retro movie review: Other People's Money

Danny DeVito may be a versatile actor, but his career was at its height when he stuck with playing essentially the same role over and over, that of the conniving, greedy, ruthless cad who doesn't just indulge in his own vices, but delights and prides in them.  From 1978 to 1992 -- or, more specifically, from Taxi (the show in which he first established this persona) up to and including Batman Returns (after which he started seeking more variety in his roles), he played pretty more or less the same character no less than eleven times, and we loved him for it.  His secret was that he and his writers always found a way to make his characters somehow likable despite their almost evil actions.

Despite the multitude of examples to choose from, there are, in my mind, two films which best represent what I think of as "classic Danny DeVito," "best" not necessarily in terms of some sort of contest of quality, but because they really explore the Danny DeVito character we came to know and love.  Those two films are the box office success Ruthless People and the more obscure Other People's Money.

We are introduced to the DeVito character through a soliloquy he delivers directly to the camera, to the viewers, in which he has one point and one point only:  how much he loves, loves, loves money.  "I love money itself even more than the stuff that money can buy!" he enthuses.  The character's name is Lawrence J. Garfield, but he's better known on Wall Street (and to his victims elsewhere) as "Larry the Liquidator," because he likes to buy companies specifically in order to liquidate them for the cash value of their assetts.  It may sound like he's just sending his money in circles, but he's got a system that obviously works, judging by his corner office, his name on the company header, and his lavish lifestyle.  To Garfield, money is not just a means of commerce or earning a living (although these aspects of money are dear to his heart), but he personifies money as something that "gives you such unconditional love."  To emphasize his feelings on the matter, he likens money to a dog that doesn't poop on the carpet.

The story is set in motion when Garfield's computer alerts him to the fact that stock in New England Wire & Cable has gone up one and a half points.  This motivates him to start a process that is clearly routine for him, the process of buying up enough stock so that he will have the authority to begin liquidation.  Interestingly, his first tactic is to approach the head of the company, Chairman Andrew "Jorgy" Jorgensen, in an attempt to convince Mr. Jorgensen that liquidation is the most profitable and wisest possible future for the company, as far as the profits of shareholders' stock is concerned.  Mr. Jorgensen, whose father founded the company and left it to him before it went public, is appalled by Garfield's plan and wants no part of it.  He feels so strongly about this that he doesn't even want to talk about Garfield's plan.  Some of his closest friends/ highest employees, especially company vice president William J. "Bill" Coles (Dean Jones) try to talk some sense into Mr. Jorgensen, try to get him to at least listen to Garfield, or if not that, at least prepare for what might happen if Garfield goes away angry.  Mr. Jorgensen will have none of it.  We admire his principle, but immediately recognize that his stubbornness will be his downfall.  Garfield knows what he's doing, and he approached Mr. Jorgensen only as a courtesy, not because he really needs Jorgy for putting his plan into motion.

Ostensibly, the conflict at the center of the story has now been established, as Garfield uses every trick in the book to launch a hostile takeover, and Mr. Jorgensen relies on help from friends,  grass-roots tactics, and appeals to tradition to block Garfield, reasoning that "this company isn't just about making money, we've become a family!"

In a Frank Capra movie, Garfield would be the villain and Mr. Jorgensen the hero.  But the writers here aren't interested in such a black and white approach.  They present Garfield as ruthless, but also practical and responsible ("I'm here to make you money," he reasonably points out at a shareholders' meeting), and Mr. Jorgensen, for all his sincere dignity, honor, and integrity, comes across as naive, out of touch, and so sentimental that he is blind to reality.  Furthermore, as Garfield points out, Mr. Jorgensen's "this is first and foremost a family" approach to running a business is hurting a lot of people in the pocketbook.

A few words about the casting:  The two male leads are perfect for their roles.  I've already pretty much said that even if the role of Larry the Liquidator wasn't originally written for DeVito, it feels like it was.  It's almost impossible to imagine anyone else (certainly anyone else in 1991, the year of the film's release) playing the character so well.

The same can be said for Mr. Jorgensen.  There aren't many famous actors who could play Mr. Jorgensen without making the character look like a doddering old fool -- which would have killed the movie.  For this role, you need someone who will sound important and right when he talks about his naive, out-dated reasons for willfully sacrificing profit in favor of tradition; that's the only way to make him seem less like a fool or a victim, and more like a worthy opponent to Garfield.  The only other living (at the time) actor that might have worked was Jimmy Stewart.  The filmmakers managed to get someone just as good if not better:  Gregory Peck.  The man played Abraham Lincoln and Atticus Finch, for God's sake.  When Gregory Peck talks about dignity and honor, you listen.

Now it seems I've set up the basics of the movie, but I've yet to mention the final key element:  In a partial realization that he's out of his element, Mr. Jorgensen hires his own step-daughter to help block Garfield's takeover attempt.  The daughter, played by Penelope Ann Miller, is Kate Sullivan, a Manhattan attorney, and the character provides two functions in the film:  First, she is sort of a bridge between the two opposing characters, as she exhibits the honorable values of Mr. Jorgensen, but the tactics she uses to defend those values are every bit as manipulative as the tactics of Lawrence Garfield.

Second, she provides Garfield with a romantic interest.  This is no dumb romance subplot shoe-horned into the script for purposes of Hollywood formula, no sir.  The chemistry between Garfield and Sullivan becomes the very heart of the film.  Kate is repelled by many of the more obvious aspects of Garfield's character, but the fact that he is able to charm and surprise her speaks volumes for his character, it shows that he's more than just a ruthless Wall Street banker, that he has a heart, and if so, maybe there's something to be said for his plans for New England Wire & Cable.  The fact that Garfield and Sullivan are bitter opponents, and yet also able to find common ground -- not only with the possibility of romance, but also when Kate secretly finds wisdom in some of what Garfield says about his job and its implications for her clients -- well, all of this is what makes this movie a work of intelligence, and not a simple "Big Bad Banker" melodrama.

If Other People's Money has a flaw, it's in the stage origins.  There are scenes that seem like a play, in both their dialogue and staging, and hey, I like plays, but I came here to watch a movie.  But between the intelligent, even thought-provoking writing, the perfect casting, and the exemplary Danny DeVito performance, this movie has a lot to offer.