IMDb RATING
6.4/10
3.7K
YOUR RATING
The Oklahoma Land Run of April 1889 sets the stage for an epic saga of a frontier adventurer, his wife and family and their friends.The Oklahoma Land Run of April 1889 sets the stage for an epic saga of a frontier adventurer, his wife and family and their friends.The Oklahoma Land Run of April 1889 sets the stage for an epic saga of a frontier adventurer, his wife and family and their friends.
- Directors
- Writers
- Stars
- Nominated for 2 Oscars
- 3 nominations total
Harry Morgan
- Jesse Rickey
- (as Henry {Harry} Morgan)
- Directors
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
I thought perhaps the reason this version of "Cimarron" butchered its source material was because Edna Ferber was dead by the time it was made. But no, she didn't die until 1968. I can't believe she gave her stamp of approval to this film, which, while visually stunning, bears very little resemblance to her novel.
Glenn Ford was a heck of an actor, but too much the strong 'n' silent type to play such a flamboyant character as Yancey Cravat. Maria Schell's accent is distracting, and her Sabra is whiny, clingy and devoid of most of the strength and heroism I love about Ferber's female characters.
The 1931 "Cimarron" is a far more faithful adaptation of the novel, but be warned: The character of Isaiah (conveniently left out of the 1960 version) is an offensively exaggerated black stereotype, which, unfortunately (sorry, Edna) is also true to the book.
Glenn Ford was a heck of an actor, but too much the strong 'n' silent type to play such a flamboyant character as Yancey Cravat. Maria Schell's accent is distracting, and her Sabra is whiny, clingy and devoid of most of the strength and heroism I love about Ferber's female characters.
The 1931 "Cimarron" is a far more faithful adaptation of the novel, but be warned: The character of Isaiah (conveniently left out of the 1960 version) is an offensively exaggerated black stereotype, which, unfortunately (sorry, Edna) is also true to the book.
I admit to not having read the book (but will now go to abe.com to find it!) or seen the earlier film, but find it interesting to compare this enjoyable movie with 'Giant'(Stevens, 1956), which incidentally also had Mercedes McCambridge in it, also concerned an essentially ill-matched couple, prejudice, mixed-race marriage, early oil-barons, and also takes in a number of years in which we see the characters grow older.
Unlike the other reviewers here, I did NOT find Maria Schell's accent annoying in the least. She makes a wonderfully believable pioneer (note: the accent is genuine, which also sets her apart from many other Hollywood 'foreigners') and she has a pleasingly natural acting style. She shines beautifully when she is interacting with other women, be it the wildcat and part-time prostitute Anne Baxter in one of the finest scenes of the film (smouldering and feisty but underused I think) or the earthy and magnificent McCambridge, whose subtle but hilarious Southern accent is expertly modulated and a joy to the ear. So many scenes between women in Westerns of this time are somewhat flat and stagey, but I think they're superb here and set this film apart.
Glenn Ford is good, and although the film rather tries to do too much (as does Giant, in my opinion), it's really a fun way to spend a rainy afternoon or even a hot afternoon. Plenty happens along the way and it has something to say.
Unlike the other reviewers here, I did NOT find Maria Schell's accent annoying in the least. She makes a wonderfully believable pioneer (note: the accent is genuine, which also sets her apart from many other Hollywood 'foreigners') and she has a pleasingly natural acting style. She shines beautifully when she is interacting with other women, be it the wildcat and part-time prostitute Anne Baxter in one of the finest scenes of the film (smouldering and feisty but underused I think) or the earthy and magnificent McCambridge, whose subtle but hilarious Southern accent is expertly modulated and a joy to the ear. So many scenes between women in Westerns of this time are somewhat flat and stagey, but I think they're superb here and set this film apart.
Glenn Ford is good, and although the film rather tries to do too much (as does Giant, in my opinion), it's really a fun way to spend a rainy afternoon or even a hot afternoon. Plenty happens along the way and it has something to say.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaIn her memoir, "Intermission", Anne Baxter said Glenn Ford and Maria Schell had become very close during production, but by the time the movie premiered in Oklahoma, the two were not speaking to each other.
- GoofsIn the scene where Jesse Rickey is using a letterpress to print "wanted" posters of the Cherokee Kid and his gang, even though he handed a "fresh" copy to Yancey Cravat, he is running the press dry, which would yield no printed impressions. On letterpresses of that type, ink would be applied to the lead type with a roller before the paper is laid down to be run through the press. Plus, he is taking the finished copies off and, without looking, placing them face down. Any printer worth his salt would inspect every print for quality before setting it aside.
- Crazy creditsOpening credits prologue: At high noon, April 22, 1889, a section of the last unsettled territories in America was to be given free to the first people who claimed it. They came from the north and they came from the south and they came from across the sea. In just one day, an entire territory would be settled. A new state would be born. They called it "Oklahoma".
- ConnectionsFeatured in America at the Movies (1976)
- SoundtracksCimarron
Lyrics by Paul Francis Webster
Music by Franz Waxman
Sung by Roger Wagner Chorale (as The Roger Wagner Chorale)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Edna Ferber's Cimarron
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $5,421,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 2h 27m(147 min)
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content