Part bank heist. Part Christmas tale. All Hammer.
Den of Thieves is being released this week because, quite frankly, the only time of year when a film of its limited abilities could ever hope to prosper would be the dead zone that is January. The movie tries to put a fresh, memorable spin on the bank heist genre, but ultimately comes across as an overload of cliches.
The film does itself no favors by mistaking elaborate action sequences for thrilling twists and real suspense before shamelessly ripping off one of the greatest caper films ever made. Den of Thieves would have done well by taking a page from the 1961’s Cash on Demand, a heist offering from the good folks over at Hammer that remains one of the studio’s best.
Set a few days before Christmas, Cash on Demand stars Hammer leading man Peter Cushing as Harry Fordyce, the manager of a bank in a small English town. Stern and no-nonsense, Fordyce runs a tight ship that includes calling out his staff on every type of error, from improperly balanced accounts to pens which are low on ink. Shortly after Fordyce informs an employee (Richard Vernon) that he is thinking of firing him, Colonel Gore Hepburn (Andre Morell), a representative from the bank’s insurance company, turns up for an inspection. Just as the two men begin to talk in private, a panicked phone call comes from Fordyce’s wife informing him that she and their son have been kidnapped and to do anything Hepburn says. Frantic, Fordyce is soon informed by Hepburn that he must do as he is instructed and help him rob the bank without arousing suspicion if he wants his family to live.
While it more than does right by the heist genre, Cash on Demand operates best as a cat-and-mouse tale between two polar opposite figures. Foregoing any flair or grandstanding, the mystery is wonderfully introduced with a business-like approach through a phone call, spelling the kinds of thrills a film such as this is capable of. From the moment Hepburn unveils his true identity and intentions, there’s a maddening sense of fear and panic that inserts itself into the film and never leaves. The most excruciating of all the elements remains the fact that Fordyce is surrounded by his staff, all of whom have the ability to stop Hepburn, but whose knowledge of the truth would result in the death of their employer’s family. In short, there’s help all around, but none he can reach for. The tightness of the film’s structure should also be applauded. While the film’s efficient, almost real-time feature was no doubt done because of its meager budget, it gives the story a quiet intensity. But the most dynamic aspect on the heist side of Cash on Demand lies in watching Hepburn enjoy and relish his crime while it’s in progress. Seeing him relax, drink some whiskey, and inquire whether or not his victim has read certain books makes Hepburn one of the most intriguing personalities ever to attempt a bank robbery in the history of film. The fact that Fordyce grows more and more panicked with every minute that passes only pleases Hepburn more.
It would be fair to call Cash on Demand a sort of ‘60s re-working of A Christmas Carol, particularly when it comes to the Scrooge-like persona of Fordyce. As a character, Fordyce was written as someone capable of exuding warmth, evidenced by the idea of him having a wife and son. Yet upon meeting him, it’s clear that he’s lost touch with his humanity. This is especially true where his staff is concerned. Before Hepburn enters the picture, Fordyce ponders letting go of his right hand man and has his employees, or “subordinates” as he calls them, so terrified of him that they must discuss their plans for a staff Christmas party in secret. Hepburn’s plan forces Fordyce to his lowest point and makes him re-discover the concept of pathos, the quest for redemption, and the priceless act of forgiveness as he is faced with losing everything that is truly important to him. For his part, Hepburn functions as a sort of ghost of Christmas present. The scene shortly after his arrival at the bank in which he contributes to the staff Christmas party fund in front of Fordyce is followed by his criticizing the bank manager for not contributing to the fund himself. In essence, through his crime Hepburn is forcing Fordyce to recognize the worth of the people around him. It’s a lesson which Fordyce receives in an ending which avoids traditional sentimentality, but still proves rich with empathy.
It’s the two central performances which make Cash on Demand tick with such pulsating energy. Cushing proves how undervalued of an actor he was with what was perhaps his strongest work. The way he takes Fordyce from an apathetic figure to a man doing everything in his power to keep his family alive is never anything but stunning, especially in the vast array of emotions Cushing brings forth in the process. In a career primarily remembered for performances filled with delightful terror, Cash on Demand is a revelatory and irrefutable example of Cushing’s skill as a versatile actor. It’s Morell who has the more delicious of the two roles, however, and the actor certainly knows it in the way he happily switches back and forth between Hepburn’s two sides. The actor makes his character gleeful and charming one moment while showcasing his fiendish nature the next, making both work to the greatest of effects.
With such an involving story and two fantastic performances, it might be easy to forget about the film’s Hammer pedigree. Sadly, Cash on Demand was given the kind of B-movie treatment films of its background often got, which included a scattered marginal release and not much chance of an afterlife. Despite strong reviews, Cash on Demand continues to exist as a somewhat obscure highlight in the Hammer library.
In a lot of ways, Cash on Demand remains a tribute to Hammer as a production company in terms of the way they were drawn to stories which offered audiences more than meets the eye and delivered them in the most efficient and effective of ways. I first found out about Cash on Demand during Noir City Austin 2017 at the Alamo Drafthouse Ritz, a yearly film festival geared towards celebrating underrated and little-seen noir and noir-stained titles that is put on by the Film Noir Foundation. The movie was the final selection of the festival, and it was most definitely a case of saving the best for last. While I enjoyed every film I saw at that festival, which I always tend to do, it was this one that stuck with me the most due to its tightness in filmmaking, the thrills it offered and the sheer heart of its deceptively simplistic story. Hopefully in time, enough film lovers will discover Cash on Demand and lift it up as both the Christmas favorite and the heist classic it deserves to be.
