There Will Be Blood

Most of the members of JUST Books had seen this movie before the club met on Thursday. They said I should see it, so I borrowed a copy and watched it last night. I can't remember ever comparing a book and a movie without being terribly disappointed in the movie. My reaction to There Will Be Blood seems like an exaggeration of that trend.

It's a good movie. It's dark and grim. The music is eerie and sets your nerves on edge. The characters are unlovable; you can't begin to sympathize with them. I could hardly wait for it to finish. What seems to be its only redeeming quality is the fact that it may suck people into reading Oil! - just like a pool shark sucks in his marks. But, I think that's enough. Oil! is a good book. Oh, I should mention that some of the actors did a good job of portraying their gruesome characters.

The movie and the book are so different, I'm not sure whether someone who really likes the movie would like the book, and vice versa. I belong to the latter group. I think Hollywood revealed its dark, twisted, emotionally sick nature in this movie, for sure.

Rather than trying to identify how the movie differs from the book, I think it's easier to list their similarities:

1. The book is about a boy whose father is an oilman. The movie is about an oilman who has a son.
2. The book and the movie take place in California during the early 20th Century.
3. The father is surprised and/or disappointed in his son's interests and/or choices.

Considering all the people who were involved in the California oil rush of that period, Hollywood could have picked a totally different family to portray, that just happened to share a couple superficial similarities with the family in the book. Or, maybe Upton Sinclair (the author of Oil!) was just a sympathetic person who couldn't force himself to focus on the less savory aspects of an individual's nature. Hollywood certainly has no such sensitivity.

I think Sinclair would be pleased that interest in his novel has been revived. I think he would be very disappointed that his message is as relevant and important, today, as it was in 1926. (If his dreams of social reform had come true, contemporary society would be much different.) I don't think he would be a bit surprised that his message was totally omitted from the film - not even a hint of it was left in!