Executive Suite (1954)

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Sure it is set in 1953, and the details have changed, but somehow it all feels quite contemporary what with maneuvering in the stock market by way of insider information, getting ahead on the corporate ladder via blackmail, threats and general sweaty-palmed conniving. All that modern "stuff". It's got an all star 1950's cast with those fantastic sonorous voices, Walter Pigeon, Dean Jagger, William Holden, Paul Douglas, Barbara Stanwyck. Plus particularly slimy Louis Calhern and Fredric March (hiss-boo!) Shelley Winters lends a touch of glamour. Nina Foch is the picture of efficiency as the executive secretary and is actually one of the most "real" of the characters. June Allyson, as always is "long suffering" and "oh so understanding" .. ugh. Even if you are not "into" corporate workings or 50's drama, it may just catch and keep your attention because it is not clear who will actually get the job until the very end... and this ensemble cast is outstanding.

High class corporate intrigue/soap opera with an outstanding cast. Wise once again proves his dexterity with most any genre by steering this somewhat stagy drama smoothly over the hurdles.He's aided by a great cast that could have only been pulled together by one of the top studios during its peak years. As the main couple William Holden and June Allyson are surprisingly simpatico as the idealistic young husband and wife whose happy home life and future are suddenly jeopardized by an unexpected turn of events. His intense, reactionary temperament and her sunny, somewhat quivery rectitude on the surface would seem an odd fit but instead they come across as a long married couple whose differences only strengthen their union. As far as the other men go, Fredric March and Louis Calhern are interesting contrasts as two kinds of opportunist. March a resolute, basically principled bean counter who allows his ambition to compromise his integrity and Calhern a profligate heel who miscalculates at the wrong moment. Walter Pidgeon's character doesn't get to do much but be exasperated at different people and on the phone, he's more of a plot device to move the story forward. To a lesser extent the same is true of Paul Douglas' harassed salesman but he does get a couple of chances to flesh out his character in his interactions with Shelley Winters.Considering this is a 50's boardroom narrative it's nice to see several decent women roles included besides June's. Barbara Stanwyck as befits her star status gets the juiciest role, even if it is limited in actual screen time. At first her big emotional outburst seems overdone until you realize it's decades of frustration and pain she's pouring out, the rest of the time she cool and classy. Shelley Winters' secretary has a vulnerability not common in her work but she plays it well. That leaves Nina Foch, an excellent actress and she's fine as the dutiful executive secretary but she was Oscar nominated for this and that's a puzzler. Of all the parts in the picture hers is the lest fleshed out. She's a steadying force but nothing else, we learn nothing of her and she doesn't make much of an impact on the flow of the film.Similar in structure to Patterns, The Power and the Prize and the much glossier Women's World if you like films about power struggles and the backstage machinations involved with them you're sure to find this enjoyable.

As most other reviewers, I found this a delightful watch; all the actors are right on and the story is gripping. But I am amazed by the number of reviewers who labor under the notion that this is a film about "big business." Given the numbers of the shares of stock and their prices, even at 1954 rates, this is quite a small business and most of the shares are closely held (by the daughter of the founder); it's puzzling how the SEC would permit the shares of such a business to be publicly traded. It's also puzzling how the profits of such an outfit could support the salaries of the executives/board members shown in the film. In this respect, this film is similar to Cash McCall, based on a novel by the same author,where the business involved is tiny compared to the scale of, e.g., the top thousand American corporations by any measure, sales, capitalization, etc.

I highly recommend this film. Great acting and a great story. Just one short comment. William Holden's character has dated ideals in that he wants to produce something of quality for the public not just answer to the share holders and raise the stock.Louis Calherns character (The bad guy) is really the one that is up to date, (at least since the late 1970's in terms of corporate ideals) in that corporations only concern is share holders and getting the cheapest merchandise. Read China, everything else be dammed. This is the only area that I saw that was dated. I love to see the old shots of New York and the typical fashions of the time.