of feeling unwanted by his parents. Perhaps this is why he never really allows anyone get close to him, always handling his relationships in a cold and calculating manner. Even though the premise sounds fairly interesting, the execution is not without its problems. Namely, a lot of the lengthy flashbacks feel too long and seem to merely present the actions of Vendig rather than providing insight on his inner world. He mentions that he is aware of his irresistible urge to strive for success which causes him to knowingly hurt his loved ones by dumping them in favour of business opportunities, but the scenes of him going through numerous financial negotiations and meetings start feeling tiresome soon. How does he feel about what he does? I don't think we, the audience, ever get to know him very well, but he does not really carry an aura of mystery around him either because the writing leaves his traits too scarce. Some might call this lack of clearness subtlety, but I would have wanted to see more clues about Vendig's thoughts and how he became what he is at the dramatic ending.

Regardless of my complaints above, I enjoyed many aspects of the film. For one thing, the acting is generally good throughout; especially the women are at home in their roles, from the beautiful Diana Lynn in a double role as Martha and Mallory to Lucille Bremer as the frustrated Christa Mansfield and Martha Vickers as Vendig's fiancée Susan. Sydney Greenstreet also delivers a great performance as Bremer's on-screen husband Buck Mansfield, an aging businessman who has to face his limitations due to Vendig's schemes. On the other hand though, the kid actors in the first flashback are not as impressive as the adults, but Ruthless is hardly the first (or last) movie with kids as the weakest link. Zachary Scott's "old" makeup could have been more convincing too; a small moustache is hardly enough to convey the feel of an older man. Other than that, the melancholic-looking Scott suits the lead role somewhat comfortably.

Some of the shadowy photography in the exterior scenes and low camera angles looks pretty nice, even though the visuals are not really as starkly contrasted as in many proper noirs. It is probably best to see Ruthless as a withdrawn character study instead of expecting anything very 'hard-boiled' to ever step into the picture. In the end, with more fleshed out character development Ruthless could have been a very enjoyable film, but I think it is easily watchable as it is now as well, flawed or not.

RUTHLESS seems to be Edgar G. Ulmers attempt to film a story similar to CITIZEN KANE. Like CITIZEN KANE, RUTHLESS is the story of the rise and fall of man from a humble background who rises to the top, destroying several people along the way, only to end up having his past catch up with him at the end. RUTHLESS also has CITIZEN KANE's flashback structure and both characters come from quaint small towns. Unlike Charles Kane, Horace Wooddruff Vendig is a far more ruthless character and- unlike Charles Kane- evokes little sympathy. He destroys his first love, first by stealing her from his best friend, then dumping her for another woman when he meets another girl whose family can provide him with better connections to move the economic ladder. The women he uses, with the exception of his first love Martha, evoke little sympathy. In a way they are just as ruthless as Vendig. The women are solely attracted to him by his power and wealth, and when they are discarded, the viewer can't help feel they had it coming. Don't complain when you play with vipers and then get bitten would be my advice to these women.

RUTHLESS doesn't quite deserve the praise some viewers have recently heaped upon it. The pacing is sometimes off and the film is a bit overlong. The cast is good, with Sydney Greenstreet giving as usual (if at times over the top) attention grabbing performance. Director Ulmer handles the direction with confidence and style. Overall, RUTHLESS is a not bad imitation of a much better film, but when viewing it, the viewer can't help think something is lacking.