In the wake of all the high praise being accorded Paul Thomas Anderson’s NO BLOOD FOR OIL, I mean NO COUNTRY FOR OIL MEN, I mean OILTOWN, I mean CITIZEN PLAINVIEW, ummm..THERE WILL BE BLOOD, that’s it (whew!), I got to thinking that movies about oilmen usually have some climactic scene where the hero and his entourage strike oil and cheer as they’re being covered with the thick black stuff. I saw the trailer for Anderson’s film and don't recall seeing a scene like that. Somehow I doubt that anyone in this extremely dour-looking 160-minute film actually celebrates anything. But that’s another story.

What are some other movies about oilmen? Here are a few off the top of my head, all from the cheering-and-whooping-while-the-oil-gushes-and-covers-the-cast school of oil movies:

The most enjoyable one I can think of is Arthur Hiller’s THE WHEELER DEALERS (1963), a comedy I saw as a kid and watched again a couple of years ago. It stars James Garner as a broke Texas oilman trying to put on a good front as he goes after investors in New York and romances broker Lee Remick (whose comic skills just do not match Garner’s). It’s got a trio of older super-wealthy Texas oilmen who follow Garner around by plane and bet on the outcomes of his actions. They’re played by Phil Harris, Chill Wills and Charles Watts and go a long way toward perking the film up. The large supporting cast includes Jim Backus, Elliot Reid, John Astin, Vaughn Taylor and Louis Nye as a Jackson Pollock-type abstract painter. There’s not a lot of oil in it until a climactic oil strike that’s not quite what you think it is.

George Stevens’ GIANT (1956) is probably the most famous movie about an oilman, simply because it’s James Dean who plays the oilman, and he comes into conflict with cattleman Rock Hudson, who’s married to Liz Taylor. (Now that's star power.) Dennis Hopper’s on hand in an early role and Chill Wills pops up in this one, too. Not a great movie, but I somehow think that despite its three-hour-plus length, it’s probably still a whole lot more entertaining than THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

Anthony Mann’s THUNDER BAY (1953) puts its offshore oilman hero, James Stewart, in conflict with shrimp fishermen led by Gilbert Roland and Antonio Moreno in the Louisiana Gulf Bay region . A good movie about the kind of industrial/working-man’s conflict we don’t see a lot in movies anymore. (Stewart’s character name is “Steve Martin,” three years before Raymond Burr played “Steve Martin” in GODZILLA!).

Stuart Heisler’s TULSA (1949) offers the novel touch of a driven lady oilman, played by Susan Hayward, whose character name is Cherokee Lansing, or Cherry Lansing(!). She has a Native American sidekick played by Mexican actor Pedro Armendariz. Chill Wills is also in this. I saw this once in a theater and I remember liking it. It’s in Technicolor. A real Susan Hayward movie. Oil and vinegar really DO mix.

IN OLD OKLAHOMA (aka WAR OF THE WILDCATS, 1943) stars John Wayne as a cowboy-turned-oil wildcatter and Albert Dekker as an aggressive oil entrepreneur who might be similar to the one Daniel Day-Lewis plays in THERE WILL BE BLOOD. It presents a pretty sympathetic view of the character, even if he IS Wayne’s antagonist. It’s been years since I’ve seen this, so I don't recall how good it is, but I'd like to see it again.

WILDCAT (1942) is a low-budget b&w 70-min. B-movie produced by the Pine-Thomas team at Paramount and it’s quite good--fast-paced and full of action. Richard Arlen is the “wildcatter” hero and Buster Crabbe is his rival. Lots of great oilfield stock footage in this one. Also in the cast: Elisha Cook Jr., William Frawley and Arthur Hunnicutt. You can see a double bill of WILDCAT and TULSA in the amount of time you’d need to see THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

Jack Conway’s BOOM TOWN (1940) is an MGM oil spectacular starring Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy as wildcatters-turned-oil tycoons in love with the same woman, who’s played by Claudette Colbert. It takes place over a span of 20 years and Hedy Lamarr comes into the picture. (Enough to take ANYONE’S mind off Claudette, don’t ya think?). I remember liking this one, but it’s been a long time since I’ve seen it. And--wouldn’t ya know?--Chill Wills is in this one, too!

Finally, the best of all: Robert McKimson's THE OILY HARE (1952), in which an ill-fated Texas oil millionaire tries to dig a hole in the wrong place and finds himself up against his toughest adversary, the occupant of that hole...Bugs Bunny!!!!

Now if only Bugs and Chill Wills were in the new oil movie, then I might be inclined to see it. :P

There's HELLFIGHTERS (1969), with John Wayne as Red Adair (or a Red Adair type) fighting oil fires. I think there's a few pictures in that vein (pun unintended). I recall a '77 picture called OIL with Ray Milland and Stuart Whitman but I don't know what it's about.

HELLFIGHTERS with John Wayne immediately pops into my head. So do LOCAL HERO and THE ROAD WARRIOR. But I'm shocked you didn't mention Shaw Brother's THE OILY MANIAC, Brian!

Yes, it is indeed a great cultural tragedy and sad commentary on what have you that the new movie about oil appears not to be an uproarious musical comedy, as it most assuredly *should* be. Bah!

Oh, how far we have fallen, kids today, remakes, price of cat food, etc.

. . . Clouzot's THE WAGES OF FEAR (1953) begins with a rather impressive explosion and fire at an oil well, then becomes the story of the truck drivers bringing the nitro necessary to put it out - although there is another great "oil sequence" towards the end when one of the trucks gets stuck in a pool of oil caused by a broken pipe . . . oh, and a second for BOOM TOWN (1940) - this one came out on DVD a year or so ago as part of one of those Warner sets and turned out to be a very good time indeed . . .

Think you're pretty slick, eh Rydell?

OLKAHOMA CRUDE with George C. Scott and Faye Dunaway. It is kind of a Western ala GIANT. I didn't see the whole thing but some oil men are trying to get Scott of his land. It features some sort of a shoot out after Scott's charcter has already developed his land with. Thus the oil wells are used as cover from the gunfire. That is how I'm rembering it but has been years. I could have the story all wrong.

Also thinking of THE TWO JAKES and that Sirk movie with Rock Huson and Robert Stack. Was it the TARNISHED ANGELS?

And how could I forget ffOLKES with Roger Moore? In this one terrorists headed by Anthony Perkins and Michael Parks hijack three oil wells in the North Sea for ransom and arson. Naturally only one man can save the day and with Special Assault Force he does so spades. Yes its a bit on the silly side but it does good job of being a non-Bond movie.

A take that as a gushing endorsement of my admittedly crude attempt to good-naturedly drill Brian for his seemingly bottomless well of gyser-isms - excuse me, geezer-isms.

Also, we forget ON DEADLY GROUND at our peril. Our deadly peril. As opposed to the other kind of peril, which isn't so bad, really.

KING KONG (1976)

Well, maybe in ten thousand years. Hardly a tick of the clock, as geological time goes...

I have a VHS of a 1976 Romanian-Italian movie called OIL - THE BILLION DOLLAR FIRE starring Ray Milland, Stuart Whitman, Woody Strode, and Tony Kendall. I've never watched it, but the box says it's "spectacular".

Wow... the first thing that popped into my head was What a Way to Go!

It's been thirty years since I've seen it, but I recall Shirley MacLaine dancin' around in an oil gusher.

Very strange.

And it's Dean Martin dancing around with her! Great stuff.

Let's not forget oil magnate and billionaire Jed Clampett in Penelope Spheeris' unforgettable expose and epic bio-pic, THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES. Clampett moves his family from the rural South to posh Beverly Hills after a huge oil strike, and we witness the trials and travails he and his family are subjected to by greedy vultures and unforgiving socialites with hands over our faces, but with eyes peaking through our fingers. Jed's son Jetho, and his inability to fit in with the kids at Hollywood High is especially heartbreaking, and his scenes with his peers at the cement pond on his family's compound are reminiscent of Jame Dean, Sal Mineo and Natalie Wood around the cement pond of the deserted mansion in Nic Ray's so-so REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE.

THERE WILL BE... HOSPITALITY. Hillbilly, that is.

WRITTEN ON THE WIND is the first film that comes to my mind.

Lest we forget, the 'in production' big screen outting of Dallas!

Herzog's LESSONS OF DARKNESS comes to mind as the weirdest (a sparse, sci-fi-like narrative over documentary footage of oil fires in Gulf War-era Kuwait).

WRITTEN ON THE WIND makes the best metaphorical gag of those pounding oil pistons.....though GIANT probably has one of the most iconic oil gushing images, right?

And does that sludge pit in THE MAGIC CHRISTIAN have oil in it???

Um... no.

THE X-FILES: FIGHT THE FUTURE
THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES
POPEYE (oh sorry, that's an OYL movie)

Larry Fessenden's The Last Winter, which doesn't display much oil...

SP-OIL-ER

...unless you consider the malevolent Lovecraftian remains of pre-prehistoric lifeforms drilled out from deep under the earth's crust to be kinda like... oil.

END SP-OIL-ER

The website says the DVD is being refined as a Blockbuster exclusive on May 20th before gushing out everywhere July 29th. I guess they're manufacturing the DVDs with solar power or a hand crank.

Y'know, Ron Perlman covered in oil, baring his teeth and screaming woulda been pretty cool.

Mr Camp has convinced me on There Will Be Blood. I was planning on seeing it soon, as that Day-Lewis feller is pretty good with the thespianism even when he isn't grinning and covered in oil. But if it ain't got Danny Kaye with some musical numbers and slapstick... hell, why'd they even bother making it? :P

EDIT: Much like in Wages Of Fear, Friedkin screwed up a perfectly good opportunity for Noel Coward repartee and oil-covered cheering in his remake, Sorcerer. All that time sitting in that truck, you'd think Scheider would make with a little bit of celebration for the oil. Humph!

Hey, all the critics are calling Anderson the new Griffith, Ford and Welles all rolled into one, so it's gotta be great, right? :rolleyes:
(Don't mind me, I'm still sitting here waiting for the new Frank Tashlin.)

Man, I just hate it - HATE IT - when I start hearing a movie might be good. Why, like as not, I just don't see 'em iff'n when I hear that rubbish. Damn other people with their opinionin' and their praisin'. Damn whippersnapper directors puttin' on airs. Damn price of cat food. P'shaw.

Now where'd I put my teen girl pop happy anime funtime show?

OKLAHOMA CRUDE will always remind me of the early 70s game show that used props (including George C. Scott's bowler hat) and promotional materials from the film as a prize package. I can still remember the look on the "winner's" face as the curtain was pulled back, revealing all of this bounty... she couldn't have been more crestfallen if the host had handed her George C. Scott's steaming morning dump.

I laughed then... I'm laughing now. Tears.

I have no will to see THERE WILL BE BLOOD. The radio spots are making the movie sound condescending and loud. Daniel Day Lewis is really good actor who has a habit of appearing in under whelmed movies. I hate hearing that movies compare to the achievements of Griffith, Ford, and Welles. It sounds like an imitation. It makes me want to see instead something from Griffith, Ford, or Welles. Nor do I appreciate the award considerations for the movie. Moviegoers have not see this yet. Its as if the awards nominations are prompting the movie. In the old days the nominating of a movie promoted the award shows.

I’ll give it this, the ad slicks sport some striking imagery and it is based on that muckraker’s writings Upton Sinclair. I did like MAGNOLIA. If ever get around to it, I hope to be proved wrong.

Oh and making a musical comedy about oil digging would show more nerve than your average fare. If you know Ernst Lubitsch, Billy Wilder, and Preston Sturges sometimes comedy is the ONLY way to address a topic.

I get that you're putting across your honest reactions to what's hit you about the marketing and reception, but none of these things seem any indication whatsoever of what the film might be like.

Loud radio ads, critics' struggling for easy pull-quotes? Oscar™ buzz? Why let those have any impact at all?

“Loud radio ads, critics' struggling for easy pull-quotes? Oscar™ buzz? Why let those have any impact at all?”

I wish I could be intellectual about it. That is just how I respond at “too much information”. There was a time when I tried to give every title equal chance be it REMAINS OF THE DAY, PULP FICTION, THE SPECIALIST, or INDEPENDENCE DAY.* Now my time is too valuable. Nowadays, I enjoy movies more when I have some distance from it and they are spread apart from each other. Sort of like letting a bottle of wine breathe a bit before partaking. These new ads make it seem as I’ve seen an abridged version already.




* I just dated myself.

Here's Armond White's take on THERE WILL BE BLOOD:

http://www.nypress.com/21/1/film/ArmondWhite.cfm

He nails what bothers me about the film--from the trailer and reviews--and I intend to see it to find out for myself.

Here are two of White's three closing paragraphs that I find pertinent:

"Anderson’s grandiose narrative gives the impression of depth when there’s only jumbled, surface breadth. It’s strange to watch a confidently-made film by a director who doesn’t know what he’s doing. Each dramatic segment is impressively paced—as if Anderson was showing Stevens how magnanimity ought to be done—but the result is piddling; inexpressive of universality. Have Anderson’s boosters noticed, there are virtually no women in this epic? No single contradiction to Plainview’s masculinist cruelty? None of the richness found in Gone With the Wind, Giant, The Sundowners, Sounder?

...

Yet, Anderson’s story becomes stupidly fashionable in its stacked contest of Plainview vs. Eli, capitalist ruthlessness vs. religious fanaticism. The shabby set-up of Plainview and Eli’s ultimate confrontation in a bowling alley is so confusing and slapdash that their symbolic clash—where one forces the other to confess his shallowness and deny his beliefs—comes across as just secular-progressive prejudice and loopy, unconvincing drama. Each man is a thesis position, not a character. Is There Will Be Blood an undeniable expose of American ruthlessness, or a formidable dramatization of the struggle between power and faith? No!"
(My emphasis)

Yeah, but taking White at face value is sorta like conversing with the demon in THE EXORCIST.

A'ight den! Listen here, fellers. I actually seen this here picture just the other day. For those in traveling distance to upper west Manhattan, the Theater #1 ("The Loews") at the 68th & Broadway multiplex is a gorgeous and large THX cinema with a balcony and comfortable seats.

Is this going to become the There Will Be Blood thread? I hope not, as it sure doesn't start off very fairl. Well, I'm not going to get too detailed, but it's a great film. I don't think I out and out loved it, but I was significantly impressed and awed throughout (and I'm juggling my '07 Top Ten List to include it). This is coming from a guy who wasn't too impressed by Boogie Nights and hasn't been too swayed the critical P.T. Anderson hype over the years to check out any other film by him. It's quite a marvel, although I can imagine others might feel differently. If you profess a love of cinema, it's worth checking out and deciding for yourself.

Answer: No, because it's a different film, Mr White. I wouldn't call There Will Be Blood either of those things.

The only time I hear White referenced, it's by a Mobian, so I don't know much about him. Is he considered a "serious" critic?

I liked TWBB a lot, but was hoping for more. I look forward to discussing it when more people have seen it.

That being said...

It’s strange to watch a confidently-made film by a director who doesn’t know what he’s doing.

Not to sound snarky, but just because a critic doesn't know what the director's doing, doesn't mean that the director doesn't know what he's doing.

Have Anderson’s boosters noticed, there are virtually no women in this epic?

Did he consider that this might be a thematic decision?

No single contradiction to Plainview’s masculinist cruelty?

This is simply wrong. Several of the movie's most memorable scenes revolve around such contradictions.

None of the richness found in Gone With the Wind, Giant, The Sundowners, Sounder?

Again, could this be a thematic decision?

Yet, Anderson’s story becomes stupidly fashionable in its stacked contest of Plainview vs. Eli, capitalist ruthlessness vs. religious fanaticism.

To avoid spoilers, I can't really get into this, other than that he's miscategorized one of the contestants in this "stacked contest". And that I don't know what "stupidly fashionable" means. Isn't any type of "fanaticism" by definition a bad thing?

The shabby set-up of Plainview and Eli’s ultimate confrontation in a bowling alley is so confusing and slapdash that their symbolic clash—where one forces the other to confess his shallowness and deny his beliefs—comes across as just secular-progressive prejudice and loopy, unconvincing drama.

The critic seems to have combined two separate scenes, and placed them both at the film's climax. In actuality, one occurs early in the movie, while the other takes place at the climax.
So I guess he's half right. One of these scenes works very well, while the other is not as successful.

Having read a few reviews of this, I've been surprised to find that several critics -- Sarris especially -- had simply missed certain important details of the film. I'm not talking "interpretation" issues, but details (again, vague to avoid spoilers) like what certain characters relationships (literally) were to one another.

THE FORMULA is the only film in which the great actors Marlon Brando and George C. Scott star together. Based on a novel by producer/screenwriter Steve Shagan (SAVE THE TIGER), THE FORMULA is a maddeningly complex thriller about the murder of Tom Neely, a former Los Angeles cop, and the investigation into it led by the victim's friend, Lieutenant Barney Caine (Scott). I liked Shagan's novel, but his screenplay removes many of the book's best scenes, and as a result, the film suffers from plotholes that may well leave you scratching your head.

At first, it appears as though the victim's lifestyle is to blame. He's found tied up in bed with seven bullet holes in him and a voodoo doll filled with cocaine placed on his chest. However, when the victim's ex-wife (NETWORK's Beatrice Straight) is also found murdered, Caine digs deeper--far deeper than his superiors on the police force are comfortable with--and discovers the key to Neely's death may lie with his military service in Germany in 1945, where he captured a Nazi general (Richard Lynch) in possession of an amazing formula for synthetic fuel--gasoline that can be created using coal, of which the United States is the world's leading producer. Caine figures that the oil conglomerates may not be too thrilled to learn of such a formula, and heads to Berlin to find more answers.

Brando appears in only three scenes (and was reportedly paid $1 million per scene!), but makes the most of two of them. One is a throwaway that serves little purpose and looks as though it may have been inserted into the screenplay simply to give the film more Brando for the audience's buck. But it's bookended by two marvelously absorbing scenes which are little more than dialogues between Brando and Scott that remind one of the much admired two-man discussion between DeNiro and Pacino in HEAT.

The first is mostly shot as one long take. The two actors stroll down a dusty country road while Scott asks Brando, playing a major oil chairman named Adam Steiffel, a few background questions about Neely, who had worked as a bagman for Steiffel. Their piece de resistance comes at the end, a lengthy wrap-up session in which the two men attempt to explain the mystery's solution and leave the audience satisfied with the denouement. And while Shagan's plot is never satisfactorily pieced together, Scott and Brando aren't too blame. In fact, it hardly matters what the two men are talking about--it's simply a joy to watch these two screen greats sharing adversarial banter.

THE FORMULA was neither a hit with critics or with audiences, and I can't really say that it should have been. It's a talky, confusing thriller that wastes a solid starring turn by Scott and an eccentric performance by Brando, who wears a hearing aid, weaves his hair into a combover and speaks with an unusual mince.

I could be wrong, but I think a poll of Mobian opinions of White would be mostly in the negative. He's... difficult. Ask me about him face to face over a drink, Mike, and I'd use harsher words. I lost any respect for him when I first read his reviews where he'd spend a good chunk of them criticising and insulting anyone who liked the film he was panning.

And I think you expertly exposed how full of it he was in his TWBB review.

Did you put out?

In addition to Penelope Spheeris stinging expose, THE BEVERLY HILLBILLES (which I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread), a new hard hitting short documentary is now questioning whether Jed Clampett's fortune was made in oil production, or if this alleged oil mogul actually made his money by investing money in the insurance industry. (see link below)

Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't apologize to Jethro Clampett, whom I mistakenly referred to as Jetho (sic) in my earlier post. Jethro, I apologize.


http://www.splendad.com/ads/show/1411-GEIC...rly-Hillbillies

POSSIBLE SPOILERS:




The "gusher" scene in THERE WILL BE BLOOD, one with tragic consequences that reverberate through the story, is a highlight. I can't really add to what Mike Thomas wrote, except to say that I'm still sorting it out...and that the wonderful scenes between Day-Lewis and Dillon Freasier, as his adoptive son, go against the grain of the strict "masculinist cruelty" reading of the film (and there are women in the story; not central by any means, but they exert an influence). Day-Lewis' character reaches a point of no return, and the movie doesn't turn away. The last line--"I'm finished" (or was it "I'm finished now"?)--can be read in several ways, but it's devastating however you interpret it.

It's as much a Kubrickian film as anything else, right from the 2001-ish opening image and music, which is echoed at the finale*. Hommage? Rip-off? Or a way in, a guide to how to "see" the movie if you're cued in? You be the judge.

Anyway it's something to see, and I wish DP Robert Elswit had had the opportunity to compose it for Imax--this is a true "widescreen" movie, shot in the US (so far as I could make out from the credits) and not Canada or Australia. You can feel the difference.

*Now that the film's "Dawn of Man" has concluded, what will the future hold? My guess is, not much; in a sense, the character's "monolith" and sounding board was his son.

While on the subject of "gusher" movies (not restricted to oil) I'll throw in Nicolas Roeg's EUREKA, with its ecstatic shower of gold (not to be confused with a golden shower, but maybe it can be looked at that way, too). I think TOMMY's TV scene was mentioned.

Water (1985) - not strictly an oil film, but many of the same elements come into play.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Boom Town (1940) with Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy as scrapping wildcatters and (eventually) oil tycoons. It's archetypal oil. Dig the dastardly anti-trust trial and the spirited defense of entrepeniurial capitalism it inspires. I imagine Dick Cheney is a fan

...any relation James?