Flowing Gold

Fugitive Garfield is befriended by oil field boss O'Brien, but ends up falling for his friend's girl, Farmer.

Two-fisted action film with a generous helping of pretty good comedy relief. Okay, you've probably seen it all before and can tick off the romantic subplot by the numbers. Still, it's hard not to watch since the action is so well done. Warner Bros. in particular recycled the plot in the following year's Manpower (1941). Nonethrless, the premise of good buddies falling for the same girl has built-in appeal that's hard to resist. Garfield and O'Brien do their macho thing as oil field roughnecks, while Frances Farmer of the perpetual-lovely-smile proves she's a true Hollywood rebel by refusing to pluck her eyebrows.

And get a load of that roaring, nightmare river, not a place to drop a fishing line unless you're angling for the Loch Ness monster. Heck, the riverside road doesn't even have a guard rail—no wonder the crane driver wants to bail. Studio special effects really did a great visual job with that one. In fact, the movie manages the look and feel of a real oil field minus the usual process shots, at least that I could spot. I guess that says something for the often overlooked role of producer, in this case the big enchilada himself, Jack Warner.

And get a load too of Jodie Gilbert as Tillie the man-eating barber or is it barberess. Either way, she'll make you rethink women as the weaker sex. If I were husband Cliff Edwards, I'd be hiring a bodyguard fast. Anyhow it's a colorful and amusing supporting cast, none of which to take seriously, much like the movie itself. The 80-minutes may not be Oscar bait, but the sum-total again shows how old Hollywood with all its flaws could still turn out good lively entertainment.

Oil-rig worker from Montana, on the run from police, finds himself out west; seems he's killed a man in self-defense and didn't argue too much when his fellow cell-mates made a break for it. A tough but friendly oil foreman takes him on, and together they work feverishly to strike a gusher or lose their lease on the land. An odd, somewhat dislocating mix of elements (noir, gangster drama, light comedy, romance) gets the film off to a convoluted start--even with self-assured John Garfield in the lead. Garfield is so casual about his toughness, his armor, that he walks through the picture almost gregariously, lightening the load. Pat O'Brien (with his large, handsome face, as if he were grandfather to George Clooney) is wonderful as John's first real friend, but Frances Framer is a walking question-mark as the love-interest. With her unhappy eyes and deep, husky voice, Farmer doesn't connect with the audience and never really gets into character, not that there's much of one (she welcomes a date with O'Brien but just as quickly falls for Garfield the same evening). The script, by Kenneth Gamet from a story by Rex Beach, is overly-complicated at the outset, but improves after it settles into a more conventional mode (the technical detail is a big help). The movie delivers a good time in the end, despite some outlandish circumstances and a bit of overplaying from the eccentrics in the supporting cast. **1/2 from ****

It is difficult to believe that, even in 1940, this story was thought original enough to support an "A" picture. Many Westerns have utilized it, with slight variations; sometimes its characters are involved with coal mining; here they are oilfield roughnecks, but that's about as different as it gets. As for the casting, John Garfield is a bit softer than usual, Pat O'Brien a bit tougher, Frances Farmer unremarkable. There is some decent comic relief by Cliff Edwards and Tom Kennedy: good thing, because this conventional melodrama needs all the help it can get.

Another reviewer was right, this film seems a lot like the Gable-Tracy film BOOM TOWN, but instead stars Pat O'Brien and John Garfield. Like BOOM TOWN, this one is about the oil business and guys who love to gamble on whether or not they can make a strike. Ironically, this movie debuted only one week before BOOM TOWN and I assume both films, while similar, were created completely separately and didn't influence the other--but it sure looks like they are the same general plot.

The film begins with Garfield looking for a job in the oil fields. However, he has a secret--he's a wanted man. Despite this, O'Brien is impressed with Garfield and feels he's an honest man, so he decides to give Garfield a break.

Later, Frances Langford comes along and takes an instant dislike for Garfield. If you are familiar with films of this era, this can only mean one thing--they'll be head over heels in love by the end of the movie! The problem is that O'Brien as well is interested in Langford--creating a dilemma. Will Garfield stab his buddy in the back to get the girl or will O'Brien be a regular guy and step aside? It's all predictable but fun--the sort of film which Warner Brothers did so well. Light fluff, of course, but enjoyable fluff.

So of the two films, which is worth seeing? Well, I'd say it was a toss-up--both are about equally good (but far from great), though BOOM TOWN might be a tiny bit better. Of course, I might just feel this way because Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert were in this film--two of my all-time favorites.

I'm one of those people that think John Garfield could do no wrong. If had been alive, I would have numbered among the 10,000-strong throngs at his stupendous funeral.

Sure, this movie has been done in many guises before. But how many remember the others? Why do we continue to watch a movie when we know precisely how it's going to end? Something else has to string you in. It has to be something you've never seen before and yet seems so familiar that you can't help but see it anyway.

I say: How many will remember what John Garfield could add - in bushels - to any simply wrought movie? Why, his charm and rough exterior could convince a lamb to go to slaughter.

Enough cannot be said about "Jules" as they used to call him. One in a million, they say. I'll say that to the Nth degree until they beat me down. No actor could relate to the common man like he did. Others were prettier, more dashing, taller or a dozen other things.

But no one, ever again, will be a John Garfield.