Oil for the Lamps of China

The length and sweep of many novels that are brought to the screen often give the film an episodic quality: too many incidents, too many characters, too little time to do justice to any of it.

Here is a picture that manages, for the most part, to avoid such pitfalls, and to tell a "big" story with skill and intensity. Like its excellent director, Mervyn LeRoy, it remains greatly underappreciated.

The theme of personal responsibility being compromised by business obligations is one that movies have not often handled, and certainly never more effectively than here. Character conflicts are dealt with in a mature, understated manner. The "company" is portrayed as an impersonal, largely uncaring force, oblivious to the needs and personal fulfillment of its employees.

One could object to the contrived manner in which Steve and Hester meet at the start, and quickly arrange a marriage of convenience. And surely Pat O'Brien, with his limited range, was a less than ideal choice for the leading role. Overall, however, you will not find many pictures of its type that equal this one.

A few reviewers are a bit harsh in regards to the lead character because he won't stand up to the company. Remember, this film was made in the middle of The Great Depression. Most employed people considered themselves lucky.

I felt it is a cozy little film. You spend most of your time with the two main characters in a shack, watching them move closer and closer while Pat O'Brien takes more and more from the company.

I enjoyed this film, even though a few parts were unnecessarily sad.

One silly thing I can't shake is seeing the leads so young. I will always remember Josephine Hutchinson from North by Northwest ("You didn't borrow Laura's Mercedes?") and this is the first film in which I have seen Pat O'Brien before he became a chronic alcoholic.

A lot of what you read about "Oil for the Lamps of China" focuses on the socialist, anti-big oil themes of the film's story. While this is a particularly fascinating aspect of the film, historically and philosophically, I can't help but feel the real crux of the story is much darker and more depressing. As a matter of fact, this is one of the most depressing films I've ever seen from the 1930's.

This movie tells the story of a man profoundly lacking in the slightest shred of dignity. A man who has no self-respect and allows himself to be abused and mistreated by the company he works for. He allows his very soul to be raped by this company. Why, the complete and total devotion he shows to this company surpasses the reasonable and enters the realm of psychosis.

This, to me, is why the movie is about more than just bashing the corporation and propping this guy up as some kind of hero through victimization. This man is no hero. He's pretty disgusting to me. He is complicit in many of the company's sins, as well as his own. He is the one who repeatedly chooses the company over his wife, his baby, his friends, his pride. This isn't some Steinbeck story about what a man will do to keep from starving. There is no indication Stephen Chase couldn't go back to the States and get another job. He refuses to do so. Refuses because he delusionally believes his job is a part of some greater calling and that there is some payoff at the end of all this. There could not be a reward to make it all worthwhile really. Any rational man or woman would know this. The film seems to say that it is Stephen's idealism that allows him to suffer and make others suffer. But I find that pretty hard to swallow. He doesn't just take it on the chin the whole time but he passes it on to those around him.

It's certainly a highly interesting character study, as well as all it has to say about corporations and business practices. But it's also pretty bleak and soul-crushing. The actors are all superb and the direction is fine. It's a film that gives you quite a bit to chew over but be prepared to not like the taste of everything you're chewing.

While this film has undeniable drawbacks, chief among them a typical 30s Hollywood attitude toward Chinese folks (although, to be fair, it does take a couple potshots at white prejudice toward Asians), a way too theatrical performance by Josephine Hutchinson and an ending that is, to put it at its kindliest, less than convincing, like most movies directed by Mervin Le Roy it is fast paced, rarely boring and ultimately worth one's time.

Plus it has, to my mind at least, a rather important theme, namely the price that is exacted by allowing one's identity to be subsumed by one's occupation. And playing the subsumee Pat O'Brien, usually one of Hollywood's less compelling actors, turns in one of his best performances, alternately bitter, triumphant, vulnerable and loyal in his attitude toward the rather devious Atlas Oil Co. And therein lies another reason I enjoyed this film. As a previous reviewer stated it bucks the trend in Tinseltown, from "Wildcat" to "Giant", of glorifying Big Business, particularly when that business involves petroleum. Indeed the criticism of corporate malfeasance in the film is so sharp that it lingers in the mind long after that ludicrous ending where the icy corporate heart is melted by a wife's plea. As if. Give it a B minus.

Pat O'Brien stars with Josephine Hutchinson in "Oil for the Lamps of China," a 1935 film, directed by Mervyn LeRoy. O'Brien plays Stephen Chase, who is transferred to China by the oil company for whom he works. After a time, he arranges for his fiancé to meet him in Yokahama so they can be married, though the company frowns against marriage because "women can't handle it" - meaning living in the Chinese outpost.

Unfortunately or fortunately, Stephen's bride-to-be leaves him standing at the altar, or the boat dock, anyway; he receives a telegram saying she changed her mind. He walks into a hotel bar and sees a woman (Josephine Hutchinson) sitting alone at a table. Her name is Hester. They talk for a few minutes. He learns that she was traveling with her father, who taught Chinese history but had never been to China. On the boat over, he died. Stephen invites her to dinner. He later explains that to return without a wife means that he will lose face and be considered a fool. He proposes, asking for nothing but companionship. She accepts.

Eventually they fall in love, and in many ways, Hester is the best thing that has ever happened to him. She's certainly a lot better than the company he deifies, which causes him both personal and professional losses after he makes great sacrifices in order to do right by them.

The film seems to be making the statement that no sacrifice on behalf of "the company" is too great. Seeing the way a lot of companies act today, and the way "the company" behaved in this film, I wouldn't say that's the way to go.

The original book, by Alice Tisdale Hobart, apparently concentrates on the romance in the exotic locale of China. I wish the film version had done the same, casting a romantic leading man like Errol Flynn, perhaps. As it stands, it doesn't hold up well today. Josephine Hutchinson was an interesting actress and it was good to see her. Pat O'Brien, usually likable, remains likable here but also a bit of a fool given his devotion to the company.

Just okay.