This is a movie version of an acclaimed TV production. I can't imagine that it made any money. Would people pay to see a downer with no real action, no romantic sub-plot, or worse, with a story-line all about the cut-throat ethics of big business which people generally hold in low regard anyway. I don't know if the movie made money, but as pure drama, the film's absolutely riveting. Understandably, the story and script put Rod Serling on the literary map in a big way. As several of his Twilight Zone scripts also show, Serling viewed the emerging corporate world of the 1950's with considerable doubts.
Except for a brief use of subjective camera, director Cook films in a straightforward manner, letting the strong story carry events. I like the way he sets up the world of big business in the opening shots-- the cathedrals of capital towering over Wall Street pedestrians, the church bells signaling the sanctity of the mission, the subtle pecking-order among the secretaries based on who their boss is. It all smacks of industrious efficiency, revealed later on, however, as a very ruthless efficiency. The upwards shot of Heflin standing in the over-arched hallway tells us right away he's a man big enough to compete in this demanding environment.
Heflin is great as the small-town success suddenly promoted to the big city headquarters. Trouble is he's also brought a down-home sense of ethics, which handicaps his ability to survive the bloody board meetings presided over by CEO Everitt Sloane, aptly described as a human "barracuda". Unlike the other characters, Sloane's Walter Ramsey comes perilously close to a one-note caricature in his cold-hearted drive, salvaged only by a single-minded respect for competency and a desire to encourage full business potential. It's this latter that makes an otherwise implausible ending somewhat believable-- (I'd still like to know if the movie's compromised ending was Serling's original intent).
The cast is outstanding for their skill rather than for their looks, no small development in the glamor-obsessed 50's. Ed Begley's Bill Briggs makes for a tragic figure, an affecting left-over from the world of small business where an owner could address every employee by name. He and small town Heflin hit it off immediately, thereby heightening Heflin's predicament, the film's dramatic centerpiece. That post-war decade didn't provide many big roles for middle-age or plain-looking women. Both Wilson and Straight show how much the talent pool extended beyond the bosomy young things. Watch Wilson pause over the little potted plant that adorns her desk as she quits her job. Should she take it or not. Of course she takes it, because she's loyal not only to the needy Briggs, but to a tiny thing that would otherwise not survive the intense environment. It's a slight character touch like this that makes a movie stand out from the rest.
The key scene in the library is well handled. There, Heflin's wife (Straight) demonstrates her own wifely ambition, routed in typical 50's fashion through the success of her husband. When he hesitates, she insists on grabbing the brass ring, thereby forcing him to face his own suppressed ambition within the Darwinian world of corporate executives. As a result, I'm not sure I buy her sudden willingness at the end to "start over" away from the big house and fancy car. In fact, as good as the script is, there are a number of softening concessions to both people and plot.
Note Sloane's rationale for laying off employees in a distant plant-- By increasing efficiency through layoff, he asserts, new opportunities will eventually open up that will improve everyone's lot down the line. Some such version amounts to textbook theory and no doubt is sometimes true. But I wonder how true it is for millions of laid-off Americans whose good jobs have now been shipped overseas, and whose prospects now don't extend much beyond the local Mac Donald's. How true is it for them. No doubt, in Sloane's book, I'm indulging in rank sentiment and not the hard-headed principles that make capitalism continue to expand (but perhaps, not "grow"). That's the movie's crux and one that continues to press 50 years later. Patterns presents a somewhat hopeful 50's look at the big corporation; I'm not sure that a 21st century view would be quite so hopeful.
