Cimarron

Sorry but despite the fact that the 1931 version of this novel was the only western film to win an Academy Award for Best Picture it does not compare to the entertainment value of this version. True this is perhaps not the best adaptation of Ms. Ferber's novel, but then how many films are perfect adaptations of their source material. There are wonderful scenes missing from this adaptation, but then there are wonderful scenes missing from the adaptation of GWTW. No, I am not comparing this to a classic like GWTW. But the '31 version is not in the same class as GWTW either. This film should be taken for what it actually is, a good solid epic entertainment with spectacular scenes and good performances. Glenn Ford is perfect casting for Yancy. His performance is far superior to that of the overripe, stilted scenery chewing one delivered by Richard Dix in the original. Ford's boyish manner easily captures the charming immature nature of the character. Maria Schell is on a par with Irene Dunne. It is a pity her character was rewritten from the novel to be weaker than Ferber intended. This was obviously done to make the film Ford's but she's still gives a performance that is on the money. As so do the myriad supporting players in the film. Back in 1960, MGM obviously needed a big movie to move into the theaters that had been playing "Ben-Hur" for over a year. So this production was rushed to completion to fit the bill. The fact that it was shot in Cinemascope instead of a "Big" 70 mm process is evidence of this. It has been written that the production was shut down before the scripted ending could be filmed. This explains the rather abrupt and somewhat awkward end to the film. Perhaps a regular non "Roadshow" release might have fared better both with the critics and at the box-office. It often seems that those who praise the older version over this film have seldom actually seen the former. For many years the 1931 version was not available for viewing. During that period many film historians gushed in their praise of it. When it finally reappeared on screens most of them found it very creaky and revised their opinions but the older opinions are still in print, available and read. True, they didn't change their opinion of this version, but the older fell into proper perspective...Cinema History and rather dry history at that. While this version is not a classic it remains good entertainment. Compare it to "How The West Was Won" made by the same studio just a few years later.

"Cimarron" is much like two films crammed together. The first half is exciting and enjoyable in many ways and the final portion is dull and seems to drag on forever...and then some! Rarely have I seen a film this different at the start and at the finish. As a result, it's a real mixed bag of a movie...worth seeing but it sure should have been a lot better.

When the film begins, Cimarron Cravat (Glenn Ford) is back East to marry a recent immigrant, Sabra (Maria Schell). Her way of life is about to change radically, as she's moving from relative comfort to the wide open Oklahoma Territory in 1889. Cimarron wants to go there for the giant land grant but many things seem to get in the way of his and Sabra's plans. They don't get the land they wanted and soon Cimarron finds himself running a newspaper. He also finds himself a do-gooder--one of the only men willing to stand up to evil. And here is where you start to see cracks in their marriage. Cimarron has a very strong sense of right and wrong but his wife just wants stability and security at all costs. As the years pass, this gulf between them widens and ultimately they both go their separate ways. What's next for the duo?

This Edna Ferber saga is basically the recent history of Oklahoma-- from territory to statehood--and all wrapped around the fictional story of the Cravats. At times exciting and interesting (such as when Cimarron repeatedly risks his life to stand up for the local Indians) and others long, long and long!!! And, rather depressing when all is said and done. The first half merits a 9 and the last a 2! Rarely have I ever seen a film this uneven.

I did not see this when it was new. I remember thinking that it wasn't worth the effort then. It is less worth it now.

Its device is its scope, both in time and size. There are not one but two land grabs. it spans 25 years and much attention is spent on the theatrics of the sets. It must have been a strange year for this to have done well. At least we can value it to the extent that its success for Columbia made the scope of Lawrence of Arabia possible for MGM.

The story here is only there to support a celebration of settlers of Indian territories and to pull out a specific type which we are to admire as an ideal, an ideal American.

He is a champion of justice and a man of action. His adherence to certain principles punishes him. He is a proponent of civil rights here coded as Indian rights. What's not to like?

Well. He loves the adventure of the land. We get great vistas that anchor him in the place, a convention of Westerns since Ford. But he is not a man of the land, he is a city boy who likes adventure. That's this film's basic undoing of ideals.

It's reflected in the parallel western convention of woman as place. This guy loves deeply but he just can't settle with a woman. We see two.

When they meet, they talk of wives as mothers, companions and lovers. We are to admire that he does not need the first, is companion to nearly everyone and is deep in his love.

The narrative power of this idea by itself would be weak in any package. It is even worse here because of the inept direction. We see this more sharply now because of the obsolete acting and staging styles.

Ann Baxter is a pretty prostitute whose story of self is close to our hero. Though she has less screen time than the immigrant wife, we are to see her as genuine. It's really about her as the land, as the place, and why it isn't the blond wife.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Haven't read the novel, but really enjoyed the picture.

The film has so much warmth from its characters. The direction was nice. The stunt work was amazing, quite incredible how it was all achieved.

The film maybe missing the finer points of the novel, but for many people who haven't read it, the film delivers an interesting portrayl of how capitalism takes over the inner lands of America. The evolution of the characters, from being poor to being greedy. The film features many other themes, including infidelity and racism.

The picture could've been 30 minutes longer.

Glenn Ford is brilliant, as is Maria Schell, albeit with an annoying accent.

Enjoyed the direction by Mann and the photography wasn't bad at all.

Overall, an enjoyable film! See it in wide-screen.

I just caught this movie on TCM and, up front, I tend to hate these kind of oats-sudsers. This movie had so much going on (plot, characters, cameos, Western clichés) that it just screamed Cinerama (Think 'How the West was Won') but it had one major aspect that took me by surprise: a well-written and extremely well-acted characterization by Maria Schell. She's actually the major star of this movie...Glenn Ford disappearing entirely the last 1/4.....and she handles every bit of it with humor, passion, and just the right amount of country ham. She's never a perfect wife or mother, and doesn't just change to fit the scene. I was just killing time watching this...and I honestly was fascinated. I had no idea who it was until I looked it up here (I hate that TCM often doesn't run credits) but now I want to see some other performances by her to see if she was this good all the time.