History Film / OtherPeoplesMoney

A 1991 romantic comedy-drama directed by Norman Jewison, adapted from Jerry Sterner's play of the same name and staring Danny [=DeVito=] and Penelope Ann Miller.

* HelloAttorney- Kate. See also MaleGaze

1991 {{drama}}/{{romantic comedy}} staring Danny [=DeVito=] and Penelope Ann Miller. Lawrence Garfield, a/k/a "Larry the Liqudator," ([=DeVito=]) is an apparently heartless, but secretly lonely, corporate raider launching a hostile takeover of a company that makes wire and cable. The founder of the company reaches out to Kate (Penelope Ann Miller), to stop him. Larry soon becomes enamoured of her (seeing as how she's, you know, Penelope Ann Miller--click the link under Male Gaze), leading him to try to beat her and woo her at the same time.

** If they were making conventional wire and cable, that would be true, but Larry's mention of fibre-optics implies that their business is ''communications'' wire and cable, which ''is'' obsolescent. The wire and cable division ''is'' losing money, and has been for years. That's how the whole situation arose in the first place.

* HollywoodLaw: Kate never suggests to Jorgy some of the most common anti-takeover defenses, notably the poison pill or the crown jewel defense. The film was released in 1991, and is presumably set in the late eighties, except that by that time the takeover movement of the eighties was waning in no small part because of defenses like the poison pill. Any competent corporate attorney at that time would have suggested those defenses to her client, but Kate never does. Probably the filmmakers knew this but decided that, one, [[ViewersAreMorons they didn't want to have to have Kate explain to the audience what a poison pill is]], and, two, if Jorgy had used either of those defenses that probably would have been the end of it and there would have been no movie. The whole point of those defenses, after all, is that they can pretty much stop takeovers dead in their tracks.[[note]]It's not quite that simple, but close enough.[[/note]]

** If they were making conventional wire and cable, that would be true, but Larry's mention of fibre-optics implies that their business is ``communications`` wire and cable, which ``is`` obsolescent. The wire and cable division ``is`` losing money, and has been for years. That's how the whole situation arose in the first place.

** If they were making conventional wire and cable, that would be true, but Larry's mention of fibre-optics implies that their business is "communications" wire and cable, which "is" obsolescent. The wire and cable division "is" losing money, and has been for years. That's how the whole situation arose in the first place.

* HollywoodLaw: Kate never suggests to her Jorgy some of the most common anti-takeover defenses, notably the poison pill or the crown jewel defense. The film was released in 1991, and is presumably set in the late eighties, except that by that time the takeover movement of the eighties was waning in no small part because of defenses like the poison pill. Any competent corporate attorney at that time would have suggested those defenses to her client, but Kate never does. Probably the filmmakers knew this but decided that, one, [[ViewersAreMorons they didn't want to have to have Kate explain to the audience what a poison pill is]], and, two, if Jorgy had used either of those defenses that probably would have been the end of it and there would have been no movie. The whole point of those defenses, after all, is that they can pretty much stop takeovers dead in their tracks.[[note]]It's not quite that simple, but close enough.[[/note]]

* CorruptCorporateExecutive: A reconstruction. Sure Larry's actions might seem ruthlessly cruel but there's no real malice behind them other than the desire to make money. Which he does so in an entirely legitimate and legal fashion. Neither does he have the overwhelming disdain for those beneath him that is a hallmark of the character type.

* AmbiguouslyJewish: In the original play, Larry's last name is the very Jewish-sounding Garfinkle. In the film, it's changed to Garfield, possibly to avoid UnfortunateImplications.

* StrawmanHasAPoint / JerkassHasAPoint: A rare in-universe example. Larry is seen as the villain by most of the characters in the film, because he's ruthless and rich and trying to make money by breaking up a small, old-fashioned business. But when we actually listen to him, he makes the very good point that the company, though well-intentioned, has been losing its stockholders' money for years, it will eventually go bankrupt anyway due to technological obsolescence, and this is the only way for the stockholders to get some of their money back.

* AntiVillain: Gregory Peck's character.

* CorruptCorporateExecutive: A reconstruction. Sure Larry's actions might seem ruthlessly cruel but there's no real malice behind them other than the desire to make money. Which he does so in an entirely legitimate and legal fashion. Neither does he have the overwhelming disdain for those beneath him that is a hallmark of the character type.

* Reconstruction: Of the CorruptCorporateExecutive. Sure Larry's actions might seem ruthlessly cruel but there's no real malice behind his actions other than the capitalist desire to make money. Which he does so in a legitimate and legal fashion. Neither does he have the overwhelming disdain for those beneath him that is a hallmark of the character type.

* VillainProtagonist: For all intents and purposes, Larry Garfield is a hilarious and less malicious version of old Mr. Potter from ''It's A Wonderful Life'', a greedy corporate executive driven by greed and the accumulation of personal wealth even at the expense of destroying the economy of an entire town.

* AntiHero: Larry the Liquidator (type 1) greedy, materialistic, lecherous, and ruthless in the pursuit of money. However, unlike similar characters he pursues wealth in entirely legal ways, views taking bribes from those he targets as stealing, and (being played by Danny Devito) if you're not one of the companies he's trying to liquidate he actually seems like a fun guy to know.

* [[EvenEvilHasStandards Even Corporate Raiders Have Standards]]: When the the wife of Gregory Peck's character attempts to bribe Larry with a million dollar payoff to leave them alone, Larry not only rejects it but compares it to stealing from orphans and widows.

* AntiVillain: Gregory Peck's character. Sure he may seem like a nice guy but his stubborn refusal and

* TitleDrop- Larry uses a shell corporation in his takeover schemes called OPM. Which stands for...

* UnderdogsNeverLose: Notably subverted. The film pits a wealthy corporate raider played by DannyDevito against a hard-working, old-fashioned, New England factory owner who [[FatherToHisMen genuinuely cares about his employees]] and his family business and is played by GregoryPeck. At the climax of the film, Gregory Peck makes an empassioned speech about industry and America, about honor and old-fashioned values. His opponent counters with a speech about how he can make the stockholders more money... [[RealityEnsues and wins easily]].

* StrawmanHasAPoint / JerkassHasAPoint: A rare in-universe example. Larry is seen as the villain by most of the characters in the film, because he's ruthless and rich and trying to make money by breaking up a small, old-fashioned business. But when we actually listen to him, he makes the very good point that the company, though well-intentioned, has been losing its stockholder's money for years, it will eventually go bankrupt anyway, and this is the only way for the stockholders to get some of their money back.

* StrawmanHasAPoint: A rare in-universe example. Larry is seen as the villain by most of the characters in the film, because he's ruthless and rich and trying to make money by breaking up a small, old-fashioned business. But when we actually listen to him, he makes the very good point that the company, though well-intentioned, has been losing its stockholder's money for years, it will eventually go bankrupt anyway, and this is the only way for the stockholders to get some of their money back.

* StrawmanHasAPoint: A rare in-universe example. Larry is seen as the villain by most of the characters in the film, because he's ruthless and rich and trying to make money by breaking up a small, old-fashioned business. But when we actually listen to him, he makes the very good point that the company, though well-intentioned, has been losing it's stockholder's money for years, it will eventually go bankrupt anyway, and this is the only way for the stockholders to get some of their money back.