This is an excellent film, and one with an interesting history you should read before viewing it (check out Wikipedia!).According to Wikipedia, when Howard Hawks began directing it, the story was about the rape of the land by a soon-to-be timber baron. Producer Samuel Goldwyn wanted it to be about a timber baron who is involved in a romantic triangle with his son and a young lady. Goldwyn won, of course, but had to fire Hawks and replace him with William Wyler. I think Goldwyn made the right decision, although both themes are well-covered.The beginning of the film is very interesting because of all the scenes on location in Idaho (not the northern mid-west where the film is set) of timber processing from the mass cutting down of trees, to their transport (before trucking), to their processing. Watching the excellent REAL footage, I kept thinking how industry would rape the land back then.Then the film switches more to the romance angle of the film, which is quite riveting as the timber baron turns into a dirty old man who makes a fool of himself, particularly after the son falls (reasonably) in love with the same young lady.The father/timber baron was supposed to be played by Spencer Tracy, one of my very favorite actors. And, he would have been excellent in it, but to be honest, Edward Arnold is perfect in the role, and it is a good reminder that Arnold was once a top name in the film industry, before his weight led him (apparently happily) into more character roles. The son is played by Joel McCrea, and although his role is clearly secondary, he does a fine job in a key role. The female interest is Frances Farmer, and may I say I don't get it. I was not impressed by Farmer at all, and from my perspective she is the one defect in the film. It is interesting that she plays both a woman and the woman's daughter. Walter Brennan has always been one of my favorite character actors, and this role brought him his first (and the first) Oscar for supporting male actor. However, while I still enjoyed his performance, I wasn't quite convinced of his Swedish accent here.While the theme of the rape of the land got sidelined, it doesn't disappear from the film altogether, but, in my view, the story of the emotional fall of a rich and powerful man is far more interesting.Highly recommended.

It seems that Edna Ferber wrote a novel about a robber baron's rape of the American wilderness and she felt it was adapted into a tawdry, Oedipal melodrama. To my eye and ear there's enough of both to make a very interesting experience.There Will Be Blood portrayed a minor oil magnate using family values as a pretext to earning peoples' trust only to be revealed as a mean spirited murderer. Edward Arnold's Barney character can be viewed in similar light with a little more sympathy but no less a hole in his greedy heart.There are a number of reasons to watch this classic: Francis Farber's only great performance, Edward Arnold in a complex lead role, Howard Hawk's directorial touches, Wyler's novelistic touches and an early Hollywood encounter with Ecology. To me the film doesn't seem as old as 1936. There's something that feels more mature in style and content that speaks of war and postwar America.I recall in the seventies the NY Film Festival had a revival and Andrew Sarris eloquently stated the film's virtues. Well I tried to watch it about 20 years later and I repeatedly couldn't get past the first 15 minutes. I'm glad I kept trying.

What a great surprise! This is the only Frances Farmer movie I have seen, and I have never seen Edward Arnold play such a multi-dimensional character -- and how well he does it.So many great moments: The first Lotta first singing Aura Lee in the saloon, the bar-room fight, the first time Barney sees the young Lotta, the lovely quartet of "The Saucy Little Bird in Nelly's Hat", the taffy scene . . . and many more.But what I enjoyed the most was the dynamics between the characters: dynamics beautifully written and flawlessly executed. Barney' clever wooing of Lotta I, the genuine friendship with Swan, the tension with his son (even before the triangle develops), the camaraderie with his daughter, his stoic patience with his wife whom he married for money -- all of these were richly done but with taut understatement. Even the few scenes with his secretary are so neat: exuding the subtle tension of two stiff wills who don't need to articulate the ways in which they need each other.Son Richard too, (played by Joel McRaea who seems to get short shrift in some reviews here), has some fine interplay with other characters. The taffy scene for sure. Also the office scene where Josie the secretary, cool-as-you-please, plants the suggestion about his father and Lotta II. And what about that little give-and-take with his mother, when at breakfast he challenges her as to whether she "ALWAYS" addresses her husband as "Mr. Glasgow"? No need for a nudge-wink -- just a quick look to complement the deft script.Frances Farmer as the 2 Lottas is stunningly gorgeous, obviously, but that does not preclude her performance from keeping up with the others. She makes believable how Lotta I succumbs to Barney's blandishments, and her reaction when she is told that he has deserted her is almost cutting. As Lotta II, her ambiguous response to Barney's advances is perfectly done and contributes to the ongoing undercurrent of tension that I found pervasive throughout.Yes, Walter Brennan's Swedish accent seems a little much, but never having talked to a Wisconsin Swede, who am I to judge? More important is, again, the dynamics of his character Swan with the other principals, such as the painfully delicious scene in the saloon when he tries to get a word in, edgewise, as Barney makes his moves on Lotta I. Beautifully written, beautifully executed. Partly because it was a surprise, I admit to being blown away by this 73 year-old movie, and it gets a rare "9" from me.

This is one of the best Hollywood productions of the 1930s and, in my opinion, of the 40s and 50s as well, when so many dramatic films were either overly cynical (40s) or too syrupy (50s).Superb acting by leads who are believable people and not 'pretty boys'. A fine dramatic story that has the right pacing and the right dialog, and a wholly believable ending.It is something I'd have expected from the great filmmakers of France or Italy during this period, such as Renoir, but not from Hollywood.The kind of film that gets better with each viewing and as time passes.Definitely one to look for if you have not yet seen it!