More money, more problems. Money doesn’t bring happiness. Money doesn’t talk, it swears.
All of that wisdom is on full display in the unfortunately stale, all too obvious 1948 film “Ruthless.”
A flashback infused chronicle of the rise and fall of one Horace Woodruff Vendig (Zachary Scott), “Ruthless” is all surface and no depth in more ways than one.
Vic Lambdin (Louis Hayward) has been summoned by his old friend and business partner, Vendig. Why? He is not sure. But, he’s eager to find out.
In a chit-chat and backseat ride to Vendig’s estate, with his girlfriend Molly Flagg (Diana Lynn) by his side, Lamdin discusses the strained relationship he and his big deal buddy had some years ago. Apparently, there was a falling out. Though he skims on the details, it is clear that something big went down between the two. To hear Lambdin talk of Vendig, all his old buddy is missing is a set of horns and a trident.
That’s why it’s all the more surprising when Lambdin and Flagg walk in on Vendig as he tells a large gathering of well-to-do folks that he is creating a peace foundation. Not only that, but he is donating his estate for its use and a cool $25 mil to get it all up and running.
Through long, drawn out flashbacks we learn all about Vendig’s humble beginnings and his later ruthless machinations. From cruelly treated son of a broken home to scheming wheeler-dealer with more harm than heart, we watch Vendig choose filthy lucre over love every single time.
Ironically, Vendig’s first break in life – the break without which all his riches would not come – arrives as a result of his doing a genuinely unselfish act. After saving the daughter of a well off family from drowning, Vendig is then saved by them. Set to be abandoned by his awful mother, Kate (Joyce Arling) and having a father too caught up in gambling and womanizing to care for him, a grateful Mrs. Burnside (Edith Barrett) takes him in and raises him as one of her own.
There are many pleasures to be found in watching obscure b&w films from the post-war period of American filmmaking and seeing a familiar face is one of them.
The name Robert J. Anderson may not ring a bell with most, but one look at him would immediately bring a smile to the faces of many a classic movie fan. He once played one of the most famous movie characters of all time – George Bailey. Yes, Jimmy Stewart played him as an adult, but Anderson played him as a kid in several memorable scenes in the all-time Christmas classic, “It’s a Wonderful Life” (1946). That heartbreaking scene in the back of Mr. Gower’s drugstore gets me every time. It was great to see him here. Ironic, too, considering that he was playing a kid who would grow up to be much more Mr. Potter than George Bailey.
The type of film that gives old movies a bad name, “Ruthless” is dragged down by on-the-nose dialogue, overly dramatic acting and several incredulous scenes where victims of betrayal react with immediate understanding and acceptance.
Vendig’s trip to the top is without surprise or any trace of inner struggle. He’s more programmed money mad robot than human being. In one scene, he confesses to his first love that there is something wrong with him and it disturbs him. Yet, as the casualties of his greed pile up, he shows no signs of being bothered by any of it. Past possible explanations are non-existent. He is greedy and no one – certainly not any of his “loved” ones – will slow his steady climb to the top of Moola Mountain. So, I guess he’s just innately greedy and cruel. That’s fine and all, but it renders many of his scenes predictable and simplistic. You can see the cardboard sticking out from his shirt sleeves and pant legs from a mile away.
The bond between boyhood friends Lambdin and Vendig doesn’t set off many sparks either. One clear opportunity to set the twosome ablaze has water dumped on it almost immediately. Why? No idea. What I do know is that not even the most brilliant mathematician could make that scene add up.
I picked this one up due to the name after the D – Edgar G. Ulmer. Having read his name for years and years – beside words like “cult” and “odd” – I thought I’d give this DVD a spin and see what came out of it.
Ulmer does have his fans. Though, I can’t see any of them pointing to “Ruthless” in hopes of attracting new converts. Cleary, this was one he was doing for the bean counters. I hear “Strange Illusion” (1945) and “Detour” (1945) are the ones to watch. I’ll seek them out.
Don’t get me wrong – “Ruthless” looks great. The b&w images are crisp and detailed. The shadows are a thick, goopy black. The print is pristine – as if running through a projector for the very first time. The sets and mattes look convincing enough and if they were made on the cheap, you would never know.
In other words, “Ruthless” is competently made and masterfully dull – not a genuinely interesting moment to be found. Each scene is shot in an unimaginative and predictable way without any sense of play or invention. It’s all point, shoot, say your lines and let’s get outta here by 5.
