Ruthless (Edgar J. Ulmer, 1948)

Not a tremendous film by any means, but one containing plenty of pleasures, the classical cinematography and lighting and the performances by a not-quite first class but very watchable ensemble (Zachary Scott, Louis Hayward, Diana Lynn, Martha Vickers, and - crucially - Sidney Greenstreet) chief among them. The plot could have been something of a Kane knock-off but it either lacks the ambition or has the sense not to attempt anything so rich; nevertheless, one of the main problems with the film is the way it keeps ironing out any ambiguities that crop up (we get it, its about ruthless ambition - did you notice the title?). (The attempts at political analysis are particularly half-hearted and easily jettisoned when the film is bored of them.) One result of this is that the ending - which does contain some genuine ambiguity - is confusing in a way I don't think can have been intended. But it does follow a speech by Scott that intriguingly lays bare the conventional hokum of Hollywood seduction, raising the question of what difference it makes when it is so clear that these conventions and formulae are fully understood by those engaging in them to be, precisely, only so many conventions and formulae. The thought that it might not make any difference is genuinely frightening.