This is another review from my mini-marathon of original live TV classics and the movies they made of them. I've done "Marty" and will do "Requiem for a Heavyweight", "Bang the Drum Slowly" and "The Days of Wine and Roses". I'd love to see the original "12 Angry Men" with Bob Cummings but it doesn't seem to be available. I'd love to see a cable channel devoted to these old shows, even some non-classics if they represented early work by famous actors, directors and writers, (as so many of them did). But this will do for now. (Note: the 1955 TV Patters is hard to find on the IMDb. It doesn't seem to appear on the actor's credits. Look for Kraft Television Theater, Season 8. Strangely, the videotape of the TV Patterns also has Van Heflin on the cover, even though Richard Kiley played his role in that production.) "Patterns" was the teleplay that first made Rod Serling a big name in 1955. Of all these shows, this is the one where the film, which was made in 1956, is most similar to the play simply because most of the action takes place in corporate offices and a boardroom. The film is somewhat longer and has some establishing shots filmed on what appear to be the actual streets of New York. The script for the movie has only minor differences. The real difference is in the casting and there it's primarily the lead role.
In the play, Richard Kiley plays Fred Staples, a former football All-American who has proved himself as an executive for a small business back in Ohio and now has been hired by a big tycoon, Walter Ramsey, played by Everett Sloane, (in both versions), in the greatest performance of his distinguished career. Ed Begley, (also in both) plays the only executive in the firm who is willing to stand up to Sloane and who has taken so much abuse over the years that it's affecting his health. (Interestingly, Begley's character in the TV version is called Andy Sloane bit this is changed to Bill Briggs in the film: perhaps the only instance in which the same actor played the same character in two different productions of the same story, but the character had two different names. I wonder if it has something to do with Everett Sloane playing the boss, although I don't know what.) Elizabeth Wilson is strong as the loyal secretary in both, (se would turn up a generation later in 9 to 5). Ronnie Welsh is Begley's son in both. Both versions were directed by Fielder Cook. I like the way Cook handled the death scene, shooting it from the dying man's prospective, in the film.
The big difference is that Van Heflin played Staples in the film. Kiley is a fine actor and does a nice job playing a "nice guy" torn between his sensitivity and his ambition. Somehow, though, Heflin is even better. He has a gravitas Kiley, (at least in this early role), seems to lack. He just seems to carry a great moral force with him along with a basic friendliness and ideals. His wife is played by Beatrice Straight, who 20 years later won an Oscar for playing the wife of William Holden's corporate executive in "Network". Straight here is a glamorous, seductive and ambitious, not in an evil way but it's clear she's wants to be the "woman behind the successful man". I find her a little more interesting than June Dayton who plays the role in the TV version. You can spot a future TV series star in each version: Elizabeth Montgomery is a secretary in the TV version and Andrew Duggan shows up as one of the executives in the film.
The strength of the script is that no character is shown as all good or all bad. Begley is admirable in the way he maintains his values at the expense of his health but why does he keep taking all this abuse instead of finding a place in life where he can actually accomplish something? He talks about putting his kid through college but it seems he just doesn't want to give up his executive position. Kiley/Helfin have values but ambitions as well that keep them from leaving. Sloane is a monster but he defends himself with the "all boats rise with the tide" theory that by building a successful business it will help everyone in the long run. He also senses that he needs something more than "yes" men around him and so he will never fire Begley, (even if he kills him) and wants the new guy to stay and take his place.
Finally we come to the essential question: Are SOBs like Sloane necessary to make the tough decisions that have to be made that benefit us all? They would certainly have us believe that. They have to defend themselves so often that they keep saying that. But I've seen "nice" guys make tough decisions, too. I've seen decisions made with regard to their immediate effect on people. It can be done that way, you know. Characters like Sloane are the way they are because that's what they want to be, not because we need them to be that way.
In the play, Richard Kiley plays Fred Staples, a former football All-American who has proved himself as an executive for a small business back in Ohio and now has been hired by a big tycoon, Walter Ramsey, played by Everett Sloane, (in both versions), in the greatest performance of his distinguished career. Ed Begley, (also in both) plays the only executive in the firm who is willing to stand up to Sloane and who has taken so much abuse over the years that it's affecting his health. (Interestingly, Begley's character in the TV version is called Andy Sloane bit this is changed to Bill Briggs in the film: perhaps the only instance in which the same actor played the same character in two different productions of the same story, but the character had two different names. I wonder if it has something to do with Everett Sloane playing the boss, although I don't know what.) Elizabeth Wilson is strong as the loyal secretary in both, (se would turn up a generation later in 9 to 5). Ronnie Welsh is Begley's son in both. Both versions were directed by Fielder Cook. I like the way Cook handled the death scene, shooting it from the dying man's prospective, in the film.
The big difference is that Van Heflin played Staples in the film. Kiley is a fine actor and does a nice job playing a "nice guy" torn between his sensitivity and his ambition. Somehow, though, Heflin is even better. He has a gravitas Kiley, (at least in this early role), seems to lack. He just seems to carry a great moral force with him along with a basic friendliness and ideals. His wife is played by Beatrice Straight, who 20 years later won an Oscar for playing the wife of William Holden's corporate executive in "Network". Straight here is a glamorous, seductive and ambitious, not in an evil way but it's clear she's wants to be the "woman behind the successful man". I find her a little more interesting than June Dayton who plays the role in the TV version. You can spot a future TV series star in each version: Elizabeth Montgomery is a secretary in the TV version and Andrew Duggan shows up as one of the executives in the film.
The strength of the script is that no character is shown as all good or all bad. Begley is admirable in the way he maintains his values at the expense of his health but why does he keep taking all this abuse instead of finding a place in life where he can actually accomplish something? He talks about putting his kid through college but it seems he just doesn't want to give up his executive position. Kiley/Helfin have values but ambitions as well that keep them from leaving. Sloane is a monster but he defends himself with the "all boats rise with the tide" theory that by building a successful business it will help everyone in the long run. He also senses that he needs something more than "yes" men around him and so he will never fire Begley, (even if he kills him) and wants the new guy to stay and take his place.
Finally we come to the essential question: Are SOBs like Sloane necessary to make the tough decisions that have to be made that benefit us all? They would certainly have us believe that. They have to defend themselves so often that they keep saying that. But I've seen "nice" guys make tough decisions, too. I've seen decisions made with regard to their immediate effect on people. It can be done that way, you know. Characters like Sloane are the way they are because that's what they want to be, not because we need them to be that way.