Plot-- A small factory town is faced with a loss of jobs and economic hardship unless ways can be found for the local plant to again become market competitive. Because of labor troubles, Brad Adams (Bridges) is promoted from union ranks to top management, and it's now up to him to save the plant and the town.
As I recall the movie got more editorialized mention than expected, probably because of the unusual subject matter. It was a period when the Cold War and McCarthyism were reaching fever pitch. Actually, the screenplay itself can be taken as celebrating the entrepreneurial and adaptive features of American capitalism. Nonetheless, touchy issues like labor vs. management and rippling effects of unemployment are raised in uncommonly focused fashion. Of course, the issues, as intense as they are, get agreeably resolved in the happy ending requirement of the day. Still, the issues themselves are dealt with in a fairly edifying way, unusual for that time or even now.
Then too, old Hollywood never had much time for controversial topics like these, ones that don't easily lend themselves to popular themes. Nonetheless, the approach here is semi-documentary, aiming for realism rather than melodrama. That surprised me since director Siodmak cut his teeth on the melodramatics of stylish noir and crime drama. Still, the main producer is Louis de Rochement, a pioneer of documentary drama— The House on 92nd Street (1945), Boomerang (1947) et al. So, I guess the more literal approach is not too surprising. Besides, Siodmak adapts well to the different format. Except for Lloyd Bridges, the cast is largely unknowns (at the time), as it should be. After all, the emphasis is on narrative, not on movie stars. Filming on location (New Hampshire), with what I expect are a lot of local extras, also lends a documentary feel.
Two points. First, notice how the union's loose cannon, Al Webster (Hamilton), has no particular political connections driving him. Instead, he appears power hungry for his own sake. Rather surprisingly, the movie steers clear of politics altogether, which is helpful since we're then allowed to concentrate on the dynamics of market capitalism. Second, note how Brad is ultimately forced to bend to the logic of the marketplace no matter how he personally feels. This illustrates a clash rooted deeply in the framework of a capitalist system. Namely, the clash between priorities-- that is, which comes first, profits or human needs. Theory tries to show how putting profits first ultimately best serves human needs. But whether that's so in the real world is open to debate.
Regardless of how the movie finesses these issues, they're still with us in many ways — loss of manufacturing jobs (now going abroad), crumbling cities of the rust belt, need for cost-lowering innovation, labor unrest, etc. So, by no means is the film an obsolete artifact of the past, and therein lies its real value.
As I recall the movie got more editorialized mention than expected, probably because of the unusual subject matter. It was a period when the Cold War and McCarthyism were reaching fever pitch. Actually, the screenplay itself can be taken as celebrating the entrepreneurial and adaptive features of American capitalism. Nonetheless, touchy issues like labor vs. management and rippling effects of unemployment are raised in uncommonly focused fashion. Of course, the issues, as intense as they are, get agreeably resolved in the happy ending requirement of the day. Still, the issues themselves are dealt with in a fairly edifying way, unusual for that time or even now.
Then too, old Hollywood never had much time for controversial topics like these, ones that don't easily lend themselves to popular themes. Nonetheless, the approach here is semi-documentary, aiming for realism rather than melodrama. That surprised me since director Siodmak cut his teeth on the melodramatics of stylish noir and crime drama. Still, the main producer is Louis de Rochement, a pioneer of documentary drama— The House on 92nd Street (1945), Boomerang (1947) et al. So, I guess the more literal approach is not too surprising. Besides, Siodmak adapts well to the different format. Except for Lloyd Bridges, the cast is largely unknowns (at the time), as it should be. After all, the emphasis is on narrative, not on movie stars. Filming on location (New Hampshire), with what I expect are a lot of local extras, also lends a documentary feel.
Two points. First, notice how the union's loose cannon, Al Webster (Hamilton), has no particular political connections driving him. Instead, he appears power hungry for his own sake. Rather surprisingly, the movie steers clear of politics altogether, which is helpful since we're then allowed to concentrate on the dynamics of market capitalism. Second, note how Brad is ultimately forced to bend to the logic of the marketplace no matter how he personally feels. This illustrates a clash rooted deeply in the framework of a capitalist system. Namely, the clash between priorities-- that is, which comes first, profits or human needs. Theory tries to show how putting profits first ultimately best serves human needs. But whether that's so in the real world is open to debate.
Regardless of how the movie finesses these issues, they're still with us in many ways — loss of manufacturing jobs (now going abroad), crumbling cities of the rust belt, need for cost-lowering innovation, labor unrest, etc. So, by no means is the film an obsolete artifact of the past, and therein lies its real value.