Onde o Ouro Se Esconde

Most of the prior reviewers have done a good job of noting the problems with this film but, in the terms relative to Hollywood, historical accuracy is not one of them. Hydraulic mining WAS environmentally catastrophic, but for the farmers and ranchers who lived downstream it was also economically so, a point not emphasized by many modern environmentalists with a narrow focus. The value of this film is that it graphically and realistically tells that side of the story, too, in human and economic terms. Fellow lawyers will laugh at the jump in the appellate process from the USDC for the Eastern District of California to the California Supreme Ct., (the case was actually litigated in the USDC for the Northern District of CA, in San Francisco), but the message comes through: hydraulic mining WAS a grave nuisance and it was effectively ended, at least in CA and much of the US, by the decisions that issued from the lawsuits involved, even if subsequent legislation allowed it to reappear, with some constraints on its worst effects, in the final decade of the XIX century.

I never even knew of this movie until I watched it on TCM this morning - and I'm glad I did! It's apparently unavailable on DVD, which is a shame, and it would benefit from a thorough restoration, but I don't fault the direction or performances as much as some others do. In fact, that's one of the interesting and appealing things about this film: it tentativeness. You get the feeling that the director and actors are exploring the script as much as Warners was still exploring the Technicolor process involved in its making. That meshes well with the scenes of San Francisco during the 1880s, in all its pre-quake and proto-profligate heyday, where the mindless joi de vivre flows as fast as the champagne to set the mood for the disaster later to come.

There's a lot of history on several levels in this movie: the reference to former Confederates emigrating to CA after the Civil War, a slightly off-color racial joke that some might find offensive, and some others I won't spoil for cinematic spelunkers. But, don't sell this movie short: watch it, enjoy it, and hope for its restoration so its several qualities can shine through its more gravelly parts.

Although she might admit to it now, but not back in her salad days, one of the reasons that Olivia DeHavilland's films are so well remembered from her days at Warner Brothers was the sheer expense of them. She did do her share of sound stage shooting, but as often as not Warner Brothers would cast her as the heroine in their expensive period costume dramas. She certainly did them well, though she wanted better parts. Even films like Anthony Adverse and Gone With The Wind added to her reputation. But these films and Captain Blood, Dodge City, The Private Lives Of Elizabeth And Essex and The Adventures Of Robin Hood are what we remember of her early period and one of the reasons she's better known than a lot of her contemporaries today.

One that was less known and I suspect because she did not have Errol Flynn as her leading man is Gold Is Where You Find It. This is a western feud story set in 1879 in California thirty years after the Gold Rush. It's not hard rock Fortyniners panning for gold out of the stream any more. Huge mining concerns are using hydraulics to create mudslides that are ruining the crops of landowners large and small. The biggest of these is Claude Rains whose grain crops like everyone else's is threatened by the mine owned by Sidney Toler whose foreman is Barton MacLane.

Into the lives of all of them comes mining engineer George Brent from the east and he makes an impression on all, on MacLane's skull and on the lives of Rains's children Olivia DeHavilland and Tim Holt. He gets caught right in the middle of the feud coming to a boil. Do we doubt where he's going to end up?

Michael Curtiz directed Gold Is Where You Find It with the usual Curtiz supply of action. There's a climax involving a battle between the miners and the farmers that's exciting and well done. The costumes and sets reflect a good eye for the period. In fact Curtiz probably decided all this needed was Errol Flynn and he got him next year for Dodge City.

Though she hated making the costume epics, these films have survived and part of the reason they have survived is Olivia DeHavilland is so darn good in them. Sadly this film is not out so one has to wait until TCM broadcasts it. It's worth the wait.

You've seen this picture before - with a different title and a different cast. It's the one about two warring factions (here, miners and wheat growers) battling over precious land while she (Olivia deHavilland, daughter of the most prominent wheat grower) and he (George Brent, employed by the mining syndicate) fall in love. All very conventional, despite a solid cast and first-rate production values.

Clumsy off-screen narration at both the beginning and end attempts to give this story a documentary feel and some measure of historical significance. Did the film makers tack this on because they felt the story lacked significance and originality? I did.

A number of reviewers fault the casting of George Brent in this film. In defense of Warner Brothers, at the time that this film was cast Flynn wasn't quite Flynn yet, and George Brent was a reliable first lead in costume dramas. It's true that I see more sparks between Mickey and Minnie Mouse than between George and Olivia in this film, but the casting must have seemed a good idea at the time. Recall that Warners seriously considered George for the lead in Captain Blood.

The film is entertaining to old timers for the casting of so many old reliable and familiar faces. I wish Willie Best had had a chance to play a serious role just once.

George Hayes was obviously transitioning to his Gabby persona, previously he had specialized in villainy.

Despite the rather banal and slightly over-cute title for the film, 'Gold is Where You Find It' had more than enough to make me want to watch it. Max Steiner composed some timeless scores and was one of the great film composers at that time. Michael Curtiz directed many good to classic films, two being among my favourite films of all time. And the cast is a fine one, although George Brent was somewhat inconsistent Claude Rains in particular made every film he was in better.

'Gold is Where You Find It' is worth a one-time watch, but it is not one of those watch it over and over sort of films in my view. It is neither awful, with enough good things to raise it above that, or particularly good, with too many significant flaws. While most people come off well here in 'Gold is Where You Find It', it is perhaps safe to say that all have done a lot better in their careers. That's certainly the case with Curtiz, as far as his films go this is a lesser effort of his.

There are good things. On the most part, 'Gold is Where You Find It' is well made visually, the settings are sumptuous and in no way look cheap. Much of the Technicolor has a lavish look, even if this aspect isn't perfectly executed. Steiner's music score is typically lush and sweeping without being too melodramatic. There are charming moments.

Brent gives it his best shot in a colourless role, can understand actually why some found him bland in the film but it is not easy making a character this thin interesting and Brent at least doesn't look bored. The rest of the cast are better though, with the ever great Rains stealing every scene he's in and with Olivia DeHavilland looking beautiful and having a charming presence. The supporting cast are good all round.

Not all the Technicolor is completely attractive on the other hand, some of it can veer on being too garish. The script is on the stilted and routine side, and while the story has moments of charm the pace generally could have done with more urgency, the conflict with more tension and edge and the sentiment not been as strong.

Moreover, the characters while well performed are quite sketchy in development, namely Brent's. Do agree with those that have criticised the narration, far too saccharine, doesn't really move the story along all that much and was not really needed at all.

In conclusion, left me a bit mixed. 5/10